Recent UFOs - Why would shoot/recover ever be our policy?

Hi all,

Something really bugging me about these recent “Balloon” UFOs and specifically the US Military response to them.

In what world are we supposed to believe that when our military spots a UFO traveling 20-40MPH, whether we believe it is from a foreign nation or ET, we would hit it with a missile and let all of those valuable contents plunge thousands of feet to then smack and scatter into a body of water???

I don’t claim to be an expert in aviation or really any related field, but I think if you give me 2 hrs and a couple of engineers we would come up with no less than 10 methods for disabling/retrieving said UFO in a far less destructive manner. Swallow it with another vehicle, hit it with a grappling hook attached to another vehicle, guide it with a drone(s), stretch a giant tarp below before you explode it. You get the point, why did we supposedly solve this problem like cavemen?

You are telling me the US military doesn’t have any methods already R&D’d and ready to go for this? The worlds most sophisticated military and we come up with “shoot it with an unarmed missile, let it fall, hope you can scoop it all up” ???

I don’t buy it.

Capturing an enemy drone to analyze without exploding it has surely necessitated the creation of better methods.

Maybe that is why there is no video of the latter (3)?

a reply to: Framesend

Nothing about it smells right to me.
Nothing.

a reply to: Framesend

Maybe that is why there is no video of the latter (3)?

Ding ding.

Have we even seen the massive payload of the first balloon?

This is a dog and pony show.

a reply to: Framesend

I think the problem is the height at which these objects travel , I believe the Chinese balloon was at about 60,000 ft while the others were at 30,000 to 40,000 ft , not sure capturing them is an option.

Let us hope that not some friendly alien race drops by while Biden is busy shooting down floating stuff.

If we were able to grab film on chutes with helicopters from satellites, I am sure we could come up with something

originally posted by: Spacespider
Let us hope that not some friendly alien race drops by while Biden is busy shooting down floating stuff.

The UFO's name was "Corn Pops" and it had hairy legs which the children liked to rub...no malarkey here, nope....

Oh look, it's a balloon ! There's more !! It's Trump's fault !!
[Yes they actually blame Trump for all this ]

What's going on ? Why are we suddenly focusing on balloons ?

What is it they don't want us to notice ?

a reply to: Framesend

The problem with the first balloon was it's altitude, which would negate all of your solutions.

The other balloons? Who knows.

I don't believe anything they say.

a reply to: Framesend

How many aircraft do we have, that are not themselves, balloons of some type, can fly at 20,000 - 60,000 feet altitude, slow enough to "capture" another object in mid-air?

Your capture craft has to fly slow because, Physics. Kinetic energy equals mass plus speed, essentially.

The more mass (the known mass of your vehicle plus the unknown mass of the target), plus the combined speed of contact between the two vehicles = CRASH!!!

Given the risks involved, the vehicle you use to attempt a capture would most certainly have to remotely piloted.


How many remote controlled airships do you think we have in stock?


How much grief and ridicule has the military had to endure every time an airship program has been prposed?

originally posted by: Framesend

In what world are we supposed to believe that when our military spots a UFO traveling 20-40MPH, whether we believe it is from a foreign nation or ET, we would hit it with a missile and let all of those valuable contents plunge thousands of feet to then smack and scatter into a body of water???

'

This world. The first balloon was never considered ET, was picked up as it entered Alaskan airspace, and tracked across the country until it was safe to shoot it down. Acknowledged now as Chinese, the US gained a great deal of information about it while the Chinese learned almost nothing special. Why? Because we jammed its transmissions and made sure our missile silos were closed, which is what they were after to learn how we protected them. The balloon violated the US airspace, so it was a valid target, just like our U2 was a valid target shot down by the Soviet Union. The Chinese balloon wasn't "civilian." It wasn't "innocent." It wasn't a "weather balloon." It was designed to capture intelligence. How do we know? Because we retrieved it in a whopping 50 feet of water. The "valuable contents" were antennas of all sorts to receive and send data. Now we know exactly what they were up to. US: 1, China: 0.

Why now and not before? Because we have recently tweaked our radar and other interception equipment to track a broader variety of number of devices. Before we pretty much were tracking airplanes, icbms, and cruise missiles. But with the new congressional mandate to get serious about UFOs, The "filters" used to treat that sort of stuff as clutter and extraneous have been removed, hence, voila, more targets.

The object(s) violated US airspace and did not identify itself and neither did anyone acknowledge it was theirs .
The U S military had a decision to make .
Had it have flown over the no-go zones , there would have been NO decision to make .
Eventually they made their decision .

The reason for the recovery : they have to find out what it was .

Thread answered .

originally posted by: Mantiss2021
a reply to: Framesend

How many aircraft do we have, that are not themselves, balloons of some type, can fly at 20,000 - 60,000 feet altitude, slow enough to "capture" another object in mid-air?

How many remote controlled airships do you think we have in stock?


How much grief and ridicule has the military had to endure every time an airship program has been prposed?

I don’t have much of a frame of reference for what 20,000-60,000 ft means and the difficulties involved so was hoping to hear things like this.

Yes these are interesting and plausible explanations to me. Not that it would be impossible for them to accomplish but that this caveman method is far more cost-efficient or the info they could gain from capturing them intact is negligible.

From Tucker C…..


👽

The whole thing stinks. The Canadian Prime Minister was in the Yukon yesterday, where the UFO was shot down. Way, way up north, and far away from the Canadian capital. When I saw that yesterday I immediately told friends and thought "it's gotta be something "big" if he traveled all the way up to "Butt F Idaho" to see this wreckage in person."

Now they are saying it was a big "nothing burger" in Canada? Cmon Justin Trudeau wouldn't travel 2000 thousand miles north if there was nothing to see up there.

Just my opinion, don't make sense he would go way up north to the freaking Yukon if there was nothing to see.

originally posted by: DAVID64
Oh look, it's a balloon ! There's more !! It's Trump's fault !!
[Yes they actually blame Trump for all this ]

What's going on ? Why are we suddenly focusing on balloons ?

What is it they don't want us to notice ?

Everything else.

originally posted by: Framesend

I don’t claim to be an expert in aviation or really any related field, but I think if you give me 2 hrs and a couple of engineers we would come up with no less than 10 methods for disabling/retrieving said UFO in a far less destructive manner. Swallow it with another vehicle, hit it with a grappling hook attached to another vehicle, guide it with a drone(s), stretch a giant tarp below before you explode it. You get the point, why did we supposedly solve this problem like cavemen?

...none of those sound particularly easy to implement at 10 miles high - especially when the "threat" justification is a balloon with no offensive capabilities.

originally posted by: Framesend
You are telling me the US military doesn’t have any methods already R&D’d and ready to go for this? The worlds most sophisticated military and we come up with “shoot it with an unarmed missile, let it fall, hope you can scoop it all up” ???

I don’t buy it.

You cant let someone force your hand - especially if they have no skin in the game.

A low cost, low tech balloon that operates in a hard to access domain is an ideal way for adversaries to test your capabilities.
The US responded without revealing any new capabilities - so its job done as far as the intel bods will be concerned.

I'm not entirely convinced all that US defense spending doesn't go on coke and hookers- but you dont see any expensive Chinese ISR penetrating aircraft operating over the US do you?

Why is this?

I suppose this method or form of ….probably won’t work…..or could it?

A parachuted payload is typical for this method…..a parachuted payload is merely an object floating in air. The same could be said for ballooned payload objects.

Of course the balloon envelope itself..would collapse. But then that already applies to the parachute canopy as it to collapses in the process of being hooked by the mechanism of the aircraft.

Back in the day….Film canisters capsules from satellites would also be retrieved by this method.

Source Mid-air retrieval




There are different systems for Mid-Air recovery and retrieval methods.

👽

a reply to: Ophiuchus1

A C-130 has a maximum ceiling, meaning it can’t go any higher, of 28,000 feet with a 40,000 pound payload. Empty, they might hit 30,000. A helicopter has a maximum ceiling of significantly lower. The highest altitude cargo aircraft we have is the C-17, with a ceiling of 45,000 feet.

Catching an object in flight that isn’t under parachute is going to be extremely difficult at best. Even under parachute they missed a number of times. It actually took several years before they were proficient, and even then they’d still occasionally miss. Taking an untrained crew, with a hodgepodge modification, and trying to catch an object as small as these, without anything to help identify where they were, and let the crew line up on them? One in a billion you get it.

a reply to: Mantiss2021

I listened to Blinken's and other military explaining that they will have to look at finding equipment solutions regarding these floating balloons but Blinken, when asked about using a 'claw' device to capture balloons, replied that 'we got it'. So there is some type of equipment that may be tweeked into service.