3 ms·

This type of display is almost certainly either a) an artifact (i.e., bug) in the hardware/software detection-and-ranging system or b) an example of what appe

This type of display is almost certainly either a) an artifact (i.e., bug) in the hardware/software detection-and-ranging system or b) an example of what appears in LIDAR when effective STEALTH is present on a target. IOW the target did not actually go "from like 50,000 feet to, you know, a hundred feet in like second" but instead, transmitted signals to the tracking plane's hardware/software that made them mistakenly interpret the object as moving thusly.

throwaway29303 7y ago
Indeed, but that wouldn't explain the pilots reports actually looking at the object moving at those speeds. Peeps keep insisting on the device's malfunction or whatever, but keep forgetting that the pilots actually looked at the object.
simonblack 7y ago
Definitely artifacts in the equipment. In one article I have read about the navy pilots, it stated that reports increased greatly after the the equipment was 'upgraded'. I also believe that these increased numbers of reports are an attempt to denigrate/disinform reports of newer secret aircraft as happened when previous secret aircraft happened to hit the news. "A-12 (60-6926 / 123). This aircraft was the third A-12 built, the second to fly, and the first to crash. On 24 May 1963, ..... the pilot ejected safely. The wreckage was recovered in two days and persons at the scene were identified and requested to sign secrecy agreements. A cover story for the press described the accident as occurring to an F-105."
- krapp 7y ago
  >In one article I have read about the navy pilots, it stated that reports increased greatly after the the equipment was 'upgraded'. >I also believe that these increased numbers of reports are an attempt to denigrate/disinform reports of newer secret aircraft as happened when previous secret aircraft happened to hit the news. I can buy one or the other, but both implies that these artifacts were introduced deliberately in order to increase the number of UFO reports from Navy pilots in order to obfuscate public awareness of possible sightings of unrelated secret aircraft.

throwaway29303 7y ago

Indeed, but that wouldn't explain the pilots reports actually looking at the object moving at those speeds. Peeps keep insisting on the device's malfunction or whatever, but keep forgetting that the pilots actually looked at the object.

simonblack 7y ago

Definitely artifacts in the equipment. In one article I have read about the navy pilots, it stated that reports increased greatly after the the equipment was 'upgraded'. I also believe that these increased numbers of reports are an attempt to denigrate/disinform reports of newer secret aircraft as happened when previous secret aircraft happened to hit the news. "A-12 (60-6926 / 123). This aircraft was the third A-12 built, the second to fly, and the first to crash. On 24 May 1963, ..... the pilot ejected safely. The wreckage was recovered in two days and persons at the scene were identified and requested to sign secrecy agreements. A cover story for the press described the accident as occurring to an F-105."

krapp 7y ago
>In one article I have read about the navy pilots, it stated that reports increased greatly after the the equipment was 'upgraded'. >I also believe that these increased numbers of reports are an attempt to denigrate/disinform reports of newer secret aircraft as happened when previous secret aircraft happened to hit the news. I can buy one or the other, but both implies that these artifacts were introduced deliberately in order to increase the number of UFO reports from Navy pilots in order to obfuscate public awareness of possible sightings of unrelated secret aircraft.