Letter to the Editor: Critiquing a Couple Recent Letters to the Editor


I agree with the first paragraph in Michael Townsend’s May 3 letter to the editor. I’ll give it a subtitle of “They Lied.”

“Remember when the communist Chinese intelligence-gathering balloon was allowed to cross the whole of America and Canada unopposed by the Biden Administration? They first told us that it was a weather balloon. It was not. Then they told us it could not maneuver. It did. Then they told us that it could not fly over top-secret U.S. military bases. It did. Then they told us they could not shoot it down because it might hit a cow on the ground. Then they told us that they were blocking its ability to gather intelligence on our top secret sites. They did not. Then they told us that it could not transmit this top secret intelligence. It did. Then they told us that they were blocking it from transmitting top secret intelligence to Communist China, Hunter Biden’s employer some would say. They could not. Well guess what? According to a new NBC News article dated April 3, 2023, they lied.”

I offer one correction about a most common, incorrect term about “the Chinese balloon.” The Chinese sent a dirigible for Xi Jinping’s dirty work.

A dirigible is any lighter-than-air craft that is powered and steerable, as opposed to free floating like a balloon. 

I have experience with steerable aircraft. I’m using an “educated guess” about why and how the dirigible(s) might have been used by the Chinese leader Xi Jinping. 

I have some knowledge about why the Chinese “dirigibles” (recently disclosed) were remotely piloted or programmed. I believe they used to affirm their other intelligence sources, among other reasons.

Regarding Marty Ansley’s May 3 view of Michael Townsend’s letter: My opinion is while both “verbal combatants” tended to use unconfirmed sources for their views, “bashing” each other, Mr. Ansley lost the battle by depending more “media party line” background in his bashing and weak statements.

I prefer to personally investigate information to support my positions by asking myself about what I didn’t find. 

If I’m unable to find information to the contrary I’m pretty confident I can use it to convince readers to favor my position.


Frank Dare