3 ms·
Considering that they were not directly in contact with the object, it is 100% necessarily true, so the statement is entirely meaningless without specifics like
by guerrilla 5y ago
Considering that they were not directly in contact with the object, it is 100% necessarily true, so the statement is entirely meaningless without specifics like the ones you request.
- jablongo 5y agoThe RF emissions acknowledged here are something I'd never heard of before. Stating the obvious; even though this report is completely vague on that front (and all others), the fact that this was mentioned means that there was likely an RF abnormality in a few event reports. It's not really logical to assume they are talking about something trivial that a plastic bag would 'produce'. But yea - agreed, this is missing so much info.
- nosmokewhereiam 5y agoThink SIGINT, MASINT, and EW platforms. That's what RF means to me.