I mean that posting a video of a plane doesn’t recreate how things look with the human eye. Talking about 1080p misses the point somewhat.

I’m not disagreeing that the WSOs are trained pilots. But we simply don’t know what they have to say about this incident now.

I wouldn’t expect somebody to come out and say it’s all bullshit because, as I have said, I don’t think they’ve invented the whole incident out of nothing. That doesn’t mean it’s definitely a physics defying craft controlled by a sentient being.

Your analysis of all of this material appears to be coming from the mindset of believing that it is a physics defying craft controlled by a sentient being, and when the evidence doesn’t detract from that, you believe it strengthens the case. We’re you to analyse this with a neutral mindset to see what conclusions can be drawn, I suspect it would be a little different.

It’ll be a drone.

bad_hair_day wrote:

That's fair, but if you accept the radar and eyewitness accounts are of things real

This is kind of the catch though, innit? You’re happy to accept that these are recollections of real, physical things, others aren’t convinced.

Anyway chaps, painting waits for no man!

bad_hair_day wrote:

the Hawkeye 'spy plane'

What kind of numbers quoted for the speed / acceleration?
Is this official data/records gathered at the time that have been verified by numerous legit sources?
Or is this second hand data “someone said it in a YouTube video”/“I saw it on a website and it seemed legit”?

bad_hair_day wrote:

- guess they know their stuff.

I’ll bet there’s been lots of other “guesses” that have been compounded into “verified facts” over the years and every time the story gets repeated.

bad_hair_day wrote:

The 1080p reference was pointing out even at this fairly low res on a laptop size screen, at 20,000 feet the road vehicles were visible to the eye. Hoping pilot's have 20/20 vision.

I might have difficulty communicating this, but the resolution of the image you’re watching has little to do with the clarity of his vision. Unless you’re watching that video on exactly the right size of screen from exactly the right distance, it doesn’t replicate what he’s seeing with his eyes. It’s also easier to see things when we’re watching an isolated rectangle, rather than picking things out from a full field of vision. And, to top things off, you know what a road vehicle looks like so it’s easy for your brain to interpret that data. Especially when those items are only effectively moving along two axes from your point of view.

Take an item, which you have never seen before, moving on all three axes, while you are also moving on all three axes, and your ability to interpret exactly what it is and exactly how it’s moving are somewhat diminished. Yes, I imagine a pilot’s ability to discern those things are better than most, but the circumstances of this incident impair that.

bad_hair_day wrote:

From the report.

My main take:

Since the radar was in the mode to handle Air Intercept if conventional aircraft it never obtained an accurate track of the AAVs and was quickly “dropped” by the radar meaning it was eliminated by the computer to reduce the amount of clutter on the radar, as any other false target is handled.

It might just be the way they write their reports, but to me there is a crucial difference between, “as any other false target is handled,” and, for example, “as false targets are handled.”

Either way, it’s unambiguously staying that the tracking was inaccurate.

No, that part of it is ambiguous, because the only thing indicating velocity is the very thing which can’t track accurately. The behaviour of the radar readings is like it’s tracking a missile, but it cannot be stated unambiguously or with certainty that that is what is happening. Not all white birds are swans.

I'll leave it to the radar operator with 17 years of experience who went on record to say these unknowns tracks were real objects going very fast.  

They also appeared at 60,000 feet, care to postulate where they were beforehand?

bad_hair_day wrote:

I'll leave it to the radar operator with 17 years of experience who went on record to say these unknowns tracks were real objects going very fast.

No, he didn’t. You want him to have said that. He went on record to say that the radar readings were akin to real objects going very fast.

bad_hair_day wrote:

They also appeared at 60,000 feet, care to postulate where they were beforehand?

The initial reading was the highest number on the range, rapidly descending to the lowest, on a detector that is struggling to return accurate results and give any accurate indication of what’s happening. I’d be as well postulating that they were up my arse beforehand.

bad_hair_day wrote:

It's their jobs to know what's a threat to protect the carrier and the fleet.

Which rather suggests that they weren’t identified as a threat because nobody bothered to investigate further for several days.

bad_hair_day wrote:

...THE OBJECTS HAD A WIGGLE ON.

1) Phenomena.
2) I don’t know what ‘had a wiggle on’ means, sorry.
3) I don’t know if you think your pictures are helping your case, but they are not.

Had a wiggle on means moving fast.

Don’t waste your time, Yoss. It’s repetitive and muddled. You’ve seen and heard everything there is to see and hear in the first few minutes.