Hacker News Reader

Comment by mmastrac | Hacker News Reader

I don't trust eyewitness accounts as there's literally no chain of evidence.

We have highdef cameras in every pocket now - let's see a real 4k video of one.

What chain of evidence is needed if the actual people involved say they saw something? Their testimony is not open to dispute, you either believe they saw it or you believe they are liars. How would that account be tampered with? Anyway, according to all involved, there is infrared and radar that corroborates the eyewitness accounts. Of course the Navy has that classified, but interestingly, there is no official denial to say otherwise. I think I will believe these people until the service shows me a real reason not to.

Of course it's because eyewitness reports of even ordinary events are highly variable. They saw something; that can be true even as it's also true it wasn't what they reported. Nobody is lying.

In fact that 'false dilemma' is not a real argument at all. "You're either with us or against us!" "She criticised Capitalism; she must be a Communist!" "Marriage or career, a woman can't choose both!"

What does any of this have to do with having a "chain of evidence" involved? Chains of evidence (custody) are used to prove physical evidence wasn't tampered with by a malicious intermediary.

> In fact that 'false dilemma' is not a real argument at all. "You're either with us or against us!" "She criticised Capitalism; she must be a Communist!" "Marriage or career, a woman can't choose both!"

Seriously, are you drunk?

"You either believe they saw it, or you believe they are liars"

That was pretty clearly the false argument, and has no place in a rational discussion.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com