Radar uses wavelengths >10^5 times longer than even FLIR and, even with the best will in the world, you can't resolve finer than the diffraction limit (which scales linearly with wavelength). Sure, you've got a bigger detector, but 10^5 is a hell of a ratio to overcome.
You have the benefit of range data and doppler data from RADAR, of course, which is why you use the systems in tandem. However, that accuracy ain't that great.
I confess to getting curious about the depth-resolving power of the radar system whose spec is linked to above. That's generally taken to be: speed of light * pulse width / 2
Code:
? 3.*10^8 * 2857*10^-6 * (6/2500) / 2
1028.
Where the pulse width is eyballed by scaling the pulse frequency by the duty cycle of the pulse, which in turn is eyeballed from the peak power divided by the average power.
That 1028 is in metres, as c is m/s, and pulse width was in s.
And the docs say: "Target resolution: 1000 yards". That passes the sniff test with flying colours. I get the feeling I can trust their other data. I now wonder whether the radar, at specification time, was designed to have that suspiciously round number as one of its requirements?
We've been over the "both sides" thing in the Coulthart thread, please back that claim up, because I don't believe it. (Please don't talk about tobacco and x-rays this time.)
Assumptions are not a problem if they're transparent.
Secondly the so called scientific research group, AARO are not being transparent enough in how exactly they are studying these cases and what data they have access to.
Not for my liking. They list the famous navy cases as being unresolved. It would be great to know what they ruled out and what methods did they apply to what data.
I stand by my claim though, more data types, despite the fact some such as radar may have errors (what measurement doesn't) is better to deal with than one type of data.
I think most of us would agree on this, no problem. However, it boarders on CT type thinking that is popular UFOlogy,( NOT that YOU do because it's something WE all fall victim to), that the government always has this huge trove of classified data that would help explain what we're seeing.
Either they're not being transparent or worse deliberately are covering something up or, they're all-seeing oracles that know exactly what's in these videos because they have so much data at their fingertips.
I think in a lot of these case, "they" don't have any more data than we do. Just look at some of the videos in this thread:
Video 1: It looks like an Ultra-lite or Micro-lite of some sort.
So Class G uncontrolled airspace, where ultralights can operate without any restriction, lies in most areas below 1,200 feet above the ground. There are a few places where they can operate higher without permission, and of course, they will need clearance to approach controlled airports.
Ultralights are most commonly found around rural areas since they can’t fly over congested areas like cities and towns. You won’t find many of them operating at your city’s executive or international airport. Still, if you drive out of town and find the local general aviation field, you’ll probably find a few.
The most common type of radar data from civilian and even military ATC is from a transponder:
Secondary returns are not, strictly-speaking, radar “returns” at all, but, rather, signals automatically broadcast from an aircraft’s transponder, containing encoded location, altitude, airspeed, identification, flightplan, aircraft type, etc., data retrieved from the aircraft’s onboard instruments. These are highly valuable, but, obviously, can only be used with aircraft equipped with a functional transponder which have said transponder turned on and transmitting non-bogus data.
Ultra-Lites only need transponders in certain airspace:
Besides being legal, it's equally important to be safe. The FAA mandates transponders in certain airspace, for a reason. Without one, many small aircraft (especially the "ultralight-like" ones) are just not visible on radar. Why wouldn't you want to do everything you can, to make yourself visible to ATC and other aircraft?
So, if this was just some guy flying around out in a rural part of the southwest, he may not have transponder and he is very likely under the level of a normal ATC radar for the area. If he's a drug runner, he certainly has no transponder and is trying to stay as low as possible:
Drug smugglers perfected an art of low flying to avoiding detection in the late 1970s and early 1980s by flying mule aircraft low on the deck over the ocean. See Mickey Munday's or Barry Seal's story from the documentary Cocaine Cowboys where they talk about flying an aircraft into the Bahamas at night 50 feet above the ocean.
It's very likely there is no radar data of this video.
Video #4: An A10 Warthog on a training run with what looks like a bird closer tot he camera.
If it's a bird, even if it did give off some sort of radar return, it might have been filtered out as clutter. Some ATC radars can be modified for bird detection or doppler radar can be used:
But, in RADARs used for aircraft detection which work only for targets with RCS much larger than that of a flock of bird, bird flock detectioncannot be achieved if the RADAR hardware or signal [3] is not available for modifications.
But again, it's likely there is no radar data for this encounter.
Video #10. Consistent with a balloon or maybe a plastic bag blowing in the breeze and possibly in a dust devil.
The object appears to float between ~20' and ground level near an inspection port at the boarder. Well below any radar that might have been operation in the area if there was one.
I think there is a misconception that for every one of the UAP videos that surface, there is a corresponding wealth of radar data, satellite imagery, surveillance data and more, all stored on government super computers waiting to be analyzed. Usually these are just stand-alone videos that someone saw at a later date and thought there might be an UAP in them. Even if there was more data involved, it's long since been lost or is gone.
Why maintain hours of radar data from an uneventful day at the truck crossing inspection port?
I think the same applies to the Navy videos. GOFAST and GIMBLE are supposedly from 2014 and were "leaked" in 2017. If it wasn't a particularly big deal at the time, why should we suppose that anyone kept recordings of radar screens to be analyzed 3-10 years later?
• Primary radar: that's the big rotating antenna I showed in the video clip above, that @flarkey provided some specs for. Can theoretically detect anything that reflects radar, but typically, birds and other clutter are filtered out. In some conditions, weird atmospheric reflections can occur. It requires a line of sight from the antenna to the target. This data is likely archived somewhere.
• Targetting radar: used in fighter jets and AA systems. Does not rotate, but locks onto a target. Most likely not archived. Requires the object to be actively noticed by the crew operating the radar.
• Transponder: a device aboard an aircraft that sends a 4-digit code when it receives a radar pulse (mode A). Most transponders today also transmit altitude (mode C) and aircraft ID (mode S). Requires line of sight to a primary radar antenna.
• ADS-B transceiver. Periodically sends a complex datagram with aircraft data including GPS location and speed to whomever listens, including some satellites. Does not require a line of sight to a radar antenna, but might still be "invisible" at low altitudes.
• Secondary radar: displays transponder and ADS-B data, similar to flight tracker websites. Archived. Any object that is visible on secondary radar is identified (not a UAP).
Edit: There's also shipboard radar. Most ships carry a small radar antenna for obstacle detection, as well as an AIS data transceiver. It's aimed at the surface, though.
