What this means is that good, sincere people can be sincerely wrong. I'm not questioning their motives---on EITHER side, as many Freepers do with Kallstrom. I am saying, produce the radar imaging. This is simple stuff, and it solves the problem. I don't see why you would be so resistant to something that could prove your point . . . or . . . disprove it.
But there are a ton of other things that need explaining, including the fact that a "cruise missile" as mentioned in the story is NOT an anti-air missile and has no such "lock on" capability to "light up" an aircraft. That is preposterous.
Second, a drone which I have always held out the possibility COULD have explained the "red residue" does not "lock on" to things either. For Pete's sake it's a drone and is meant to be shot down.
Third, if Sanders wants to claim that the Navy test-fired an anti-air weapon in a well-traveled civilian flight line, well, you tell me how logical that sounds.
Fourth, the "red residue," as I have explained for years now (it seems) is ONLY compatible with a "pass through" missile---i.e., a drone that severed the body, not an explosive missile, because (duh) an explosive type missile burns up seats rather than leaves red exhaust residue on them. There MIGHT be some chemical indicators, but they would be indicators of an explosion, NOT an engine exhaust.
Fifth, for the "red residue" "pass/through" missile theory to work, the only thing that makes sense is that it was a drone being followed by an explosive weapon. So we need TWO radar images, not one.