what Gambit says sounds way more rational than sci-fic theories others claim (though ofc i dont deny that they have a chance to be true too, though its not much)
Thanks for a rational thought.
and talking about "how she mother was when ..." is too rude from anyone to say here, we all joines here to learn things and discuss the "facts" and not "ideas".
The reason why many, not merely some, people get this personal is simply because they cannot stand the idea of an American being able to challenge them.
im an engineer for years but i learn new things everyday. how some people claim they are right and others arent isnt the way scientists think. we always leave some probabilities to things we are not sure of now.
Believe it but I do not care if you believe you are 'right' or not. Just support your arguments with logical thought processes and technically credible sources. In this subject, the
LEAST technically credible sources are media ones, although when dealing with national security issues, what else can we go by? So if one has no choice but to reference a popular media source, one must do so with the understanding that reporters are not technically trained people and more often than we would like, they are wrong in many ways when it comes to science and engineering issues. In popular media, the weather man is usually tasked with investigating
ANYTHING that has to do with science and engineering. From that perspective, if a popular media source must be be reference, the believer of a viewpoint should try to search for more (academic ?) sources that explain the foundational principles of the technical issues involved. For aviation, sources that involved pilots' commentaries are helpful. Those commentaries may not be directly related to the subject under discussion, but at least they can give the interested lay readers some frames of references regarding your arguments. Make yours look more credible.
This is where most in this discussion do not seems to understand how debating works, then when they are challenged but unable to respond with their own technically credible sources, they resort to cheap personal insults and if the target is an American, it gets even uglier, and still uglier if the American has relevant experience.
But I do not mind it and I do not 'report' those insults. Sometimes I even encourage them. Expose the intellectual losers for what they are: losers. For every participant in these debates, there are hundreds silent readers and it is they who I target, not the losers who slings personal insults out of frustration. In doing so, they are actually insulting the intelligence of those interested but silent lay readers of technically related issues. I do not. They will leave this place knowing who and whose arguments are the more credible.
in the matter at hand, due respect to Gambit, it IS possible for iran to hack the drone (theoretically), but if they did it the way they claim (and yet i havent read anything from iranian army officials about how they downed it. Gambit ur discussing about how people here think it was done, not the way iran claims. please correct it) we have no proof to acknowledge or deny iran capabilities, 'cause iran is doing her things always in secret, unlike some show-off countries. though i really doubt it they COULD take control over the drone, but well its not impossible.
sorry for writing a lot, girls cant help it xD
Of course it is possible. But possibility does not automatically equal to probability.
Some may argue that if he flaps/waves/spins his arms fast enough, it is 'possible' that he can somewhat fly. That is nonsense. The human anatomy does not have that kind of allowance in every joints from shoulder to wrist, the human muscle tissue simply do not have the same construct for that kind of repeated motion over long duration, and the fuel the muscle uses are not sufficiently high octane and concentrated enough to release that kind of energy like how birds produces these fuel in their blood. So that 'possibility' argument is actually an absurdity.
So is it really 'possible' that Iran could 'hack', as in break through or bypass or manipulated software and/or hardware vulnerabilities? Stuxnet is actually more feasible for its creator than anyone trying to break through a triple-DES encrypted OTA real time two-way data link and even harder if the components to facilitate that link is at least half-way
PHYSICALLY shielded from ground based (attempted) interceptor signals. Check out the publicly available images for the RQ-170 and see those antenna 'bumps' topside of the aircraft. The wings and body do not accommodate line-of-sight (LoS) access to those antennas so to get to them, one must transmit from above. Now does anyone really believe Iran has an orbiting EW aircraft at 20,000 meters altitude waiting for this
PARTICULAR drone?