posted on Oct, 14 2019 @ 08:52 AM
If the recent incidents were high resolution quality 8 to 16K, color and very close, within 100 ft, would it change the conversation much. Would there
be a substantial difference in media coverage, public interests or, would it be relatively the same; yeah it's something, interesting but meh...,
back to Barry with this weekend's forecast.
I believe it absolutely would moderately move the conversation. More discussions, coverage, books, shows, movies. More opinions, theories on the new
finer detail. Maybe it reveals something that would help us get a better understanding of what we may be dealing with.
When I was in an FA/18 squadron I assumed the reasoning for the standard poor quality video was anything more was beyond the requirements needed.
Basically a waste of tax dollars. Won't work for the Hubble but military aircraft it's good enough.
With that being said, I don't see it as a waste anymore. I think it's time the military upgrades their avionics with more advanced imaging. Assuming
it would also not cost that much today as opposed to 20 years ago. Maybe it's time to change the requirements on what is good enough? I see much
value in doing it.