16
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 30 Jun 2023
16 points (100.0% liked)
World News
32083 readers
741 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
Or the most logical explanation that it's a weather balloon that blew off course and that US regime has been cynically lying about.
There have been multiple incidents of Chinese balloons that "flew off course" and ended up over sovereign airspace.
If China doesn't want its balloons destroyed, it will have to do a better job controlling its "research instruments".
Balloons that follow air currents have blown of course more than once, wow that's sinister. The fact that US reacted in an absolutely deranged fashion to a weather balloon being blown off course is the real story here. It shows the whole world that US is run by a dangerous and unstable regime. The fact that such unhinged lunatics have the second largest nuclear arsenal in the world should worry everyone.
But real weather balloons do not follow air currents. They ascend and descend over the same point, so that they can be easily recovered by real scientists. Real weather balloons are also far smaller. Various scientists, not just Americans, said that the Chinese balloons did not resemble the instruments they use.
Of course they do, there are global air currents that high altitude weather balloons follow. Maybe stop making shit up already?
https://www.cnn.com/2023/02/14/world/spy-balloon-science-weather-uses-scn/index.html
I'm afraid you are the one making things up. The article doesn't say anything about balloons following air currents, quite the opposite:
Normal weather balloons are far smaller and incapable of crossing an ocean. The Chinese balloon was not a normal weather balloon.
This is going to blow your mind, but there are different kinds of balloons for different purposes. Also, the word can has a different meaning from the world must. Perhaps work on your reading comprehension?
Sure, it's possible that China deployed a completely novel type of weather balloon. But if so, it should not be surprised by the interception of its unusual balloon when it entered US airspace.
For that matter, if you designed a brand new weather instrument that was carried in the back of a Cessna, and then you flew that Cessna into Chinese airspace to carry out your measurements, then you should expect to be intercepted and probably arrested. After all, Mathias Rust was sentenced to four years for violating Soviet airspace.
It's not a completely novel type of balloon, these types of balloons have been used literally for decades. I love how you keep lying about something that's very easy to verify. At this point you're just exposing yourself as a clown.
https://www.mlive.com/weather/2023/02/balloon-tracking-101-how-weather-balloons-can-travel-in-our-jet-stream.html
You should read the articles before you link to them. This one describes normal weather balloons, which are far smaller than the Chinese balloons and can only travel about 100 miles.
I have, the article pretty clearly explains how weather balloons can get caught in air currents. 🤡
And does it explain how air currents can add two thousand pounds of equipment to a balloon?
What does that have to do with anything. Just to repeat this, the context of the whole discussion is that US *admitted that there is no spy equipment on the balloon. The fact that you keep keep digging here is absolutely hilarious. You made an absurd statement that is disproved by 2 seconds of googling. Then you got called out on it, and instead of admitting that you stated nonsense you just keep doubling down. It's absolutely incredible to watch.
Once again, you are making things up.
The US said the spy balloon was certainly capable of spying, but it did not collect information over the US, in part because of the American response.
Keep digging
No digging required, it's all on the surface.
Even the headline to the original article said the balloon did not collect information. It never said the balloon did not carry surveillance equipment, you incorrectly assumed that.