News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Citing new evidence, families sue feds, Raytheon, Lockheed over 1996 TWA crash. Parent comment

Re:Citing new evidence, families sue feds, Raytheon, Lockhee... by woodruffw on Sunday September 25, 2022 @01:05PM (#32973408)
The existence of evidence is not veridical in nature: that’s why we classify evidence as circumstantial, observed, etc.

In other words: if nothing has changed about the eyewitness accounts in the last 26 years, then there is no new reason to doubt the (overwhelmingly likely) explanation for them.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Citing new evidence, families sue feds, Raytheon, Lockhee... by MichaelCollins on Sunday September 25, 2022 @01:51PM (#32973941)
I responded to the claim "there is literally zero evidence for it" by pointing out that there is circumstantial evidence, and eyewitness accounts.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Citing new evidence, families sue feds, Raytheon, Lockhee... by growse on Sunday September 25, 2022 @03:50PM (#32975310)
The problem is that this circumstantial evidence contradicts actual hard evidence on the wreckage.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Citing new evidence, families sue feds, Raytheon, Lockhee... by MichaelCollins on Monday September 26, 2022 @12:34AM (#32979465)
Circumstantial evidence that seems to be contradicted by other evidence is still evidence. To claim that there is 'literally zero evidence' is literally wrong.
[ Parent | on HN ]