Drones are UAS, not UAP.
Planes dont suffer unexplained damage or crashes in greater numbers than coyotes? i guess that's possible, but since planes are global and coyotes aren't it seems iffy to me. Got any support for your claim?
What do you think the claim is?
coyotes are a greater danger to aviation than UAP.
Back in the 1990s another reporter at the Palm Springs newspaper was looking through the budget for what was then the Palm Springs Municipal Airport and there was a line item for a rifle. He asked why the airport would need a rifle and was told it was for dealing with "wild dogs" on the runway. (The airport was open to the desert on three sides.)
To sustain damage from a UAP does not equate to "suffering unexplained damage". It means that a UAP is observed that is separate from the aircraft, and that then causes damage to it.
yes. sorry i didnt mean to imply coyotes suffer damages and crashes. my bad.
Ah, I knew all these similar acronyms were going to cause me trouble one day. I stand by my concern about the proliferation of drones in the hands of "pilots" with no idea what they are or should be doing, but acknowledge that drones need not be UAP, unless they are unidentified I guess.
they're required to know already, some simply don't care and think they won't get caught
External Quote:
Acronyms baffle me a lot of the time, so here's a distinction (that I will promptly forget again). Please note, the "U" refers to "unmanned" in these cases, not "unidentified".
https://pilotinstitute.com/drones-vs-uav-vs-uas/External Quote:
If i had to guess, the statement was phrased that way because normal people dont care about (or know about really) some online "UFO community", so wouldnt even think to differentiate "you know many of sightings turned out to be regular misidentified airplanes" from the question "what were the drones doing that the media kept reporting about?".
Article: Just minutes after returning to the Oval Office on January 20, Trump was asked again about the drones, prompting him to direct his Chief of Staff, Susie Wiles, to investigate the situation.
"I would like to find out what it is and tell the people," Trump said. "In fact, I'd like to do that. Can we find out what that was, Susie?"
like she doesnt have more important things to do then read 16 pages of blah blah blah blah. I didnt even read 99% of it. Maybe someone could write an article for the MSM that BRIEFLY summarizes the situation.
I assume they are already using free AI apps to explain the world to the POTUS. You can reduce the language level to a minimum. Surely you can also present any Metabunk thread in a digestible fast-food way.
I don't know who she is, so I don't know what all else she has to do -- but she just was told by POTUS to look into this, which I would assume makes it a priority -- if not for Susie, for whoever she delegates the task to. No matter WHAT they do, to adequately understand what happened is going to involved a LOT of reading and/or watching of video -- at least if she/they were to come here they'd read a lot of verbiage that does, in fact, address what was going on -- it was a "flap" driven by eagerness to see a Mystery Drone, in which a lot of people saw airplanes and misidentified them.
I appreciate you pointing to this video of Mick's...somehow in all the fun, I didn't see it before.
huh. i wonder what that would look like. i never use ai. do i go to chat gpt and ...what? ask... "can you summarize the metabunk thread on drones over new jersey? (thi sis my way of asking you to do it and maybe just post gpt's answer here for me)I assume they are already using free AI apps to explain the world to the POTUS. You can reduce the language level to a minimum. Surely you can also present any Metabunk thread in a digestible fast-food way.
shes the Chief of Staff. in fact shes the first WOMAN Chief of Staff.
Oh no! Terrible time for a DEI hire!
is that true? the document in Micks video above just says "many".
Especially since some people were pointing lasers and maybe even guns at them, which has different implications for crewed aircraft than for unmanned systems.
Oh, OK, I had created a vision in my head of a "walk by" question being tossed to an aid. Didn't realize it was Susie Wiles. Then yeah, it is something she would definitely delegate, assuming the moment was followed up on at all. ("I'll have my staff look into that and get back to you" should result in having the staff look into it and get back to the President or the questioner... but in the real world it is also often code for "Thank you for your question which will now be studiously ignored." Similar to an old Roman saying "I will do that on the Greek calends," which, since the Greek calendar did not reckon time using "calends," meant "never.")
I'm thinking the Trump staff and administration are a bit busy right now to care all that much about a ufo flap. You guys might need to wait a while to get anything else out of them other than what the official fed documents and Offices tell them.
theres a decent chance Trump will say it if he ever finds out it was mostly airplanes.
Trump, as part of his administrative duties during this busy period, is probably playing golf again, as he has for two full days of the previous week.
This is what ChatGPT makes of the the first 500 posts in this thread:I assume they are already using free AI apps to explain the world to the POTUS. You can reduce the language level to a minimum. Surely you can also present any Metabunk thread in a digestible fast-food way.
External Quote:
He kind of talked himself into this release, the prior administration made a statement that seemed reasonable but didn't satisfy the mania. So he promises a new report which was reasonable enough, but also couldn't deliver on the mania.
Apart from the "not all sightings were drones" fact, there is the underlying attempt at a narrative that sounds like "There are squadrons of drones, multiples of drones. That sounds like an invasion of something nefarious. Oh no, whatever shall we DO??!?"
Because it's not true and it raises further questions that should be answerable but are not.
