As I've said several times previously, the data is flawed. What I've written is that the two returns are not possible, and based on faulty data. I posted some of the data way back in post #311. You are greatly over complicating something that is actually very simple. The data provided to the NTSB from Boston Center gives an X coeffecient, a Y coeffecient and the time they appeared on the radar. That's it. Within those three parameters, there is an error. Either the X/Y coeffecients are wrong, or the time is. Either way, correcting the wrong data eliminates your "double return" and blows your theory. I do agree the returns are seperated by 12 seconds. That only makes sense, considering there was a P-3 and the radar has a 12 second sweep rate. What doesn't make sense, and could not have happened, are the "double returns" recorded on each twelve second sweep.
In order for barf’s theory to be operative, we will have to believe that the Navy was developing a capability to launch an exo-atmospheric KKV missile from a SEAWOLF submarine and that they chose a towed target, moving tangentially at (best) 300 knots at approximately 20,000 feet as a replication of the threat vehicle.
I can neither begin to count the tactical, operational, strategic and doctrinal tenets that would be violated nor imagine how funding such a boondoggle could be justified.
Maybe it’s just me and my 30+ years of Navy related experience, but I can’t accept the premise that is vainly searching for data to support it.