‘Pentagon spokesperson Brigadier General Pat Ryder said on Thursday that the US was "aware that [the balloon] had intelligence collection capabilities".
But "it has been our assessment now that it did not collect while it was transiting the United States or over flying the United States".’
When did the pentagon confirm it was not a spy balloon? The article is very short and the meaning is clear, it doesn’t say anything about whether the pentagon thinks it’s a spy balloon.
I agree that sensors could mean anything, and so could “intelligence data” but just because the positive was not confirmed “It’s a spy balloon” doesn’t mean that the negative was confirmed “It’s not a spy balloon”. Personally I am unconvinced either way and actually don’t care whether or not it was a spy balloon, my point is that the bbc article absolutely does not say that the pentagon thinks it wasn’t a spy balloon.
Also keep in mind the US military isn’t necessarily going to be honest about what they think the balloon is and how much they can discern about its purpose.
> Pentagon spokesperson Brigadier General Pat Ryder said on Thursday that the US was "aware that [the balloon] had intelligence collection capabilities". ... He said the efforts the US took to mitigate any intelligence gathering "contributed" to the balloon's failure to gather sensitive information.
So it was a spy balloon but it was off, or it was a spy balloon and on and we outsmarted it, or it was a spy balloon and it malfunctioned at least in part.
Nothing in that source suggests that it was not a spy balloon.
Maybe the article had a different headline and they didn’t read the actual article? I’m baffled how some could read that incredibly short article and come away with any assertion about what the pentagon thinks about the balloon other than that it can collect ”intelligence data”
