Aerial Event Megathread

originally posted by: Mantiss2021

originally posted by: sarahvital

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: sussy

I’m leaning towards technology tests. Trying different shapes against different sensors, at different altitudes.

the little ones could be launched from the sea from boats?

It is possible to launch even a large balloon from a ship.

As long as the relative wind speed (the speed relative to the balloon at launch, which takes into account the speed of the ship and the speed of the prevailing wind) is low enough, the balloon can be filled to launch size while contained in a "launch bag".

At T-minus 0, a tear away panel in the launch bag is torn open, and the balloon is lofted.

This technique was developed, and is deployed frequently in desert launch locations where ground winds can interfere with scheduled launches.

EtA:

One of the "objects" was described as "octagonal" by an official.

Did he mean it had 8 sides, like a doughnut, but with eight straight segments making up a ring?

Or did he mean "Octahedral", as in having 8 flat faces; like two four-sided pyramids stuck together at their bases?


If the latter, kind of reminds one of the "ice cream cone" UFO from "Close Encounters of the Third Kind".


"They're Heeeere...!"

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: alldaylong

Because most radars will filter them out. Radar is set up to look for targets of a specific strength, moving at specific speeds. If a target doesn’t meet those criteria, the computer filters it to keep from overloading the operator. The first balloon over Alaska was spotted visually first. They then removed the filters on the NORAD screens, which means that now they’re seeing everything.

Pretty much what Mike Dumont, retired vice admiral and former deputy commander for NORAD, said on NPR this afternoon.

originally posted by: Skeletonized
Does the filtering only remove on-screen blips or do clutter-defined signals get "jammed" entirely? In other words, is there a backend log function that can capture all returns but only show a selection of that to the radar operator?

The reason I ask is if everything gets logged, I could envision it being like monitoring network traffic. You have a traffic baseline, and for every spike, an alert pops up, which in turn would have to be scrutinized further. Add on some juicy machine learning algorithms that are trained to identify multiple patterns of stuff in the sky, and you have several more free sets of "eyeballs" that can enhance the overall radar operation without the cost of added workload/screen clutter.

Most, but not all radars will record everything before signal processing. It's basically just a stream of signal amplitudes and phases tied to range cells.

Signal processing can remove everything and nothing depending on what the need is. Some things are removed through signal processing of those "beams", and other things are removed through various specialized algorithms that are there for maintaining whatever function the radar plays.

Reprocessing the recorded data different ways can reveal different things. Also, just putting eyes on the raw data displayed relative to some baseline can be pretty telling sometimes. Most of what a radar can do is managed by software algorithms. The initial return signal is almost useless without them.

originally posted by: SirHardHarry

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: alldaylong

Because most radars will filter them out. Radar is set up to look for targets of a specific strength, moving at specific speeds. If a target doesn’t meet those criteria, the computer filters it to keep from overloading the operator. The first balloon over Alaska was spotted visually first. They then removed the filters on the NORAD screens, which means that now they’re seeing everything.

Pretty much what Mike Dumont, retired vice admiral and former deputy commander for NORAD, said on NPR this afternoon.

That is most likely why they suddenly started seeing more stuff, but the bigger question is why they are being so odd about the whole thing and sort of toying with the public about the "ET" angle. I also understand the mentality in that community to never commit to anything without approval, but seriously, they could squash that speculation easily without taking any heat from above.

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: Zaphod58

Before last week we did not know that these automobile sized craft were flying all over the place at 38 to 42,000 ft?

we'd better scramble a couple blackbirds to check them out.

or maybe a couple cessnas with some gang bangers for a driveby.



it's a friggin balloon.

originally posted by: sarahvital

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: Zaphod58

Before last week we did not know that these automobile sized craft were flying all over the place at 38 to 42,000 ft?

we'd better scramble a couple blackbirds to check them out.

or maybe a couple cessnas with some gang bangers for a driveby.

it's a friggin balloon.

The SR-71 has been retired for decades and it was designed for spying, not intercepting balloons.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: TonyS

I’m thinking semi rigid airships, so something along those lines, yes.

How do you suppose they are powered and steered?

Thx.

a reply to: Latro

It's possible they have solar panels built in, or an onboard power supply. As for steering, I'm betting an embedded thrust vectoring system or something similar. Just enough for station keeping or some slight turns. Mostly they're probably drifting with the winds.

Both AESIR11 and AESIR12 returned minus one AIM-9. The first shot fired at the object over Lake Huron missed, so a second shot was taken.

originally posted by: sarahvital

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: Zaphod58

Before last week we did not know that these automobile sized craft were flying all over the place at 38 to 42,000 ft?

we'd better scramble a couple blackbirds to check them out.

or maybe a couple cessnas with some gang bangers for a driveby.

it's a friggin balloon.

The "mysterious" UFO's started appearing right after the Non-UFO Chinese Spy Balloon collected information while hovering over America for a few days.

The United States knew of these 38,000 to 42,000 flight-level car-sized UFO's before, but didn't start "caring" about them until after China gave us the middle-finger during their multiple day spy mission?

Didn't start caring about them before the China Spy Balloon embarrassment, even though these (ALLEGED) vehicles present an "imminent danger" to passenger jets?

IMO, there is something big going on in the areas of U.S. DEFLECTION, COVERUP, and DECEPTION.

If officials knew about them and didn't do anything to protect airline passengers.....CRIMINAL NEGLECT.

If officials didn't know about them before last week......SHAME ON THEIR INEPTNESS.

If these automobile-sized craft do NOT exist....CRIMINAL DECEPTION.

WHICH ONE of the above are we experiencing???

Audio of the Lake Huron shootdown.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Spiramirabilis

NORAD turned off the filters the other night, which is one reason they found these others so quickly. We haven’t done direct overflights, but a few of our systems have pushed things a little.

So basically these Surveillance Craft have been operating with impunity likely for years taking advantage of a weakness in NORAD's system .

Taking the same Flight path for years it seems , but now that path is compromised and anything on it is being shot down.

I'm surprised this isn't sparking an all out War but then again who knows what's really going on.

a reply to: asabuvsobelow

They aren't going to go to war over a series of unarmed balloons. And they're taking advantage of all radar systems. They've been flown over as many as 40 countries over the last number of years. They're using the same flight path because they're following the jet stream, which, for the most part, follows the same path with fairly minor changes.

a reply to: Zaphod58

I see , But the Chinese aren't gong to like that massive gap in there Intel Stream .

I'm not saying they are blind in America now but it certainly weakens their hold , for that matter it theoretically stops this whole Balloon fiasco in it's tracks if it's following the Jet stream .

Imagine if they started Knocking our Satellites out of orbit , you could say it would ruffle some feathers.

originally posted by: asabuvsobelow
a reply to: Zaphod58

I see , But the Chinese aren't gong to like that massive gap in there Intel Stream .

I'm not saying they are blind in America now but it certainly weakens their hold , for that matter it theoretically stops this whole Balloon fiasco in it's tracks if it's following the Jet stream .

Imagine if they started Knocking our Satellites out of orbit , you could say it would ruffle some feathers.

Satellites are a different matter altogether.

China, Russia, and the US, as well as more than a dozen other countries, are all signatories of the Outer Space Treaty, which, among other things, assures that all nations have access to Earth orbit.

Overflights by foreign are unavoidable as a function of orbital mechanics, and are fully permitted by the treaty.

Outer space is not airspace.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Blackish in Origin of the color? and with the size of a car?
I dont think that is anything close to a balloon..

a reply to: vNex92

Very high altitude balloons can get to 200 feet in diameter. But a smaller balloon can't be the size of a car? I'd love to hear how that works.

a reply to: Zaphod58

For the first time in a modern day and age for F/16 which also according to the reports i had read.

An F/16 had actually missed the target the target in Over Lake Huron.

I understand the pilot codes, and what they were saying in the audio.

I am baffled.
because this was an actually an UFO/UAP we could be in oops territory.


I demand an video of this.

a reply to: vNex92

You can demand all you want. The Pentagon isn’t going to release video because someone on a message board demands it. As for missing, I’ve pointed out multiple times that it’s not easy to down these balloons. They have a minimal radar and infrared signature, so hitting them with a missile isn’ta guaranteed thing.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: asabuvsobelow

They aren't going to go to war over a series of unarmed balloons. And they're taking advantage of all radar systems. They've been flown over as many as 40 countries over the last number of years. They're using the same flight path because they're following the jet stream, which, for the most part, follows the same path with fairly minor changes.

Thanks for your answer to my previous questions regarding steering and power.

As I understand it, the jet stream can have winds that vary from just over 50 mph to about 250 mph. My novice assessment is that the jet streams are not really "meandering", so much as they are a lot of speed-up, slow-down and lateral shift.

So, with solar panels , and I assume you mean some small gas vectoring system, my question would be not so much how fast it can go, but how quickly it can break and compensate for unexpected change.

Seems little gas jets and meager solar power would not really cut it, especially with these Volkswagen-sized deals that have no control surfaces.