Drones over New Jersey?

Looks similar to this video I saw...


Source: https://www.tiktok.com/@meanguru/video/7448503635060952366?is_from_webapp=1&sender_device=pc&web_id=7448577937878599186


Unfortunately the source is dodgy at best, with little to no information of who it is from. Looks to be filmed from an aircraft if the video is real.

View attachment 74703

This one has been located, it shows United 2489 as filmed from Delta 1649. They were 4,000 feet apart vertically and over 30 seconds apart horizontally.

IMG_0478.jpeg



Original source was here.


Source: https://x.com/ky1elong/status/1868089784557801964?s=46&t=pi-PW2h-zayk3Ew8WL18KA
 
This one has been located, it shows United 2489 as filmed from Delta 1649. They were 4,000 feet apart vertically and over 30 seconds apart horizontally.
For those not versed in FAA rules:

Note that 2000 feet vertical separation (i.e. one aircraft is at least 2000 feet higher than the other) is sufficient for ATC. Think of it this way: if you're in a high-rise, and someone you don't want to meet is on the floor above you, you won't meet. Altitude levels are like "lanes in the sky", aircraft keep to their assigned altitudes.

So, two aircraft with 4000 feet difference in altitude are not dangerously close, they're safely apart.
 
Well, here we finally have some real evidence in this New Jersey crisis!

D'oh, except it's in Massachusetts.
D'oh, doh: And the SUV sized "...drone was discovered in a backpack..." Either Robert Duffy has the
world's biggest backpack...or we still have zero evidence of scary giant drones menacing America...
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/clyvnnj8g34o
Article:
Two people have been arrested after allegedly conducting a "hazardous drone operation" near the airspace of the US city of Boston's main airport, police said.

Their arrests follow a series of drone sightings across the US north-east in recent weeks. Police have given no indication that the sightings are connected to these arrests.

Police said the incident in Boston occurred at 16:30 local time (21:30 GMT) on Saturday when a police officer detected a drone operating "dangerously close" to Logan International Airport.
Police said they identified the drone's location and tracked the operators' position to a decommissioned health campus on Long Island. Because of the drone's proximity to an airport, FBI counter-terrorism agents helped the investigation.

Depending on how accurate the reporting is, the drone may have been operated legally. It would be forbidden from entering the controlled airport airspace (unless cleared by ATC, which it wasn't), but operating "near the airspace", aka outside of it, is of course permitted. [Edit: see my post below]

Note also that, as in the California case, this drone was tracked to its operator.
 
Last edited:
For those not versed in FAA rules:

Note that 2000 feet vertical separation (i.e. one aircraft is at least 2000 feet higher than the other) is sufficient for ATC. Think of it this way: if you're in a high-rise, and someone you don't want to meet is on the floor above you, you won't meet. Altitude levels are like "lanes in the sky", aircraft keep to their assigned altitudes.

So, two aircraft with 4000 feet difference in altitude are not dangerously close, they're safely apart.

A couple of views of the situation in Google Earth, with timestamps of the various plane locations. The video was filmed from the plane at the top of the screen, starting at about the time 00:14:43 seen on the right. At that time, you can see the second plane was in the distance and approaching the 00:14:45 timestamp location

1734342977770.png



And viewed from further south, more behind the track of the filming plane. The timestamp labels get a bit confusing as they overlap but you can see that by the time the lower plane crosses under the path of the filming plane, it is about 00:15:36, by which time the filming plane is well ahead of the crossing point.

1734343175716.png


Overhead view:

1734343459927.png


So not only was the other plane 4,000 feet below, it also passed well behind the one from which the video was taken.
 
Yes contrails are built up only in high altitudes, about 8km in the air.
Actually, this is not true. Contrails can occur even at a ground level, if the atmospheric conditions (temperature and relative humidity) are right for their formation. There is a number of old threads on these here. However, persistent long contrails are usually build up in high altitudes.
 
Depending on how accurate the reporting is, the drone may have been operated legally. It would be forbidden from entering the controlled airport airspace (unless cleared by ATC, which it wasn't), but operating "near the airspace", aka outside of it, is of course permitted.
That was their location:
External Quote:
Police said they identified the drone's location and tracked the operators' position to a decommissioned health campus on Long Island.
The island is well within controlled airspace. Operating a drone there requires prior approval from the FAA.
Screenshot_20241216-121214_Samsung Notes.jpg

Source: https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/flight_info/aeronav/digital_products/vfr/
 
So with real drones it appears to be perfectly possible, if not always straightforward, for the authorities to detect and track them. Just another piece of circumstantial evidence for the "drone invasion" not to be real.
Another common factor is that it occurred at a major airport.
It's likely that these have personnel and equipment nowadays to track drones with. Given the economic impact of an airport closure due to drone activity, that makes a lot of sense.
 
Why is everyone here so certain there aren't any drones?

That would be a paraphrase. From the Metabunk Posting Guidelines:
7. Don't Paraphrase. If you want to say what someone said, then quote them exactly. Do not paraphrase what they said.
The responses you've already received reinforce why it is such an important rule. If you're not doing quoting exactly, you're leaving an opportunity for a straw man fallacy, countering an argument that hasn't actually been made.
 
That would be a paraphrase. From the Metabunk Posting Guidelines:

The responses you've already received reinforce why it is such an important rule. If you're not doing quoting exactly, you're leaving an opportunity for a straw man fallacy, countering an argument that hasn't actually been made.
I think that would be better: Till now we could not find any kind of evidence of drone activity in all videos, we were looking at.
 
For those not versed in FAA rules:

Note that 2000 feet vertical separation (i.e. one aircraft is at least 2000 feet higher than the other) is sufficient for ATC. Think of it this way: if you're in a high-rise, and someone you don't want to meet is on the floor above you, you won't meet. Altitude levels are like "lanes in the sky", aircraft keep to their assigned altitudes.

So, two aircraft with 4000 feet difference in altitude are not dangerously close, they're safely apart.

And in the current hemisphere model, flights in opposite (W/E) directions only need to be separated by half that, so that that can come within 1000ft of each other safely. (There was an old british quadrant model where flights in neighbouring directions were separated only by half of that, namely 500ft of each other.) When viewed with the perspective that these standards were defined with a fair degree of paranoia about reality not matching the plan exactly, it's clear that, indeed, 4000ft vertical separation is a nothingburger.
 
And in the current hemisphere model, flights in opposite (W/E) directions only need to be separated by half that, so that that can come within 1000ft of each other safely.
This is quite complex to explain with all of the conditions, and does nothing to further understanding of the case at hand.
Article:
ICAO specify minimum vertical separation for IFR flight as 1000 ft (300 m) below FL290 and 2000 ft (600 m) above FL290, except where Reduced Vertical Separation Minima (RVSM) apply. Most national authorities follow a similar rule, but may specify a different level at which the rule changes.
Article:
Reduced Vertical Separation Minima (RVSM)

A program was initiated by ICAO in 1982 involving worldwide studies to assess the feasibility of a reduction of the Vertical Separation Minima (VSM) above FL290 from 2,000 feet to 1,000 feet.

The principal benefits which the implementation of the reduced VSM were expected to provide were:
• A theoretical doubling of the airspace capacity, between FL290 and FL410; and
• The opportunity for aircraft to operate at closer to the optimum flight levels with the resulting fuel economies.

The program relies on the carriage and serviceability of specified aircraft equipment and the existence of appropriate operating procedures to ensure that the risk of loss of separation is no greater than it would be outside RVSM airspace.

Within RVSM airspace (between FL290 and FL410 inclusive) the vertical separation minimum is:
• 1000ft (300m) between RVSM-approved aircraft, and
• 2000ft (600m) between non-RVSM approved state aircraft and any other aircraft operating within RVSM airspace.
• 2000ft (600m) between non-RVSM aircraft operating as general air traffic (GAT) and any other aircraft within RVSM airspace.

Click through to learn more details.
 
I dunno about that I went to the location on Google earth and I can't get a match to towers I was going to look into it more later on.
 
You could always contact the Public Affairs Officer at the 193rd and ask for their flight logs for the date/time in question. They'd much rather have someone ask than file a FOIA request, the latter creates an awful lot of bureaucratic documentation and tracking.
I tried to sent a note to their Public Affairs office via https://www.193sow.ang.af.mil/Contact-Us/ -- but it said "There was a problem submitting the form. Please try again." (I tried from both Chrome and Firefox and got the same message).

They have an instagram account https://www.instagram.com/193sow/ so I sent them a DM. Will update here if they reply.
External Quote:
Hello,

I am a member of a web forum where we are looking into cases of alleged "drone" sightings. Based on ADS-B data we have been able to determine that many of them are simply misidentifications of conventional manned aircraft.

One case we are looking at was filmed in Dillsburg, PA, and was reported by ABC news. The video is included in the NUFORC link below and was filmed on US-15 heading North at intersection with Mountain Road around 17:38 EST on 21 November.

https://nuforc.org/sighting/?id=184929
https://www.abc27.com/local-news/video-drones-spotted-flying-over-york-county-roadway/

The video appears to show two low-flying C-130s, presumably departing from Harrisburg Airport to the East, but they do not appear on ADS-B tracking websites like ADS-B Exchange and flightradar24.

We found that the 193rd SOW flies out of Harrisburg and operate the EC-130J Commando Solo, and since 2023, the MC-130J Commando II.

https://www.193sow.ang.af.mil/MC-130J/

Can you confirm if there was flight operations involving two C-130s at that date and time?

Link to forum where we are discussing the case:
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/drones-over-new-jersey.13770/post-330546

Thanks in advance,
 
This is quite complex to explain with all of the conditions, and does nothing to further understanding of the case at hand.
Indeed. But if you're going to reduce it to one number, as you did, then my number is the more sensible one for making the point that you were trying to make, and it makes the point more emphatically too.
 
Indeed. But if you're going to reduce it to one number, as you did, then my number is the more sensible one for making the point that you were trying to make, and it makes the point more emphatically too.
As a logician, you can appreciate my use of "sufficient" in my original explanation. The 1000 ft. number cannot be described in a way that is both simple and correct.
 
Trump in recent media question and answer session looks very worried. I think it is slowly dawning on him that he is soon going to be inheriting this drone hysteria and it will cause him and his administration a major headache? It isn't going to look good for him when these sightings of SUV/school-bus sized drones continue and especially the pressure from Republican politicians and Mayors in the area.


For example Erik Peterson, Republican New Jersey Assemblyman. He is already claiming that the government is lying to him and other elected officials in the area.

He claims to have seen the drones.

I have actually seen the drones. You know it's a drone because it moves forwards, it stops and hovers, moves to the sides. Stop and hovers. Moves backwards. I've never seen a plane do that and you know it isn't a helicopter because you are close enough and you can't hear the sounds that you hear from a helicopter.


Source: https://youtu.be/oiaFctquSr0?t=341


What we are seeing here is a very different thing. I live out in a rural part of New Jersey. The folks that live out here spend a lot of time outside. They watch the planes fly over, the stars the satellites as there is no light pollution out here.

Then all of a sudden these very large, they are not hobby drones - some guys drinking beer in their backyards flying a drone. These are very sophisticated large drones coming over their back yards. They notice them and they are very smart people because to make sure that it wasn't a plane they are going onto Flightradar24 which show all the planes in the vicinity and they are making sure that when they talk about this they are talking about something that they saw was a very large, very sophisticated drone over their home and then they hear report of these drones being over Trump national (Bedminster) or Picatinny Arsenal.



Source: https://youtu.be/oiaFctquSr0?t=455


With that mindset what is he and other elected officials in the area going to be like when they are still seeing the drones night after night when Trump is in the White House?

Quite clear that both he and his townsfolk are misidentifying aircraft as these "large sophisticated drones". Obviously they are not aware that not all aircraft appear on Flightradar24. Peterson is also clearly not aware that the Temporary Flight Restriction over Trump Bedminster residence is very small and only up to 1,000 feet. The same with Picatinny Arsenal that has a Temporary Flight Restriction going up to 2,000 feet. Aircraft can still fly over these TFR bubbles and in close proximity. Such flights can be misidentified as drones and lead to all sorts of confusion.

Trump looks very worried in my opinion. Soon he is going to be in charge of "the government"


Source: https://youtu.be/XvdK1ILJ9oo?t=131


Trump's immediate reaction is to blame the government. As I said before I think he is slowly coming to the reality that this drone flap isn't going to go away and he is going to inherit it. I don't think that he is going to like it when the NJ politicians and populace are still demanding answers as to why these SUV/school-sized drones are still flying over every night? I feel sorry for the military advisors/Pentagon spokepeople and whoever heads the FAA under a Trump administration. How many is he going to fire before he realizes that the vast majority of sightings are perfectly routine aviation?

What actions will Trump take under the pressure? If he doesn't start getting the right answers from the military/FAA, etc will he start emergency shut downs of airspace as the sighting of SUV/School-bus size drones continue?
 
I hate when the kids forget to pickup their drones and just leave them on the sidewalk. :rolleyes:

Source: https://x.com/rawsalerts/status/1868765879619514757

New York police recovered a massive drone abandoned in the Brooklyn Navy Yard. A video shows an NYPD officer holding the large aircraft, which appears to measure over five feet in diameter. Officers found the drone on a sidewalk after responding to an emailed tip.

During the investigation, a passerby mentioned working in the building housing the drone's manufacturer, Amogy, Inc. Amogy CEO Seonghoon Woo later confirmed the drone belonged to the company, explaining it had been left on the sidewalk after a company party about a month ago. This comes amid reports of thousands of unidentified drone sightings along the East Coast and other areas.
 
Trump's immediate reaction is to blame the government. As I said before I think he is slowly coming to the reality that this drone flap isn't going to go away and he is going to inherit it.
My suspicions are that he is merely jumping on the bandwagon, because it's a useful diversion from the criticism his choices for official positions are receiving right now. I doubt he is really concerned.
 
Trump looks very worried in my opinion. Soon he is going to be in charge of "the government"
My suspicions are that he is merely jumping on the bandwagon, because it's a useful diversion from the criticism his choices for official positions are receiving right now.
President-elect Trump has proven quite adept at blaming the government for things, even when he is running of it. Taking responsibility for stuff is not his strong suit; his being in charge soon, I doubt that factors into his thinking on this.

I doubt he is really concerned.
He may well be concerned more in the same way that other folks caught up in the flap are concerned -- he seems quite willing to fall into belief in conspiracy theories. My hope is that he will have somebody in the room capable of explaining to him that issuing a shoot-down order for stuff when you don't know what that stuff is may not be the best plan.
 
Trump in recent media question and answer session looks very worried. I think it is slowly dawning on him that he is soon going to be inheriting this drone hysteria and it will cause him and his administration a major headache? It isn't going to look good for him when these sightings of SUV/school-bus sized drones continue and especially the pressure from Republican politicians and Mayors in the area.


For example Erik Peterson, Republican New Jersey Assemblyman. He is already claiming that the government is lying to him and other elected officials in the area.

He claims to have seen the drones.

I have actually seen the drones. You know it's a drone because it moves forwards, it stops and hovers, moves to the sides. Stop and hovers. Moves backwards. I've never seen a plane do that and you know it isn't a helicopter because you are close enough and you can't hear the sounds that you hear from a helicopter.


Source: https://youtu.be/oiaFctquSr0?t=341


What we are seeing here is a very different thing. I live out in a rural part of New Jersey. The folks that live out here spend a lot of time outside. They watch the planes fly over, the stars the satellites as there is no light pollution out here.

Then all of a sudden these very large, they are not hobby drones - some guys drinking beer in their backyards flying a drone. These are very sophisticated large drones coming over their back yards. They notice them and they are very smart people because to make sure that it wasn't a plane they are going onto Flightradar24 which show all the planes in the vicinity and they are making sure that when they talk about this they are talking about something that they saw was a very large, very sophisticated drone over their home and then they hear report of these drones being over Trump national (Bedminster) or Picatinny Arsenal.



Source: https://youtu.be/oiaFctquSr0?t=455


With that mindset what is he and other elected officials in the area going to be like when they are still seeing the drones night after night when Trump is in the White House?

Quite clear that both he and his townsfolk are misidentifying aircraft as these "large sophisticated drones". Obviously they are not aware that not all aircraft appear on Flightradar24. Peterson is also clearly not aware that the Temporary Flight Restriction over Trump Bedminster residence is very small and only up to 1,000 feet. The same with Picatinny Arsenal that has a Temporary Flight Restriction going up to 2,000 feet. Aircraft can still fly over these TFR bubbles and in close proximity. Such flights can be misidentified as drones and lead to all sorts of confusion.

Trump looks very worried in my opinion. Soon he is going to be in charge of "the government"


Source: https://youtu.be/XvdK1ILJ9oo?t=131


Trump's immediate reaction is to blame the government. As I said before I think he is slowly coming to the reality that this drone flap isn't going to go away and he is going to inherit it. I don't think that he is going to like it when the NJ politicians and populace are still demanding answers as to why these SUV/school-sized drones are still flying over every night? I feel sorry for the military advisors/Pentagon spokepeople and whoever heads the FAA under a Trump administration. How many is he going to fire before he realizes that the vast majority of sightings are perfectly routine aviation?

What actions will Trump take under the pressure? If he doesn't start getting the right answers from the military/FAA, etc will he start emergency shut downs of airspace as the sighting of SUV/School-bus size drones continue?

The deep state is there to blame for these kind of thorny issues.
 
My suspicions are that he is merely jumping on the bandwagon, because it's a useful diversion from the criticism his choices for official positions are receiving right now. I doubt he is really concerned.
I guess he is hoping that the drone flap just goes away. The flap is currently being fuelled by mainly Republican politicians in the NJ area wanting to bash the current administration. The residents are still going to be demaning answers as the SUV/School-bus sized drones are still going to be there night after night. We know that Trump doesn't do critisism or weakness. His ego won't stand for it if people are still demanding answers and he can't come up with an explanation once he is in charge. He is blaming the military/government. What happens when he is Commander-in-Chief and he doesn't have the answers for those currently demaning answers from Biden?
 
What do you all think about this one from reddit yesterday?


Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1hg0875/what_did_i_just_capture/


I posted a new thread about it but it was deleted saying that we already had a thread. I couldn't find a thread about this sighting, so I assume this is where they wanted me to post it. I checked ADS-B and did not see any helicopters in the area. My presumption is this is a waterproof drone, but I'm still surprised someone would be flying it around in those conditions. I also noticed that the light always seems to be round without ever showing a beam cone when not pointed toward the camera, assuming it's a drone. I'm not sure what to make of it, but that seems the most likely explanation.

According to the poster on reddit, here is the location and time: 593-599 US-46, Kenvil, NJ 07847 Dec 16, 8:54pm
 

Attachments

  • pk8k8h.mp4
    10 MB
Have you seen the Asbury park press article "Here's what officials have said that confirm it is drones over NJ, not planes"? Has some quotes of interest.
 
This seems to be the article in question.
https://eu.app.com/story/news/local...fficials-confirm-drone-sightings/77028435007/
External Quote:

What has the military seen?
Defense representatives say there were confirmed drone sightings by military personnel at Picatinny Arsenal in Morris County and Naval Weapons Station Earle in Monmouth, which has bases in Colts Neck and Middletown."
"These are visual sightings by highly trained security personnel," a defense representative said at the briefing.
Rep. Chris Smith, R-NJ, said a Coast Guard commander told him that one of his 47-foot boats was trailed and harassed by some 12 to 30 drones.
While not addressing that report, federal officials did say the Coast Guard investigated to see if there were any ships launching drones from sea out over land, but found nothing.
Oh dear, oh dear. Visual sightings by highly trained personnel.
Unfortunately, highly trained personnel seem to be prone to the same errors as everyone else.

It should be obvious, but - a confirmed sighting is not the same thing as a positive identification.
 

What jumped out at me immediately was:
External Quote:
Here's what officials have said that confirm it is drones over NJ, not planes
Now, "not planes" implies "0% planes", but:

External Quote:
About 100 sightings of mystery craft have been identified as warranting further investigation, FBI officials confirmed during a background briefing Saturday. They have dismissed the bulk of some 5,000 other sightings as manned aircraft.
implies it's 98% planes (or other nonsense).
 
Actually, this is not true. Contrails can occur even at a ground level, if the atmospheric conditions (temperature and relative humidity) are right for their formation. There is a number of old threads on these here. However, persistent long contrails are usually build up in high altitudes.
Air condensation look like contrail, but built up lower altitude.
 
Air condensation look like contrail, but built up lower altitude.
I do not quite understand what are you saying here. Contrail is a short for 'condensation trail'. If you meant 'engine exhaust contrails' rather than 'aerodynamic contrails', these still can occur at a ground level. There are videos of planes and helicopters making such contrails in very cold places (Antarctic, Siberia etc.).

PS We had this conversation previously in another thread.
 
Thanks for linking and quoting. My computer is easier to use and maybe do that than this cell phone using at moment. The Guardian put up an article today with quotes too. I'm not buying this is 100% mass delusion. Maybe 99.85, but not going to dismiss all these witnesses just yet. I like skepticism but one must also question it. I have not been to New Jersey, that said ha.
 
Thanks for linking and quoting. My computer is easier to use and maybe do that than this cell phone using at moment. The Guardian put up an article today with quotes too. I'm not buying this is 100% mass delusion. Maybe 99.85, but not going to dismiss all these witnesses just yet. I like skepticism but one must also question it. I have not been to New Jersey, that said ha.

We're still waiting for one single picure of a nefarious or anomalous drone, or some real evidence that aliens have back engineered a 737.

Meanwhile... we get tweets like this. So your 99.85% is still a bit low in my opinion.


Source: https://x.com/foundingideals/status/1868744823534239837
 
Oh dear, oh dear. Visual sightings by highly trained personnel.

Indeed. "HIGHLY" trained, but in what?

As for the highly trained Coasties, they seem to have some issues counting:

External Quote:

Rep. Chris Smith, R-NJ, said a Coast Guard commander told him that one of his 47-foot boats was trailed and harassed by some 12 to 30 drones.
12 to 30 is a pretty big spread.


Meanwhile... we get tweets like this.

Yeah, Democratic Bad Boy has pretty much just slapped down any debunking of drones as common airliners because the drones are made to look just like airliners:

External Quote:

This drone prototype is built like smaller model versions of airliners, but they are not airplanes.
So, any claimed drone sighting that in fact looks just like an airliner, is really a drone. If it circles an airport like an airliner, leaves contrails like an airliner, follows common routes for airliners and looks like an airliner, it's a drone:

External Quote:

There are different types of drones out there. This particular type circled in a continuous grid-like pattern throughout the day. I observed several of them up there and some left noticeable contrails like the one shown in the recording.
And he knows:

External Quote:

I can assure you that this is not an airplane. I work in aviation and can easily tell the difference.
They're all drones!

We really need a face-palm emoji.
1734545443419.png
 
. I'm not buying this is 100% mass delusion. Maybe 99.85, but not going to dismiss all these witnesses just yet. I like skepticism but one must also question it.
Absolutely right, it is an important basic principle to question everything at all times and I often see that self-proclaimed sceptics do not do this or seem to make up their minds too quickly. But this may be because stereotypes are always repeated and at some point you are sure that you recognize a familiar pattern.
However, it is difficult to take a rigorous scientific approach to this matter. In order to determine the significance of a phenomenon and use this as the basis for a thesis, a baseline is needed, which in this case would be the normal occurrence of aircraft in a defined airspace or their visibility from defined locations etc.
This "baseline state", which already includes fluctuations around an average value, would have to be compared with what is currently being recorded: Is there an increase that is so significant that the value clearly stands out from the usual range of fluctuation (signal to noise ratio)? Then you would have an indication of an anomaly. But only an indication that does not yet have to be statistically significant. Because you can still assign a probability to everything that lies below the bell-shaped curve. Something like that. In a nutshell.

But there is no such data. That's why we can't determine whether there is an increase in stimuli at all, i.e. whether there are flying objects visible in the sky, or whether a) the observers' perception has simply changed because they are now biased and b) free riders are taking advantage of this and ironically fulfilling the false prophecy by launching drones that didn't even exist before.

As an indication of this baseline, however, you can look at the immense number of regular take-offs and landings in the zones in question. That sets the threshold for unusualness pretty high. People don't normally notice that in everyday life; but if you focus on it, you suddenly notice thousands of take-offs and landings.
 
Last edited:
Plain and simple: People need to be arrested for this.

Military pilot injured during rash of laser pointings at planes in N.J. sky
https://www.nj.com/burlington/2024/...h-of-laser-pointings-at-planes-in-nj-sky.html

Fifteen aircraft, ranging from planes to helicopters, at Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst have been struck by lasers from the ground since Dec. 7, said Rochelle Naus, a spokesperson for the facility.

In one incident, a pilot was injured, officials said. The injured pilot was given medical care after landing. Naus didn't elaborate further about the injury but said the pilot was in "good condition."
 
People don't normally notice that in everyday life; but if you focus on it, you suddenly notice thousands of take-offs and landings.
Especially if you stay up past the wee hours of the morning to look for them.
 
It is still getting very silly out there and again not helped by local politicians in New Jersey.

Michael Inganamort, a Republican New Jersey assemblyman shares a video from one of his constituents from 1st December 2024. Filmed in Chester Township. He just accepts the claim from his constituent that there were no airplanes on the flight tracker app.

Inganamor transpcript

This came from one of my constituents here in Northwest New Jersey and the video here is from Chester Township which is the municipality where I live and I used to be the Mayor and I'm in Chester Township at this very moment. It is a town in Western Morris County in the Northwestern part of the state.

I think what is most notable here is this video is from December 1st. We are talking two and a half weeks ago you can see the number of blinking objects flying through the sky there and when this was first shared with me on that very night of December 1st it clearly caught my attention. What the heck is going on here? Now days you can do a pretty good job of tracking the flights, the commercial airlines that are flying over out skies on the different applications on your phone.

That is what the videographer here did and were able to determine that these blinking lights were in fact not airplanes. We are working under the assumption that these are drones of some type. This was December 1st and this is basically what the night sky
looks like in Northwest New Jersey every night since. Any from one, two up to twelve drones zipping around above out homes through our neighbour hoods, communities and towns.




Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BBw39LIn62c


Google map Chester Township link

https://maps.app.goo.gl/JwyxwXsvbYJzEWdA6

One for more research and possibly contacting Michael Inganamort for the time of the video and any other details? Inganamort is calling for the drones to be taken down!


Source: https://x.com/MikeInganamort/status/1869429173879747036
 
Last edited:
Back
Top