- Joined
- Oct 14, 2015
- Messages
- 69,148
- Reaction score
- 76,182
- Location
- Massachusetts
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
There’s nothing predictable about the NSC spokesperson saying they’re shooting at unidentified objects.
Don't pretend there's any principle attached to your arguments.
.So now you’re in favor of shooting something because you don’t know what it is? I’d expect that from rednecks.
There’s nothing predictable about the NSC spokesperson saying they’re shooting at unidentified objects.
Irrelevant. I'm not interested in what is and isn't distressful to the person reading the news, but whether those sources are consistently (and deliberately) misrepresentative of the facts...or even downright false.
Conservatives can't compel us to treat their sources with good faith after that good faith has been thoroughly burned through. If conservatives insist on using their terrible sources then they're just going to have to settle for being laughed at and dismissed.
And the NSC typically doesn’t hold a press conference to say they’ve shot down a UFO including commentary that they’d sent a fighter jet to look at the thing twice and they still don’t know what it is other than an “object” and will have to recover it to figure it out.Yes ... like I said. No matter what or who you want to believe, the military doesn't broadcast everything it does, nor the reasons why. Period.
Notwithstanding, given the last two weeks of hysteria, they'd have their reasons for doing exactly that too.And the NSC typically doesn’t hold a press conference to say they’ve shot down a UFO including commentary that they’d sent a fighter jet to look at the thing twice and they still don’t know what it is other than an “object” and will have to recover it to figure it out.
Well, what we seem to have here is a response to an unknown object driven by hysterics.Notwithstanding, given the last two weeks of hysteria, they'd have their reasons for doing exactly that too.
Okay, I see that maybe I wasn't paying proper attention to news stories and may have gotten my 'feet' and 'meters' mixed up because I really wasn't paying that much attention to that balloon thingy story. That balloon stuff used to be so common 5 or so decades ago and isn't really such a big deal, in my view.<<< truncated >>>
But weren't they stating that balloon thingy wasn't a threat to commercial flights at 40,000, no?
<<< truncated >>>
He said the pilots identified the object as unmanned, non-maneuverable, and incapable of transmitting data, and the decision was made to shoot it down. What exactly its purpose is and where it came from is still being "assessed."What the NSC spokesperson said is they don’t know what it is, who owns it, or what’s it’s purpose is.
Fool me once……..
US shoots down ‘high-altitude object’ of ‘unknown origin’ over Alaska
The incident comes a week after a Chinese spy balloon was shot down over South Carolinawww.independent.co.uk
We have an epidemic……
This object was carrying a virus that would have turned all moose in Alaska into gay, trans moose that want to sneak into girls’ bathrooms. Fortunately Sarah Palin was on hand to shoot down the object herself.the good news is the "bill gates put a microchip in the vaccine" conspiracy theorists have a whole new thing to obsess about.
see, i heard is was a gay, trans elk and the bathrooms were in christian schools.This object was carrying a virus that would have turned all moose in Alaska into gay, trans moose that want to sneak into girls’ bathrooms. Fortunately Sarah Palin was on hand to shoot down the object herself.
So now conservatives are upset that we shot down the balloon right away, the thing they were demanding just last Saturday.
It's so predictable.
Fool me once……..
US shoots down ‘high-altitude object’ of ‘unknown origin’ over Alaska
The incident comes a week after a Chinese spy balloon was shot down over South Carolinawww.independent.co.uk
We have an epidemic……
The funny thing is that in actuality the hypocrisy is on the other side.
All that these "conservatives" would like is to know what we are shooting down... a spy balloon? A condor? Phileas Fogg?
Yes, drones are not car-sized.When drones violate airspace we shut it down until they clear. This was different somehow
What hypocrisy? These situations are apples and oranges.The funny thing is that in actuality the hypocrisy is on the other side.
shot down with one shot over the frozen water. It was at 45,000 ft so it was a danger to aircraft and Biden told them to shoot. They don't know whether it came from China or not..Fool me once……..
US shoots down ‘high-altitude object’ of ‘unknown origin’ over Alaska
The incident comes a week after a Chinese spy balloon was shot down over South Carolinawww.independent.co.uk
We have an epidemic……
they went up to check it out...it was in our airspace without permission and was endangering aircraft...doesn't matter what it is...it is foreign and in our territory without permission.So now the military is shooting things out of the sky without knowing what they are. Nice.
it was a danger to aircraft that belong in our airspace and it was over water...they shot it down...get over it.So now you’re in favor of shooting something because you don’t know what it is? I’d expect that from rednecks.
If it was Phileas Fogg's balloon then he apparently fell to his death before the fighters made contact since the pilots confirmed it was unmanned.
And yes, the right wing hypocrisy is not only very real, but performative. It's intentional.
They knew from the lack of bodies falling out of the explosion, apparently.
No, you seem to think the argument was that we should shot things down. But a critical element of that action is determining what we are shooting down.
The spy balloon was identified before it was shot down while this object wasn't. How is this hard for you to understand?
No.it was a danger to aircraft that belong in our airspace and it was over water...they shot it down...get over it.
Drones that are car sized??? Nah, it isn't.Maybe a drone?
they said it was a threat to air traffic...not necessarily commercial flights, but yes, they fly at around 39,000 ft so it would be an issue....if it dropped down it could collide with a plane and then there would be dead people.Without going too far off-topic, my remembering is that most companies don't like to push an airframe up toward service ceilings because of maintenance cost increases when you do that. I seem to recall that 36,000 to about 39,000 was about right, depending on meteorological conditions. Other air traffic is also a determining factor, too. But 40,000 20 years ago just wasn't the normal cruising altitude that I remember.
But weren't they stating that balloon thingy wasn't a threat to commercial flights at 40,000, no?
By the way, most of my flight time was military choppers and we never got up there. I think that box car used to do altitude records off-and-on, but don't remember how high.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?