The mistake, and perhaps the likely desire of the WSJ article, is to get people to assume this explains all UFOs. Conceptually, there is nothing new in the article.
The only way he could launch a drone from his house to spy on a military base is if he had no intention of retrieving any data from it and just to fly it over on GPS or something. Why would any state or non-state actor do this? I'm no expert but if you were provoking or signalling capability then you either claim it or you've played your hand. If you wanted the origin to remain a mystery to scare and/or reshape strategy... if a real capability was used and burned gaining no data... doesn't this make no sense?
Given that this would be a costly, complex and high risk operation - wouldn't they have done something like Spider's Web. The cost to benefit makes no sense - am I being stupid here?
The mistake, and perhaps the likely desire of the WSJ article, is to get people to assume this explains all UFOs. Conceptually, there is nothing new in the article.
💯— possibly ‘greatest’ thing Kirkpatrick did is plant, entice and spin that WSJ piece…
The only way he could launch a drone from his house to spy on a military base is if he had no intention of retrieving any data from it and just to fly it over on GPS or something. Why would any state or non-state actor do this? I'm no expert but if you were provoking or signalling capability then you either claim it or you've played your hand. If you wanted the origin to remain a mystery to scare and/or reshape strategy... if a real capability was used and burned gaining no data... doesn't this make no sense?
Given that this would be a costly, complex and high risk operation - wouldn't they have done something like Spider's Web. The cost to benefit makes no sense - am I being stupid here?
Edit to add - Great job Matt and team