So where's the wreckage? Why are they being so vauge? Where's the footage?!

a reply to: Zaphod58

so, the CCP balloon & electronics payload deflated to Davy Jones Locker,

3 'objects'----- 1 was pico balloon & another was a 'Batman' balloon

lastly, still unaccounted for: cylindrical-oblong-TicTac-small car sized-object, no visible propelling source


the unpiloted object unlikely to deliver strategic low-yield nukes in order to False Flage Russia/Putin

a reply to: Arbitrageur

...I don't know how much that could damage an aircraft colliding with it but I would guess not much,

...although I wouldn't want to be piloting a heavy at that altitude and have one of these sucked into one of my turbofans.

Back to the matter at hand: Even if the wreckage is elusive/remote/unapproachable (choose your alibi) - they still have better intel than we've seen. They can put much to rest by simply quelling the uproar with a few sugar-coated press conferences showing almost nothing.

Then things may settle down. Right now, time and silence are enemies of the narrative that must be dealt with soon.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Thank you for a civil response. Here is a civil reply.

The initial description of the balloon came from other sources, not this article.

Indeed it did. And here is that 'initial description', from a Reuters report dated 12 Feb.

Canadian Defence Minister Anita Anand declined to speculate about the origin of the object, which she said was cylindrical in shape.

The claim you’re making is from (ironically) a CNN article datelined 14 Feb, which has since been syndicated around the world.

The unidentified flying object shot down in Canadian airspace on Saturday appeared to be a “small, metallic balloon with a tethered payload below it,” according to what sources described as a Pentagon memo sent to lawmakers on Monday and obtained by CNN.

Two days later -- not 'initial' at all. And guess what else it says, in that very same article?

A defense official told CNN late Monday that the Pentagon has not sent an official memo to Capitol Hill but acknowledged they are continuing to brief and send correspondence to relevant committees.

So in addition to not being initial, your 'initial description' officially does not exist.

Pardon me if I prefer to accept the real initial version, the one released before the political consultants and security committees got in on the act. I’ve been in PR and political consultancy myself, and I well know how that machine works.

And yes, you’ve been very careful about not saying UFO, while stating as fact the wreckage will never be found, and they aren’t balloons. So what are they then. Please, enlighten us.

I don't know. I don't even have a speculative opinion. Nada. Nothing. Zilch.

And I did not state it as a fact that no wreckage will be found. I made what I, myself, called and call a rash prediction.

As I have very rashly predicted already: they will not find anything. Alien Event Megathread, p.9

That post is dated 15 Feb. I predicted the same in an email to another ATS member two days earlier, on 13 Feb. Obviously I can't cite that mail here without breaching personal confidentiality, so disbelieve me if you will. It's true all the same.

I said I don't know what these objects were. Being of an empirical turn of mind, I shan't even guess what they might have been, because there isn't enough information to make a reasonable guess. Yet it seems quite clear to me, from the little information available, that they were not balloons. That, I'm afraid, is as far as I am willing to commit myself.

Get it? Let me repeat it, just for clarity's sake: I don't know what the hell they are, but they're not balloons.

I still couldnt get the picture uploaded, but I saw activity around a Noaa data Aquisition site near where I go to watch the aurora the day after the Purdoh bay shoot down, roughly 500 miles from the bay. Late at night people going through a heavily protected gate and the area had enough lights pointing up that it looked like a moderate sized city from cleary summit.

a reply to: Astyanax

You're so right. The initial report is very often the CORRECT report. Especially if it is on-site professionals making the report. We saw this with the Paul Pelosi vs David DePape quarrel.

a reply to: Astyanax

Actually no it didn't come from CNN. I saw it before it was ever released by the media. I was watching information released before the media reported anything, so don't tell me that what I saw came from CNN. But thanks for telling me where I saw it. I'm so glad that you know better than I do where it came from, and where I saw it at. Always happy when people tell me things like that, so I realize I didn't read what I thought I read, where I thought I read it.

Funny that if I read it from CNN on the 14th I posted this on Feb 11th:

posted on Feb, 11 2023 @ 22:06
a reply to: putnam6

The one over Canada was identified as a metallic balloon with a suspended payload.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

So want to tell me again how I read it on CNN on the 14th? The following day that same description was in another media report. Again, not CNN two days later.

So they float like balloons, they travel on the winds like balloons, one of them matches a pico balloon, matches the last location of said pico balloon, which stopped broadcasting after it was announced an object was shot down in the area, but it's NOT a balloon. Ok, got it.

a reply to: Astyanax

I have near zero confidence in anyone's verbal description of a UFO (or UAP as some call them now).

For example, this object (the "UAP" on the right) was referred to as "cube" or alternately "acorn", though it resembles neither shape:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: Ectoplasm8
a reply to: Lucidparadox

Leaked Government Photo Shows ‘Motionless, Cube-Shaped’ UFO

The object in the photo has been described by U.S. officials as silver and “cube-shaped,” according to a report from The Debrief, which first shared the image.

The photo shows the object is not even remotely cube shaped, so I think it's a mistake to trust anybody's description of a UFO (cube, acorn, cylinder, or whatever) without seeing a photo showing the actual shape.

a reply to: AndyMayhew

Says the person posting anonymously on an extremely dodgy anonymous website

I wouldn't call ATS dodgy. Agreed, we don't know who actually owns it, but ATS is no different in that sense from any public company quoted on any stock exchange. It's been live for decades, is quite popular, and has a very clear image and remit. Besides, you're a member. So: not dodgy.

And while I agree that I am, indeed, anonymous here, I at least have a handle I use on this site, and the site administrators have an email address associated with that handle, and no doubt an IP address too. I suppose someone can find me through them if they really make the effort. The balloon article, by contrast, was unsigned, and posted on a site that does not even identify itself. I had to do a whois to obtain what little information I could about it.

But there is a much more important difference between the author of Zaphod58's posted article and me. That author makes a claim -- several of them, in fact -- and despite their use of the word 'speculation', evidently intend those claims to be taken as fact. Read the article if you don't believe me.

I, on the other hand, am merely making a rash prediction about the future. I am ready at any time to be proven wrong. I don't need credentials or factual support for that. I don't even need you or anyone else to take me seriously. All I have to do is wait, and either my prediction will be proven correct, or it won't. Let's see.

a reply to: Zaphod58

...so don't tell me that what I saw came from CNN. But thanks for telling me where I saw it. I'm so glad that you know better than I do where it came from, and where I saw it at. Always happy when people tell me things like that, so I realize I didn't read what I thought I read, where I thought I read it.

Your heavy-handed sarcasm does you no credit, it merely raises suspicions about your bona fides. Of which, more below.

I posted this on Feb 11th... Source

Very impressive indeed, considering that Justin Trudeau posted this on Twitter in the wee hours of Feb 12:

I ordered the take down of an unidentified object that violated Canadian airspace. @NORADCommand shot down the object over the Yukon. Canadian and U.S. aircraft were scrambled, and a U.S. F-22 successfully fired at the object.

You know what, Zaphod58? I thought, all this time, that you were debating in good faith -- that you sincerely believed what you were posting. I'm afraid I don't believe that any more. I'm sure you don't need me to make myself any clearer.

All the best. No further arguments (with you) from me.

a reply to: Astyanax

When you tell me where I saw something, without knowing anything about where I did, then you get sarcasm. You have no idea what I saw, or where I saw it. Again, kind of funny that I was able to post on the 11th a description that matched what was later posted by the media, both the next day, and after if I hadn't seen it somewhere.

Trudeau was right. On the 12th it was still unidentified. All that had been talked about was a general description. It wasn't until later that they said it might have been something released by either a group or a scientific agency. It wasn't identified as a possible pico balloon until yesterday.

Believe what you want. It doesn't bother me, but you don't to get away with telling me where I saw something unless you're sitting in the room with me looking over my shoulder as I read it. You don't get to tell me what I do and don't believe, or anything else without knowing a damn thing about me.

QUESTION for ATS Members Who Have Followed this month's UFO-BALLOON flap.

Both Trudeau and Biden say they ordered the shoot down of an object on Feb 11th.

Read this quick article: www.cbsnews.com...

Is it possible Biden and Trudeau fabricated a joint lie, but aren't quite in sync with telling the lie properly?

a reply to: Zaphod58

Again, kind of funny that I was able to post on the 11th a description that matched what was later posted by the media, both the next day, and after if I hadn't seen it somewhere.

Yes, honourable member, 'kind of funny' indeed. Very funny, I should say.

I trust we understand each other clearly.

Believe what you want. It doesn't bother me

As you should already have realised, I don't do belief. And in this instance, I don't need to, do I?

a reply to: Astyanax

Yeah, I totally made it up, and it just so happened to match what was reported the next day, and several days later. Sure man. Whatever you say.

a reply to: porschedrifter

So where's the wreckage? Why are they being so vauge? Where's the footage?!

You’ll never see it….I suspect…..especially if it’s not man made…


👽

a reply to: Ophiuchus1

All three came down in extremely remote areas and are fairly small. The odds of ever finding them were remote to begin with.

The latest in the news seems to show President Biden backing himself into a corner on this issue. It's now down to two choices:

1. He gave orders to shoot down $12 dollar pico balloons some kid sent up with half million dollar missiles.
2. He gave orders to shoot down something before identifying what it was. IE: "What the hell is that thing. I don't know. Shoot it!"

Either one is bad for him. I didn't want to get political but that's seems to be what the story has morphed into.

I found leaked footage of the launch of the last 3 UAPs.

Uhhh you’re on ATS and are requesting please no conspiracy theories?! Lol

What are you doing here?

This is all a lead up to the hoaxed alien invasion.

They’re trying to make it look as natural as they can with cover-ups and all that.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Yeah, I totally made it up, and it just so happened to match what was reported the next day, and several days later. Sure man. Whatever you say.

Please. I never accused you of making anything up. I am quite sure you did not.

You simply repeated what you were told –- and told, moreover, on what you believe to be good authority. I am quite sure you believe what you say. I might accuse you of credulousness and obstinacy, but I do not suspect you of bad faith.