3 ms·
I'm not interested in debating all of the technical points with you here. I've looked into it in the past and come to the conclusion that Mick West's theory is
by tgflynn 5y ago
I'm not interested in debating all of the technical points with you here. I've looked into it in the past and come to the conclusion that Mick West's theory is highly improbable (which he now appears to be admitting if you check the latest posts on his blog).
I will however point out that this statement:
> Cameras, like human eyes, have effectively infinite range.
is not true in any meaningful sense. Cameras have finite angular resolution. There is sufficient information to determine the angular size of the object in the video. I don't have the exact numbers at hand but I think it corresponds to an F-18 sized object at a range between 20 to 30 miles, well within the F-18's radar range, which exceeds 60 miles. If the object is much farther away then it is also much larger and that hypothesis leads to a different set of problems.
- simonh 5y ago>which he now appears to be admitting... Er, I just checked Metabunk and his last post is from Wednesday, when he said, among other things: "So we simultaneously have a radar that being jammed and giving all kinds of strange numbers, and you can't even get the airspeed, but is also able to hand over the exact position to the ATFLIR? It does not make sense." So I'm not sure what you're talking about. His blog is just old posts about becoming a citizen.
- tgflynn 5y agohttps://www.metabunk.org/threads/claim-that-the-nimitz-flir1-object-could-not-be-a-plane-because-it-would-have-been-identified.11726/post-248374 https://www.metabunk.org/threads/claim-that-the-nimitz-flir1...