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.
US aircraft shoots down new airborne object over Canada
351–360 of 526 posts
Re: US aircraft shoots down new airborne object over Canada
#352Does 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
#353Earlier 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.
Re: US aircraft shoots down new airborne object over Canada
#354I feel like I'm thrown back to the 80s, all this military and fear mongering and propaganda and war.
Re: US aircraft shoots down new airborne object over Canada
#355Re: US aircraft shoots down new airborne object over Canada
#356Re: US aircraft shoots down new airborne object over Canada
#357Does 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?
Re: US aircraft shoots down new airborne object over Canada
#358Earlier 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…
Re: US aircraft shoots down new airborne object over Canada
#359It’s not the US that shot it down - it was NORAD.
Re: US aircraft shoots down new airborne object over Canada
#360UFOs 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