Drones over New Jersey?

beku-mant said:
The simplest and most plausible answer is that the protocols are set up so that information pertaining to secretive activities in the airspace, whether unconventional technology of ours, an adversary, or from somewhere else, remains protected.
Click to expand...

I think you're broadly correct in that some experimental military aircraft (or payloads) are shrouded in secrecy.
This is to prevent enemies or potential adversaries obtaining useful information on US capabilities.
Fortunately the US has vast areas where such equipment can be trialled in reasonably secure conditions.
Information on classified military matters is shared on a "need-to-know" basis, not on an "I want to know" basis-
-that would be a gift for the USA's adversaries.

Other than the Chinese spy balloon (and of course satellites) I'm not aware of any plausible accounts of a high-end enemy system overflying the continental US ever. But if this has happened/ is happening, why tell a hostile state how you detected its spyplane?
 
Mendel said:
it takes very little time to switch battery packs,
lose sight of it for a minute, and it could be on the next half hour
Click to expand...
Exactly. In addition, discussion of drones should not be limited to the typical consumer models. For instance there are commercial drones easily capable of flight times of up to 480 minutes. Long flight time drones When you get into commercial drones, payload capacity increases dramatically, facilitating carrying interesting payloads - lights, etc. Commercial drones.
 
These appear to sound like almost mutually exclusive statements:
beku-mant said:
Ultimately, there are sophisticated DoD air monitoring systems that would have to have the answers.
Click to expand...

beku-mant said:
And the consequence is hardly anybody has a clue what's going on
Click to expand...

The DoD has a sophisticated and massively extensive air monitoring system that can pinpoint and identify ANYTHING flying ANYWHERE, staffed presumably by an equally massive labor force including 24 hour monitoring personal, subject experts, engineers, security folks and on and on....

And yet the same government that set up this incredibly complex and sophisticated system is otherwise clueless?

You suggest that one side of the government has some sort of protocols for whatever this sophisticated all-seeing all-knowing system detects, such that after detecting drone swarms over NJ, this information is secreted away from the rest of government so as not to alert anyone to the pre-supposed alien UFOs they also routinely track and identify.

Even IF the government was routinely tracking and identifying alien UFOs, something for which there is no evidence, how does ignoring a problematic, though terrestrial, drone swarm help anything? The guys in charge of this super-secret system capable of tracking UFOs and drones keep the drone tracking secret so as to keep the UFO tracking secret? It all seems very convoluted.
 
AllTheQuestionsToday said:
I guess I can't get past this notion that 'everyone' is allegedly mistaken.
Click to expand...
I think you have this backwards. To repeat something that has been said many times before, if there ARE no mysterious, other-worldly craft visiting earth, then yes, everyone who says there are is mistaken. There is nothing at all unusual in casual observers being unable to correctly identify miscellaneous lights in the sky, but until someone can offer evidence that a thing is not (to name the most common items) an ordinary hobby drone, a communications satellite, or an airplane, it is perfectly reasonable to look to those ordinary explanations as plausible identifications, and not get hysterical about a nebulous claim that maybe-they're-things-we-have-never-seen-before.
 
beku-mant said:
If it is really true that the combined effort of the Dep. of Homeland Security, FBI, secret service, and authorities at all levels, with current air monitoring capability, is insufficient to track conventional drones, it would not be a reassuring signal.
Click to expand...

The agencies you refer to can't track the possession of firearms or drugs with any great certainty, let alone drones.
But drones kill far less people.
It's not practical to construct a nationwide system that could detect and identify every hobby drone/ RC aircraft flight in the USA.

The United States has the most versatile and most powerful conventional military forces on Earth, and nuclear forces matched only by Russia.
For decades it's been recognised that the Russian (and former USSR) nuclear forces could strike, and destroy, any target in the USA; to a significant extent the same is true of China (although the maximum number of possible targets would be much smaller).
As far as we know the US doesn't have any realistic physical defence against such a strike were it ordered, instead it relies on deterrence- the potential adversary would know that they would suffer a horrific response.

Similarly, any nation deploying drone swarms against the people of the USA would face retaliation.
 
Last edited:
NorCal Dave said:
Even IF the government was routinely tracking and identifying alien UFOs, something for which there is no evidence, how does ignoring a problematic, though terrestrial, drone swarm help anything? The guys in charge of this super-secret system capable of tracking UFOs and drones keep the drone tracking secret so as to keep the UFO tracking secret? It all seems very convoluted.
Click to expand...

Secrecy protocols interfere with inter-agency/department communication and collaboration. I don't know if it matters whether it were an alien UFO, or unidentified drone. They wouldn't have loose protocols that support subjective on-the-fly decisions on who needs-to-know over some categories of intelligence gathering/monitoring. There is a trade-off in secrecy vs capability and readiness when it comes to the thresholds you choose on who and how many are granted need-to-know. And there is, apparently, knowledge of systems in the skies, representing highly disruptive unconventional technologies, that is held to absurd levels of secrecy. So they lean heavily towards limiting need to know.
 
Last edited:
beku-mant said:
There is a trade-off in secrecy vs capability and readiness when it comes to the thresholds you choose on who and how many are granted need-to-know.
Click to expand...

No. In defence terms, in many cases throughout history, the ability to develop and/ or deploy a capability in secret has been crucial. Extending need-to-know unnecessarily can help the enemy's readiness.

If in the late 1930's the UK government had sent explanatory letters to all the communities along England's south-east coast where strange new metal frame towers had sprung up, because the locals were curious, *bang* would go the early advantage of radar.

The Manhattan Project staff didn't make a point of keeping interested parties and physicists across the world up-to-date with their research (thank goodness).
 
beku-mant said:
And there is, apparently, knowledge of systems in the skies, representing highly disruptive unconventional technologies, that is held to absurd levels of secrecy.
Click to expand...

How is there "knowledge" of "highly disruptive unconventional technologies" when all this stuff is "held to absurd levels of secrecy"? It can't work both ways, either this stuff is super highly classified or it's common knowledge. If there is super-secret knowledge about "unconventional technologies" then it would be just that, super-secret. If it was known by lots of people, it wouldn't be at "absurd levels of secrecy". Right? It's either or.

Where is the evidence for these "highly disruptive unconventional technologies"? And if there is readily available evidence for them, they aren't really kept at an "absurd levels of secrecy" are they?
 
John J. said:
No. In defence terms, in many cases throughout history, the ability to develop and/ or deploy a capability in secret has been crucial. Extending need-to-know unnecessarily can help the enemy's readiness.

If in the late 1930's the UK government had sent explanatory letters to all the communities along England's south-east coast where strange new metal frame towers had sprung up, because the locals were curious, *bang* would go the early advantage of radar.

The Manhattan Project staff didn't make a point of keeping interested parties and physicists across the world up-to-date with their research (thank goodness).
Click to expand...

I think you are right under many contexts, maybe including this one. But it remains to be my hypothesis that the apparent dysfunction within US military and intelligence, when it comes to identifying and tracking drones and UAP, is a symptom of excessive secrecy. I don't think you can effectively mitigating risks of mass drone attacks without large infrastructure, software systems, and coordinated personnel. The goal should be systematically monitoring and identifying things in the sky on the level that is required for modern air defense. Doing so would expose too many people to knowledge of the existence of highly secretive unconventional technologies.
 
NorCal Dave said:
How is there "knowledge" of "highly disruptive unconventional technologies" when all this stuff is "held to absurd levels of secrecy"? It can't work both ways, either this stuff is super highly classified or it's common knowledge. If there is super-secret knowledge about "unconventional technologies" then it would be just that, super-secret. If it was known by lots of people, it wouldn't be at "absurd levels of secrecy". Right? It's either or.

Where is the evidence for these "highly disruptive unconventional technologies"? And if there is readily available evidence for them, they aren't really kept at an "absurd levels of secrecy" are they?
Click to expand...
What they know about said technologies is super-secret. The existence of said technologies is known by many first hand witnesses, suspected by many investigators, and claimed by many "insiders".
 
beku-mant said:
the apparent dysfunction within US military and intelligence, when it comes to identifying and tracking drones and UAP, is a symptom of excessive secrecy.
Click to expand...
it is physically impossible to track a large number of objects externally that are close to the ground, without a vast distributed observation network that cannot be kept secret because it'd have to be everywhere, and therefore does not exist.

What you describe is fiction; not only does it lack supporting evidence, it is impossible,
 
beku-mant said:
What they know about said technologies is super-secret. The existence of said technologies is known by many first hand witnesses, suspected by many investigators, and claimed by many "insiders".
Click to expand...

Respectfully, that does not address this:
NorCal Dave said:
Where is the evidence for these "highly disruptive unconventional technologies"?
Click to expand...

Please do more than just repeat the assertion, please share evidence. If there is none, but you believe it anyway, you have that right, absolutely. But that won't fly here, this is a site where evidence is presented and debated.
 
To see and take clear pics of these , you would need to shine a light on them.

This can be done by for example the following methods:

1) Shine a helicopter spotlight on one and take pics/video

2) Shine a spotlight/powerfull torch from the ground and take a pic from a camera with long lens on the ground.

3) Send up a surveillance drone with spotlight and camera. Like Palmer Lucky's Anduril military surveillance drone :

(Side note: They could also knock it out of the air by firing on it or using something like the Anduril Anvil, basically a drone that flies at speed and hits and knocks done another drone: https://www.anduril.com/hardware/anvil/ )

So, my guess is they have done this and know what these are. Or at least have clear pics of them.
If that's the case, the question is why they wouldn't tell you more about them and share any clear pics they have.
Would it be? :

1) they don't want to reveal the systems they possibly took pics with

2) Don't want to alarm the population, say for example, if it was foreign drones over a number of locations across the US. Remember what happened when it was revealed a chinese spy balloon was over the US, and the public outcry to shoot it down. What would the public think of a number of low flying foreign drones across areas near where they live. My mind goes to those they use in war to drop grenades etc. Foreign Drones flying low in numbers near me would be a much more frightening unknown. I can only imagine what the public outcry would be if it was revealed a number of foreign drones where flying over multiple locations in the US regularly
 
Last edited:
Mendel said:
it is physically impossible to track a large number of objects externally that are close to the ground, without a vast distributed observation network that cannot be kept secret because it'd have to be everywhere, and therefore does not exist.

What you describe is fiction; not only does it lack supporting evidence, it is impossible,
Click to expand...

It may be impractical over a large area while maintaining secrecy, but for a localized ongoing event, I would think they should have the capability to figure out what's going on.

I don't discount the possibility that nothing is going on, hence there is nothing to detect/figure out, but they are just continuing to investigate because people are misidentifying things and filing reports. But, if that is the case then it is a mystery why they have so many agencies involved, and why those agencies seem to be leading the governor to believe that something anomalous and sophisticated is going on.
 
beku-mant said:
It may be impractical over a large area while maintaining secrecy, but for a localized ongoing event, I would think they should have the capability to figure out what's going on.
Click to expand...
Well, that's even worse, because even if they had the ability to deploy a couple thousand observation stations in a county, doing so all at once in this situation could not escape notice.

AARO has some mobile gear they're developing, but I'd be surprised if they have even 10; same with the Galileo project.


beku-mant said:
But, if that is the case then it is a mystery why they have so many agencies involved, and why those agencies seem to be leading the governor to believe that something anomalous and sophisticated is going on.
Click to expand...
Which agencies? Who is involving them? What are they actually doing?
 
justthefacts said:
Exactly. In addition, discussion of drones should not be limited to the typical consumer models. For instance there are commercial drones easily capable of flight times of up to 480 minutes. Long flight time drones When you get into commercial drones, payload capacity increases dramatically, facilitating carrying interesting payloads - lights, etc. Commercial drones.
Click to expand...
Just for the fascination:
With this Aurelia Drone you can carry 6 DJI Minis, how cool would it be to to drop the 6 Minidrones from the Mothership while its hovering in the sky. :eek:
 
The flap has spread to the UK now. (Source)

1733821833254.png
 
Here is a prime example of someone confidently claiming they are familiar with their local area and the flight activity there, when clearly they are not:

1733832244479.png

1733832266274.png


Those posts relate to this video:



The EMPABAKE sign in the video locates it to North Arlington, NJ, which is just over five miles from Newark airport.

1733832814984.png



And of course every plane landing on that runway is following the same path appearing just over/behind those rooftops:

1733832869533.png


1733832964935.png



A playback of the evening flights into Newark shows about one a minute on this flightpath (the planes heading north to south on this video - the camera location is just by the "T" of Belleville Turnpike, above the ARLINGTON label.)




The result...

1733832387407.png
 
I suspect that a lot are, yeah. But with the "they're disguising them to look like planes, THIS looks like a plane so it must be one of the drones" narrative out there, that provides a lifeline to folks not wanting to admit or even consider that they've been wrong.
 
JMartJr said:
I suspect that a lot are, yeah. But with the "they're disguising them to look like planes, THIS looks like a plane so it must be one of the drones" narrative out there, that provides a lifeline to folks not wanting to admit or even consider that they've been wrong.
Click to expand...
Nothing new there, it's been long known all top flight mental gymnasts roid up on copium.
 
jackfrostvc said:
Side note: They could also knock it out of the air by firing on it or using something like the Anduril Anvil, basically a drone that flies at speed and hits and knocks done another drone: https://www.anduril.com/hardware/anvil/ )
Click to expand...
You're assuming they ARE drones, when so many of the examples are shown here to be helicopters and planes. "Shoot first, ask questions later" is NOT a policy we want to see implemented. The general hysteria that has been exhibited by observers greatly increases the chance that some idiot will interfere with legitimate aircraft, by laser or by weaponry, with tragic results.
 
Trailblazer said:
Here is a prime example of someone confidently claiming they are familiar with their local area and the flight activity there, when clearly they are not:
Click to expand...
Causes of the confusion (apart from jumping on the bandwagon when somebody says "look at that UFO" and everybody starts seeing strange things in the sky" include changing flight patterns when the weather dictates it. I'm about 25 miles or more from Cleveland Hopkins, but worked much closer to it, and it was obvious that changes to flight paths were made when the wind made it necessary.
 
Mauro said:
Please, not the "they can't all be wrong" argument again. It's not just a PRATT (Point Refuted a Thousand Times), but a PRUT (Point Refuted Uncountable Times), to the extent of it becoming a SRP (Self-Refuting Point).
Click to expand...
It's not a SRP, as a SRP follows
((A => ~A) => ~A)
Roughly: if from a premise we can deduce its negation, then its negation is true.

It's closer to just being a slot-in replacement for Godwin's Law: if you resort to using that line of reasoning, merely by doing so you have effectively lost the argument.
For Godwin, it's likening things to the Nazis, for us it's appeal to argumentum ad populum or its ilk. However, I'd not want to single that fallacy out, as it seems argument from incredulity is just as common, and just as toothless.
 
Last edited:
Just confirming @Trailblazer's work in post #183 with a bit more Streetview etc.

A.JPG




B.jpg


C.JPG




D.JPG


The witness is filming an aircraft of perfectly normal appearance, apparently using standard lighting, flying along a frequently-used route as identified by @Trailblazer. It was probably heading into Newark Liberty International Airport.

Flights into Newark are quite common; it's the 13th busiest airport in the US (and 23rd busiest in the world, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newark_Liberty_International_Airport).

The witness' failure to recognise the aircraft as a normal sight in the New Jersey sky is, for me, difficult to understand.

The filmed object looks and behaves like a commercial aircraft. With some checking it can be shown it is following a path frequently used by commercial aircraft.
I don't know whether to be amused or concerned that some people think it might be something unusual just because the person who filmed it says it is. -Some of those people might be voters, parents. Maybe it's more chilling than amusing.
 
AllTheQuestionsToday said:
I guess I can't get past this notion that 'everyone' is allegedly mistaken. I get guarding against mass hysteria, but you guys need to carefully caution on pumping the brakes so hard that you crash from that.
Click to expand...
Please also consider there's selection bias at work.

Imagine 100 people out at night with their smartphones, and 80 of them correctly identify aircraft, while 20 do not. Of those 80, most don't bother recording, and those that do and upload don't get much traction because their videos appear ordinary. But the 20 who are wrong do record, and do upload with an interesting (if false) story, and get a lot of traction on social media.

Only these 20 are those you call 'everyone', but they're not: they're a mistaken minority influencing everyone else through the rumor mill that is social media.
 
Does it matter if the United States Army says they are drones?

Picatinny Arsenal, the Army facility in Morris County, has had 11 confirmed sightings of unauthorized drones flying over in its airspace in recent weeks, military officials said.

The first confirmed sighting at Picatinny witnessed by a police or security officer at the arsenal was Nov. 13, five days earlier than previously reported, Army officials said Monday. Seven other sightings remained unconfirmed, including one reported Friday at the military research and manufacturing facility in Jefferson and Rockaway Township.

"While the source and cause of these aircraft operating in our area remain unknown, we can confirm that they are not the result of any Picatinny Arsenal-related activities," said Lt. Col. Craig A. Bonham II, Picatinny Arsenal Garrison Commander.

...

The sightings at the Army facility were among the earliest reported in a flood of drone sightings in recent weeks around the state. Residents have reported multiple drones flying over the same areas of New Jersey each night along with unusually large drones, the kind not usually used by hobbyists, over some areas.

...

Picatinny Arsenal released a list Monday of the dates of 18 sightings, including the 11 confirmed incidents. "Confirmed" means a police officer or security guard "visibly witnessed a drone" while or after receiving the report, military officials said.

Picatinny Arsenal's list also includes seven "unconfirmed" reports of drones, which means a police officer received a call but was "unable to verify the object upon arriving on the scene," Army officials said. Two of the unconfirmed reports were listed as "aircraft."

Bonham said Picatinny Arsenal officials immediately began investigating the initial reports, with several local, state, and federal partners.

...

The Picatinny Arsenal Police Department received the reports of the evening drone activity.

Confirmed sightings occurred Nov. 13, Nov. 18, Nov. 19, and Nov. 24, when there were two, as well as nightly between Nov. 28 and Nov. 30. There were also two confirmed sightings on Dec. 3 and one on Dec. 6.

There were two unconfirmed sightings Nov. 26, one Dec. 2, three Dec. 4, and one Dec. 6.
Click to expand...


https://www.nj.com/morris/2024/12/n...firmed-mystery-drone-sightings-army-says.html
 
AllTheQuestionsToday said:
Does it matter if the United States Army says they are drones?
https://www.nj.com/morris/2024/12/n...firmed-mystery-drone-sightings-army-says.html
Click to expand...
Not much, no.
External Quote:
"Confirmed" means a police officer or security guard "visibly witnessed a drone" while or after receiving the report, military officials said.
We know there's usually something in the air, but
a) we don't know that it's a drone if all we have is a witness's word, and
b) we don't know if it's an unusual amount of drones, or merely an unusual amount of reports.
 
Mendel said:
Not much, no.
Click to expand...

So I'm genuinely puzzled at what is the objective standard where we can say people are reporting actual drones, and this is an actual situation where there are mysterious drones up and about in New Jersey, if they are indeed "up there" in New Jersey?

I know there is sometimes resistance amongst skeptical folks to lay down lines, like "If X is demonstrated then we should concede a condition has been met and get aboard a given notion," or similar... but if--if--they are drones, there does have to be a threshold where folks here would have to admit, "there are drones in the air and seems like the military, FAA and FBI aren't sure whose they are," if the military, FAA and FBI start saying they don't know whose they are, but they do know they are drones.

I'm not trying to box anyone in, but the standards and threshold criteria being seemingly often... murky and variable here is always troublesome to me, as if there is a structure to the logic to try and always leave an 'out'.
 
jarlrmai said:
Also define 'they' in this context
Click to expand...

I mean, if I lived next to a military base, and saw weird lights, and got official documentation/statements on the record from the military that the lights I saw on December 10, 2024 at 10pm were military drones in a training operation, why would I have cause to doubt that?

I wouldn't. There would be no logical reason to doubt it, surely?

So inversely, if the military said, they were drones you saw, but they weren't ours... why would have I have any equal reason to doubt that?

If I accept the military says they know what it is, why wouldn't I also accept the military saying they don't know what it is?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

wdejager
Action taken against alleged drones over Volkel air base (the Netherlands)
2
Replies
56
Views
7K
wdejager
wdejager
ManInBlack
Claim: Confirmed drones over naval weapons station in New Jersey
Replies
9
Views
2K
Mendel
Mendel
flarkey
Lights in Sky filmed by Sheriff, Ocean County, New Jersey
Replies
34
Views
3K
FatPhil
FatPhil
Kyle Ferriter
Copenhagen airport closure due to reported drone activity
13 14 15
Replies
599
Views
42K
wdejager
wdejager
TEEJ
Chester Township, Morris County, New Jersey - 1st December 2024 video of claimed drones.
Replies
1
Views
554
Kyle Ferriter
Kyle Ferriter

Latest posts

Trending content

Back
Top