https://www.foxnews.com/politics/its-not-aliens-white-house-shoots-down-popular-theory-objects-spotted-u-s
--
"I just saved a bunch of money on my insurance by switching to reverse
and leaving the scene."

George.Anthony wrote:
> https://www.foxnews.com/politics/its-not-aliens-white-house-shoots-down-popular-theory-objects-spotted-u-s
>
Hey. Who you gonna listen to - Lackey Kirby or the commander of NORAD?

--
bill
Theory don't mean squat if it don't work.

bfh wrote:
> George.Anthony wrote:
>> https://www.foxnews.com/politics/its-not-aliens-white-house-shoots-down-popular-theory-objects-spotted-u-s
>>
> Hey. Who you gonna listen to - Lackey Kirby or the commander of NORAD?
>
-----------------------------------------------
White House says a leading explanation for the 3 downed unidentified
objects is that they were commercial or benign
----------------------------------------------
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/white-house-says-leading-explanation-3-downed-unidentified-objects-com-rcna70588

I knew it. I just bygod knew it. They were capitalist, friendly
aliens, and we summarily murdered them while they were doing marketing
research. We're in deep doodoo now, because - if for no other reason -
they can do antigravity and we can't.

--
bill
Theory don't mean squat if it don't work.

On Tuesday, February 14, 2023 at 10:59:01 AM UTC-8, bfh wrote:
> bfh wrote:
> > George.Anthony wrote:
> >> https://www.foxnews.com/politics/its-not-aliens-white-house-shoots-down-popular-theory-objects-spotted-u-s
> >>
> > Hey. Who you gonna listen to - Lackey Kirby or the commander of NORAD?
> >
> -----------------------------------------------
> White House says a leading explanation for the 3 downed unidentified
> objects is that they were commercial or benign
> ----------------------------------------------
> https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/white-house-says-leading-explanation-3-downed-unidentified-objects-com-rcna70588
>
> I knew it. I just bygod knew it. They were capitalist, friendly
> aliens, and we summarily murdered them while they were doing marketing
> research. We're in deep doodoo now, because - if for no other reason -
> they can do antigravity and we can't.
> --
> bill
> Theory don't mean squat if it don't work.

Sounds like the beginning of a low budget Si-Fi movie, from back in the 1950s? Space aliens come in peace, then we start shooting them to rags, soon as they appear... If it is any of the ET tribe, let's hope they're not pissed off enough to break out their "death ray", or some machine, that can "booger" every electric device in the country!

Gort the Robot Jr.

On 2/14/2023 4:46 PM, film...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 14, 2023 at 10:59:01 AM UTC-8, bfh wrote:
>> bfh wrote:
>>> George.Anthony wrote:
>>>> https://www.foxnews.com/politics/its-not-aliens-white-house-shoots-down-popular-theory-objects-spotted-u-s
>>>>
>>> Hey. Who you gonna listen to - Lackey Kirby or the commander of NORAD?
>>>
>> -----------------------------------------------
>> White House says a leading explanation for the 3 downed unidentified
>> objects is that they were commercial or benign
>> ----------------------------------------------
>> https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/white-house-says-leading-explanation-3-downed-unidentified-objects-com-rcna70588
>>
>> I knew it. I just bygod knew it. They were capitalist, friendly
>> aliens, and we summarily murdered them while they were doing marketing
>> research. We're in deep doodoo now, because - if for no other reason -
>> they can do antigravity and we can't.
>> --
>> bill
>> Theory don't mean squat if it don't work.
>
> Sounds like the beginning of a low budget Si-Fi movie, from back in the 1950s? Space aliens come in peace, then we start shooting them to rags, soon as they appear... If it is any of the ET tribe, let's hope they're not pissed off enough to break out their "death ray", or some machine, that can "booger" every electric device in the country!
>
> Gort the Robot Jr.

Klaatu Barada Nikto
--
"I just saved a bunch of money on my insurance by switching to reverse
and leaving the scene."

film...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 14, 2023 at 10:59:01 AM UTC-8, bfh wrote:
>> bfh wrote:
>>> George.Anthony wrote:
>>>> https://www.foxnews.com/politics/its-not-aliens-white-house-shoots-down-popular-theory-objects-spotted-u-s
>>>>
>>>
>>>>
Hey. Who you gonna listen to - Lackey Kirby or the commander of NORAD?
>>>
>> ----------------------------------------------- White House says
>> a leading explanation for the 3 downed unidentified objects is
>> that they were commercial or benign
>> ----------------------------------------------
>> https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/white-house-says-leading-explanation-3-downed-unidentified-objects-com-rcna70588
>>
>>
>>
I knew it. I just bygod knew it. They were capitalist, friendly
>> aliens, and we summarily murdered them while they were doing
>> marketing research. We're in deep doodoo now, because - if for no
>> other reason - they can do antigravity and we can't. -- bill
>> Theory don't mean squat if it don't work.
>
> Sounds like the beginning of a low budget Si-Fi movie, from back
> in the 1950s? Space aliens come in peace, then we start shooting
> them to rags, soon as they appear... If it is any of the ET
> tribe, let's hope they're not pissed off enough to break out their
> "death ray", or some machine, that can "booger" every electric
> device in the country!
>
> Gort the Robot Jr.
>

damright - and we don't even need ET's. A UNTFO (unidentified
non-threatening floating object) is literally an efficacious way to
deliver a high altitude EMP device.

Ricky Fermi, Jr.

--
bill
Theory don't mean squat if it don't work.

On 2/14/2023 10:58 AM, bfh wrote:
> bfh wrote:
>> George.Anthony wrote:
>>> https://www.foxnews.com/politics/its-not-aliens-white-house-shoots-down-popular-theory-objects-spotted-u-s
>> Hey. Who you gonna listen to - Lackey Kirby or the commander of NORAD?
>>
> -----------------------------------------------
> White House says a leading explanation for the 3 downed unidentified
> objects is that they were commercial or benign
> ----------------------------------------------
> https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/white-house-says-leading-explanation-3-downed-unidentified-objects-com-rcna70588
>
> I knew it. I just bygod knew it. They were capitalist, friendly aliens,
> and we summarily murdered them while they were doing marketing research.
> We're in deep doodoo now, because - if for no other reason - they can do
> antigravity and we can't.
>

I'm wondering about the pilot who missed with the first missile. Can't
even hit a damn balloon.

kmiller wrote:
> On 2/14/2023 10:58 AM, bfh wrote:
>> bfh wrote:
>>> George.Anthony wrote:
>>>> https://www.foxnews.com/politics/its-not-aliens-white-house-shoots-down-popular-theory-objects-spotted-u-s
>>>>
>>> Hey. Who you gonna listen to - Lackey Kirby or the commander of NORAD?
>>>
>> -----------------------------------------------
>> White House says a leading explanation for the 3 downed unidentified
>> objects is that they were commercial or benign
>> ----------------------------------------------
>> https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/white-house-says-leading-explanation-3-downed-unidentified-objects-com-rcna70588
>>
>>
>> I knew it. I just bygod knew it. They were capitalist, friendly
>> aliens, and we summarily murdered them while they were doing
>> marketing research. We're in deep doodoo now, because - if for no
>> other reason - they can do antigravity and we can't.
>>
>
> I'm wondering about the pilot who missed with the first missile. Can't
> even hit a damn balloon.

The AIM-9 heatseeker - which has been around almost as long as I have
- has an alleged success rate of 80-90% on aircraft. On an
unidentified floating object that may or may not emit much IR, it is
uniquely possible that 50% may or may not be that bad.

--
bill
Theory don't mean squat if it don't work.

On Tuesday, February 14, 2023 at 8:29:22 PM UTC-8, bfh wrote:
> kmiller wrote:
> > On 2/14/2023 10:58 AM, bfh wrote:
> >> bfh wrote:
> >>> George.Anthony wrote:
> >>>> https://www.foxnews.com/politics/its-not-aliens-white-house-shoots-down-popular-theory-objects-spotted-u-s
> >>>>
> >>> Hey. Who you gonna listen to - Lackey Kirby or the commander of NORAD?
> >>>
> >> -----------------------------------------------
> >> White House says a leading explanation for the 3 downed unidentified
> >> objects is that they were commercial or benign
> >> ----------------------------------------------
> >> https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/white-house-says-leading-explanation-3-downed-unidentified-objects-com-rcna70588
> >>
> >>
> >> I knew it. I just bygod knew it. They were capitalist, friendly
> >> aliens, and we summarily murdered them while they were doing
> >> marketing research. We're in deep doodoo now, because - if for no
> >> other reason - they can do antigravity and we can't.
> >>
> >
> > I'm wondering about the pilot who missed with the first missile. Can't
> > even hit a damn balloon.
> The AIM-9 heatseeker - which has been around almost as long as I have
> - has an alleged success rate of 80-90% on aircraft. On an
> unidentified floating object that may or may not emit much IR, it is
> uniquely possible that 50% may or may not be that bad.
> --
> bill
> Theory don't mean squat if it don't work.

Beyond the obvious mystification of missing a big balloon with a missile, I'm wondering why a $400K missile was used in the first place (twice place?) when you'd think a balloon could be brought down fairly easily by less expensive cannon rounds...

On Wed, 15 Feb 2023 14:14:30 -0800 (PST), dm_callier
<dm.callier@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Tuesday, February 14, 2023 at 8:29:22 PM UTC-8, bfh wrote:
>> kmiller wrote:
>> > On 2/14/2023 10:58 AM, bfh wrote:
>> >> bfh wrote:
>> >>> George.Anthony wrote:
>> >>>> https://www.foxnews.com/politics/its-not-aliens-white-house-shoots-down-popular-theory-objects-spotted-u-s
>> >>>>
>> >>> Hey. Who you gonna listen to - Lackey Kirby or the commander of NORAD?
>> >>>
>> >> -----------------------------------------------
>> >> White House says a leading explanation for the 3 downed unidentified
>> >> objects is that they were commercial or benign
>> >> ----------------------------------------------
>> >> https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/white-house-says-leading-explanation-3-downed-unidentified-objects-com-rcna70588
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> I knew it. I just bygod knew it. They were capitalist, friendly
>> >> aliens, and we summarily murdered them while they were doing
>> >> marketing research. We're in deep doodoo now, because - if for no
>> >> other reason - they can do antigravity and we can't.
>> >>
>> >
>> > I'm wondering about the pilot who missed with the first missile. Can't
>> > even hit a damn balloon.
>> The AIM-9 heatseeker - which has been around almost as long as I have
>> - has an alleged success rate of 80-90% on aircraft. On an
>> unidentified floating object that may or may not emit much IR, it is
>> uniquely possible that 50% may or may not be that bad.
>> --
>> bill
>> Theory don't mean squat if it don't work.
>
>Beyond the obvious mystification of missing a big balloon with a missile, I'm wondering why a $400K missile was used in the first place (twice place?) when you'd think a balloon could be brought down fairly easily by less expensive cannon rounds...
>
Bill alluded to that when he signed an earlier post as Frank Luke III.
--

Jerry O.

dm_callier wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 14, 2023 at 8:29:22 PM UTC-8, bfh wrote:
>> kmiller wrote:
>>> On 2/14/2023 10:58 AM, bfh wrote:
>>>> bfh wrote:
>>>>> George.Anthony wrote:
>>>>>> https://www.foxnews.com/politics/its-not-aliens-white-house-shoots-down-popular-theory-objects-spotted-u-s
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
Hey. Who you gonna listen to - Lackey Kirby or the commander of NORAD?
>>>>>
>>>> ----------------------------------------------- White House
>>>> says a leading explanation for the 3 downed unidentified
>>>> objects is that they were commercial or benign
>>>> ----------------------------------------------
>>>> https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/white-house-says-leading-explanation-3-downed-unidentified-objects-com-rcna70588
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
I knew it. I just bygod knew it. They were capitalist, friendly
>>>> aliens, and we summarily murdered them while they were doing
>>>> marketing research. We're in deep doodoo now, because - if
>>>> for no other reason - they can do antigravity and we can't.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I'm wondering about the pilot who missed with the first
>>> missile. Can't even hit a damn balloon.
>> The AIM-9 heatseeker - which has been around almost as long as I
>> have - has an alleged success rate of 80-90% on aircraft. On an
>> unidentified floating object that may or may not emit much IR, it
>> is uniquely possible that 50% may or may not be that bad. --
>> bill Theory don't mean squat if it don't work.
>
> Beyond the obvious mystification of missing a big balloon with a
> missile, I'm wondering why a $400K missile was used in the first
> place (twice place?) when you'd think a balloon could be brought
> down fairly easily by less expensive cannon rounds...
>

Maybe one of the mission planners was old enough to remember this:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
More than 25 years ago, a gigantic runaway weather balloon presented a
massive challenge for two fighter jets when they attempted to shoot it
down.

The balloon continued to float in the air despite being hit by more
than 1,000 rounds of ammunition in an uncanny incident that shocked
the world.

According to a report by the Associated Press, a research balloon
measured the amount of ozone in Canada. In August 1998, it took off
and flew across Canada, the Atlantic Ocean, and even the British
airspace before it finally entered the Icelandic airspace and drifted
northwards.

Since the balloon went rogue, over 1,000 rounds were fired at it by
two Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF) CF-18 fighter planes after they
spotted it over Newfoundland. The balloon was finally struck by the
aircraft, but instead of popping or exploding and falling to the
earth, it leaked helium very slowly and remained suspended in the air.

Although the balloon was roughly the size of a 25-story building, a
spokesperson for the Canadian military named Lieutenant Steve Wills
told BBC that it was challenging to target it. “With something like
this, which is stationary in the air when the CF-18s are flying very,
very fast, it is difficult to shoot it,” Wills said.
----------------------------------------------------------
https://eurasiantimes.com/1000-rounds-fired-why-canada-could-not-shoot-down-this-research-balloon-using-best-of-fighter-jets-25-years-ago/

However comma at the end of the day going forward, I think you should
ask Bing's AI Chatbot what it thinks, and report back.

--
bill
Theory don't mean squat if it don't work.

On Wednesday, February 15, 2023 at 5:10:01 PM UTC-8, bfh wrote:
> dm_callier wrote:
> > On Tuesday, February 14, 2023 at 8:29:22 PM UTC-8, bfh wrote:
> >> kmiller wrote:
> >>> On 2/14/2023 10:58 AM, bfh wrote:
> >>>> bfh wrote:
> >>>>> George.Anthony wrote:
> >>>>>> https://www.foxnews.com/politics/its-not-aliens-white-house-shoots-down-popular-theory-objects-spotted-u-s
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>
> Hey. Who you gonna listen to - Lackey Kirby or the commander of NORAD?
> >>>>>
> >>>> ----------------------------------------------- White House
> >>>> says a leading explanation for the 3 downed unidentified
> >>>> objects is that they were commercial or benign
> >>>> ----------------------------------------------
> >>>> https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/white-house-says-leading-explanation-3-downed-unidentified-objects-com-rcna70588
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> I knew it. I just bygod knew it. They were capitalist, friendly
> >>>> aliens, and we summarily murdered them while they were doing
> >>>> marketing research. We're in deep doodoo now, because - if
> >>>> for no other reason - they can do antigravity and we can't.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> I'm wondering about the pilot who missed with the first
> >>> missile. Can't even hit a damn balloon.
> >> The AIM-9 heatseeker - which has been around almost as long as I
> >> have - has an alleged success rate of 80-90% on aircraft. On an
> >> unidentified floating object that may or may not emit much IR, it
> >> is uniquely possible that 50% may or may not be that bad. --
> >> bill Theory don't mean squat if it don't work.
> >
> > Beyond the obvious mystification of missing a big balloon with a
> > missile, I'm wondering why a $400K missile was used in the first
> > place (twice place?) when you'd think a balloon could be brought
> > down fairly easily by less expensive cannon rounds...
> >
> Maybe one of the mission planners was old enough to remember this:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> More than 25 years ago, a gigantic runaway weather balloon presented a
> massive challenge for two fighter jets when they attempted to shoot it
> down.
>
> The balloon continued to float in the air despite being hit by more
> than 1,000 rounds of ammunition in an uncanny incident that shocked
> the world.
>
> According to a report by the Associated Press, a research balloon
> measured the amount of ozone in Canada. In August 1998, it took off
> and flew across Canada, the Atlantic Ocean, and even the British
> airspace before it finally entered the Icelandic airspace and drifted
> northwards.
>
> Since the balloon went rogue, over 1,000 rounds were fired at it by
> two Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF) CF-18 fighter planes after they
> spotted it over Newfoundland. The balloon was finally struck by the
> aircraft, but instead of popping or exploding and falling to the
> earth, it leaked helium very slowly and remained suspended in the air.
>
> Although the balloon was roughly the size of a 25-story building, a
> spokesperson for the Canadian military named Lieutenant Steve Wills
> told BBC that it was challenging to target it. “With something like
> this, which is stationary in the air when the CF-18s are flying very,
> very fast, it is difficult to shoot it,” Wills said.
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> https://eurasiantimes.com/1000-rounds-fired-why-canada-could-not-shoot-down-this-research-balloon-using-best-of-fighter-jets-25-years-ago/
>
> However comma at the end of the day going forward, I think you should
> ask Bing's AI Chatbot what it thinks, and report back.
> --
> bill
> Theory don't mean squat if it don't work.

Theory don't mean squat if it don't work...So my hypothesis about the efficaciousness of cannon fire vis-a-vis big balloons seems to have already been tested and proven to approach zero on the efficacity scale. I feel impelled to follow the science in this matter.

Enjoy the day!

dm_callier wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 15, 2023 at 5:10:01 PM UTC-8, bfh wrote:
>> dm_callier wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, February 14, 2023 at 8:29:22 PM UTC-8, bfh wrote:
>>>> kmiller wrote:
>>>>> On 2/14/2023 10:58 AM, bfh wrote:
>>>>>> bfh wrote:
>>>>>>> George.Anthony wrote:
>>>>>>>> https://www.foxnews.com/politics/its-not-aliens-white-house-shoots-down-popular-theory-objects-spotted-u-s
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>
>>>>>>>>
Hey. Who you gonna listen to - Lackey Kirby or the commander of NORAD?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> ----------------------------------------------- White
>>>>>> House says a leading explanation for the 3 downed
>>>>>> unidentified objects is that they were commercial or
>>>>>> benign ----------------------------------------------
>>>>>> https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/white-house-says-leading-explanation-3-downed-unidentified-objects-com-rcna70588
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>
>>>>>>
I knew it. I just bygod knew it. They were capitalist, friendly
>>>>>> aliens, and we summarily murdered them while they were
>>>>>> doing marketing research. We're in deep doodoo now,
>>>>>> because - if for no other reason - they can do
>>>>>> antigravity and we can't.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm wondering about the pilot who missed with the first
>>>>> missile. Can't even hit a damn balloon.
>>>> The AIM-9 heatseeker - which has been around almost as long
>>>> as I have - has an alleged success rate of 80-90% on
>>>> aircraft. On an unidentified floating object that may or may
>>>> not emit much IR, it is uniquely possible that 50% may or may
>>>> not be that bad. -- bill Theory don't mean squat if it don't
>>>> work.
>>>
>>> Beyond the obvious mystification of missing a big balloon with
>>> a missile, I'm wondering why a $400K missile was used in the
>>> first place (twice place?) when you'd think a balloon could be
>>> brought down fairly easily by less expensive cannon rounds...
>>>
>> Maybe one of the mission planners was old enough to remember
>> this:
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
More than 25 years ago, a gigantic runaway weather balloon presented a
>> massive challenge for two fighter jets when they attempted to
>> shoot it down.
>>
>> The balloon continued to float in the air despite being hit by
>> more than 1,000 rounds of ammunition in an uncanny incident that
>> shocked the world.
>>
>> According to a report by the Associated Press, a research
>> balloon measured the amount of ozone in Canada. In August 1998,
>> it took off and flew across Canada, the Atlantic Ocean, and even
>> the British airspace before it finally entered the Icelandic
>> airspace and drifted northwards.
>>
>> Since the balloon went rogue, over 1,000 rounds were fired at it
>> by two Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF) CF-18 fighter planes after
>> they spotted it over Newfoundland. The balloon was finally struck
>> by the aircraft, but instead of popping or exploding and falling
>> to the earth, it leaked helium very slowly and remained suspended
>> in the air.
>>
>> Although the balloon was roughly the size of a 25-story building,
>> a spokesperson for the Canadian military named Lieutenant Steve
>> Wills told BBC that it was challenging to target it. “With
>> something like this, which is stationary in the air when the
>> CF-18s are flying very, very fast, it is difficult to shoot
>> it,” Wills said.
>> ----------------------------------------------------------
>> https://eurasiantimes.com/1000-rounds-fired-why-canada-could-not-shoot-down-this-research-balloon-using-best-of-fighter-jets-25-years-ago/
>>
>>
>>
However comma at the end of the day going forward, I think you should
>> ask Bing's AI Chatbot what it thinks, and report back. -- bill
>> Theory don't mean squat if it don't work.
>
> Theory don't mean squat if it don't work...So my hypothesis about
> the efficaciousness of cannon fire vis-a-vis big balloons seems to
> have already been tested and proven to approach zero on the
> efficacity scale. I feel impelled to follow the science in this
> matter.
>
> Enjoy the day!
>

Don't reorient and discount your self-calculus too hastily. The above
account is just one metric - and it's an old metric - and it's
uniquely possible that the Canadians can't shoot straight and/or the
science might take a fork in the road in the passage of time. If
myownself were yourownself, I'd just leave my theory on the table and
transitorily put it in a loosely closed brown paper bag. And don't
forget that the evidence has shown that it takes constant awareness
and significant agility to follow the science.

--
bill
Theory don't mean squat if it don't work.

On Thursday, February 16, 2023 at 9:53:08 AM UTC-8, bfh wrote:
> dm_callier wrote:
> > On Wednesday, February 15, 2023 at 5:10:01 PM UTC-8, bfh wrote:
> >> dm_callier wrote:
> >>> On Tuesday, February 14, 2023 at 8:29:22 PM UTC-8, bfh wrote:
> >>>> kmiller wrote:
> >>>>> On 2/14/2023 10:58 AM, bfh wrote:
> >>>>>> bfh wrote:
> >>>>>>> George.Anthony wrote:
> >>>>>>>> https://www.foxnews.com/politics/its-not-aliens-white-house-shoots-down-popular-theory-objects-spotted-u-s
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>
> >>>>>>>>
> Hey. Who you gonna listen to - Lackey Kirby or the commander of NORAD?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> ----------------------------------------------- White
> >>>>>> House says a leading explanation for the 3 downed
> >>>>>> unidentified objects is that they were commercial or
> >>>>>> benign ----------------------------------------------
> >>>>>> https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/white-house-says-leading-explanation-3-downed-unidentified-objects-com-rcna70588
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>
> >>>>>>
> I knew it. I just bygod knew it. They were capitalist, friendly
> >>>>>> aliens, and we summarily murdered them while they were
> >>>>>> doing marketing research. We're in deep doodoo now,
> >>>>>> because - if for no other reason - they can do
> >>>>>> antigravity and we can't.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I'm wondering about the pilot who missed with the first
> >>>>> missile. Can't even hit a damn balloon.
> >>>> The AIM-9 heatseeker - which has been around almost as long
> >>>> as I have - has an alleged success rate of 80-90% on
> >>>> aircraft. On an unidentified floating object that may or may
> >>>> not emit much IR, it is uniquely possible that 50% may or may
> >>>> not be that bad. -- bill Theory don't mean squat if it don't
> >>>> work.
> >>>
> >>> Beyond the obvious mystification of missing a big balloon with
> >>> a missile, I'm wondering why a $400K missile was used in the
> >>> first place (twice place?) when you'd think a balloon could be
> >>> brought down fairly easily by less expensive cannon rounds...
> >>>
> >> Maybe one of the mission planners was old enough to remember
> >> this:
> >> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>
> >>
> More than 25 years ago, a gigantic runaway weather balloon presented a
> >> massive challenge for two fighter jets when they attempted to
> >> shoot it down.
> >>
> >> The balloon continued to float in the air despite being hit by
> >> more than 1,000 rounds of ammunition in an uncanny incident that
> >> shocked the world.
> >>
> >> According to a report by the Associated Press, a research
> >> balloon measured the amount of ozone in Canada. In August 1998,
> >> it took off and flew across Canada, the Atlantic Ocean, and even
> >> the British airspace before it finally entered the Icelandic
> >> airspace and drifted northwards.
> >>
> >> Since the balloon went rogue, over 1,000 rounds were fired at it
> >> by two Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF) CF-18 fighter planes after
> >> they spotted it over Newfoundland. The balloon was finally struck
> >> by the aircraft, but instead of popping or exploding and falling
> >> to the earth, it leaked helium very slowly and remained suspended
> >> in the air.
> >>
> >> Although the balloon was roughly the size of a 25-story building,
> >> a spokesperson for the Canadian military named Lieutenant Steve
> >> Wills told BBC that it was challenging to target it. “With
> >> something like this, which is stationary in the air when the
> >> CF-18s are flying very, very fast, it is difficult to shoot
> >> it,†Wills said.
> >> ----------------------------------------------------------
> >> https://eurasiantimes.com/1000-rounds-fired-why-canada-could-not-shoot-down-this-research-balloon-using-best-of-fighter-jets-25-years-ago/
> >>
> >>
> >>
> However comma at the end of the day going forward, I think you should
> >> ask Bing's AI Chatbot what it thinks, and report back. -- bill
> >> Theory don't mean squat if it don't work.
> >
> > Theory don't mean squat if it don't work...So my hypothesis about
> > the efficaciousness of cannon fire vis-a-vis big balloons seems to
> > have already been tested and proven to approach zero on the
> > efficacity scale. I feel impelled to follow the science in this
> > matter.
> >
> > Enjoy the day!
> >
> Don't reorient and discount your self-calculus too hastily. The above
> account is just one metric - and it's an old metric - and it's
> uniquely possible that the Canadians can't shoot straight and/or the
> science might take a fork in the road in the passage of time. If
> myownself were yourownself, I'd just leave my theory on the table and
> transitorily put it in a loosely closed brown paper bag. And don't
> forget that the evidence has shown that it takes constant awareness
> and significant agility to follow the science.
> --
> bill
> Theory don't mean squat if it don't work.
It's just a hypothesis unsupported by currently available data at this stage, so it hasn't risen to the esteemed level of "theory." But you're quite correct that I might be wise to "keep it on the table" while searching for more data. The dataset is small, and equipment and skill of Canadian pilots is an unknown variable.

On another hand, the possible conjunction of myownself and yourownself in any aspect of agreement is a troubling proposition quite contrary to my fundamental personal cosmic calculation of the nature of reality. Going forward from this point in time, I'll try to keep an open mind and follow the science if further data is discovered, but I don't see a high probability.

Enjoy the day!

dm_callier wrote:
> On Thursday, February 16, 2023 at 9:53:08 AM UTC-8, bfh wrote:
>> dm_callier wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, February 15, 2023 at 5:10:01 PM UTC-8, bfh
>>> wrote:
>>>> dm_callier wrote:
>>>>> On Tuesday, February 14, 2023 at 8:29:22 PM UTC-8, bfh
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> kmiller wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/14/2023 10:58 AM, bfh wrote:
>>>>>>>> bfh wrote:
>>>>>>>>> George.Anthony wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> https://www.foxnews.com/politics/its-not-aliens-white-house-shoots-down-popular-theory-objects-spotted-u-s
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>
>>>>>>>>>>
Hey. Who you gonna listen to - Lackey Kirby or the commander of NORAD?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -----------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>> White House says a leading explanation for the 3
>>>>>>>> downed unidentified objects is that they were
>>>>>>>> commercial or benign
>>>>>>>> ----------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>> https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/white-house-says-leading-explanation-3-downed-unidentified-objects-com-rcna70588
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>
>>>>>>>>
I knew it. I just bygod knew it. They were capitalist, friendly
>>>>>>>> aliens, and we summarily murdered them while they
>>>>>>>> were doing marketing research. We're in deep doodoo
>>>>>>>> now, because - if for no other reason - they can do
>>>>>>>> antigravity and we can't.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm wondering about the pilot who missed with the
>>>>>>> first missile. Can't even hit a damn balloon.
>>>>>> The AIM-9 heatseeker - which has been around almost as
>>>>>> long as I have - has an alleged success rate of 80-90%
>>>>>> on aircraft. On an unidentified floating object that may
>>>>>> or may not emit much IR, it is uniquely possible that 50%
>>>>>> may or may not be that bad. -- bill Theory don't mean
>>>>>> squat if it don't work.
>>>>>
>>>>> Beyond the obvious mystification of missing a big balloon
>>>>> with a missile, I'm wondering why a $400K missile was used
>>>>> in the first place (twice place?) when you'd think a
>>>>> balloon could be brought down fairly easily by less
>>>>> expensive cannon rounds...
>>>>>
>>>> Maybe one of the mission planners was old enough to remember
>>>> this:
>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
More than 25 years ago, a gigantic runaway weather balloon presented a
>>>> massive challenge for two fighter jets when they attempted
>>>> to shoot it down.
>>>>
>>>> The balloon continued to float in the air despite being hit
>>>> by more than 1,000 rounds of ammunition in an uncanny
>>>> incident that shocked the world.
>>>>
>>>> According to a report by the Associated Press, a research
>>>> balloon measured the amount of ozone in Canada. In August
>>>> 1998, it took off and flew across Canada, the Atlantic Ocean,
>>>> and even the British airspace before it finally entered the
>>>> Icelandic airspace and drifted northwards.
>>>>
>>>> Since the balloon went rogue, over 1,000 rounds were fired at
>>>> it by two Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF) CF-18 fighter
>>>> planes after they spotted it over Newfoundland. The balloon
>>>> was finally struck by the aircraft, but instead of popping or
>>>> exploding and falling to the earth, it leaked helium very
>>>> slowly and remained suspended in the air.
>>>>
>>>> Although the balloon was roughly the size of a 25-story
>>>> building, a spokesperson for the Canadian military named
>>>> Lieutenant Steve Wills told BBC that it was challenging to
>>>> target it. “With something like this, which is
>>>> stationary in the air when the CF-18s are flying very, very
>>>> fast, it is difficult to shoot it,†Wills said.
>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------
>>>> https://eurasiantimes.com/1000-rounds-fired-why-canada-could-not-shoot-down-this-research-balloon-using-best-of-fighter-jets-25-years-ago/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
However comma at the end of the day going forward, I think you should
>>>> ask Bing's AI Chatbot what it thinks, and report back. --
>>>> bill Theory don't mean squat if it don't work.
>>>
>>> Theory don't mean squat if it don't work...So my hypothesis
>>> about the efficaciousness of cannon fire vis-a-vis big balloons
>>> seems to have already been tested and proven to approach zero
>>> on the efficacity scale. I feel impelled to follow the science
>>> in this matter.
>>>
>>> Enjoy the day!
>>>
>> Don't reorient and discount your self-calculus too hastily. The
>> above account is just one metric - and it's an old metric - and
>> it's uniquely possible that the Canadians can't shoot straight
>> and/or the science might take a fork in the road in the passage
>> of time. If myownself were yourownself, I'd just leave my theory
>> on the table and transitorily put it in a loosely closed brown
>> paper bag. And don't forget that the evidence has shown that it
>> takes constant awareness and significant agility to follow the
>> science. -- bill Theory don't mean squat if it don't work.
> It's just a hypothesis unsupported by currently available data at
> this stage, so it hasn't risen to the esteemed level of "theory."
> But you're quite correct that I might be wise to "keep it on the
> table" while searching for more data. The dataset is small, and
> equipment and skill of Canadian pilots is an unknown variable.

Just so you'll know, I've simplified my life by ignoring the
distinction between a hypothesis and a theory, since most people give
less of a shit about that than they do about the difference between
efficacy and effectiveness.

> On another hand, the possible conjunction of myownself and
> yourownself in any aspect of agreement is a troubling proposition
> quite contrary to my fundamental personal cosmic calculation of the
> nature of reality. Going forward from this point in time, I'll try
> to keep an open mind and follow the science if further data is
> discovered, but I don't see a high probability.

Look, so, does that, like, mean (blink blink blink blink...) you're OK
with literally shooting down unidentified unknown objects - which may
or may not even be technically a balloon - with a 400 million dollar
missile?

--
bill
Theory don't mean squat if it don't work.

On Thursday, February 16, 2023 at 5:08:54 PM UTC-8, bfh wrote:
<BigSnip>
> Look, so, does that, like, mean (blink blink blink blink...) you're OK
> with literally shooting down unidentified unknown objects - which may
> or may not even be technically a balloon - with a 400 million dollar
> missile?
> --
> bill
> Theory don't mean squat if it don't work.
Well,
a) It's only a $400K missile.
b) Considering moral, ethical and/or political considerations is too close to the metaphysical to be part of my current calculus as pertains to transitory high altitude objects.
When:
c) Going forward, I was only really interested in following the science in re the efficacy and economics of downing biggly objects at high altitude with $400K missiles versus with cannon fire that I posited would be less expensive with similar or enhanced efficacy.

Enjoy the day!
dmc

On Friday, February 17, 2023 at 8:37:31 AM UTC-8, dm_callier wrote:
> On Thursday, February 16, 2023 at 5:08:54 PM UTC-8, bfh wrote:
> <BigSnip>
> > Look, so, does that, like, mean (blink blink blink blink...) you're OK
> > with literally shooting down unidentified unknown objects - which may
> > or may not even be technically a balloon - with a 400 million dollar
> > missile?
> > --
> > bill
> > Theory don't mean squat if it don't work.
> Well,
> a) It's only a $400K missile.
> b) Considering moral, ethical and/or political considerations is too close to the metaphysical to be part of my current calculus as pertains to transitory high altitude objects.
> When:
> c) Going forward, I was only really interested in following the science in re the efficacy and economics of downing biggly objects at high altitude with $400K missiles versus with cannon fire that I posited would be less expensive with similar or enhanced efficacy.
>
> Enjoy the day!
> dmc
And now it turns out that all the objects fired on weren't necessarily biggly at all. The efficiency of the $400K missile may be higher than first I supposed if the rumor of the downing of a balloon with a diameter of 3-9 feet is verified–efficacy still in some doubt.

dm_callier wrote:
> On Friday, February 17, 2023 at 8:37:31 AM UTC-8, dm_callier
> wrote:
>> On Thursday, February 16, 2023 at 5:08:54 PM UTC-8, bfh wrote:
>> <BigSnip>
>>> Look, so, does that, like, mean (blink blink blink blink...)
>>> you're OK with literally shooting down unidentified unknown
>>> objects - which may or may not even be technically a balloon -
>>> with a 400 million dollar missile? -- bill Theory don't mean
>>> squat if it don't work.
>> Well, a) It's only a $400K missile. b) Considering moral, ethical
>> and/or political considerations is too close to the metaphysical
>> to be part of my current calculus as pertains to transitory high
>> altitude objects. When: c) Going forward, I was only really
>> interested in following the science in re the efficacy and
>> economics of downing biggly objects at high altitude with $400K
>> missiles versus with cannon fire that I posited would be less
>> expensive with similar or enhanced efficacy.
>>
>> Enjoy the day! dmc
> And now it turns out that all the objects fired on weren't
> necessarily biggly at all. The efficiency of the $400K missile may
> be higher than first I supposed if the rumor of the downing of a
> balloon with a diameter of 3-9 feet is verified–efficacy still in
> some doubt.
>
yeah but but but since they were unknown unidentified aerial objects
of undetermined - and possibly extraterrestrial - origin, we shot them
down out of an abundance of caution. Besides, I'll bet the pilots
thought it was more fun than they've had since they got out of fighter
pilot training - and they're probably already wearing a Balloon Killer
patch on their flight suits and getting free drinks at Happy Hour. I
would be surprised if the O' Club bartenders didn't invent a drink
that "will blow your payload off".

--
bill
Theory don't mean squat if it don't work.

On 2/17/2023 2:24 PM, bfh wrote:
> dm_callier wrote:
>> On Friday, February 17, 2023 at 8:37:31 AM UTC-8, dm_callier
>> wrote:
>>> On Thursday, February 16, 2023 at 5:08:54 PM UTC-8, bfh wrote: <BigSnip>
>>>> Look, so, does that, like, mean (blink blink blink blink...)
>>>> you're OK with literally shooting down unidentified unknown
>>>> objects - which may or may not even be technically a balloon -
>>>> with a 400 million dollar missile? -- bill Theory don't mean
>>>> squat if it don't work.
>>> Well, a) It's only a $400K missile. b) Considering moral, ethical
>>> and/or political considerations is too close to the metaphysical
>>> to be part of my current calculus as pertains to transitory high
>>> altitude objects. When: c) Going forward, I was only really
>>> interested in following the science in re the efficacy and
>>> economics of downing biggly objects at high altitude with $400K
>>> missiles versus with cannon fire that I posited would be less
>>> expensive with similar or enhanced efficacy.
>>>
>>> Enjoy the day! dmc
>> And now it turns out that all the objects fired on weren't
>> necessarily biggly at all. The efficiency  of the $400K missile may
>> be higher than first I supposed if the rumor of the downing of a
>> balloon with a diameter of 3-9 feet is verified–efficacy still in
>> some doubt.
>>
> yeah but but but since they were unknown unidentified aerial objects of
> undetermined - and possibly extraterrestrial - origin, we shot them down
> out of an abundance of caution. Besides, I'll bet the pilots thought it
> was more fun than they've had since they got out of fighter pilot
> training - and they're probably already wearing a Balloon Killer patch
> on their flight suits and getting free drinks at Happy Hour. I would be
> surprised if the O' Club bartenders didn't invent a drink that "will
> blow your payload off".
>

I'm mostly surprised that your own MTG didn't arrange to have them shot
down with those Jewish space lasers - the efficacy of which has already
been proven in the forests of North America. Or, if they could detect
them closer to launch, they could have Josh Hawley trot by them whereby
the balloon would be sucked into his vortex never to be seen again. Or,
or, or how about getting some of them Jan 6 tourists to leap on the
balloons in their "patriotic" fever to save their dear leader and stab
holes in the balloons with their orange goon flags.

kmiller wrote:
> On 2/17/2023 2:24 PM, bfh wrote:
>> dm_callier wrote:
>>> On Friday, February 17, 2023 at 8:37:31 AM UTC-8, dm_callier
>>> wrote:
>>>> On Thursday, February 16, 2023 at 5:08:54 PM UTC-8, bfh wrote:
>>>> <BigSnip>
>>>>> Look, so, does that, like, mean (blink blink blink blink...)
>>>>> you're OK with literally shooting down unidentified unknown
>>>>> objects - which may or may not even be technically a balloon -
>>>>> with a 400 million dollar missile? -- bill Theory don't mean
>>>>> squat if it don't work.
>>>> Well, a) It's only a $400K missile. b) Considering moral, ethical
>>>> and/or political considerations is too close to the metaphysical
>>>> to be part of my current calculus as pertains to transitory high
>>>> altitude objects. When: c) Going forward, I was only really
>>>> interested in following the science in re the efficacy and
>>>> economics of downing biggly objects at high altitude with $400K
>>>> missiles versus with cannon fire that I posited would be less
>>>> expensive with similar or enhanced efficacy.
>>>>
>>>> Enjoy the day! dmc
>>> And now it turns out that all the objects fired on weren't
>>> necessarily biggly at all. The efficiency  of the $400K missile may
>>> be higher than first I supposed if the rumor of the downing of a
>>> balloon with a diameter of 3-9 feet is verified–efficacy
>>> still in
>>> some doubt.
>>>
>> yeah but but but since they were unknown unidentified aerial objects
>> of undetermined - and possibly extraterrestrial - origin, we shot
>> them down out of an abundance of caution. Besides, I'll bet the
>> pilots thought it was more fun than they've had since they got out
>> of fighter pilot training - and they're probably already wearing a
>> Balloon Killer patch on their flight suits and getting free drinks
>> at Happy Hour. I would be surprised if the O' Club bartenders didn't
>> invent a drink that "will blow your payload off".
>>
>
> I'm mostly surprised that your own MTG didn't arrange to have them
> shot down with those Jewish space lasers - the efficacy of which has
> already been proven in the forests of North America. Or, if they could
> detect them closer to launch, they could have Josh Hawley trot by them
> whereby the balloon would be sucked into his vortex never to be seen
> again. Or, or, or how about getting some of them Jan 6 tourists to
> leap on the balloons in their "patriotic" fever to save their dear
> leader and stab holes in the balloons with their orange goon flags.

LOL. It's literally intuitively obvious to the most casual observer
that you don't have a working knowledge of altitude or of the exterior
ballistics metrics of orange goon flags. You're just one more
self-identified expert who isn't. And look, by the way, at the end of
day going forward - or even like, backward - MTG is not mine. That dog
won't hunt and that spaghetti won't stick.

--
bill
Theory don't mean squat if it don't work.

On 2/18/2023 10:59 AM, bfh wrote:
> kmiller wrote:
>> On 2/17/2023 2:24 PM, bfh wrote:
>>> dm_callier wrote:
>>>> On Friday, February 17, 2023 at 8:37:31 AM UTC-8, dm_callier
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> On Thursday, February 16, 2023 at 5:08:54 PM UTC-8, bfh wrote:
>>>>> <BigSnip>
>>>>>> Look, so, does that, like, mean (blink blink blink blink...)
>>>>>> you're OK with literally shooting down unidentified unknown
>>>>>> objects - which may or may not even be technically a balloon -
>>>>>> with a 400 million dollar missile? -- bill Theory don't mean
>>>>>> squat if it don't work.
>>>>> Well, a) It's only a $400K missile. b) Considering moral, ethical
>>>>> and/or political considerations is too close to the metaphysical
>>>>> to be part of my current calculus as pertains to transitory high
>>>>> altitude objects. When: c) Going forward, I was only really
>>>>> interested in following the science in re the efficacy and
>>>>> economics of downing biggly objects at high altitude with $400K
>>>>> missiles versus with cannon fire that I posited would be less
>>>>> expensive with similar or enhanced efficacy.
>>>>>
>>>>> Enjoy the day! dmc
>>>> And now it turns out that all the objects fired on weren't
>>>> necessarily biggly at all. The efficiency  of the $400K missile may
>>>> be higher than first I supposed if the rumor of the downing of a
>>>> balloon with a diameter of 3-9 feet is verified–efficacy
>>>> still in
>>>> some doubt.
>>>>
>>> yeah but but but since they were unknown unidentified aerial objects
>>> of undetermined - and possibly extraterrestrial - origin, we shot
>>> them down out of an abundance of caution. Besides, I'll bet the
>>> pilots thought it was more fun than they've had since they got out of
>>> fighter pilot training - and they're probably already wearing a
>>> Balloon Killer patch on their flight suits and getting free drinks at
>>> Happy Hour. I would be surprised if the O' Club bartenders didn't
>>> invent a drink that "will blow your payload off".
>>>
>>
>> I'm mostly surprised that your own MTG didn't arrange to have them
>> shot down with those Jewish space lasers - the efficacy of which has
>> already been proven in the forests of North America. Or, if they could
>> detect them closer to launch, they could have Josh Hawley trot by them
>> whereby the balloon would be sucked into his vortex never to be seen
>> again. Or, or, or how about getting some of them Jan 6 tourists to
>> leap on the balloons in their "patriotic" fever to save their dear
>> leader and stab holes in the balloons with their orange goon flags.
>
> LOL. It's literally intuitively obvious to the most casual observer that
> you don't have a working knowledge of altitude or of the exterior
> ballistics metrics of orange goon flags. You're just one more
> self-identified expert who isn't. And look, by the way, at the end of
> day going forward - or even like, backward - MTG is not mine. That dog
> won't hunt and that spaghetti won't stick.
>

Ahhh, c'mon. There's enough hot air in your George Santos to reach
space. HawHawHaw!

kmiller wrote:
> On 2/18/2023 10:59 AM, bfh wrote:
>> kmiller wrote:
>>> On 2/17/2023 2:24 PM, bfh wrote:
>>>> dm_callier wrote:
>>>>> On Friday, February 17, 2023 at 8:37:31 AM UTC-8, dm_callier
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> On Thursday, February 16, 2023 at 5:08:54 PM UTC-8, bfh wrote:
>>>>>> <BigSnip>
>>>>>>> Look, so, does that, like, mean (blink blink blink blink...)
>>>>>>> you're OK with literally shooting down unidentified unknown
>>>>>>> objects - which may or may not even be technically a balloon -
>>>>>>> with a 400 million dollar missile? -- bill Theory don't mean
>>>>>>> squat if it don't work.
>>>>>> Well, a) It's only a $400K missile. b) Considering moral, ethical
>>>>>> and/or political considerations is too close to the metaphysical
>>>>>> to be part of my current calculus as pertains to transitory high
>>>>>> altitude objects. When: c) Going forward, I was only really
>>>>>> interested in following the science in re the efficacy and
>>>>>> economics of downing biggly objects at high altitude with $400K
>>>>>> missiles versus with cannon fire that I posited would be less
>>>>>> expensive with similar or enhanced efficacy.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Enjoy the day! dmc
>>>>> And now it turns out that all the objects fired on weren't
>>>>> necessarily biggly at all. The efficiency  of the $400K
>>>>> missile may
>>>>> be higher than first I supposed if the rumor of the downing of a
>>>>> balloon with a diameter of 3-9 feet is
>>>>> verified–efficacy still in
>>>>> some doubt.
>>>>>
>>>> yeah but but but since they were unknown unidentified aerial
>>>> objects of undetermined - and possibly extraterrestrial - origin,
>>>> we shot them down out of an abundance of caution. Besides, I'll
>>>> bet the pilots thought it was more fun than they've had since they
>>>> got out of fighter pilot training - and they're probably already
>>>> wearing a Balloon Killer patch on their flight suits and getting
>>>> free drinks at Happy Hour. I would be surprised if the O' Club
>>>> bartenders didn't invent a drink that "will blow your payload off".
>>>>
>>>
>>> I'm mostly surprised that your own MTG didn't arrange to have them
>>> shot down with those Jewish space lasers - the efficacy of which
>>> has already been proven in the forests of North America. Or, if
>>> they could detect them closer to launch, they could have Josh
>>> Hawley trot by them whereby the balloon would be sucked into his
>>> vortex never to be seen again. Or, or, or how about getting some of
>>> them Jan 6 tourists to leap on the balloons in their "patriotic"
>>> fever to save their dear leader and stab holes in the balloons with
>>> their orange goon flags.
>>
>> LOL. It's literally intuitively obvious to the most casual observer
>> that you don't have a working knowledge of altitude or of the
>> exterior ballistics metrics of orange goon flags. You're just one
>> more self-identified expert who isn't. And look, by the way, at the
>> end of day going forward - or even like, backward - MTG is not mine.
>> That dog won't hunt and that spaghetti won't stick.
>>
>
> Ahhh, c'mon. There's enough hot air in your George Santos to reach
> space. HawHawHaw!

He's not mine, either. If there were literally any justice in any of
the toolboxes on the table, you would be red-flagged, all of your -
probably unregistered - spaghetti would be summarily confiscated, and
your name would be put on the Federal No Pasta List.

--
bill
Theory don't mean squat if it don't work.

On 2/18/2023 7:55 PM, bfh wrote:
> kmiller wrote:
>> On 2/18/2023 10:59 AM, bfh wrote:
>>> kmiller wrote:
>>>> On 2/17/2023 2:24 PM, bfh wrote:
>>>>> dm_callier wrote:
>>>>>> On Friday, February 17, 2023 at 8:37:31 AM UTC-8, dm_callier
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thursday, February 16, 2023 at 5:08:54 PM UTC-8, bfh wrote:
>>>>>>> <BigSnip>
>>>>>>>> Look, so, does that, like, mean (blink blink blink blink...)
>>>>>>>> you're OK with literally shooting down unidentified unknown
>>>>>>>> objects - which may or may not even be technically a balloon -
>>>>>>>> with a 400 million dollar missile? -- bill Theory don't mean
>>>>>>>> squat if it don't work.
>>>>>>> Well, a) It's only a $400K missile. b) Considering moral, ethical
>>>>>>> and/or political considerations is too close to the metaphysical
>>>>>>> to be part of my current calculus as pertains to transitory high
>>>>>>> altitude objects. When: c) Going forward, I was only really
>>>>>>> interested in following the science in re the efficacy and
>>>>>>> economics of downing biggly objects at high altitude with $400K
>>>>>>> missiles versus with cannon fire that I posited would be less
>>>>>>> expensive with similar or enhanced efficacy.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Enjoy the day! dmc
>>>>>> And now it turns out that all the objects fired on weren't
>>>>>> necessarily biggly at all. The efficiency  of the $400K missile
>>>>>> may
>>>>>> be higher than first I supposed if the rumor of the downing of a
>>>>>> balloon with a diameter of 3-9 feet is
>>>>>> verified–efficacy still in
>>>>>> some doubt.
>>>>>>
>>>>> yeah but but but since they were unknown unidentified aerial
>>>>> objects of undetermined - and possibly extraterrestrial - origin,
>>>>> we shot them down out of an abundance of caution. Besides, I'll bet
>>>>> the pilots thought it was more fun than they've had since they got
>>>>> out of fighter pilot training - and they're probably already
>>>>> wearing a Balloon Killer patch on their flight suits and getting
>>>>> free drinks at Happy Hour. I would be surprised if the O' Club
>>>>> bartenders didn't invent a drink that "will blow your payload off".
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I'm mostly surprised that your own MTG didn't arrange to have them
>>>> shot down with those Jewish space lasers - the efficacy of which has
>>>> already been proven in the forests of North America. Or, if they
>>>> could detect them closer to launch, they could have Josh Hawley trot
>>>> by them whereby the balloon would be sucked into his vortex never to
>>>> be seen again. Or, or, or how about getting some of them Jan 6
>>>> tourists to leap on the balloons in their "patriotic" fever to save
>>>> their dear leader and stab holes in the balloons with their orange
>>>> goon flags.
>>>
>>> LOL. It's literally intuitively obvious to the most casual observer
>>> that you don't have a working knowledge of altitude or of the
>>> exterior ballistics metrics of orange goon flags. You're just one
>>> more self-identified expert who isn't. And look, by the way, at the
>>> end of day going forward - or even like, backward - MTG is not mine.
>>> That dog won't hunt and that spaghetti won't stick.
>>>
>>
>> Ahhh, c'mon. There's enough hot air in your George Santos to reach
>> space. HawHawHaw!
>
> He's not mine, either. If there were literally any justice in any of the
> toolboxes on the table, you would be red-flagged, all of your - probably
> unregistered - spaghetti would be summarily confiscated, and your name
> would be put on the Federal No Pasta List.
>

Jeepers! You are sooo sensitive. Are you sure you ain't woke? HawHawHaw!

kmiller wrote:
> On 2/18/2023 7:55 PM, bfh wrote:
>> kmiller wrote:
>>> On 2/18/2023 10:59 AM, bfh wrote:
>>>> kmiller wrote:
>>>>> On 2/17/2023 2:24 PM, bfh wrote:
>>>>>> dm_callier wrote:
>>>>>>> On Friday, February 17, 2023 at 8:37:31 AM UTC-8, dm_callier
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Thursday, February 16, 2023 at 5:08:54 PM UTC-8, bfh wrote:
>>>>>>>> <BigSnip>
>>>>>>>>> Look, so, does that, like, mean (blink blink blink blink...)
>>>>>>>>> you're OK with literally shooting down unidentified unknown
>>>>>>>>> objects - which may or may not even be technically a balloon -
>>>>>>>>> with a 400 million dollar missile? -- bill Theory don't mean
>>>>>>>>> squat if it don't work.
>>>>>>>> Well, a) It's only a $400K missile. b) Considering moral, ethical
>>>>>>>> and/or political considerations is too close to the metaphysical
>>>>>>>> to be part of my current calculus as pertains to transitory high
>>>>>>>> altitude objects. When: c) Going forward, I was only really
>>>>>>>> interested in following the science in re the efficacy and
>>>>>>>> economics of downing biggly objects at high altitude with $400K
>>>>>>>> missiles versus with cannon fire that I posited would be less
>>>>>>>> expensive with similar or enhanced efficacy.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Enjoy the day! dmc
>>>>>>> And now it turns out that all the objects fired on weren't
>>>>>>> necessarily biggly at all. The efficiency  of the $400K
>>>>>>> missile may
>>>>>>> be higher than first I supposed if the rumor of the downing of a
>>>>>>> balloon with a diameter of 3-9 feet is
>>>>>>> verified–efficacy still in
>>>>>>> some doubt.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> yeah but but but since they were unknown unidentified aerial
>>>>>> objects of undetermined - and possibly extraterrestrial -
>>>>>> origin, we shot them down out of an abundance of caution.
>>>>>> Besides, I'll bet the pilots thought it was more fun than
>>>>>> they've had since they got out of fighter pilot training - and
>>>>>> they're probably already wearing a Balloon Killer patch on their
>>>>>> flight suits and getting free drinks at Happy Hour. I would be
>>>>>> surprised if the O' Club bartenders didn't invent a drink that
>>>>>> "will blow your payload off".
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm mostly surprised that your own MTG didn't arrange to have
>>>>> them shot down with those Jewish space lasers - the efficacy of
>>>>> which has already been proven in the forests of North America.
>>>>> Or, if they could detect them closer to launch, they could have
>>>>> Josh Hawley trot by them whereby the balloon would be sucked into
>>>>> his vortex never to be seen again. Or, or, or how about getting
>>>>> some of them Jan 6 tourists to leap on the balloons in their
>>>>> "patriotic" fever to save their dear leader and stab holes in the
>>>>> balloons with their orange goon flags.
>>>>
>>>> LOL. It's literally intuitively obvious to the most casual
>>>> observer that you don't have a working knowledge of altitude or of
>>>> the exterior ballistics metrics of orange goon flags. You're just
>>>> one more self-identified expert who isn't. And look, by the way,
>>>> at the end of day going forward - or even like, backward - MTG is
>>>> not mine. That dog won't hunt and that spaghetti won't stick.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Ahhh, c'mon. There's enough hot air in your George Santos to reach
>>> space. HawHawHaw!
>>
>> He's not mine, either. If there were literally any justice in any of
>> the toolboxes on the table, you would be red-flagged, all of your -
>> probably unregistered - spaghetti would be summarily confiscated,
>> and your name would be put on the Federal No Pasta List.
>>
>
> Jeepers! You are sooo sensitive. Are you sure you ain't woke? HawHawHaw!

Can't be. I take too many naps to qualify.

--
bill
Theory don't mean squat if it don't work.

On Sunday, February 19, 2023 at 8:11:11 PM UTC-8, bfh wrote:
> kmiller wrote:
> > On 2/18/2023 7:55 PM, bfh wrote:
> >> kmiller wrote:
> >>> On 2/18/2023 10:59 AM, bfh wrote:
> >>>> kmiller wrote:
> >>>>> On 2/17/2023 2:24 PM, bfh wrote:
> >>>>>> dm_callier wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Friday, February 17, 2023 at 8:37:31 AM UTC-8, dm_callier
> >>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On Thursday, February 16, 2023 at 5:08:54 PM UTC-8, bfh wrote:
> >>>>>>>> <BigSnip>
> >>>>>>>>> Look, so, does that, like, mean (blink blink blink blink...)
> >>>>>>>>> you're OK with literally shooting down unidentified unknown
> >>>>>>>>> objects - which may or may not even be technically a balloon -
> >>>>>>>>> with a 400 million dollar missile? -- bill Theory don't mean
> >>>>>>>>> squat if it don't work.
> >>>>>>>> Well, a) It's only a $400K missile. b) Considering moral, ethical
> >>>>>>>> and/or political considerations is too close to the metaphysical
> >>>>>>>> to be part of my current calculus as pertains to transitory high
> >>>>>>>> altitude objects. When: c) Going forward, I was only really
> >>>>>>>> interested in following the science in re the efficacy and
> >>>>>>>> economics of downing biggly objects at high altitude with $400K
> >>>>>>>> missiles versus with cannon fire that I posited would be less
> >>>>>>>> expensive with similar or enhanced efficacy.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Enjoy the day! dmc
> >>>>>>> And now it turns out that all the objects fired on weren't
> >>>>>>> necessarily biggly at all. The efficiency of the $400K
> >>>>>>> missile may
> >>>>>>> be higher than first I supposed if the rumor of the downing of a
> >>>>>>> balloon with a diameter of 3-9 feet is
> >>>>>>> verified–efficacy still in
> >>>>>>> some doubt.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> yeah but but but since they were unknown unidentified aerial
> >>>>>> objects of undetermined - and possibly extraterrestrial -
> >>>>>> origin, we shot them down out of an abundance of caution.
> >>>>>> Besides, I'll bet the pilots thought it was more fun than
> >>>>>> they've had since they got out of fighter pilot training - and
> >>>>>> they're probably already wearing a Balloon Killer patch on their
> >>>>>> flight suits and getting free drinks at Happy Hour. I would be
> >>>>>> surprised if the O' Club bartenders didn't invent a drink that
> >>>>>> "will blow your payload off".
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I'm mostly surprised that your own MTG didn't arrange to have
> >>>>> them shot down with those Jewish space lasers - the efficacy of
> >>>>> which has already been proven in the forests of North America.
> >>>>> Or, if they could detect them closer to launch, they could have
> >>>>> Josh Hawley trot by them whereby the balloon would be sucked into
> >>>>> his vortex never to be seen again. Or, or, or how about getting
> >>>>> some of them Jan 6 tourists to leap on the balloons in their
> >>>>> "patriotic" fever to save their dear leader and stab holes in the
> >>>>> balloons with their orange goon flags.
> >>>>
> >>>> LOL. It's literally intuitively obvious to the most casual
> >>>> observer that you don't have a working knowledge of altitude or of
> >>>> the exterior ballistics metrics of orange goon flags. You're just
> >>>> one more self-identified expert who isn't. And look, by the way,
> >>>> at the end of day going forward - or even like, backward - MTG is
> >>>> not mine. That dog won't hunt and that spaghetti won't stick.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> Ahhh, c'mon. There's enough hot air in your George Santos to reach
> >>> space. HawHawHaw!
> >>
> >> He's not mine, either. If there were literally any justice in any of
> >> the toolboxes on the table, you would be red-flagged, all of your -
> >> probably unregistered - spaghetti would be summarily confiscated,
> >> and your name would be put on the Federal No Pasta List.
> >>
> >
> > Jeepers! You are sooo sensitive. Are you sure you ain't woke? HawHawHaw!
> Can't be. I take too many naps to qualify.
> --
> bill
> Theory don't mean squat if it don't work.

I'm sympathetic to "woke" as meaning "personal & social awareness", yet I still find myownself mostly identifying as "perplexed", due to my frequent wondering, "WTF do some people do like they do?" Worse, it's not a feeling that provides me with much comfort! HawHawHaw!

Miss Manners Jr.