>>11067094>Their two machines were twin seaters as were the jets that made the footagetwo sets of eyes looking at the thing from what is basically the same point of origin, same angles, same everything.
>And how do you zoom in on a object with the ATFLIR that actively jams your on-board-radar when you don´t have an actual visual on target first?active and passive jamming doesnt make you invisible or untrackable, quite the contrary.
especially active- as in the jammer is EMITTING- jamming SCREAMS your bearing.
what the jammer does is make it hard or impossible for your doppler to get a distance reading and therefor ability to plot an navigational or weapons intercept track.
also the sky is cold, the ocean is cold, the blob, as shapeless as it is, is easy to be found on a zoomed-out FLIR view, from where you can zoom in and let the computer take over the visual tracking.
>You might want to listen to Kevin Day first before you come to assumptions yourself. He was the radar operator and he clearly stated that the objects were actually tracked from A to B.IIRC, and you can correct me on this, he said the object popped out of existance at A and popped back into existance at point B.
at no point was an active radar blip moving at hypervelocity on a straight line.
I mean sure you can claim it is some kind of dimension-slip engine or whatever.
>these craft did indeed instantanously accelerated to hypersonic speeds and came to a dead stop at their destination. It´s not plausible since radar data supports the observations of the pilots.again feel free to point me to the source that says they had a hypersonic radar blip.
they had it disappear at one point and reappear at another.
the actual radar data, which is still classified and not released since why would they spill the beans on their spy drone's RCS values.
if you are talking about the sudden jolt at the end of the FLIR footage, I already gave a possible simple explanation.
[cont]
