Simulating the Nimitz UFO video as a blurry plane

TheoryQED

Member
Hi TheoryQED,

I don't really see a technical contradiction with what Chad said, to the contrary, Fravor explains exactly why you could call that jamming since jamming is not only limited to the few jamming cues Chad listed ("strobe, champagne bubbles, “any normal EA indications”).
Interesting, thanks Chris! Does this classify as passive or active jamming, and why would Fravor say that there was jamming but Underwood say that there wasn't? Can you please explain in simple terms how there isn't a contradiction? Unfortunately Fravor's statements weren't very clear about the existence of jamming cues.

ummm… @Christophe Isbert @TheoryQED
am I missing something? what does any of this have to do with "simulating a blurry plane" ?
If it's a low observability drone and/or using radar jamming that's important for "simulating a blurry plane" because passenger planes don't usually get classified as drones, balloons, and other UAS. It makes no sense that a passenger plane would use radar jamming and there's almost no chance that a large passenger plane would be unable to be detected on radar-
https://archive.org/stream/TheNimit...REPORT_1526682843046_42960218_ver1.0_djvu.txt
 
Last edited:
Hi guys,

ummm… @Christophe Isbert @TheoryQED

am I missing something? what does any of this have to do with "simulating a blurry plane" ?

We are half off topic imo because what we are saying is linked to the aircraft hypothesis as well.


Chad was the pilot.
My bad...

I might be wrong but I don't think the CEC can help the range finder find the distance to the target, so yes Chad's on-board radar.
I still don't think we know for sure who spotted the initial tracks (30-40 nmi south of Chad's aircraft). The cruiser or an Hawkeye could have vectored him there with a BRA (Bearing Range Alt). It's exactly what happened with Fravor's incident and the USS Princeton. I don't understand why you are talking about a range finder.

Cheers,
Chris
 
Last edited:

deirdre

Moderator
Staff member
We are half off topic imo because what we are saying is linked to the aircraft hypothesis as well.
I don't understand what this means. i'm talking about the "jamming" talk.

If it's a low observability drone and/or using radar jamming that's important for "simulating a blurry plane" because passenger planes don't usually get classified as drones, balloons, and other UAS. It makes no sense that a passenger plane would use radar jamming and there's almost no chance that a large passenger plane would be unable to be detected on radar-
this thread isn't about whether it could be a plane/drone or not. There is another thread for that. This thread is about simulating a blurry plane to see if the images match.
 
Top