Yes, make sense.
It is possible to prove negative claims, but only for stuff that we know exists (positives). For example, if one claims that there is no apple in the top desk drawer of a desk then all one needs to do is to open the top desk drawer indicated in the claim and examine it for its contents. Finding no apple therein would provide sufficient evidence under ordinary circumstances to verify or confirm the negative claim that there is no apple in the top desk drawer.
People conveniently use silly examples like this, to prove that it is possible to prove "a negative", but the desk, the drawer, nor the apple, are negatives, they are positives because we know that all three items metaphysically exists, so we can say that there is a 0.00001% of probabilities to find an apple inside the drawer of an unknown desk, and it would actually be provable, but is impossible to prove something when there is no previous evidence of its existence, so, to say, we will find a unicorn inside the desk drawer, that's a 0% chance of finding it, so, no matter how many times you search inside desk drawers around the world, a unicorn will never be found inside a desk drawer.
Proponents of "proving a negative is possible" will only be able to prove that proving a negative claim is possible only for metaphysical animated and inanimate objects with previous evidence of their existence, but when you are searching a unicorn inside a desk drawer, they will just tell you, keep trying until you find it.