Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

US jet shoots down unknown object flying off Alaska coast

apnews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

471–480 of 864 posts

Re: US jet shoots down unknown object flying off Alaska coast

#471

Post by staticman2 »

leetrout wrote: post #458
neogodless wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TWA_Flight_800_conspiracy_theo...

From that very link you can find info on the recent litigation accusing the government of an errant missile hit. There is enough evidence to bring forth the suit whether you agree it is a conspiracy or not. https://lawstreetmedia.com/news/citing-new-evidence-survivin...

Without have an opinion on the topic I'll just point out it doesn't require evidence to file a lawsuit, only the ability to fill out paperwork.

Re: US jet shoots down unknown object flying off Alaska coast

#472

Post by somat »

pvaldes wrote: post #317
thedorkknight wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The director of national intelligence explicitly said in a Congressional hearing last may that they want to destigmatize UAP sightings so that pilots will actually report them when they happen. It hasn't really been a big mystery why some people in the government have been trying to change the attitude around UFOs recently - that's why they use the term UAP instead, less cultural baggage

So either they have info about an imminent alien arrival, or will have to admit that this is happening since several years ago, in at least three waves (probably), and that they knew about it.

You are making the very error that lead to UFO sightings being stigmatized in the first place.

The trick is to remember that it is like the sql NULL. No unidentified object matches any other unidentified object. It is only once you identify the object can you claim that it is of extra terrestrial origin not before. And once you identify the object it is no longer a UFO.

Re: US jet shoots down unknown object flying off Alaska coast

#473

Post by leucineleprec0n »

JohnBooty wrote: post #290
NikkiA wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Making a high altitude balloon highly visible (eg, put lights inside it) and sitting back and waiting is actually a terrific tactic for finding out maximum operational ceiling of interceptors when the number is non-public.

Mission accomplished. The previously published ceiling of the F-22 was 50K feet. The Pentagon said it (edit: by "it" I mean the F-22) was flying at 58K feet when it shot down the first balloon. Guess it can do (at least) 58K. This was probably not entirely groundbreaking news to anybody including China. Everybody knows that the published specs of military hardware are intentionally distorted in one direction or anoth…

I don’t think it was 50K in practice, published maybe but it was widely known it reach higher.

Re: US jet shoots down unknown object flying off Alaska coast

#474

Post by leucineleprec0n »

khuey wrote: post #335
JohnBooty wrote: post #329

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry. I should have been clearer with that "it." The Pentagon said the F-22 was flying at 58K feet and the balloon was at 60-65,000 feet. https://www.defense.gov/News/News-Stories/Article/Article/32... Of course, that could be a lie too!

There's not really any reason the Pentagon needed to state the F-22 was at 58k if that was actually new information (I haven't investigated the previously admitted service ceiling). They could have just as easily have claimed it was at 50k when it fired. EDIT: Wikipedia claims the service ceiling of the F-22 is 65k feet anyways.

Yeah it’s not new, people have known.

Re: US jet shoots down unknown object flying off Alaska coast

#475

Post by ok_computer »

irrational wrote: post #436
Ninjinka wrote: post #4

I mean maybe I'm just not up to date on recent history, but when was the last time we shot down anything in our our airspace prior to last week?

Maybe Japanese fire balloons during WWII? "One of the most unusual military actions of World War II came in the form of Japanese balloon bombs, or “Fugos,” directed at the mainland United States. Starting in 1944, the Japanese military constructed and launched over 9,000 high-altitude balloons, each loaded with nearly 50 pounds of anti-personnel and incendiary explosives. Amazingly, these unmanned balloons originated…

Geologists were able to reduce the search area for the origin of these balloons using the mineral composition of sand in the sand bags.

The airforce then bombed hydrogen generating facilities nearby the suspected launch sites.

Section offense and defense

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fu-Go_balloon_bomb

Re: US jet shoots down unknown object flying off Alaska coast

#476

Post by jasmer »

password11 wrote: post #158
motohagiography wrote: post #116

It doesn't matter what the object was, it's that America's adversaries know they can do it without consequences, and what makes them believe this is what matters about this story. That is the irreversible change it signifies, imo.

> it's that America's adversaries know they can do it without consequences There was a consequence -- we shot it down. > That is the irreversible change it signifies, imo. It's not irreversible. Additional consequences can be initiated at any time.

Having it shot down is not a consequence.

Diplomatic or economic retribution of some kind would be a consequence.

Re: US jet shoots down unknown object flying off Alaska coast

#477

Post by georgeg23 »

georgeg23 wrote: post #286

Given the Chinese have been complaining to the UN for the last year about American Low Earth Orbit satellites spying on them (Starshield, Space Development Agency, etc..) this balloon thing is pretty clever.

Also maybe gives China cover/justification to start shooting down these low satellites.

Re: US jet shoots down unknown object flying off Alaska coast

#478

Post by lamontcg »

sammalloy wrote: post #38
LinuxBender wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Object was flying at an altitude of 40,000 feet and posed a reasonable threat to the safety of civilian flight" and "Object the size of a small car" [1] according to General Ryder No details beyond this yet due to classification restrictions. [1] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=544hoprTeTw

John Kirby of the National Security Council said he would not call it a balloon, according to NBC News. What was it then?

Medium Altitude Long Endurance UAV drone.

Re: US jet shoots down unknown object flying off Alaska coast

#479

Post by pvaldes »

nonethewiser wrote: post #163
BXLE_1-1-BitIs1 wrote: post #80

Pot calling kettle black. The US has been sending armed drones into several countries without coordination with local ATC or consent of the local government. Soleimani and a number of Iraqi military officers were taken out by a US drone.

> Soleimani and a number of Iraqi military officers were taken out by a US drone. Good. Right?

Not, in fact is bad, because what is good for the geese is good for the gander.

This increases the risk of being killed by a drone for everybody, even if is as collateral damage. If international laws can be so easily violated for free, why do we need them? Do we really want a world without rules?

Re: US jet shoots down unknown object flying off Alaska coast

#480

Post by partiallypro »

ginko wrote: post #267
sschueller wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would too but Europe sold all its companies to the US and China.

You know Nokia and Ericsson are still huge players in telecom technology right?

Nokia was sold to Microsoft, then they sold it to HMD Global Oy /FoxConn and now they make most of their goods in China, almost to the point of being white labelled. Ericsson is a small company compared to what it once was. Sure, technically European (again) but a shell of their former selves.
Post reply on HN