4 ms·

This is still one of the best articles I've seen on this topic: https://www.metabunk.org/threads/are-the-navy-ufos-real-or-just-in-the-low-information-zone-the-

This is still one of the best articles I've seen on this topic: https://www.metabunk.org/threads/are-the-navy-ufos-real-or-just-in-the-low-information-zone-the-liz.10921/ https://www.metabunk.org/threads/are-the-navy-ufos-real-or-j... As we get better cameras/sensors, we find rational explanations for the UFOs we see. But at the same time we become more able to detect things we didn't previously see. There's never been a case where we detected something and it got more interesting as we got better information about it.

david-gpu 3y ago
Some people see anything mildly unusual in the sky and rapidly conclude that it can't have a mundane explanation, so it must be some anomalous or extraterrestrial object, without any further investigation. Some people do the exact opposite: if the available data even remotely fits some mundane explanation, they conclude that it must be mundane, without any further investigation. Naturally, we are all aware of plenty of mundane objects, so it is natural to have strong priors. However, I also think that it is worth being a little curious and a little open-minded: when some data looks unusual, let's try to gather some more data, as there may be something interesting to discover. This requires gathering data systematically, as data gathered accidentally can't be replicated. In other words, we should study objects in our atmosphere like we study the stars: systematically, with callibrated instruments, and an open curious mind. That is why the Galileo Project by the astronomer Avi Loeb is such a breeze of fresh air.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
injb 3y ago
Thanks, that is a good read! I had a similar thought earlier today while listening to a podcast about UFOs: the photos of mysteriously phenomena are always going to be blurry because that's what makes them mysterious. Better cameras cannot change that fact. Though I had assumed that this "tautological blurriness" would become less common as cameras get better, but you have correctly pointed out that it won't because previously invisible things will now be upgraded from invisible to blurry and mysterious.
- postalrat 3y ago
  Many of the videos you see are blurry because they cropped the video and blew up the object.

david-gpu 3y ago

Some people see anything mildly unusual in the sky and rapidly conclude that it can't have a mundane explanation, so it must be some anomalous or extraterrestrial object, without any further investigation. Some people do the exact opposite: if the available data even remotely fits some mundane explanation, they conclude that it must be mundane, without any further investigation. Naturally, we are all aware of plenty of mundane objects, so it is natural to have strong priors. However, I also think that it is worth being a little curious and a little open-minded: when some data looks unusual, let's try to gather some more data, as there may be something interesting to discover. This requires gathering data systematically, as data gathered accidentally can't be replicated. In other words, we should study objects in our atmosphere like we study the stars: systematically, with callibrated instruments, and an open curious mind. That is why the Galileo Project by the astronomer Avi Loeb is such a breeze of fresh air.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

injb 3y ago

Thanks, that is a good read! I had a similar thought earlier today while listening to a podcast about UFOs: the photos of mysteriously phenomena are always going to be blurry because that's what makes them mysterious. Better cameras cannot change that fact. Though I had assumed that this "tautological blurriness" would become less common as cameras get better, but you have correctly pointed out that it won't because previously invisible things will now be upgraded from invisible to blurry and mysterious.

postalrat 3y ago
Many of the videos you see are blurry because they cropped the video and blew up the object.