Speculation: Did the US shoot down its own weather balloons over Alaska/Canada?

Dan_

New Member
As some of you may have heard, the media and twitter is alight with the recent news of the U.S shooting down a "ufo" over Alaska yesterday (02/10) , and another over Canada today (02/11). The pentagon refused to call it another balloon, with some anonymous official noting that it was "Cylindrical and Silverish-Gray, size of a car” (Sound familiar?). F-22 Pilots tasked with shooting it down described it as having "no identifiable propulsion system and they did not know how it was actually staying in the air cruising at that altitude". Ufo twitter was/is having a field day with this, as you might expect.

Well, funs over. What if I told you the U.S just spent almost a million dollars shooting down its own weather balloons?

Came across and excellent article by Bernard from moonofalabama, reposting here;




Yesterday the U.S. airforce shot down another weather balloon:

The Pentagon said it shot down an unidentified object over frozen waters around Alaska on Friday at the order of President Biden, less than a week after a U.S. fighter jet brought down a Chinese spy balloon over the Atlantic in an episode that increased tensions between Washington and Beijing.
This 'unidentfied object' was much smaller than the previous balloon.

Three U.S. officials said that as of Friday evening, the government did not know who owned or sent the object seen above Alaska, which, like the Chinese balloon last week, was shot down by an F-22 fighter jet using a Sidewinder air-to-air missile.
Several officials said they believed the object shot down Friday was a balloon, but a Defense Department official said it broke into pieces when it hit the frozen sea, which added to the mystery of whether it was indeed a balloon, a drone or something else.
Mr. Kirby said that the object was “much, much smaller than the spy balloon that we took down last Saturday” and that “the way it was described to me was roughly the size of a small car, as opposed to the payload that was like two or three buses.”
The Chinese weather balloon taken down earlier had likely nothing to do with spying. The crazy disinformation and policitics around it are just propaganda. There were antennas on Chinese weather ballon but all weather balloons are carrying radiosondes to send down whatever they find.

After their measuring tasks are done weather balloons are supposed to fly higher until the pressure within the balloon is much higher than the thin air surrounding it. In consequence the balloon will rip open and its radiosonde and debris will come down on a small parachute. There is usually an address on these and a request to send them back for reuse. In case you find one please do so.

Sometimes the mechanism sending the balloon higher will fail. The balloon will then just follow the winds until something happens that brings it down.

That may well have happened to the Chinese weather balloon as well as the the weather balloon sent up by the National Weather Service from its measuring stations in Kotzebue or Noma in northwest Alaska.

Dan Satterfield @wildweatherdan - 21:41 UTC · Feb 10, 2023
I back forecasted the latest "Balloon" shoot down in AK. Based on the location and time, it tracks back to near the Kotzebue NWS Rawinsonde site. Did we shoot down an NWS Weather balloon?? There is no data for the 12Z launch from that site and all the rest worked. #Chinaballoon
If not, then it goes back to the Bering Sea and then to NE Russia.
Also possible they did not launch a balloon at Kotzebue this morning at 12Z.

bigger
A rawinsonde is by the way a combination of wind sensors and radiosonde:

rawinsonde - An upper-air sounding that includes determination of wind speeds and wind directions.
Historically, wind data were obtained by tracking a balloon-borne radiosonde with a radio direction finder. Contemporary methods include measuring position or radiosonde velocity from a global positioning system or Loran radio navigation signals.
Another weather station is in Nome, Alaska, which is in the same area as Kotzebue.

Dan Satterfield @wildweatherdan - 21:54 UTC · 10 Feb 2023
Nome sounding stopped at 100 mb today. It could be the NOME rawinsonde balloon had issues.
If the measuring stopped at 100 millibar air pressure the balloon failed to rise further up into thinner air.

More:

Dan Satterfield @wildweatherdan 22:14 UTC · 10 Feb 2023
Could be the NOME Balloon if it failed and data stops at 100 mb at NOME on the 12z launch. It could have not gone up and burst as it should.
That isn't the only account that came up with such findings:

altNOAA @altNOAA - 3:15 UTC · Feb 11, 2023
I could still be wrong, but it looks like balloon was launched at approx 2:00 am (Alaska Standard Time) from the National Weather Service WSO in Kotzebue, AK. It was intended for the 12z data (balloons launched twice per day approx 1 hr before 00/12 Zulu time). 6am eastern.
And to whoever flew this one... I hope your buddies are not too hard on ya. And thank you for your service!
This page should be populated with a SKEW-T diagram showing the 12z data from Kotzebue. The sounding diagram doesn't exist because the data doesn't exist because the balloon that was to send that data no longer exists.
(Pic of failed page search)
and

altNOAA @altNOAA - 8:04 UTC · Feb 11, 2023
The USAF either shot down the 12Z weather balloon from Kotzebue or (bear with me here), they shot down a little tiny spaceship from the Planet Smallrocksia. I'm seriously leaning towards our weather balloon. And it's pretty well supported with the balloon optimization Hysplit.

bigger
I will admit that I'm not 100% on either possibility yet (99.998% positive it wasn't a little tiny spaceship tho). I'm not even 100% sure if a 12z balloon was released at Kotzebue. But, I'm going to find out.
So it looks like the airforce sent up an AWACS surveillance plane, a tanker and an F-22, the most expensive fighter plane ever, to fire a $400,000 Sidewinder missile to take down a failed weather balloon.

Had the balloon continued to fly it would have turned towards the north pole. So a few millions were spent to shot down a U.S. launched failed weather ballon on the tiny, tiny chance that some passenger plane would have crossed its path at its unusual 40,000 feet flight level.

I think that was a waste of money.

But it brought Biden some better press than the Chinese weather balloon disaster did. So there is the real reason for doing it.
 
The Chinese weather balloon taken down earlier had likely nothing to do with spying. The crazy disinformation and policitics around it are just propaganda. There were antennas on Chinese weather ballon but all weather balloons are carrying radiosondes to send down whatever they find.

After their measuring tasks are done weather balloons are supposed to fly higher until the pressure within the balloon is much higher than the thin air surrounding it. In consequence the balloon will rip open and its radiosonde and debris will come down on a small parachute. There is usually an address on these and a request to send them back for reuse. In case you find one please do so.

Sometimes the mechanism sending the balloon higher will fail. The balloon will then just follow the winds until something happens that brings it down.

That may well have happened to the Chinese weather balloon as well as the the weather balloon sent up by the National Weather Service from its measuring stations in Kotzebue or Noma in northwest Alaska.
The Chinese "weather balloon" was definitely a high-altitude platform, maneouverable, and designed to stay at altitude indefinitely. The size, solar cell loadout, and propulsion equipment support this idea. See https://www.metabunk.org/threads/is-this-a-chinese-spy-balloon.12858/

There's really not much evidence on the smaller balloons.

My guess as to what happened is that NORAD/NORTHCOM systems used to filter out balloon-like targets as not a threat, since they were looking for aircraft or missiles, and these are fast. Following the spy balloon debacle, somebody ordered some software engineers to classify balloons as threats, which happened forthwith, and now NORAD treats every balloon like an enemy aircraft until they develop better procedures for this.
 
Last edited:
My guess as to what happened is that NORAD/NORTHCOM systems used to filter out balloon-like targets as not a threat, since they were looking for aircraft or missiles, and these are fast. Following the spy balloon debacle, somebody ordered some software engineers to classify balloons as threats, which happened forthwith, and now NORAD treats every balloon like an enemy aircraft until they develop better procedures for this.
Correct!

 
Moonofalabama is not a conspiracy blog, quite the opposite actually....
Here's an analysis from Media Bias, which, as well as rating it low in factual content, is sufficiently negative to suggest that we should not just accept it at face value.

QUESTIONABLE SOURCE​

A questionable source exhibits one or more of the following: extreme bias, consistent promotion of propaganda/conspiracies, poor or no sourcing to credible information, a complete lack of transparency, and/or is fake news. Fake News is the deliberate attempt to publish hoaxes and/or disinformation for profit or influence (Learn More). Sources listed in the Questionable Category may be very untrustworthy and should be fact-checked on a per-article basis. Please note sources on this list are not considered fake news unless specifically written in the reasoning section for that source. See all Questionable sources.
  • Overall, we rate Moon of Alabama Left as Biased and questionable based on the promotion of pro-Russian propaganda and conspiracy theories, the use of poor sources, false claims, and a lack of transparency.
Content from External Source
 
A report from a Canadian newspaper gives a little more information about the object shot down over Canada. The Canadian defence Minister is quoted as saying that the object was smaller than the 'Chinese' balloon and 'cylindrical in nature'. A Canadian military officer is quoted as explicitly calling the object a balloon. A cylindrical object doesn't sound like a standard weather balloon, though of course there are plenty of (roughly) cylindrical balloons in general (blimps, target balloons, etc).

Article here:

https://vancouversun.com/news/norad...irborne-object-currently-over-northern-canada
 
I found a video of the briefing, but no transcript.
The Canadian general speaks quite briefly at about 21:30 and refers almost casually to taking down the balloon. I don't think we can yet take this as a considered statement on the nature of the object, but it does suggest what the military thought they were dealing with at the time. I was amused to note that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police are involved in recovering the debris of the object. We know that the Mounties always get their man, but do they always get their alien?
 
The pentagon refused to call it another balloon, with some anonymous official noting that it was "Cylindrical and Silverish-Gray, size of a car” (Sound familiar?)
according to Google you are the only one making that quote. what is the source?

F-22 Pilots tasked with shooting it down described it as having "no identifiable propulsion system and they did not know how it was actually staying in the air cruising at that altitude".
Article:
F-35 fighter jets were sent up to investigate after the object was first detected on Thursday, according to a US official. Kirby told reporters that the first fly-by of US fighter aircraft happened Thursday night, and the second happened Friday morning. Both brought back “limited” information about the object.

But the pilots later gave differing reports of what they observed, the source briefed on the intelligence said.

Some pilots said the object “interfered with their sensors” on the planes, but not all pilots reported experiencing that.

Some pilots also claimed to have seen no identifiable propulsion on the object, and could not explain how it was staying in the air, despite the object cruising at an altitude of 40,000 feet.

The conflicting eyewitness accounts are partly why the Pentagon has been unable to fully explain what the object is, the source briefed on the matter said.


so hearsay paraphrased from a paraphrasing unnamed source, (according to CNN) and then paraphrased yet again here on Metabunk.
 
Looks like China is now getting in on the action, as they’ve just spotted an unidentified flying object and are preparing to shoot it down (February 12, 2023). This is turning out to be quite the spectacle lol.

https://www.scmp.com/news/china/dip...ry-object-over-waters-near-northern-port-city
It's likely that the fourth object that was spotted ten hours ago over Montana (causing FAA to temporarily close Montana airspace) was just a radar anomaly, according to NORAD.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/f...dar-anomaly-spots-airborne-object/ar-AA17nkQb
A report from a Canadian newspaper gives a little more information about the object shot down over Canada. The Canadian defence Minister is quoted as saying that the object was smaller than the 'Chinese' balloon and 'cylindrical in nature'. A Canadian military officer is quoted as explicitly calling the object a balloon. A cylindrical object doesn't sound like a standard weather balloon, though of course there are plenty of (roughly) cylindrical balloons in general (blimps, target balloons, etc).

Article here:

https://vancouversun.com/news/norad...irborne-object-currently-over-northern-canada


please read Metabunk's Link POlicy
Article:
any content in the link that you refer to must also be in your post, quoted using "ex" tags.
 
according to Google you are the only one making that quote. what is the source?

"ABC News Chief Global Affairs Correspondent Martha Raddatz first reported that when fighters were scrambled, the pilots did visuals, got images and said there was no sign the object had propulsion.

It was described as "cylindrical and silver-ish gray" and seemed to be floating, a U.S. official said.

Asked if was "balloon-like," the official said, "All I say is that it wasn't 'flying' with any sort of propulsion, so if that is 'balloon-like' well -- we just don't have enough at this point."


Source: https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/us-shoots-high-altitude-object-alaska-white-house/story?id=97040022

So far, everything seems to be quoted by "anonymous officials".
 
Last edited:
this statement of yours is also bunk. we dont yet know what was shot down.

your title is also wrong as the China balloon was not a UFO. it was identified and claimed by CHina... ergo it was a FO.
No. Im not sure you read the post entirely, as this thread, and the title of this thread is not in reference to the giant Chinese balloon from last week. This thread is inquiring about the 2 new separate incidents that occurred over this weekend (February, 10-11).
 
This thread is inquiring about the 2 new separate incidents that occurred over this weekend (February, 10-11).

it says 2 MORE. what was the first one?
(and no i didnt read the post entirely as you are just quoting yourself when you are not using excessive confusing hyperlinks.)
 
What if I told you the U.S just spent almost a million dollars shooting down its own weather balloons?
I'd say that whoever the balloon was launched by, it was a hazard to navigation and shooting it down was prudent.

The ... object that was ultimately shot down near Alaska flying at an altitude of 40,000ft, about the same level as commercial planes, and was travelling at about 20 to 40 miles per hour before it was struck down.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/feb/11/alaska-mystery-flying-object-us-chinese-balloon

American radars first identified the object’s presence around 9pm Alaska time on Thursday evening. A US warplane shot it down about 1.45pm ET on Friday.
Also from the Guardian link above, a point worth noting for those thinking this might be Aliens is how long it hung about... something balloons do.
 
"ABC News Chief Global Affairs Correspondent Martha Raddatz first reported that when fighters were scrambled, the pilots did visuals, got images and said there was no sign the object had propulsion.

It was described as "cylindrical and silver-ish gray" and seemed to be floating, a U.S. official said.

Asked if was "balloon-like," the official said, "All I say is that it wasn't 'flying' with any sort of propulsion, so if that is 'balloon-like' well -- we just don't have enough at this point."


Source: https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/us-shoots-high-altitude-object-alaska-white-house/story?id=97040022

So far, everything seems to be quoted by "anonymous officials".
Just for clarification Dan, it's best to use the EX tags when quoting external sources. It took me a while to learn how to use them, but it lets people know when you're using something from a source vs your own thoughts. After you copy and paste or type out the quote from the source, one way is to type the letters EX inside brackets [ ] at the beginning of your quote and /EX inside brackets [ ] at the end of your quote. Follow that with your source. EDIT: You can also click the "preview" tab at the top of the posting box before posting to see if the EX tags worked correctly.

The quote from the source will be placed inside a box alerting everyone that his is from an external source. Doesn't mean everyone will agree with your source. If EX tags are applied to your post it would look like this:

"ABC News Chief Global Affairs Correspondent Martha Raddatz first reported that when fighters were scrambled, the pilots did visuals, got images and said there was no sign the object had propulsion.

It was described as "cylindrical and silver-ish gray" and seemed to be floating, a U.S. official said.

Asked if was "balloon-like," the official said, "All I say is that it wasn't 'flying' with any sort of propulsion, so if that is 'balloon-like' well -- we just don't have enough at this point."
Content from External Source
Source: https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/us-shoots-high-altitude-object-alaska-white-house/story?id=97040022

So far, everything seems to be quoted by "anonymous officials".

Feel free to PM me if you have question on how to post.
 
I'd say that whoever the balloon was launched by, it was a hazard to navigation and shooting it down was prudent.


https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/feb/11/alaska-mystery-flying-object-us-chinese-balloon


Also from the Guardian link above, a point worth noting for those thinking this might be Aliens is how long it hung about... something balloons do.
Yep. Anyone who thinks these are not weather balloons, but rather interstellar objects, should probably get their heads checked.

Not to come off as rude… but…
 
Just for clarification Dan, it's best to use the EX tags when quoting external sources. It took me a while to learn how to use them, but it lets people know when you're using something from a source vs your own thoughts. After you copy and paste or type out the quote from the source, one way is to type the letters EX inside brackets [ ] at the beginning of your quote and /EX inside brackets [ ] at the end of your quote. Follow that with your source.

The quote from the source will be placed inside a box alerting everyone that his is from an external source. Doesn't mean everyone will agree with your source. If EX tags are applied to your post it would look like this:

"ABC News Chief Global Affairs Correspondent Martha Raddatz first reported that when fighters were scrambled, the pilots did visuals, got images and said there was no sign the object had propulsion.

It was described as "cylindrical and silver-ish gray" and seemed to be floating, a U.S. official said.

Asked if was "balloon-like," the official said, "All I say is that it wasn't 'flying' with any sort of propulsion, so if that is 'balloon-like' well -- we just don't have enough at this point."
Content from External Source
Source: https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/us-shoots-high-altitude-object-alaska-white-house/story?id=97040022

So far, everything seems to be quoted by "anonymous officials".

Feel free to PM me if you have question on how to post.
Ahhh, gotcha. Was trying to figure how to do that. Makes sense, thanks for the clarification!
 
Dan_ said
Moonofalabama is not a conspiracy blog, quite the opposite actually....
For those who want to check, Moon of Alabama https://www.moonofalabama.org/

A brief read-through of some posts on the site- which might not be representative- gives me the impression that most posters are broadly sceptical of US (and other 'Western') government claims and policies, and broadly accepting of, and / or apologists for, Russian and Chinese claims and policies.
So far, everything seems to be quoted by "anonymous officials".

I don't think the accountability that military personnel / DoD civil servants have should extend to having to deal with conspiracy theorists turning up on their doorstep. I don't think anything should be read into press releases coming from 'anonymous' personnel; it is the office they hold, and the branch / organisation that they represent, that matters.
 
Last edited:
Yep. Anyone who thinks these are not weather balloons, but rather interstellar objects, should probably get their heads checked.

I disagree. In almost all cases, all that is needed is to have some more exposure to the facts -- which is what this site, at its best, is all about.
 
Moon of Alabama https://www.moonofalabama.org/

What I see on that site: Pro-Russian, anti-Ukraine, anti-US Government, anti-NATO, anti-Biden bias.

Cautious China, Iran as U.S. whipping-boys stance.

Two examples.
-It's accepted as fact that the U.S. is responsible for the Nord Stream pipeline sabotage.
-It's accepted as fact that "Russia-Gate" was a hoax.

It looks to me to be a fringe MAGA site. Quite possibly with Russian bots and/or sponsorship.

The links lead to Pro-Russian or Russian articles or to mainstream sources that are given an unwarranted spin. It's only natural that this site would try to spin any balloon shoot down story.
 
Last edited:
according to Google you are the only one making that quote. what is the source?


ABC News Chief Global Affairs Correspondent Martha Raddatz first reported that when fighters were scrambled, the pilots did visuals, got images and said there was no sign the object had propulsion.

It was described as "cylindrical and silver-ish gray" and seemed to be floating, a U.S. official said.

Asked if was "balloon-like," the official said, "All I say is that it wasn't 'flying' with any sort of propulsion, so if that is 'balloon-like' well -- we just don't have enough at this point."
Content from External Source
Source: US shoots down unknown 'high-altitude object' over Alaska, White House says

The article also states...

The object came to U.S. attention Thursday evening, Kirby said.

"It did not appear to have maneuverability capability, he said. "It was virtually at the whim of the wind."
Content from External Source
Which definitely suggests a lighter than air craft ie balloon or airship.

Regarding the size of the object...

SIMON: Does the military so far seem to think this was another spy balloon?

MCLAUGHLIN: So far, it doesn't sound like it. It's not totally clear. According to the Pentagon, it's a much smaller object, about the size of a small car rather than the previous balloon, which was as big as three buses. The fighter jets did a couple of passes around it and believed it to be unmanned. They also thought it probably couldn't be remotely piloted. It seemed to move with the wind. The main reason that the president ordered it to be shot down is because of where it was flying. Because it was that low, it posed what DOD said was a reasonable threat to civilian air traffic.
Content from External Source
Source: The U.S. shot down a car-sized object above Alaska's coast

During the White House press briefing John Kirby described it as:

Q Was its appearance like the Chinese aircraft?

MR. KIRBY: No, it was —

MR. KIRBY: — it was much, much smaller than the spy balloon that we took down last Saturday.

The way it was described to me was roughly the size of a small car, as opposed to, you know, a payload that was like two or three —

Q Buses?

MR. KIRBY: — buses’ size. Right? So much, much smaller.

And — and they’re — and not of the same — not — no — no significant payload, if you will.
Content from External Source
Source: Press Briefing by Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre and National Security Council Coordinator for Strategic Communications John Kirby, February 10, 2023

My initial thought when I heard the 'cylindrical' description without mention of a balloon was that it was possibly a large drone used by oil companies or fishing concerns, but the later updates definitely brings it back into the area of a lighter than air vehicle.

As to who it belonged to, that will be interesting to find out. The difference in size, description & especially location does make me wonder if it was more likely to be Russian or another nation (even potentially US).

Right now we just don't have enough information to make any credible determinations.
 
Last edited:
It looks to me to be a fringe MAGA site.
Media bias has it as far left. and teh Whiskey bar (which it spawned from is also listed as far left by Media Bias
I know some members say "MAGA" can be lefties too, but i still think the term MAGA implies right wing.

perhaps better to just say a "fringe political site"
.
Article:
Moon Of Alabama is a political blog founded in 2004. According to its about page, they are an independent and open forum for members of another blog called the Whiskey Bar. Moon Of Alabama states its purpose as “to discuss politics, economics, philosophy and blogger Billmon’s Whiskey Bar writings.” A Daily Kos article describes Blogger Billmon (pseudonym) as one of the earliest and leading guest bloggers of Daily Kos and a self-admitted financial writer working for a big Wall Street firm


Article:
About Daily Kos
Daily Kos is a news media source with an AllSides Media Bias Rating™ of Left.

What a "Left" Rating Means
Sources with an AllSides Media Bias Rating of Left display media bias in ways that strongly align with liberal, progressive, or left-wing thought and/or policy agendas. This is our most liberal rating on the political spectrum.
 
Yep. Anyone who thinks these are not weather balloons, but rather interstellar objects, should probably get their heads checked.

Not to come off as rude… but…
I think that's a false dichotomy, as I have heard not a single person express that thought. Chinese surveillance instrumentation, perhaps. "Interstellar objects", nope.

But yes, that was uncalled for and rude.
 
Media bias has it as far left. and the Whiskey bar (which it spawned from is also listed as far left by Media Bias
I know some members say "MAGA" can be lefties too, but i still think the term MAGA implies right wing.
In case the allusions are unfamiliar to younger generations than mine, the phrases 'moon of Alabama' and 'whiskey bar' both come from the English lyrics of 'Alabama Song', with music by Kurt Weill and original German lyrics by Bertold Brecht. ('Show me the way to the next whiskey bar...' etc. ) There are many recorded versions, perhaps the best known being by The Doors and David Bowie (separately!). (Apparently there is also a version by Nina Simone which I must check out.)

I don't know why anyone would name a blog or website after the song, but any political implications would be on the Left. Bertold Brecht was at least a Marxist sympathiser, and chose to spend the last years of his life in the socialist paradise of East Germany.
 
Media bias has it as far left. and teh Whiskey bar (which it spawned from is also listed as far left by Media Bias
I know some members say "MAGA" can be lefties too, but i still think the term MAGA implies right wing.

perhaps better to just say a "fringe political site"
.
Article:
Moon Of Alabama is a political blog founded in 2004. According to its about page, they are an independent and open forum for members of another blog called the Whiskey Bar. Moon Of Alabama states its purpose as “to discuss politics, economics, philosophy and blogger Billmon’s Whiskey Bar writings.” A Daily Kos article describes Blogger Billmon (pseudonym) as one of the earliest and leading guest bloggers of Daily Kos and a self-admitted financial writer working for a big Wall Street firm


Article:
About Daily Kos
Daily Kos is a news media source with an AllSides Media Bias Rating™ of Left.

What a "Left" Rating Means
Sources with an AllSides Media Bias Rating of Left display media bias in ways that strongly align with liberal, progressive, or left-wing thought and/or policy agendas. This is our most liberal rating on the political spectrum.
You're right. It's a far Leftist fringe thing. There's a recent citation of a Matt Tabbi article and the Columbia Journalism Review. Ick.
 
Last edited:
In case the allusions are unfamiliar to younger generations than mine, the phrases 'moon of Alabama' and 'whiskey bar' both come from the English lyrics of 'Alabama Song', with music by Kurt Weill and original German lyrics by Bertold Brecht. ('Show me the way to the next whiskey bar...' etc. ) There are many recorded versions, perhaps the best known being by The Doors and David Bowie (separately!). (Apparently there is also a version by Nina Simone which I must check out.)

I don't know why anyone would name a blog or website after the song, but any political implications would be on the Left. Bertold Brecht was at least a Marxist sympathiser, and chose to spend the last years of his life in the socialist paradise of East Germany.
It’s a great site. I find it very informative personally. Bernard does lean pro Russian, but his articles help sift through all the Ukrainian BS. Derailing the thread with this but just wanted to put that out there.
 
Last edited:
You're right. It's a far Leftist fringe thing. There's a recent citation of a Matt Tabbi article and the Columbia Journalism Review. Ick.

Like you, my first thought was MAGA. We were both victims to a classic demonstration of horseshoe theory.

"In political science and popular discourse,[1] the horseshoe theory asserts that the extreme left and the extreme right, rather than being at opposite and opposing ends of a linear political continuum, closely resemble each other, analogous to the way that the opposite ends of a horseshoe are close together."
 
Like you, my first thought was MAGA. We were both victims to a classic demonstration of horseshoe theory.

"In political science and popular discourse,[1] the horseshoe theory asserts that the extreme left and the extreme right, rather than being at opposite and opposing ends of a linear political continuum, closely resemble each other, analogous to the way that the opposite ends of a horseshoe are close together."
The topic is

2 more "ufos" shot down over Alaska/Canada.​

 
Much too early for definitive answers on these latest events. People who claim to know everything instantly, based on info from other sources, are mostly repeating conspiracy stuff. For example those who within minutes know that every mass shooting is a "false flag" event? How could they possibly know that so soon? Easy, they just declare every mass shooting a false flag event.

I will wait for more official reports. They may not be complete or accurate, but they will not be knee-jerk.
 
What I find peculiar about all this is that we've had navy pilots reporting sightings for years (tic tac etc), yet they have stated no attempt to engage or shoot down was ever made - on the contrary, they were apparently told by their superiors on many occasions to just leave them alone. Not ONCE to my knowledge has there ever been mention of something being shot down. So what's going on here for them to suddenly be taking such offensive action? Tells me this is something else entirely and not at all related to any previous UAP sightings we've been told about. There was also no mention of these shot down craft exhibiting the kind of physics-defying movement that has been talked about in previous sightings. My thinking is a drone or spy craft from another country, but perhaps a technology we're not familiar with. Either that or the recent alien peace talks went sideways and we're at war now.
 
So presumably the US is closely monitoring the skies all over the world from satellites. Wouldn't the US be picking up these shortly after launch?
 
So presumably the US is closely monitoring the skies all over the world from satellites. Wouldn't the US be picking up these shortly after launch?
Balloons, lacking the heat signature of rockets firing, are probably pretty darn hard to identify at any stage in their deployment.
 
Countries have a right protect, monitor and "defend/control" their air space. I wonder if there is a way to "capture" these things and get a close look at what their capabilities are. I think they are up to no good. If a few are shot down... nations who think about doing this will get the message - stay out of our air space. This should apply to all nations. No trespassing!
 
Back
Top