5 ms·

Which means you cant identify them, which makes them unidentified, regardless of why. Calling it a Low Information Zone doesn't really satisfy anything, outsid

Which 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 ago
Something 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 ago
  The "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 ago
    None of the Navy videos depict anything clearly. That's not a coincidence.
    - oldstrangers 3y ago
      I don't think anyone has cared so much about what they look like as opposed to how and what they're doing when they do see them. There's also numerous first hand accounts from extremely reputable people that sort of do away with the need for high resolution photos. Taking everything together, the case is a lot more compelling than just "UFO because zoom can't zoom any better, the end".
      - George83728 3y ago
        You've completely missed the point of the article, and numerous times again when others tried to explain it to you. So I'll try one last time: If the aliens were real, at least some of the videos would show them clearly. None of the videos show them clearly, and that's not a coincidence. The only reason the videos are discussed at all is because the objects in the videos are not clear. > what they're doing when they do see them. They aren't shown to be doing anything strange. All of the videos show mundane movement. You're being tricked by parallax. > extremely reputable people It all boils down to "navy pilots wouldn't lie to me". It's a complete joke.
        oldstrangers 3y ago
        >If the aliens were real, at least some of the videos would show them clearly. Says who? Did I miss the memo? >It's a complete joke. The Pentagon seems to take it seriously enough, even creating the All-Domain Anomaly Resolution Office to track "anomalous, unidentified space, airborne, submerged and transmedium objects." Least they're having a laugh with it!
kfarr 3y ago
Unidentifiable unidentified flying objects
- oldstrangers 3y ago
  UUFOs. Perfect.
roywiggins 3y ago
The point is that if the only alien spacecraft candidates are in the "too far away and fuzzy to positively identify" zone, and then you improve your detection abilities and all your new candidates are again in that fuzzy zone (which is just further out), one might conclude that there aren't any alien spacecraft. That is, there are always going to be objects that are too fuzzy to positively identify, no matter how good your sensors are. So you can always find some weird readings at the edge of intelligibility that could be anything. That's why Bigfoot videos are always blurry: clear videos are always not Bigfoot.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- oldstrangers 3y ago
  I get the point, but it just doesn't solve anything as much as it just dismisses it. "It's a UFO because its hard to see, if we could see it, we'd know it was a helicopter that moves in 4 dimensions."
  - arrrg 3y ago
    I don’t think you get the point. That UFOs always are outside the identifiable camera range even as that range expands suggests that they are nothing special. It’s actual good (indirect) evidence for UFOs being nothing special.
    - stopping 3y ago
      It seems telling that as camera and detection equipment has gotten better, presumed "alien" UFO elusiveness has advanced precisely in lockstep: not too much to stop being detected altogether, but not so little as to be definitively identifiable.
      - oldstrangers 3y ago
        We've actually gotten more UAPs than ever as our detection capabilities have increased. We are picking up more things than ever that we can't explain. You'd think that would be the opposite, implying that previously unknown objects became known with better optics, radar and detection systems, but that's not the case.

George83728 3y ago

Something 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 ago
The "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 ago
  None of the Navy videos depict anything clearly. That's not a coincidence.
  - oldstrangers 3y ago
    I don't think anyone has cared so much about what they look like as opposed to how and what they're doing when they do see them. There's also numerous first hand accounts from extremely reputable people that sort of do away with the need for high resolution photos. Taking everything together, the case is a lot more compelling than just "UFO because zoom can't zoom any better, the end".
    - George83728 3y ago
      You've completely missed the point of the article, and numerous times again when others tried to explain it to you. So I'll try one last time: If the aliens were real, at least some of the videos would show them clearly. None of the videos show them clearly, and that's not a coincidence. The only reason the videos are discussed at all is because the objects in the videos are not clear. > what they're doing when they do see them. They aren't shown to be doing anything strange. All of the videos show mundane movement. You're being tricked by parallax. > extremely reputable people It all boils down to "navy pilots wouldn't lie to me". It's a complete joke.
      - oldstrangers 3y ago
        >If the aliens were real, at least some of the videos would show them clearly. Says who? Did I miss the memo? >It's a complete joke. The Pentagon seems to take it seriously enough, even creating the All-Domain Anomaly Resolution Office to track "anomalous, unidentified space, airborne, submerged and transmedium objects." Least they're having a laugh with it!

kfarr 3y ago

Unidentifiable unidentified flying objects

oldstrangers 3y ago
UUFOs. Perfect.

roywiggins 3y ago

The point is that if the only alien spacecraft candidates are in the "too far away and fuzzy to positively identify" zone, and then you improve your detection abilities and all your new candidates are again in that fuzzy zone (which is just further out), one might conclude that there aren't any alien spacecraft. That is, there are always going to be objects that are too fuzzy to positively identify, no matter how good your sensors are. So you can always find some weird readings at the edge of intelligibility that could be anything. That's why Bigfoot videos are always blurry: clear videos are always not Bigfoot.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
oldstrangers 3y ago
I get the point, but it just doesn't solve anything as much as it just dismisses it. "It's a UFO because its hard to see, if we could see it, we'd know it was a helicopter that moves in 4 dimensions."
- arrrg 3y ago
  I don’t think you get the point. That UFOs always are outside the identifiable camera range even as that range expands suggests that they are nothing special. It’s actual good (indirect) evidence for UFOs being nothing special.
  - stopping 3y ago
    It seems telling that as camera and detection equipment has gotten better, presumed "alien" UFO elusiveness has advanced precisely in lockstep: not too much to stop being detected altogether, but not so little as to be definitively identifiable.
    - oldstrangers 3y ago
      We've actually gotten more UAPs than ever as our detection capabilities have increased. We are picking up more things than ever that we can't explain. You'd think that would be the opposite, implying that previously unknown objects became known with better optics, radar and detection systems, but that's not the case.