rustfarmer wrote:
Way back then it was reported there were missile silos in Chicago. Other places I've seen UFOs include Cookeville TN where there are reported to be huge lodestone deposits. I saw two different things there; one a group of three in formation; one a single bright object bright enough to cast shadows and confirmed by a football coach working on the field with full lights on that said it was so bright it drew his attention. I hope these hearings show interesting new data.
Yeah I have heard the legends of the supposed silos although I think submarines would be more likely.
Think about it a mobile arsenal cruising around the great lakes.
KillroyII wrote:
Of course the difference in equipment matters; how... (
show quote)
Since my Dad retired from the Air Force Reserves with 20 years, after 7 1/2 years active during and after the War, I find this funny. Some on this forum, however, will not.
SteveR wrote:
Since my Dad retired from the Air Force Reserves with 20 years, after 7 1/2 years active during and after the War, I find this funny. Some on this forum, however, will not.
It was meant to be funny... and being cautious, to make sure everyone got that it was meant to be funny, I put a row of laughing faces after the text... to make sure no one would take it as anything but humor
I agree with you... even with the laughing faces... some will not see the humor.
Drbobcameraguy wrote:
I saw a pic in readers digest in the early 80s that showed a flower garden from a satellite. It was so clear you could see what the difference in types of flowers that were used. So I don't know all the details but I do know they have stuff we can't believe exists.
I think the picture you saw must have been from an aircraft. That type of satellite imagery is very highly classified, not something Readers Digest would have been able to get back then. I worked with imagery from those systems for some years, and I can assure you the resolution was not as good as that (now days commercial imagery rivals the "spy" ones, which is a problem for all govts now). Diffraction limits are real things. As is atmospheric distortion. While the resolution is quite amazing, you cannot see individual flowers (although sometimes you might distinguish individual plants), you cannot see a quarter, and you cannot read a license plate. But that's OK, that's not the purpose.
They showed us photos of mailboxes and license plates in Havana suburbs in 1972 from SR-71 and they had just been de-classified. They showed this to a bunch of us MD's who were learning to be officers and gentlemen.
Tom Bar wrote:
They showed us photos of mailboxes and license plates in Havana suburbs in 1972 from SR-71 and they had just been de-classified. They showed this to a bunch of us MD's who were learning to be officers and gentlemen.
That would work fine. The diffraction limit from the (approx) 20 mile altitude of an SR71 is considerable smaller than a satellite at 100+ miles.
Fredrick wrote:
Back in the 60’s - 70’s Russia had cameras in satellites far superior to ours. If a quarter was on the ground they could tell you if it was heads or tail.
The reason the Russians could do that and we could not is that if a ruble was on the ground, someone would pick it up within ten seconds. Their cameras may have been superior but their economic system was not.
Most footage shown is thermal or infra red, not color like video or phone cams
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.