Message posted by Chris McDowell on December 27, 2006 at 20:13:50 PST:

I agree. With the aircraft Groom is supposedly developing now, which seem to be fighter-sized and smaller, the distance from Tikaboo is simply too great to see anything in real detail. So far, even the best sighting from Tikaboo (the "Fastmover" seen by Swiss Mountain Bat) revealed little in the way of real information.

I think Tikaboo is safe, barring one of two possible future developments -- those being (1) optics technology at the consumer level really takes off, mating ultra-high magnification and image clarity with a package small/light enough to carry up the mountain; or (2) Groom starts work on something a LOT larger than they have before; perhaps something on the scale of the purported "Mother Ship" design, the size of which might make the view from Tikaboo more revealing.

Chris M.

In Reply to: Re: tikaboo? posted by Hank on December 27, 2006 at 15:49:23 PST:

Replies:

• Re: tikaboo? Robster 12/29/2006, 8:19:53 PST (0)
• Re: tikaboo? Alex (UK) 12/28/2006, 3:56:05 PST (0)
• Re: tikaboo? lone wolf 12/27/2006, 21:36:31 PST (5)
  • Re: tikaboo? Chris McDowell 12/28/2006, 12:26:11 PST (4)
    • Re: tikaboo? lone wolf 12/28/2006, 12:40:09 PST (3)
      • Re: tikaboo? Chris McDowell 12/28/2006, 16:53:32 PST (0)
      • Re: tikaboo? Andre' M. Dall'au 12/28/2006, 16:43:02 PST (1)
        • Re: tikaboo? lone wolf 12/28/2006, 18:04:28 PST (0)
• Re: tikaboo? hank 12/27/2006, 20:41:41 PST (2)
  • Re: tikaboo? lone wolf 12/27/2006, 21:42:41 PST (1)
    • Re: tikaboo? Frank Stamm 12/28/2006, 6:59:34 PST (0)