13 ms·
UFOs exist in the low information zone
- oldstrangers 3y agoOddly long winded semantic argument about the literal definition of Unidentified Flying Objects. Yes, they're unidentified, yes, they're hard to see which is why they're unidentified.
- dwhitney 3y agoYeah but more importantly the post suggests there are likely terrestrial explanations which obey the laws of physics as we understand them contrary to what's been depicted in the media recently. I want to believe, but I agree with the author of the post that we need to see some evidence that's outside of the "Low Information Zone"
- ninkendo 3y agoThe YouTube video on the UFO parallax illusion was particularly illuminating for me: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YYqVa59VRRc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YYqVa59VRRc
- oldstrangers 3y agoThere's always been possible terrestrial explanations, but those explanations are as concerning (if not more concerning) than actual aliens, which is why these things remain so compelling.
- bananapub 3y ago> but those explanations are as concerning (if not more concerning) than actual aliens did you not read the article? what is "concerning" about "relatively high object doing 50 knots in one direction like a bird or a balloon"?
- oldstrangers 3y agoThis article isn't even accounting for all the UAP information that has come out in the last 2 years.
- Analemma_ 3y agoDid we read the same post? That was not at all my takeaway. The post was actually about "cameras have a range of effective identification, UFOs 'just so happen' to be always just outside this range even after it has expanded, the likeliest explanation for this coincidence is that they are not alien spaceships."
- oldstrangers 3y agoWhich means you cant identify them, which makes them unidentified, regardless of why. Calling it a Low Information Zone doesn't really satisfy anything, outside of a new designation for something we can't identify. We've solved nothing outside of adding a semantic qualifier.
- George83728 3y agoSomething being unidentifiable doesn't necessarily mean that it's in the LIZ. It could be a real alien space ship, clearly viewed from close up with of information and detail, but nevertheless unidentified because it's not from this planet. But none of the videos are like that. They're all from the LIZ, and the most likely explanation for this 'coincidence' is: they're unidentifiable because they're in the LIZ.
- oldstrangers 3y agoThe "LIZ" also doesn't really exist. There's no quantifiable way to measure it outside of just agreeing that something is hard to make out. Some of these newer videos are well within the range of whatever the camera's capability is. Targeting systems also don't have "Low Information Zones" for known objects. They enter a "Low Information Zone" when the craft they're targeting starts doing things that are unexplainable. Is the craft creating the LIZ in that case?
- George83728 3y agoNone of the Navy videos depict anything clearly. That's not a coincidence.
- Gunax 3y agoI actually thought it was a very astute observation. Something could be very close and still be unknown, eg. a secret model of plane, or new weather phenomenon. Reading between the lines, his point is that it's unlikely that ET only flys in people's LIZ.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- detrites 3y agoThis seems like a bad take. If aliens can traverse lightspeed distances with sufficient ease to stop here, it seems trivial they'd also be able to analyse comparatively primitive sensor technology and navigate out of range to avoid identification.
- jamilton 3y agoBut they wouldn't go a little further to avoid being seen at all?
- oldstrangers 3y agoMaybe they are, and we're just catching glimpses of the ones that slip through the proverbial cracks?
- ChainOfFools 3y agogod of the gaps, but for aliens.
- infradig 3y agoYet moving out of range of Person A with camera never seems to move them closer to Person B with camera. How's that work?
- detrites 3y ago
- gfodor 3y agoMick West is perhaps the most popular UFO debunker, he is good faith but has a pretty large conflict of interest he has developed now given the stakes of any of these phenomena being shown to be non human created technology. That said, this is an old post, so less of an issue and it can probably stand on its own. (It's also written before the UAP reports that have come out, which influence the way you ought to think about the disclosures the government has made.)
- jonathankoren 3y agoMy favorite post of his about these videos was when he simply worked the trigonometry shown on the FLIR display, and worked out that these things weren’t traveling nearly as fast as described.
- gfodor 3y agoThe problem is there does seem to be a selection bias problem, where Mick gets a lot of distribution on these kinds of thing, and people do not hear the subsequent refutations from true experts about flaws in his analysis. He speaks very authoritatively, often over his skis imo. He also has a tendency to overemphasize forensics against things like video in a way that just ignores completely the surrounding context.
- jonathankoren 3y agoDo you have an example of this? UFOs, like every grand conspiracy theory, attract bad faith proponents with a million whatabouts.
- Coldblackice 3y agoAlso curious for any links to Mick West refutations. I've found him to be methodical and well-thought, though occasionally "reaching", like his claim that the four F-18 fighter pilots all mistook the "tic-tac" actually being a balloon, or something to that effect.
- 3y ago
- david-gpu 3y agoAnd the pictures where UFOs are clearly visible are rapidly dismissed as CGI. There is no picture that would convince a hardcore skeptic, and that is not necessarily a bad thing, but it needs to be clear to everyone. Extraordinary disbelief calls for extraordinary evidence, and that likely means repeated observations by multiple credible observers -- credible to the person in question, that is. It is a tall order without systematic funding to collect that data a la Project Galileo. I remain on the fence. On the one hand, the publicly-available data is entirely unconvincing, while on the other hand the testimonies from high ranking officials to pilots are intriguing.
- nrdgrrrl 3y ago[dead]
- George83728 3y ago> And the pictures of UFOs that are clearly visible are rapidly dismissed as CGI. The UFO hoaxers should probably spend some more time learning how to use Blender well. The most compelling videos are the real videos of LIZ objects. The videos which show anything clearly are uniformly laughably bad. I challenge you to link some videos that depict an apparent alien craft clearly which aren't obviously fake.
- Loquebantur 3y agohttps://old.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/135revf/amazing_footage_of_cylindrical_ufo_filmed_by/ https://old.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/135revf/amazing_foota... Raw footage is linked there, too.
- olddustytrail 3y agoAgain, just looks like something that's blown up into a cloud and is now being blown around in the turbulence. It's reflective enough that the sun shining through the clouds makes it look bright. Probably flat rather than a cylinder. I'd love to see a UFO, but I'm always disappointed by the footage.
- George83728 3y ago2019, but not much has changed since then. I like this response: > The military complex is only going to release information to the public on a “need to know” basis. Does the public need to know? No. The reason. Because these objects posed no threat to the public, or to the military. [...] The military isn’t going to admit that their pilots pranked the media.
- BigCryo 3y agoBut not too long ago there was a flurry of media stories sensationalizing these videos and basically concluding that they were UFOs, and the military was going along with the story.. no doubt in order to scare the populace and increase the military budget
- h3rsko 3y agoIf these are being released in order to raise military funding, why were they not released when they were filmed a decade ago? The military is always looking to increase funding.
- roywiggins 3y agoIf anything the military has been very quiet about things in the sky, because if they went public they'd have to admit that probably adversary nations have been getting the drop on them. > The gross inaction and the stigma surrounding unexplained aerial phenomena as a whole has led to what appears to be the paralyzation of the systems designed to protect us and our most critical military technologies, pointing to a massive failure in U.S. military intelligence. This is a blind spot we ourselves literally created out of cultural taboos and a military-industrial complex that is ill-suited to foresee and counter a lower-end threat that is very hard to defend against. https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/40054/adversary-drones-are-spying-on-the-u-s-and-the-pentagon-acts-like-theyre-ufos https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/40054/adversary-drones...
- handedness 3y agoFrom missiles to subs to jets, the US military has never been shy about pointing at an adversary's strengths (accurate or not) to justify increased budgets.
- ftxbro 3y agoWhen they are unidentified they exist in a low information zone. Then if they are ever identified they move to a higher information zone.
- themodelplumber 3y agoWhen they are unidentified and still discussed online, they constitute an information pothole on the information superhighway. Such potholes are sometimes more like utility trenches, however. And, well-meaning folks occasionally attempt to fill them in, more out of personal frustration than accurate perception of the circumstances, and are later discovered to be kind of dumb for doing so.
- dist-epoch 3y agoIt's pretty obvious by now that UFOs have advanced ElectroMagnetic Warfare (EW) equipment capable of interfering with optical devices in such a way that all photos are low resolution. Basically next-next-next-next generation of current car camouflage patterns (but active, not passive) or anti-surveillance streetwear. https://www.cnet.com/roadshow/news/fords-new-car-camouflage-will-confuse-cameras-give-you-headaches/ https://www.cnet.com/roadshow/news/fords-new-car-camouflage-... One obvious solution is to fly a two seater plane, and put in the back seat a highly skilled fast pen artist so he can sketch a pen and paper detailed drawing of the UFO.
- h3rsko 3y agoThe author ignores what many find most compelling about those videos. Namely, the domain experts (navy pilots) who filmed the videos and discussed them at length[1]. [1] https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Eco2s3-0zsQ&t=5207s&pp=ygUWam9lIHJvZ2FuIGRhdmlkIGZyYXZvcg%3D%3D https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Eco2s3-0zsQ&t=5207s&pp=ygUWam9...
- ipunchghosts 3y agoI think you are referring to the "Trained Observer." I feel like this was already debunked that many trained observers have been discovered to be wrong about many sightings. I'm happy to be wrong though so please cite anything to correct me.
- ecshafer 3y agoYou are asking the op to prove a negative. You are making the claim that this is a "Trained Observer" which has been debunked, the burden of evidence has fallen to you to show that it has been debunked. Op can't exactly cite something saying that it has not been debunked. They cited a video with evidence and people who have some large authority on things in the air.
- ipunchghosts 3y agoFair point and my comment was more of a drive by than something to put a stake in the sand. If there was some easily cited article that OP could point me to, i would take a look. I'm by no means making a strong claim.
- poulpy123 3y agohere an exemple of what you say https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQQUaXxHEYo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQQUaXxHEYo
- gabereiser 3y agoNot just the navy pilots. USAF has files going back to 1946. My uncles were on the staff of the blue book project. General Joseph D Moore. They are indeed real, UFOs, but that’s where it ends. We know of several different kinds, but we know not of their origin or how they work. Or at least that information is still sealed. The pentagon knows. Maybe not their communications department but the top brass knows, or at least has access to, the blue book files.
- tpoacher 3y agoShouldn't "metabunk" be about debunking the debunks? Not the best choice of name :)
- kypro 3y agoI do like this as a likely explanation for the majority of UFO events. However, I'll continue to argue that the main evidence against extra terrestrial explanations for UFOs is how the creditability of sightings always seem to depend on first accepting that extra terrestrials are intergalactic trolls. "It was playing with us that's why we couldn't get a good shot". "They have been interfering with technology at military bases for years". "They show up on our radar then they disappeared". "They lit up the night sky then sped off".
- marcus0x62 3y agoYeah. These all seem like things a peer-ish human adversary might want to do - if only to see what they could get away with - rather than a vastly more sophisticated alien race capable of interstellar travel.
- bell-cot 3y agoYeah. And note that the military is heavily optimized (people, procedures, training, equipment, you name it) for dealing with peer-ish human adversaries, and things which such adversaries might try to get away with. If your day job is at the nail factory, then you may not be the best judge of those pointy things growing on hawthorn trees.
- belter 3y agohttps://xkcd.com/2572/ https://xkcd.com/2572/
- throwaway60607 3y agoWhy trolls? Maybe they just want to learn about us. I don't see the reason to assume they have godlike sensors with unlimited range - they need to come closer to see detail. Them being able to travel here doesn't imply they have significantly better technology than we do - it just means they had more time, perhaps their civilization is older than ours. 100k years older would be enough to send out a probe from some nearby stars. 1M years older would be enough to travel from thousands of not-so-nearby stars around.
- taylorius 3y agoI've been a UFO enthusiast since I was a kid, always excited to hear about the real, hidden truth which is surely just around the corner, about to be revealed. (I like the slightly sinister sense of mystery, I think). But I have to admit, it is suspicious that given the super high res. cameras we all carry around, every UFO video we see these days is just a few blurry pixels.
- asdff 3y agoIt's hard to get a good photo in the moment. If you tried to take a picture of a helicopter overhead before it got out of your view, I bet the photo would turn out like junk too. These things do turn up pretty well on certain cameras, like the ones on military jets trying to follow these objects.