Live data from Hacker News

US aircraft shoots down new airborne object over Canada

bbc.com

351–360 of 526 posts

Re: US aircraft shoots down new airborne object over Canada

#351

I was curious about part of the description given by the pilots who shot down the object off the coast of Alaska. It was described as being at about 40000' altitude (12192 m) and moving about 40 mph (64 kph) with no visible means of propulsion. To me, that implies that it was drifting in the wind at that altitude since it had no visible means of propulsion. I took a look at Ventusky (ventusky.com) to try to get an id…

“ Another official from the Department of Defense told the New York Times that the object broke into pieces when it hit the frozen sea” - Guardian article on the Alaska downing How could a balloon break into pieces? Doesn’t it need to be made of flexible material? Edit: WSJ is now reporting unnamed sources confirmed Alaska was a metallic balloon w suspended payload.

Perhaps at the temperatures in that area the material used to construct the balloon becomes brittle enough to shatter. I didn't look at temperature data from that altitude to see whether common materials would lose flexibility.

Re: US aircraft shoots down new airborne object over Canada

#352

Does anyone else think these have been happening a long time but now they make front paper news because of recent activities?

> Does anyone else think these have been happening a long time but now they make front paper news because of recent activities?

Possibly. I wouldn't use that information to be overly dismissive of the importance of the news. "Well shit, let's just start shooting them down" is a newsworthy change in a government's policy regardless of what it applies to.

Re: US aircraft shoots down new airborne object over Canada

#353

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“ Another official from the Department of Defense told the New York Times that the object broke into pieces when it hit the frozen sea” - Guardian article on the Alaska downing How could a balloon break into pieces? Doesn’t it need to be made of flexible material? Edit: WSJ is now reporting unnamed sources confirmed Alaska was a metallic balloon w suspended payload.

Lighter than air aircraft. Could have been some light weight composite.

It will be interesting to see what they release about the objects and their construction and potential functions.

Re: US aircraft shoots down new airborne object over Canada

#354

I feel like I'm thrown back to the 80s, all this military and fear mongering and propaganda and war.

Both parties seems to be ready for a war. At least, the US seems to want it. Time to prop the propaganda agenda and psychologically prepare the minions.

Re: US aircraft shoots down new airborne object over Canada

#356
post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most of Canada is unoccupied wilderness. It's a crapload of ground to cover and no naked eyes to be found.

Then what's the point of surveilling that?

Climate Change, and Cute Polar Bear videos for YT.... ;)

Re: US aircraft shoots down new airborne object over Canada

#357
post #313

Does anyone else think these have been happening a long time but now they make front paper news because of recent activities?

Which recent activities? House hearings on weaponization? Hersh's article on Nord Stream? Something else?

Nordstream, failing Ukraine war, awkward Syria sanctions + earthquake, Ohio disaster, France protests, etc. Great time for a scapegoat.

Re: US aircraft shoots down new airborne object over Canada

#358

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ex, for this one: https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/norad-shoots-down-unidentified... for the last one: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/spy-balloon-canada-norad-ques...

From the second article you linked: > Should Canada have acted when it flew into Canadian airspace? > The short answer, according to military experts, is no. > "To say that, oh, Canada should have shot this balloon down on its own — that's just silly," said University of Calgary history professor and military historian David Bercuson. > "That just completely ignores the fact that NORAD exists that we're part of it an…

Your first quote, about "should", is not relevant, as I was talking about "could". The second part, about it being 'potentially out of range for those jets' is indeed what I was talking about.

Re: US aircraft shoots down new airborne object over Canada

#360
post #253

UFOs are just spy drones with sensor jammers and detectors that are designed to look strange and unnerving to pilots so they will scope them out. Pilots are trained NOT to go by them or engage with them for fear of secrets leaking.

> UFOs are just spy drones with sensor jammers and detectors… They can be, but they can also be weapons. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fu-Go_balloon_bomb

in the context of this discussion,recent times, and the fact the military always sees them around I'd say all of the current UFOs are spy drones.
Post reply on HN