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.
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.
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.
US *admitted that there is no spy equipment on the balloon.
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.
“We’re aware that it had intelligence collection capabilities, but it was our – and it has been our – assessment now that it did not collect while it was transiting the United States,” Ryder said during a briefing, adding, “As we said at the time, we also took steps to mitigate the potential collection efforts.”
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.
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.