Oddly 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.
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.
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.
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?
> 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.
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!
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.
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.
The weather balloon that would not be detected at all before can now be detected as a UFO. As the range of sensors expands the LIV probably gets bigger too just because the radius is larger. The more sensitive and numerous the sensors, the more false positives you get.
Please pull yourself out of this mirage and away from falling prey to disinformation.
It would also be very easy to see them coming, because there is no stealth in space and they would need to be burning fuel and giving off heat, and doing so for tens of thousands of years or more.
And maybe I don't have unlimited sensors - so I want to see as much detail as possible.
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"
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"?
Reading between the lines, his point is that it's unlikely that ET only flys in people's LIZ.
Let's suppose there are two competing theories to explain the cause of the seasons. To the ancient Greeks, spring and summer signified the six months when Persephone returned from the Underworld, and her mother Demeter made the Earth bloom and grow bountiful after her absence. When Persephone left the company of the gods and returned to the Underworld, Demeter’s loss was expressed in the barrenness of autumn and winter.
Another theory is that Earth's axial tilt causes the seasons.
Now try to come at this for a second pretending you don't know the answer. Each accounts for the observations in different ways.
But the former is a malleable theory. Not because it's wrong--but because it's very malleable. For instance, the Greeks may not have known that the seasons are reversed between northern and southern hemispheres. If they observed this though, they wouldn't need to discard the theory. They can simply modify it to suit the new observation (perhaps Demeter visits the Southern hemisphere for six months and the northern hemisphere the other six).
In contrast, the Earth's tilt theory is strong. It accounts for the reason the seasons are different in the hemispheres. It explains why the sun's angle changes each day. It explains why the days get short in the winter.
If any single one of those observations were different, the theory would have to be discarded. It's a very fragile theory not because it's correct--but because if any of those observations were different, the theory would have to be discarded.
Now I think you know where I am going with this. The problem with the alien theory is exactly the same problem with Persephone. Any observation can be explained away or even taken as further proof. The theory is malleable. If the UFOs appear on RADAR, then it's proof they exist. If they don't appear on RADAR, it just shows they must be using alien technology to conceal. If they are in photos it's because they exist. If there are lack of photos, it's because they have invisibility technology. If they are only in blurry photos, it's because they only go where cameras are blurry, etc. That is, there really isn't any observation which can disprove them.
Consider also that there is nothing alien about the theory. Why can't they be angels? Or ghosts? I could easily replace every instance of 'alien' with 'ghost' and nothing would change.
(I first heard this distinction between fragile and malleable theories from Michael Shermer, though I cannot find a reference right now.)