4 flying objects have been shot down over North America: “Spy balloons and UFOs up to no good” (1 Viewer)

[facook]

First they put pee-pee in our Coke. And now this.

Now China says there may be retaliation for shooting down their balloon. Can't make this **** up.

What are they going to do? Release a previously unknown virus that kills millions and paralyzes the world economy? We've already taken their best punch.

This was step ***3***, apparently.

 

[fatness]

It's probably true that they can jam this sort of thing, but don't you think it's a little naive to take "military experts" at their word here? This is the exact sort of thing that they absolutely would lie about.

That sounds like this.

 

[rockaction]

That sounds like this.

He means they lie to the public as part of their job. Not that some unqualified person is better to judge and assess a real and complex situation than an expert.

Big ****ing difference. Not even close, and an inapt analogy there. He's saying it's part of the job to lie so why should we believe them? That's a pretty damn good question, actually.

 

[fatness]

He's saying it's part of the job to lie so why should we believe them?

Who do you believe about this whole spy balloon situation?

 

[rockaction]

Who do you believe about this whole spy balloon situation?

Basically nobody. It's not their job to keep us informed (see: the four balloons or so that flew over during the Trump administration) and up-to-date on the latest comings and goings of Chinese aerial spying. They sure haven't in the past.

Who do you believe?

I'm left staring into a void of lies. Maybe if everything wasn't classified or not within the public purview then I might believe somebody.

 

[fatness]

I'm left staring into a void of lies.

OK, have fun there.

I think there have been at least 5 known Chinese spy balloons that have gone over the US, 2 under Biden and 3 under Trump, and that none of them have been shot down or even mentioned until one became visible and got shot down where it wouldn't endanger people or property. I think that during the coming weeks we'll learn more about what the balloon was carrying and what its capabilities were and were not.

 

[fatness]

This is interesting. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/05/us/politics/chinese-spy-balloon-shot-down.html

A U.S. official said on Sunday that there were ways for intelligence officials to feed false information to the balloon, which would largely render the information it gathered worthless. He declined to say whether that was done in this case.

 

[fatness]

And this is funny. I'm picturing Wile E. Coyote and a big ACME crate: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/05/us/politics/chinese-spy-balloon-shot-down.html

For days before the balloon was shot down, American officials debated various ways of bringing it to earth, including using a giant net or hook.

 

[Doug B]

“They can’t — and shouldn’t — be forthright with the public” doesn’t necessarily mean “they’re bumbling idiots covering their butts at every turn”.

Makes more intuitive sense to me that China and the U.S. have been playing clandestine intelligence games for a long time … and in this particular episode, the general public finally noticed something. This forced a public reckoning of something that otherwise would’ve been an invisible chess move.

Basically: I think the US didn’t want China to have any inkling of what US intelligence knows about those balloons. But now the game is up.

 

[Doug B]

This is interesting. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/05/us/politics/chinese-spy-balloon-shot-down.html

A U.S. official said on Sunday that there were ways for intelligence officials to feed false information to the balloon, which would largely render the information it gathered worthless. He declined to say whether that was done in this case.

Yes. Most people assume a ballon like that is looking or watching — taking photos of sites or something like that.

Instead, that balloon was almost certainly listening rather than looking. And so you can “jam it” by feeding it something “louder” than what it was passively listening for.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

"Officials worst fears that Chinese balloon was prelude to invasion confirmed as contents revealed to contain 50,000 finger traps. The suspected target was Washington D.C."

 

[STEADYMOBBIN 22]

Why anyone would believe any government at all is insane to me.

We are incredibly lucky to have been born where and when we have. Safest time ever in the known history of mankind.

You have no control or true knowledge of anything. You will never be told the actual truth on matters of true importance. Even if you present them with the truth they can lie and worst case, have you removed.


Live the best life you can while the going is good. Ignore the rest.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

It's probably true that they can jam this sort of thing, but don't you think it's a little naive to take "military experts" at their word here? This is the exact sort of thing that they absolutely would lie about.

That sounds like this.

It's the opposite of that, actually. This is one of those situations where none of us following this via the media really have any idea what's going on. I'm just acknowledging that.

If you think that you definitely know what this balloon was doing and what countermeasures we have against it, you're the dude in the cartoon.

 

[ghostguy123]

I would HOPE that if they truly thought this balloon was legit spying on very sensitive things that they would have shot it down ASAP, regardless of where it landed and if it killed a few people.
After all, pretty sure a few lives is worth not being taken over by China in a war killing millions.
Just sayin.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

regardless of where it landed and if it killed a few people.

Huh?

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I would HOPE that if they truly thought this balloon was legit spying on very sensitive things that they would have shot it down ASAP, regardless of where it landed and if it killed a few people.
After all, pretty sure a few lives is worth not being taken over by China in a war killing millions.
Just sayin.

A big part of the question is to what degree this spy balloon gives China anything that it couldn't have gotten from satellites. This is weird to say, but if the balloon is just an obnoxious, low-tech spy satellite, then who cares if it takes a bunch of photographs of some launch sites? China already has those anyway.

Of course, why would China send a balloon into US airspace to do the same work that a satellite would do? Presumably the balloon does something novel. We (those of us posting in this thread) just don't know what that is. Maybe it has different sensors. Maybe it can intercept broadcasts. Maybe it scrambles porn channels and thereby inflames social tensions. I don't know, and neither do any of us. It's at least possible that our own government doesn't even know.

And maybe this isn't even a technological thing. Maybe China has been sending balloons over here knowing that eventually the public would find out about them, and they're just doing this for some strange political reason. Maybe they think this is a Sputnik moment for them. Maybe they just want to keep us on our toes. Maybe they didn't want Blinken visiting them and did this intentionally to scuttle that meeting for reasons that we don't know. Maybe the Chinese military and Chinese government aren't 100% on the same page (unlikely, but weirder things have happened).

It's quite possible that our own leaders don't know for sure what this balloon does or why China keeps sending them. Anybody in this forum speaking with more certainty than that doesn't know what they're talking about and can be safely ignored.

 

[rockaction]

Maybe the Chinese military and Chinese government aren't 100% on the same page (unlikely, but weirder things have happened).

This was the working theory of an expert in China relations that was on CNN. I tried to take note of his qualifications, and they seemed legit. But that's what he was saying. That the PLA leadership and the PRC leadership weren't on the same page.

 

[Leroy Hoard]

Maybe it scrambles porn channels and thereby inflames social tensions.

And to think I was blaming Comcast for that.

 

[ghostguy123]

regardless of where it landed and if it killed a few people.

Huh?

Huh what?
Problem with killing a few to save millions??
Again, this is very much dependent on what our guys know about the balloon.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

Problem with killing a few to save millions??

My problem is with tremendous leaps of logic.

This is a balloon we're talking about, not a space ship with a cloaking device that would get away if we didn't act quickly.

Maybe they can shoot it down over your house since it isn't such a big deal.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I'm left staring into a void of lies.

OK, have fun there.

I think there have been at least 5 known Chinese spy balloons that have gone over the US, 2 under Biden and 3 under Trump, and that none of them have been shot down or even mentioned until one became visible and got shot down where it wouldn't endanger people or property. I think that during the coming weeks we'll learn more about what the balloon was carrying and what its capabilities were and were not.

If you can understand why national security leaders didn't disclose these balloon incursions to the public previously, why is it so hard for you to understand that those exact same officials might be less than totally candid with us right now?

 

[ghostguy123]

Problem with killing a few to save millions??

My problem is with tremendous leaps of logic.

This is a balloon we're talking about, not a space ship with a cloaking device that would get away if we didn't act quickly.

Maybe they can shoot it down over your house since it isn't such a big deal.

You clearly didn't read what I wrote.

 

[rockaction]

That the top brass in the military are lying for effect cannot be a new sentiment. See: Pentagon Papers, The

Those documents that showed exactly how much the military was lying about the Vietnam War. And we're supposed to believe that it's gotten better? After 9/11? What, the Church hearings got everything the citizen wants back under his or her purview?

I think not.

 

[rockaction]

Anyway, this isn't to get political about it. The divide seems weird, if you ask me. I'm just trying to say that the public is generally on a need-to-know basis with its own military and security operations, and we don't really need to know in this instance. Why would they be truthful?

 

[Dr. Octopus]

You clearly didn't read what I wrote.

I did.

 

[Doug B]

Anyway, this isn't to get political about it. The divide seems weird, if you ask me. I'm just trying to say that the public is generally on a need-to-know basis with its own military and security operations, and we don't really need to know in this instance. Why would they be truthful?

The Department of Defense is not just going to lay everything out on the table to sate the public's curiosity, no. For obvious reasons.

That doesn't mean that there aren't some suppositions that are more plausible than others, or that some thinking and logic can't be applied to what we do know to meaningfully discuss issues related to the balloon(s).

 

[Doug B]

For instance:

"They've probably got cameras on that balloon -- and they were flying over nuclear silo sites!!!!"

Meh, unlikely. Wouldn't be gathering new intelligence to snap photos of silo sites that have been public knowledge for decades. I'd be shocked of detailed maps of those silos and adjacent facilities haven't been making the international intelligence rounds forever.

 

[AAABatteries]

The armchair QB'ing in this thread is stupendous. None of us have any clue what is going on nor should we. And what is the chef's kiss is I'll get likes for this post from some of the same people who are doing it.

 

[JIslander]

Maybe I'm naive, but it sure sounds like this isn't anything new that China is doing and that the US is doing in other ways elsewhere - we'll never know for sure and its just total postulation trying to figure out their war games --- IMO we spend too much time on daily politics as it is --NOT surprised this is now political.

 

[rockaction]

The Department of Defense is not just going to lay everything out on the table to sate the public's curiosity, no. For obvious reasons.

That doesn't mean that there aren't some suppositions that are more plausible than others, or that some thinking and logic can't be applied to what we do know to meaningfully discuss issues related to the balloon(s).

I think, much like with news media, you're interpreting my argument as far more sweeping in scope than it is. I certainly never said that. In fact, I just quoted an "expert" on CNN to back up the plausible theory that the PLA and PRC weren't on the same page.

 

[Doug B]

The Department of Defense is not just going to lay everything out on the table to sate the public's curiosity, no. For obvious reasons.

That doesn't mean that there aren't some suppositions that are more plausible than others, or that some thinking and logic can't be applied to what we do know to meaningfully discuss issues related to the balloon(s).

I think, much like with news media, you're interpreting my argument as far more sweeping in scope than it is. I certainly never said that. In fact, I just quoted an "expert" on CNN to back up the plausible theory that the PLA and PRC weren't on the same page.

I'm actually having a hard time figuring out who or what you and Ivan are railing against. I don't think anyone in this thread is unaware that the DoD is not going to be an open book on the matter. That doesn't mean that what they say publicly is completely useless in figuring out what's been going on. Can't take it at face value, true. But you can read the tea leaves, as it were. With certainty? Of course not. But good enough for message-board chatter.

 

[rockaction]

I'm actually having a hard time figuring out who or what you and Ivan are railing against.

Pretty much the entire system of classified information in my case. That doesn't mean you can't read tea leaves. But it's also way beyond the point of fatness's analogy where the guy who obviously isn't qualified to fly the plane tries to. The pilot's license and credentialing is at least transparent and doesn't depend on somebody else not knowing how to fly.

If I had my druthers, there would be a lot less classification and more rigorous public debate about what to do with known knowns, to quote our evergreen military philosopher of the 21st century. Because right now it looks like this.

Who is to say what's classified? *shrugs*

Who is to say who is qualified to classify that sensitive information? *shrugs*

Who is to say what the content of the unclassified information is or what gets disseminated? *shrugs*

But they certainly aren't lying to us, are they?

I mean, I think Ivan's broader point was about trusting military spokesmen to give you an accurate picture of what was going on. Same here. Any additions to that vis a vis policy and I'm only speaking for myself.

 

[The General]

We’ll just have to wait to find out what was classified when some Senator cleans out their home office in a couple years and finds these folders.

I’ll go with the Chinese balloon malfunctioned, it was as useful to let it float around for a couple days as to blow it up to the cloak and dagger folks, it is also a bit more complex than simply blowing it up immediately than you’d think.

 

[Charlie Steiner]

Pretty much the entire system of classified information in my case. That doesn't mean you can't read tea leaves. But it's also way beyond the point of fatness's analogy where the guy who obviously isn't qualified to fly the plane tries to. The pilot's license and credentialing is at least transparent and doesn't depend on somebody else not knowing how to fly.

If I had my druthers, there would be a lot less classification and more rigorous public debate about what to do with known knowns, to quote our evergreen military philosopher of the 21st century. Because right now it looks like this.

Who is to say what's classified? *shrugs*

Who is to say who is qualified to classify that sensitive information? *shrugs*

Who is to say what the content of the unclassified information is or what gets disseminated? *shrugs*

But they certainly aren't lying to us, are they?

I mean, I think Ivan's broader point was about trusting military spokesmen to give you an accurate picture of what was going on. Same here. Any additions to that vis a vis policy and I'm only speaking for myself.

Fog of Peace

 

[Doug B]

It's probably true that they can jam this sort of thing, but don't you think it's a little naive to take "military experts" at their word here? This is the exact sort of thing that they absolutely would lie about.

They might well lie about it ... but we can certainly apply a "plausibility sieve" to what's been said publicly. We're not groping around in total darkness.

I also think that the moops more general point -- that there are those behind the curtain that know more than the general public and that those same people act on that 'secret knowledge' -- is correct. Still, I can agree that public statements shouldn't be taken at face value.

 

[Doug B]

Pretty much the entire system of classified information in my case.

That's a big, broad topic to be sure. Narrowing it down to the espionage cold war between China and the U.S., why information about this is classified is certainly no mystery, right?

 

[rockaction]

Narrowing it down to the espionage cold war between China and the U.S., why information about this is classified is certainly no mystery, right?

Yes. It keeps U.S. citizens safe that China doesn't know what we know or don't know. Not really difficult to understand.

 

[the moops]

I also think that the moops more general point -- that there are those behind the curtain that know more than the general public and that those same people act on that 'secret knowledge' -- is correct. Still, I can agree that public statements shouldn't be taken at face value.

Nothing to disagree with here.

My only point was that 1) it wasn't as simple as "just shooting a balloon down" and 2) I imagine this thing would have been blown out of the sky in Montana if there was a major breach in our security

 

[IvanKaramazov]

actually having a hard time figuring out who or what you and Ivan are railing against.

I'm not railing against anything. If you read back through the thread, you might notice that I don't have a pet theory of what this was all about.

I guess it's a sign of the times that somebody saying "We don't have all the fact here, so let's be calm and reserve judgement" is seen as "railing against" something, as opposed to just encouraging a little epistemological humility.

 

[rockaction]

I also think that the moops more general point -- that there are those behind the curtain that know more than the general public and that those same people act on that 'secret knowledge' -- is correct. Still, I can agree that public statements shouldn't be taken at face value.

Actually, I think you mean "therefore." Because what you describe is precisely the reason Ivan (make that "me") is telling you not to trust the establishment.

I think you're blurring the lines between normative and descriptive here.

 

[rockaction]

The normative question is whether classified information is ethical in a democratic republic and to what degree and concerning what.

The descriptive process has been covered by both yourself and Ivan. There are some people that know what the general public doesn't know as it relates to this case. It is not in the public's interest to disclose that information, and public interest is paramount in our republic. Therefore, the military is not disclosing the truth of the matter to the general public due to public interest concerns.

 

[Doug B]

I'm not railing against anything.

I'll admit that "railing" is too strong a term. Perhaps better expressed as "what you were posting against".

As for epistemological humility ... I think most everyone is reserving judgment in some sense, recognizing that we can't know all the details.

 

[Doug B]

Because what you describe is precisely the reason Ivan (make that "me") is telling you not to trust the establishment.

It's not as pat as that. Distrust can manifest in different ways to different degrees.

"Since we know up front that we're not getting an open-book account, let's discuss (for fun, really) what's reasonable/plausible and what's not."

"If someone from the government/establishment said it, we can summarily discount every syllable of it. It's just obfuscation on top of obfuscation on top of still more obfuscation. Nothing to be mined."

 

[rockaction]

It's not as pat as that. Distrust can manifest in different ways to different degrees.

Sure. I think, much like with the news media debates, you've ascribed a further out position than is actually being taken by people that maintain a healthy dose of skepticism for good reasons. In other words, your number two sounds like the default position you're ascribing to people who are really saying the first.

And that you keep coming back to that position leads me to believe that you haven't noticed that not once did I or anyone say that you couldn't discuss what was reasonable or plausible. I'm just saying you cannot trust the establishment to be forthright when they have announced to you that a) they won't be, and b) that they haven't been forthright before in very similar situations.

 

[Doug B]

Actually, I think you mean "therefore."

I meant "still" because on this matter, I don't have a problem with state secrecy.

 

[3C's]

God bless the boys from Shaw AFB for bringing this thing down.

Shaw? The F22s are based at Langley AFB. Shaw has F16s.

 

[Doug B]

We're fairly far afield ... let me try to go back to the origin and post the discussion from page 5 of this thread that lead up to the current back-&-forth. I'll put my comments in red.

Orange&Blue: I'd like to see the math on the chances of it hitting a house or person in Montana. (Reasonable to question this. I think the calculation was less about hitting people or property and more about 'controlability' of the debris field. Someone on another thread made what to me was a winning point: 'You don't want some rancher deciding that debris that fell on his property belonged to him,')​

​

fatness: Greater than the chances of it hitting a house or person in the ocean. (See above)​

​

GoBirds: Sure, as long as you are willing to let them gather whatever intel they want across the country before doing anything. If you haven’t been to Montana there are plenty of places where the odds would be no worse. (See above. Additionally, I find it plausible that - once detected and tracked - the balloon wasn't gathering usable intel any longer as explained below. Plausible, not locked down.)​

​

the moops: Did you not read the numerous reports that the US was able to jam their capabilities? But maybe you know more about this than the military experts. (IMHO, such jamming that the moops has conjectured here is basic intel stuff [especially given that I believe the devices are passive listeners, and requires only a 'louder' drown-out signal to be in the proximity]. IOW, very highly plausible -- pretty safe to assume, even)​

​

IvanKaramazov: It's probably true that they can jam this sort of thing, but don't you think it's a little naive to take "military experts" at their word here? This is the exact sort of thing that they absolutely would lie about. (The hitch: There's no need to take the military experts word here, the moops' invocation notwithstanding. Messing with the balloon's information-gathering capabilities is too basic of a response to really question IMHO. The logically-derived counter-idea that 'the balloon just befuddled U.S. defenses and that no one knew what to do for 24-48 hours' is highly implausible to me.)​

 

[The General]

We're fairly far afield ... let me try to go back to the origin and post the discussion from page 5 of this thread that lead up to the current back-&-forth. I'll put my comments in red.

Orange&Blue: I'd like to see the math on the chances of it hitting a house or person in Montana. (Reasonable to question this. I think the calculation was less about hitting people or property and more about 'controlability' of the debris field. Someone on another thread made what to me was a winning point: 'You don't want some rancher deciding that debris that fell on his property belonged to him,')​

​

fatness: Greater than the chances of it hitting a house or person in the ocean. (See above)​

​

GoBirds: Sure, as long as you are willing to let them gather whatever intel they want across the country before doing anything. If you haven’t been to Montana there are plenty of places where the odds would be no worse. (See above. Additionally, I find it plausible that - once detected and tracked - the balloon wasn't gathering usable intel any longer as explained below. Plausible, not locked down.)​

​

the moops: Did you not read the numerous reports that the US was able to jam their capabilities? But maybe you know more about this than the military experts. (IMHO, such jamming that the moops has conjectured here is basic intel stuff [especially given that I believe the devices are passive listeners, and requires only a 'louder' drown-out signal to be in the proximity]. IOW, very highly plausible -- pretty safe to assume, even)​

​

IvanKaramazov: It's probably true that they can jam this sort of thing, but don't you think it's a little naive to take "military experts" at their word here? This is the exact sort of thing that they absolutely would lie about. (The hitch: There's no need to take the military experts word here, the moops' invocation notwithstanding. Messing with the balloon's information-gathering capabilities is too basic of a response to really question IMHO. The logically-derived counter-idea that 'the balloon just befuddled U.S. defenses and that no one knew what to do for 24-48 hours' is highly implausible to me.)​

This all seems pretty good. Also happens to be roughly what we were being told. As it is an interesting story and fun to speculate I'd throw out there was some value in letting it float around to the the military / black hat folks.

 

[SWC]

if were gonna talk releasing secrets then my question is why we cant make ole colornol sanders release his secret seven herbs and spices so that i can eat like a fat cat every night but thats just me talkin take that to the bank brohans

 

[Runkle]

Probably a pretext to escalate tension in order to make the eventual de-escalation involve reducing US protection of Taiwan.