5 minutes ago, nauseus said:

I think VV may have included a wee bit of sarcasm in his comment.

You're probably correct. Although, his choice of Bolton, of all people, was strange, to say the least.

Edited February 10, 20233 yr by placeholder

1 hour ago, Phoenix Rising said:

Chinese balloon wasn’t downed over Alaska due to ‘dangerous’ recovery

 

"A senior Pentagon official on Thursday tried to justify the military’s decision not to shoot down a Chinese balloon as soon as it entered Alaskan airspace by highlighting the dangers doing so would have posed to the recovery and examination of its surveillance equipment.
She noted that bursting the balloon over Alaskan waters would have translated into “a very different recovery operation.” The Bering Sea can reach depths exceeding 13,000 feet, with below-freezing winter temperatures and ice cover in its northern portion, and all of that “can be extremely dangerous” and “induce additional risk,” she said."

 

Well, who knew!*

 

*Sarcasm alert.

Weak reasoning. They seem to be more concerned the welfare of the balloon than the American people. Bless.

3 minutes ago, placeholder said:

You're probably correct. Although, his choice of Bolton, of all people, was strange, to say the least.

Like I said, sarcasm. I think Bolton was spot on with everything he said.

5 minutes ago, nauseus said:

Weak reasoning. They seem to be more concerned the welfare of the balloon than the American people. Bless.

Was that the best you could come up with???

3 hours ago, Eric Loh said:

Likely not. Invitation by the Biden administration has been offered to brief former Trump officials about the spy balloons that they failed to detect during his administration. So far, Trump officials have not responded probably saving them from further embarrassment. 

It is the job of the military to detect balloons and other possible threats and then notify the President and his staff. If the military don't detect them then there is nothing reported and that is in line with the responses from senior ex Trump officials so far.

Edited February 10, 20233 yr by nauseus
+ then there is nothing reported

10 minutes ago, nauseus said:

Like I said, sarcasm. I think Bolton was spot on with everything he said.

A man who always vote for conflict, but avoided Vietnam himself! 

 

 

8 minutes ago, Phoenix Rising said:

Was that the best you could come up with???

Better than that BS from the Pentagon.

1 minute ago, Hummin said:

A man who always vote for conflict, but avoided Vietnam himself! 

 

 

Topic is Chinese balloons I thought.

4 minutes ago, nauseus said:

Better than that BS from the Pentagon.

You mean better than that reasonable and logical explanation from the Pentagon that completely took the wind out of your sails?

Suuuuuuure..........

1 minute ago, Phoenix Rising said:

You mean better than that reasonable and logical explanation from the Pentagon that completely took the wind out of your sails?

Suuuuuuure..........

Lame excuses must entrance you. Dream on.

7 minutes ago, nauseus said:

Topic is Chinese balloons I thought.

Well, he had an opinion he shared, and he always vote for action, but avoided his own chance to experience action. It says alot about the man!

Edited February 10, 20233 yr by Hummin

32 minutes ago, heybruce said:

I added a qualifier to fit the situation.  I could have gone further; the recovery system you refer to can only be accomplished at very low altitudes and low airspeed and with a payload attached to a line specially designed to stretch rather than jerk the payload to pieces.

 

We have never had the ability to snatch the balloon or its payload out of the sky at anywhere near the altitude the balloon was at.  That is what Gingrich claimed we could do and you agreed with him.  Just admit you are wrong, and consider not commenting on subjects you know nothing about.

 

Just because you've seen it in a movie doesn't mean it's real.

The Book of Qualifiers. Part Two. Bye.

Troll post and reply removed

41 minutes ago, nauseus said:

It is the job of the military to detect balloons and other possible threats and then notify the President and his staff. If the military don't detect them then there is nothing reported and that is in line with the responses from senior ex Trump officials so far.

Your inability to comprehend is showing up.  The report was three Chinese spy balloons infiltrated into US airspace during Trump’s administration. That rules out your obfuscation that the spy balloons were not detected. The question now is whether the Pentagon ignore the detection and fail to brief the intelligence which is a dereliction of duty or that the Commander in Chief Trump was briefed but didn’t take any action or simply he skipped most briefings and the urgency dissipated. We will know after Thursday briefing by the WH. Knowing the incompetency of the last administration, I feel that there will be lots of red faces among the GOP. 

31 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

Your inability to comprehend is showing up.  The report was three Chinese spy balloons infiltrated into US airspace during Trump’s administration. That rules out your obfuscation that the spy balloons were not detected. The question now is whether the Pentagon ignore the detection and fail to brief the intelligence which is a dereliction of duty or that the Commander in Chief Trump was briefed but didn’t take any action or simply he skipped most briefings and the urgency dissipated. We will know after Thursday briefing by the WH. Knowing the incompetency of the last administration, I feel that there will be lots of red faces among the GOP. 

The lack of comprehension ability seems to be all yours. Trump people say that there were no reports of balloons during their tenure, i.e. at that time. Since the recent fiasco, the Biden admin has suddenly claimed a that new capability to identify new AND past balloon visits now exists. No proof of that yet but if true then fine. In any event, it seems that this magic technology was not available to the Trump people during their time.   

Edited February 10, 20233 yr by nauseus

1 hour ago, nauseus said:

The Book of Qualifiers. Part Two. Bye.

The book of reality.  You and Gingrich display a profound ignorance of the subject.

49 minutes ago, nauseus said:

The lack of comprehension ability seems to be all yours. Trump people say that there were no reports of balloons during their tenure, i.e. at that time. Since the recent fiasco, the Biden admin has suddenly claimed a that new capability to identify new AND past balloon visits now exists. No proof of that yet but if true then fine. In any event, it seems that this magic technology was not available to the Trump people during their time.   

There really no magic technology but malfeasance on the part of the Trump's administration to do nothing about the China spy balloons that were circumnavigating the globe in 2019 and intrude into US. It was stated in the US Air Force documents. NORAD commander has admitted that that's a domain awareness gap and that doesn't speak well of the previous administration. 

1 hour ago, Eric Loh said:

There really no magic technology but malfeasance on the part of the Trump's administration to do nothing about the China spy balloons that were circumnavigating the globe in 2019 and intrude into US. It was stated in the US Air Force documents. NORAD commander has admitted that that's a domain awareness gap and that doesn't speak well of the previous administration. 

All with no proof of anything, either now or previously.

2 hours ago, heybruce said:

The book of reality.  You and Gingrich display a profound ignorance of the subject.

Like your penchant for hair-splitting? 

1 hour ago, Eric Loh said:

There really no magic technology but malfeasance on the part of the Trump's administration to do nothing about the China spy balloons that were circumnavigating the globe in 2019 and intrude into US. It was stated in the US Air Force documents. NORAD commander has admitted that that's a domain awareness gap and that doesn't speak well of the previous administration. 

So there have been no improvements in defence technology after all?

32 minutes ago, nauseus said:

Like your penchant for hair-splitting? 

You think the difference between possible and impossible is hair-splitting?  Or are you stubbornly refusing to admit you're wrong?

 

You started out defending Newt Gingrich's demonstrably incorrect statement “We had plenty of capacity to scoop that balloon out of the air,”.

 

It was explained that the statement was clearly wrong, was always wrong, that we don't have and never have had the capability to "scoop that balloon out of the air".  Instead of admitting you are wrong, you started "hair-splitting" about how a capability that is literally miles away (in vertical distance) from the capability necessary is sort of capable, even though it clearly isn't.

 

Give it up.  Admit you are wrong.  You don't look good arguing against the obvious.

Edited February 10, 20233 yr by heybruce

14 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Has anyone claimed the balloon was stationary? A balloon by definition does not have that ability unless there just happened to be no wind in the exact required location.

This one allegedly had propellers.

3 hours ago, heybruce said:

You think the difference between possible and impossible is hair-splitting?  Or are you stubbornly refusing to admit you're wrong?

 

You started out defending Newt Gingrich's demonstrably incorrect statement “We had plenty of capacity to scoop that balloon out of the air,”.

 

It was explained that the statement was clearly wrong, was always wrong, that we don't have and never have had the capability to "scoop that balloon out of the air".  Instead of admitting you are wrong, you started "hair-splitting" about how a capability that is literally miles away (in vertical distance) from the capability necessary is sort of capable, even though it clearly isn't.

 

Give it up.  Admit you are wrong.  You don't look good arguing against the obvious.

I've tried to explain but there is no point is there? You can turn the bright light off now. 

10 hours ago, nauseus said:

It is the job of the military to detect balloons and other possible threats and then notify the President and his staff. If the military don't detect them then there is nothing reported and that is in line with the responses from senior ex Trump officials so far.

I don't know if the military could detect a birthday party, let alone a balloon.   

 

It's going to be particularly disconcerting when they go through all the recovered data and find a long range forecast for the weather.???? 

Some news today:

 

A "high-altitude object" was shot down over Alaska earlier on Friday, the White House has said.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-64605447

8 hours ago, nauseus said:

I've tried to explain but there is no point is there? You can turn the bright light off now. 

No, I have explained, you have not.  You have claimed that what is clearly impossible is somehow sort of true.

 

Once again:  The US has the ability to pick up payloads of a few hundreds pounds on the ground when the payload is tethered to a balloon by a specially designed elastic rope or cord using a slow, low-flying aircraft.  No country has ever had the ability to snag a payload the size of three buses from a balloon floating at 85,000 feet.

 

Saying the two thing are similar is akin to stating that since a circus can shoot a man out of a cannon, the army can drop commandos behind enemy lines by shooting them out of large artillery.  It's ridiculous.

2 hours ago, nauseus said:

Some news today:

 

A "high-altitude object" was shot down over Alaska earlier on Friday, the White House has said.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-64605447

Transparent and taking decisive action. US airspace will be better safeguard when you have a competent and consultative government. 

1 minute ago, Eric Loh said:

Transparent and taking decisive action. US airspace will be better safeguard when you have a competent and consultative government. 

We'll maybe have to wait a couple of years for that then. 

Just now, nauseus said:

We'll maybe have to wait a couple of years for that then. 

Just skip the Trump’s years, it will be fine. Trust the popular votes. 

20 hours ago, nauseus said:

Connery was a hard act to follow in that role. Moore was different but I thought he was great, especially as The Saint before that. 

He was good as the Saint, but played Bond for chuckles.

Do we have no one that has the ability of Bond to sort stuff like the balloon, or are western governments all just floundering around making it up as they go along?