Feb 14, 2023 02:03 AM
(This post was last modified: Feb 14, 2023 02:37 AM by C C.)
Yes, they're now noticing these because of more vigilance. But to immediately have this number over one weekend suggests that a lot of research and other "ordinary purpose" unmanned inflatable vessels in the past have been floating at "unsafe" elevations (commercial flight spaces).
- - - - - - - - -
If ‘high-altitude objects’ are not balloons or aircraft, what the heck are they? White House press briefing keeps it vague
https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidhambli...bb00b75872
INTRO: Coming immediately after an intrusion by positively identified as a Chinese espionage balloon, it is hard to assume that the new objects, which were also slow, high-altitude objects also coming from the same direction, were not simply more of the same. They might be different designs, some might even be innocent weather balloons, but it seems beyond the bounds of coincidence for them not to be further light-than-air craft.
But the Pentagon is strongly resisting this interpretation, and, even more bizarrely, refuses to call them aircraft but insists on objects ... as in unidentified flying objects... (MORE - details)
- - - - - -
Objects shot down in Alaska, Canada less advanced than Chinese balloon
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/...r-AA17rqix
EXCERPT: . . .The three objects — spotted over Alaska, Canada and Michigan — were smaller than the suspected surveillance balloon, lacked communications signals and had no ability to maneuver themselves, National Security Council coordinator John Kirby said during a news briefing. They did, however, fly at much lower altitudes than the Chinese balloon, posing a “real risk” to civilian aircraft.
“A range of entities including countries, companies research and academic organizations operate objects at these altitudes for purposes that are not nefarious at all,” said Kirby. “That said, because we have not yet been able to definitively assess what these most recent objects are, we acted out of an abundance of caution.”
“And while we have no specific reason to suspect that they were conducting surveillance of any kind, we couldn’t rule that out,” he said, adding that “we need to separate” the Chinese balloon from the other three. “They didn’t have propulsion. They weren’t being maneuvered,” Kirby said. “It was basically they were being driven by the by the wind.” (MORE - missing details)
- - - - - - - - -
If ‘high-altitude objects’ are not balloons or aircraft, what the heck are they? White House press briefing keeps it vague
https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidhambli...bb00b75872
INTRO: Coming immediately after an intrusion by positively identified as a Chinese espionage balloon, it is hard to assume that the new objects, which were also slow, high-altitude objects also coming from the same direction, were not simply more of the same. They might be different designs, some might even be innocent weather balloons, but it seems beyond the bounds of coincidence for them not to be further light-than-air craft.
But the Pentagon is strongly resisting this interpretation, and, even more bizarrely, refuses to call them aircraft but insists on objects ... as in unidentified flying objects... (MORE - details)
- - - - - -
Objects shot down in Alaska, Canada less advanced than Chinese balloon
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/...r-AA17rqix
EXCERPT: . . .The three objects — spotted over Alaska, Canada and Michigan — were smaller than the suspected surveillance balloon, lacked communications signals and had no ability to maneuver themselves, National Security Council coordinator John Kirby said during a news briefing. They did, however, fly at much lower altitudes than the Chinese balloon, posing a “real risk” to civilian aircraft.
“A range of entities including countries, companies research and academic organizations operate objects at these altitudes for purposes that are not nefarious at all,” said Kirby. “That said, because we have not yet been able to definitively assess what these most recent objects are, we acted out of an abundance of caution.”
“And while we have no specific reason to suspect that they were conducting surveillance of any kind, we couldn’t rule that out,” he said, adding that “we need to separate” the Chinese balloon from the other three. “They didn’t have propulsion. They weren’t being maneuvered,” Kirby said. “It was basically they were being driven by the by the wind.” (MORE - missing details)
