Last I checked, the Pentagon falls higher on the scale of "reliable statements by government" than some random General.
@zephyreks dude I don’t know any other way to explain it to you so that you can comprehend it. The balloon was trying to collect information and was thwarted. You have it from a brigadier general that mitigation efforts certainly contributed to the balloon not collecting any information. You can try and act like it was just not collecting information out of the goodness of the Chinese’s heart, but that is a blatant misrepresentation of fact.
Not according to the Pentagon, which last I checked was a more reliable source than a single General. A General can say whatever they want, but the Pentagon has to actually check facts.
@zephyreks You work for the Pentagon? I notice that you've made that claim twice without any reference material to justify your claim. But sure, if you feel the need to impune the character of a US Brigadere General and esentially call him in a liar, I know who I'm going to trust and it's not your word.
You know that I can’t disclose that, but if you read the article it clearly states the Pentagon’s statement.
Q: So you believe your efforts stopped it from collecting and transmitting or was it able to collect but just not able to transmit?
GEN. RYDER: We believe that it did not collect while it was transiting the United States or flying over the United States, and certainly the efforts that we made contributed, I'm sure.
The question gave two possibilities: it collected and didn’t transmit, and it didn’t collect. The General states that it didn’t collect, and he’s sure that they were able to mitigate anything if it did collect (which it didn’t). Basic English. He also does not refer to the balloon as a spy balloon FWIW, correcting the journalist who did refer to it as one.
@zephyreks What exactly did the countermeasures contribute to if it wasn't collecting to begin with?
To avoid any potential data collection? The US didn’t know what the balloon’s capabilities or purpose were until they shot it down. Until then, treat everything as a threat. It’s SOP.
Nowhere in the article does it say that they tried.
I'm like legitimately worried for you. Lead contamination is a serious problem.
@zephyreks Here's another one for you then. See if you can comprehend what Brigadere General Pat Ryder is saying...
"Ryder was asked Thursday whether he believes those U.S. mitigation efforts were responsible for the balloon's failure to gather any info.
"Certainly, the efforts that we made contributed," he said."
https://abcnews.go.com/US/chinese-spy-balloon-american-made-parts-transmit-data/story?id=100476856
Last I checked, the Pentagon falls higher on the scale of "reliable statements by government" than some random General.
@zephyreks dude I don’t know any other way to explain it to you so that you can comprehend it. The balloon was trying to collect information and was thwarted. You have it from a brigadier general that mitigation efforts certainly contributed to the balloon not collecting any information. You can try and act like it was just not collecting information out of the goodness of the Chinese’s heart, but that is a blatant misrepresentation of fact.
Not according to the Pentagon, which last I checked was a more reliable source than a single General. A General can say whatever they want, but the Pentagon has to actually check facts.
@zephyreks You work for the Pentagon? I notice that you've made that claim twice without any reference material to justify your claim. But sure, if you feel the need to impune the character of a US Brigadere General and esentially call him in a liar, I know who I'm going to trust and it's not your word.
You know that I can’t disclose that, but if you read the article it clearly states the Pentagon’s statement.
@zephyreks 😂 😂 😂 😂 🤥 💩
Read the article linked in the post buddy
@zephyreks Dude, you're a fucking idiot. Here's the press release from the Pentagon where Brigadier General Pat Ryder says exactly what I've been pointing out.... that US countermeasures certainly contributed to the balloon not collecting any information. So there you have it, from the official Pentagon press release by the same guy I've been telling you about repeatedly but you refuse to believe. 🤡 https://www.defense.gov/News/Transcripts/Transcript/Article/3444912/pentagon-press-secretary-air-force-brig-gen-pat-ryder-holds-a-press-briefing/
Q: So you believe your efforts stopped it from collecting and transmitting or was it able to collect but just not able to transmit?
GEN. RYDER: We believe that it did not collect while it was transiting the United States or flying over the United States, and certainly the efforts that we made contributed, I'm sure.
The question gave two possibilities: it collected and didn’t transmit, and it didn’t collect. The General states that it didn’t collect, and he’s sure that they were able to mitigate anything if it did collect (which it didn’t). Basic English. He also does not refer to the balloon as a spy balloon FWIW, correcting the journalist who did refer to it as one.
@zephyreks What exactly did the countermeasures contribute to if it wasn't collecting to begin with?
To avoid any potential data collection? The US didn’t know what the balloon’s capabilities or purpose were until they shot it down. Until then, treat everything as a threat. It’s SOP.