How? Too much speculation. Please stop.
Unidentified Objects/Balloons Intercepted by US aircraft
- Thread starter Greene
- Start date
The quote from President Biden was "Nothing right now suggests they were related to China's Spy Balloon program or that they were surveillance vehicles from any other country"
1 min 34 sec to 1 min 56 sec
President Joe Biden speaks on unknown flying objects Feb 16, 2023
Source:
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4PgxQ4ZlivI
Not precisely saying they were NOT China just saying that at that point they had no evidence that it was China.
Ann K
Senior Member.
Then your speculation is unfounded. I mean, he didn't exactly say they were NOT Russian, nor did he say they were NOT balloons created by students from Indiana between classes, nor did he say they were NOT Lemurian hyper-speed vehicles returning from a mission to Arcturus. Please, don't invent things they might have been on this forum. Save that for a sci-fi novel.
Mendel
Senior Member.
that's what "were not confirmed to be Chinese" means? I don't understand why you explain to me what I wrote if you agree with it, but thank you for the source.
Yes, the statement re. China by Biden is basically a meaningless non-statement.
"Nothing right now suggests they were related to China's Spy Balloon program or that they were surveillance vehicles from any other country"
He could have just as easily said that they have no evidence that it is from Lemuria. They "lost" the debris so I guess we will never have ANY evidence as to who made/launched the unidentified areal objects. But maybe some more FOIA requests could shed more light. I am sure there is tuns of paperwork associated with the shootdowns. So I still have hope.
White House on unidentified objects: ‘No indication of aliens’ 02/13/2023“I know there have been questions and concerns about this, but there is no — again no indication — of aliens or extraterrestrial activity with these recent takedowns,” Jean-Pierre said from the White House podium
Source: https://www.politico.com/news/2023/02/13/white-house-unidentified-objects-no-aliens-00082593
Again a meaningless non-statement
Mendel
Senior Member.
It's a statement about the evidence they have.
If they don't have sufficient evidence, FOIA requests won't help you. They'll be as "meaningless" as the POTUS statement.
We are back again at our philosophical difference. Presidents have lied to the American people historically so I don't think Biden is some special exemption to that behavior. Especially if they think the truth would potentially harm national security, or damage him in the polls.
I don't think they "lost" the debris in Alaska.
I don't think they lack high quality data from the data-linked F-35 of the object over Alaska.
Mendel
Senior Member.
My philosophy being that claims need evidence, while yours is to go with what you want to believe.
How many? All of them? Where's the evidence for that?
Where's the evidence for that?
Where's the evidence for that?
Where's the evidence for that?
Where's the evidence for that?
I guess he won't.
MyMatesBrainwashed
Senior Member
So it's just Roswell MkII.
Was that a UFO? Doubtful.
Does USG care if it leads to people believing in UFOs to protect national security? Apparently not.
Ann K
Senior Member.
Arthur, you can ask all the questions you like, but sometimes the real unvarnished truth is "We don't know". That does NOT mean that you are invited to fill in the blank with whatever you've decided to use. This isn't a creative writing class. If the answer is "We don't know", learn to accept it, because other imagined answers can easily lead away from the facts, not toward them.
From Washington to Trump, all presidents have told lies (but only some have told them for the right reasons)From Washington to Trump, all presidents have told lies (but only some have told them for the right reasons)
Source: https://theconversation.com/from-wa...e-have-told-them-for-the-right-reasons-145995
As for my evidence regarding the debris. I have provided multiple arguments and evidences already in this thread. Pictures of the sea ice in winter, video of massive recovery operation recorded by oil worker, reports that the object "broke into several pieces" upon impact with ice.
I have also shown evidence of the technical capabilities of the F-35. I don't think it is up for debate that that aircraft collected high quality FLIR/Radar (Radar Signature) data.
Combined with the circumstantial evidence of blanket denial of all FOIA information of these events. I don't think I am on a logical limb in suggesting a cover-up here. I am not engaging in wild speculation, I am using basic logic backed by evidence.
JMartJr
Senior Member.
I am not one to assert that any President has ever been perfectly truthful at all times. They're human, unless some of the more fringe conspiracy theorists are right after all.
Humans sometimes lie.But I'm not sure quoting a headline of an article that makes an assertion counts as providing evidence for the assertion. The article does not cite evidence for that assertion, though it does link to another article, which is essentially a review of a book which makes the assertion. Perhaps the book provides evidence to back the not-unreasonable assertion that all Presidents, like everybody else, from time to time lie. Or maybe it is just assumed and the book goes on to look at specific cases. I am not interested in the book so won't be able to comment on what it says, perhaps you would be more interested and can get back to us...
But for the sake of argument, I'll concede Presidents (and governments) sometimes lie. And you have forcefully and clearly expressed your opinion that this particular case is one of the things they are lying about. What is missing so far is compelling evidence that specific suspicions you write about are correct -- the data on which you are basing your opinion. What we have so far seems to be along the lines of "the lack of available evidence to the contrary is evidence that my suspicion is correct."
Speculation about cases such as this is fun, and many people form opinions based on "it just stands to reason" -- but it will not carry the audience on MetaBunk
MyMatesBrainwashed
Senior Member
The other thing that springs to mind is why believe any of it then?
You seem happy to accept it was the size of a car, from the mouths of liars. You quote their words in support of your point of view yet you think they are liars.
How are you able to discern what are the truths and what are the lies?
Mendel
Senior Member.
The source's source is https://progressive.org/latest/lies-more-lies-presidential-history-lueders-200810/ . It claims Washington lied about his slaves; I could find no evidence. It claims Jefferson lied about the purpose of the Lewis and Clark expedition; I could find no evidence of it. It claims Truman lied about Hiroshima being a military base; it was (1/6 of Hiroshima was military personnel). Within the context of a US President lying to Congress, I don't think you can uphold this claim.
... showing that the debris could easily get lost...
... indistinguishable from a massive search operation. If the debris was easy to find, neither the search nor the recovery effort needed to be massive.
ONE unattributed report that you're cherry-picking:
Article: 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.
Yes, that is up for debate, because it's not in evidence.
That's not evidence for anything.
I don't see any basic logic. I see wild speculation.
This is a argument I see a lot used by "skeptics". Not very original. I don't think the "government" is lying, just as I don't think "science" is corrupt. Individuals and institutions within these larger structures have consistently been shown to be liars and corrupt though.
As far as how to elucidate truth from lies. That is a age old question. I think asking questions and demanding answers is a good practice though.
I still have questions regarding the shootdowns, and I am not satisfied with the answers I have gotten so far...
Mendel
Senior Member.
Neither are we, we'd all love to know what these objects actually were.
The difference is that
• we don't assume that answers we don't like are lies (though we do look for additional evidence)
• we don't make up our own answers (though we do think about possibilities)
Ann K
Senior Member.
@Arthur 33 , post #295:
When you, with (as far as I can tell) neither the technical expertise nor the appropriate level of security clearance, decide for yourself that you'll believe answer A but declare them to be lying about answer B, you are applying your own biases in that filter, sort of acting as the beta version of an AI program, adding in completely extraneous material to legitimate knowledge. The result, predictably, is garbage in, garbage out. THAT is the reason that facts trump opinions. I'd like to know the facts too, but I'd like them to be correct, rather than premature.
You've been given the best answers that we know at this time. Perhaps it's time to drop the subject until there is more information.
Post #210:
It sounds as if you can't make up your mind.
You are, as far as I can tell from your posts, a civilian with an interest and an opinion. That's fine, as far as it goes ...but it does not give you the privilege of being able to "demand" answers, and most especially it does not give you a legitimate reason to demand exactly the answers that you want. YOUR personal satisfaction with an answer is not the function of government.
When you, with (as far as I can tell) neither the technical expertise nor the appropriate level of security clearance, decide for yourself that you'll believe answer A but declare them to be lying about answer B, you are applying your own biases in that filter, sort of acting as the beta version of an AI program, adding in completely extraneous material to legitimate knowledge. The result, predictably, is garbage in, garbage out. THAT is the reason that facts trump opinions. I'd like to know the facts too, but I'd like them to be correct, rather than premature.
You've been given the best answers that we know at this time. Perhaps it's time to drop the subject until there is more information.
NoParty
Senior Member.
Perhaps you'll share your working definition of "liar."
Oh sorry. Little old me not important enough. I guess I don't have a need to know what my government is blowing out of our skies for the first time in the history of NORAD.
I have reflected on it, and I am sure the government has a really really good reason for not releasing any FOIA info, and not fully briefing members of congress. After all the government has us citizens best interests in their hearts, and are committed to truth and transparency.
I accept they "lost" all the debris
I accept that they can't identify the objects using radar(radar-signature) and FLIR of the F-35.
I will just shut up now and be satisfied with not ever having the answer.
After all the leading expert on UFOs told me these are all balloons on Feb 12th. Lue is TRUE and he never lies so it must be me that is wrong here...
But seriously I was SOO confused by the reaction of UFO enthusiasts/believers in the aftermath of these events (most did not care, and accepted the balloon explanation). I had not been paying attention to the UFO community for years. Turns out that the narrative around UFO is HIGHLY controlled now by a handful of UFO celebrities, enforced by a army (Lue Crew) of twitter influencers. Sad to see that...
Last edited:
Ann K
Senior Member.
Don't get all huffy about it, Arthur. You are (accidentally) right about that. You have a desire to know. You do not have a NEED to know.
What makes you think the public does not deserve the truth regarding the identity of the 3 objects? I assume you are a member of the public, and have no more information than I do. So I find this statement odd.
jarlrmai
Senior Member.
Do you think the general public does or does not deserve to know the identity and location of all US intelligence operatives active abroad?
Ann K
Senior Member.
It's simple, Arthur. You want "the truth", but there are a good many things in ANY government that are labeled "classified" or "top secret", and that's the way it should be and is always going to be. A secondary factor is the timing: you want it now, but sometimes an analysis takes months or years, even if it isn't considered secret and even if all pieces are recovered. (We have already seen plenty of occasions where reporters jump to an erroneous conclusion and are forced to publicly eat crow. Case in point: the recent car explosion at the Niagara Falls border crossing.) Additionally, you have declared that you don't believe the government, in which case how will you be able to tell if what they say is true or false?
"Need to know" is a defined term in government, and simply doesn't apply to non-governmental civilians. If you NEEDED to know, you would already have been told.
Edit to add: This is what you get in a rush to judgment.
Last edited:
Well thank god you are not running the FOIA office...
I think the new NDAA has a good framework for what should be made public and what should remain classified.
Source: https://www.theblackvault.com/docum...fense-authorization-act-for-fiscal-year-2024/
Ann K
Senior Member.
Call me in 25 years.Well thank god you are not running the FOIA office...
I think the new NDAA has a good framework for what should be made public and what should remain classified.
Source: https://www.theblackvault.com/docum...fense-authorization-act-for-fiscal-year-2024/
Mendel
Senior Member.
FOIA documents are still redacted for secrecy.
We're discussing this proposed legislation at https://www.metabunk.org/threads/uap-disclosure-act-of-2023-proposed-u-s-legislation.13058/ .I think the new NDAA has a good framework for what should be made public and what should remain classified.
Source: https://www.theblackvault.com/docum...fense-authorization-act-for-fiscal-year-2024/
All I am saying is that there is this thing called "Public Interest in Disclosure". Transparency is a good thing.
Excessive secrecy breeds corruption and bad policy. Imagine if the Pentagon Papers were never published. We could have seen hundreds of thousands more dead in Vietnam and billions in wasted tax dollars.
Mendel
Senior Member.
You are comparing the unidentified balloons to the Vietnam war?
I wouldn't expect anyone here to take me seriously if I did that.
Last edited:
Duke
Senior Member.
That is the same basic framework used in determining if any information needs to be/stay classified. "Identifiable harm to military defense..." includes not releasing information for fear of exposing sources/means/methods of gathering of that information. If you are counting on this language to provide disclosure, you're going to be very disappointed.Well thank god you are not running the FOIA office...
I think the new NDAA has a good framework for what should be made public and what should remain classified.
Source: https://www.theblackvault.com/docum...fense-authorization-act-for-fiscal-year-2024/
Further, the "....identifiable harm is of such gravity that it outlays the public interest in disclosure" is subjective and will be adjudicated by the same people you've already told us you don't trust.
*EDIT* Just noticed your comment in your post #304 to @Ann K about being thankful she's "not running the FOIA office." FOIA officers/specialists have no authority to classify/declassify documents.
Last edited:
That is why the bill requires them to produced unclassified rationale for why they are going to keep a document classified. It is a check and balance. Also the house and senate have oversight.
I will admit to not knowing that much about typical FOIA and typical declassification practices currently used. Is this requirement for a unclassified written description new?
New UAP Language In The Compromised National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2024
Source: https://www.theblackvault.com/docum...fense-authorization-act-for-fiscal-year-2024/
Duke
Senior Member.
Explaining in writing to Congress information obtained through/from classified sources/means/methods can't be declassified is unclassified rationale that meets both the letter of and intent of the language. The language requires this description be submitted to Congress, it doesn't say Congress has the ability to overturn or even question the justification. Congress does not have the authority to down grade/overturn security classifications.That is why the bill requires them to produced unclassified rationale for why they are going to keep a document classified. It is a check and balance. Also the house and senate have oversight.
I will admit to not knowing that much about typical FOIA and typical declassification practices currently used. Is this requirement for a unclassified written description new?
New UAP Language In The Compromised National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2024
Source: https://www.theblackvault.com/docum...fense-authorization-act-for-fiscal-year-2024/
FatPhil
Senior Member.
Did you have a counter-argument, or just snark?
Your quoted material if anything weakens your argument - if you really need to know, then you'll be told in 25 years.
Mendel
Senior Member.
...maybe.
He trusts some politicians more than others, and echoes their propaganda without displaying much insight in the political process.
There's zero evidence that all of the disclosure rhetoric is going to lead anywhere. The AARO historical report that's coming is probably going to demonstrate that. And it's impossible that the 3 unidentified objects (that this thread is about) are covered by this because they're not even UAP in the sense of the proposed legislation, having displayed no anomaly whatsoever.
It's empty anti-Biden political rhetoric, not much more.
They are UAP ("unidentified aerial object" technically) also according to the Canadian document NORAD classified them as UAP. That is why the FOIA request that was denied from the base in Alaska was directed to AARO.
OMG for real? Is this the reason they changed the term from unidentified aerial object to unidentified anomalous object? Does not qualify unless it is demonstrated to break the known laws of physics or something? Sneaky sneaky word play if that is the case.
Mendel
Senior Member.
Review my first post in the relevant thread, https://www.metabunk.org/threads/uap-disclosure-act-of-2023-proposed-u-s-legislation.13058/ , for how the legislation you are citing defines UAP.
This is in line how the disclosure activists (TTSA, Graves etc.) define it.
If you discuss topics in their relevant threads, you won't be as surprised by observations that have already been collected.
FatPhil
Senior Member.
How is that a response to @Mendel's "[they] displayed no anomaly"? It barely even makes sense. After the initial "OMG for real?" it just looks like flailing around - in no way actually addressing Mendel's claim, or supporting your disagreement with it. You lack the rhetorical skills to argue using questions - heck, your third question isn't even gramatically well-formed - just stick to things that you consider to be facts, and present them clearly, so that they can be addressed. And calm down, the flapping isn't helping.
I did a presentation condensing my research regarding these shootdowns. I want to thank this community for all the amazing feedback and highly intelligent responses (even if we disagree).
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jOBFef0Ni64&t=2s
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jOBFef0Ni64&t=2s
Similar threads
