> I don't buy the argument that all weather balloons look the same and this one is too big. If I wanted to camouflage spy balloons, I'd produce identically looking weather balloons.
That reasoning is topsy-turvy.
It would work if you would say: "It looks like a weather balloon, but I don't believe it is not a spy balloon just because of that. If I wanted to camouflage spy balloons, I'd produce identically looking weather balloons."
It doesn't work in a scenario where you are observing a balloon which looks different than the usual weather balloons. You cannot say "it cannot be a spy balloon because if it were a spy balloon I would design it to look like a weather balloon". Maybe it is a spy balloon and the people who made it didn't want to hide the fact. Maybe they wanted to hide the fact but couldn't.
That reasoning is topsy-turvy.
It would work if you would say: "It looks like a weather balloon, but I don't believe it is not a spy balloon just because of that. If I wanted to camouflage spy balloons, I'd produce identically looking weather balloons."
It doesn't work in a scenario where you are observing a balloon which looks different than the usual weather balloons. You cannot say "it cannot be a spy balloon because if it were a spy balloon I would design it to look like a weather balloon". Maybe it is a spy balloon and the people who made it didn't want to hide the fact. Maybe they wanted to hide the fact but couldn't.