Talk:Imagery intelligence

"We might take 550 nm as a suitable guess."

Why does this read like a journal article or a college lecture? Language like "we might take" and "as a suitable guess," etc. is not encyclopedic in the least. Who is supposed to be "we" exactly? And encyclopedias do not make guesses. They cite other studies that have made reasonable guesses. Also, what does a detailed explanation of the Rayleigh criterion have to do with Imagery Intelligence? It needs its own article or to be mentioned in the main article of John Strutt, 3rd Baron Rayleigh (it's a short article--it could stand to be lengthened by adding his own scientific theories). After it's been moved to a more appropriate location, it can be mentioned in passing here to help the article stay on topic--as it is, it seems like two different articles in one and it looks poor. --ScreaminEagle 02:17, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I flagged the satellite section with template:Original research not because the outline presented is original to any Wikipedia authors, but exactly because of this style. Something template:Unreferenced would have communicated that it does not cite a source, but beyond that a reliable source isn't going to be found because it isn't what the signals intelligence community is doing. Images can be generated at frequencies other than those of visible light. Look at what's known about missile defense, for example. Testifying before a House subcommittee in September 2000, Lieutenant General Ronald T. Kadish, USAF said, "The XBR (X-Band Radar) will be powerful enough to distinguish a golf ball 2,400 miles away." So I suggest editors of this article should stop with the WP:OR and start finding sources that say what they want the article to say. (sdsds - talk) 03:13, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Lacrosse (satellite)

This article should link to Lacrosse (satellite) and incorporate at least some of the material there. (sdsds - talk) 06:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

MASINT and IMINT

Right now, I have imaging as well as non-imaging radar in Radar MASINT. What is the feeling about having SAR/ISAR, perhaps not some of the polarimetric and interferometric variants, move to IMINT? For that matter, there are now 3D-imaging acoustic sensors (I also work with commercial fishermen). Does any of that belong here?

My basic rule is that if it would be more likely that an analyst would look at the spectrum and intensity of a pixel or area, rather than looking at a false-color image, multispectral and hyperspectral electro-optical sensors belong in MASINT. In some cases, it's a tossup, where a radar cues an electro-optical sensor, and I hate to split systems like that.

Thoughts? Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 16:15, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

LLTV, FLIR, etc.

Do real-time viewing systems in the visual and infrared fit better into IMINT than electro-optical MASINT? There are some cases that will never be clean, such as the Rocket Launch Spotter that detects a rocket motor flame with a non-imaging electro-optical sensor and/or an acoustic sensor, but then slews a TV camera to the threat and displays it to an operator. The earlier sensing is not displayed as an image, but as a blip on a map display. Howard C. Berkowitz 19:16, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Issues with the conflation of intelligence collection methods and IMINT

I disagree with the sentence, "IMINT is a subset of intelligence collection management which is a subset of intelligence cycle management." Although IMINT is a 'single-source' intelligence discipline, it has applications well beyond simply being a component of an intelligence collection management. IMINT including the collection and exploitation of imagery, which includes the dissemination of IMINT products. The total process of intelligence collection management is contained within the initial phase of imagery analysis, during the translation of an intelligence collection requirement - in this case, imagery - into an image ready for exploitation.TheSnickSnack (talk) 00:22, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Imagery intelligence. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130312151307/http://aerial.rcahms.gov.uk/isadg/isadg.php?refNo=GB_551_NCAP/17 to http://aerial.rcahms.gov.uk/isadg/isadg.php?refNo=GB_551_NCAP/17

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:35, 16 July 2016 (UTC)