5 ms·
Eyewitnesses are notoriously unreliable, especially as related to stuff they see in the sky, and even more specifically related to drones. What seems overly cr
by jjwiseman 7y ago
Eyewitnesses are notoriously unreliable, especially as related to stuff they see in the sky, and even more specifically related to drones.
What seems overly credulous is that people are willing to think there are large groups of drones flying around, and there are no definitive images or video of them.
You might find this post interesting, https://www.metabunk.org/threads/plane-shaped-drone-caught-on-camera-mead-ne-cessna-caravan.11060/ https://www.metabunk.org/threads/plane-shaped-drone-caught-o..., in which a local news reporter and law enforcement officer think they see a drone, but it is convincingly argued that what they saw was an airplane.
- ALittleLight 7y agoEyewitnesses are unreliable, but that does not mean that events attested to by eyewitnesses are likely false, it means that they aren't certainly true. As I mentioned above, consider the weight of evidence on either side. On the one hand, many eye witnesses many times. On the other hand, a government found no evidence. If that disposes you to conclude that the drones didn't exist, then I think that's probably just too fundamental a difference in our reasoning to reconcile by argument here. For me, I think the government findings are evidence against the drones but not as good as the evidence in favor of the drones.