You are missing that most of the sightings were planes, because Trump (if it was even him) didn't include that bit.I don't really get it.
Maybe I'm missing something.
Yes, there were drones.
Yes, they were cleared by the FAA.
My questions are:
Specifically, what were these drones doing? What was their purpose?
Should we expect to see drones over populated areas in the future?
I don't really get it.
Maybe I'm missing something.
Yes, there were drones.
Yes, they were cleared by the FAA.
My questions are:
Specifically, what were these drones doing? What was their purpose?
Should we expect to see drones over populated areas in the future?
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/lea...authorized-faa-white-house/story?id=118187426External Quote:".....the drones that were flying over New Jersey in large numbers were authorized to be flown by the FAA for research and various other reasons."
This is what ChatGPT makes of the the first 500 posts in this thread:
External Quote:
Briefing on Unexplained Drone Activity Over New Jersey
Key Findings
- Multiple reports emerged of large, unauthorized drones flying over Morris County, NJ, on November 18, 2024.
- Law enforcement and military assets, including a Black Hawk helicopter, were reportedly tracking them.
- Some claims escalated to suggest 30-40 drones near highways and military research facilities.
- No conclusive video or photographic evidence confirms the presence of multiple large drones.
- Many sightings appear to be misidentified commercial aircraft or celestial objects (Venus, Jupiter).
- A local journalist misidentified planes as drones, spreading misinformation.
- No confirmed security threat, but further monitoring is warranted.
Assessment
The available evidence does not support claims of a coordinated drone operation or foreign involvement. Most reports likely stem from misidentifications and social media amplification rather than confirmed hostile activity.
Does it, though?https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/lea...authorized-faa-white-house/story?id=118187426External Quote:".....the drones that were flying over New Jersey in large numbers were authorized to be flown by the FAA for research and various other reasons."
That means there were test/flight plans and reports. Hopefully Greenewald is making a FOIA request for these and other documents.
Well, so many reports were so vague on details no one could authoritatively say what all the sightings were. There's no catalog with DTLs. (Though every case with details has pretty much been identified.)The WH now not mentioning misidentified planes as making up a majority of sightings/videos (or at all) seems like it was a very short-sighted attempt just to try and placate people that these were just drones as they thought, so they now may feel vindicated even though almost all sightings were just mis-identified commercial and private air traffic.
This then further implies they were FAA approved drones means that people will want answers about them, but there are no FAA answers to give because there were never any large number of drones, they are overwhelmingly planes.
Does the FAA not make statements?
I have just tried to have this thread summarised by NoteGPT. Websites are explicitly on the list, but I got the error message: 'Can not extract HTML'. I have no idea what the problem is here.That's not bad. It's pretty good, considering some of the things I've gotten with ChatGPT. Of course, there is always the old adage of "garbage in, garbage out" or in this case "logical, evidence-based ideas in, logical evidence-based conclusions out", or something like that.
Would other AIs give slightly different answers? I remember a few weeks ago, the automatic AI on the Bing search engine gave me what I was asking for, even though it was wrong. I searched emergency landings near Ft. Lauderdale on a certain date in December of last year. It came back with an emergency landing in that area on that date, but when I checked the source, it was a different date. The AI simply combined the date I asked about with an emergency landing a year previous in a different month in the area I asked about. It gave me what I specifically wanted but was wrong.
Can an AI be prompted to read through a Metabunk thread like this one, to show it's all disinformation?
https://www.coolest-gadgets.com/drones-statistics/External Quote:As of 2024, the Federal Aviation Administration(FAA) in the United States registered 855,860 drones.
Some Mayors in NJ are still claiming to be seeing the drones!
Source: https://x.com/UAPJames/status/1885159784015426012
...but look at the company he keeps...Mayor Melham not happy with Trump over his statement on the drones.
Well yeah. Since almost all the drones, if not all of them, were planes and helicopters and Venus, etc., all of which are still in the sky, if you saw these "drones" before" you will still see them if you go outside and look.Some Mayors in NJ are still claiming to be seeing the drones!
Source:External Quote:They are having a very difficult time detecting these on radar, on infrared. They are not having luck determining a source location based off of RF transmissions, so, you know, whoever is operating these seems to be exhibiting, you know, technology of a different form, right.
We'd have to assume that these are very sophisticated unmanned systems that are utilizing advanced signal management that's defeating multi-band detection systems. So again, is that a criminal activity, doing that? Is that coming from phantom ships? You know, those don't seem very likely when you kind of add up all those pieces, and I think that's where it leaves us with this big question mark. You know, I don't think we can rule out an adversary at this point, necessarily. We certainly can rule in a lot of misidentification once the media picked it up. But you know, where does that leave us with the ones that you know don't fit that bill. And we don't have that answer yet. I think it's premature to make the assumption that because we can't identify them, they must be quote unquote 'aliens', but you know they are fitting this category of exhibiting advanced capabilities beyond a state-of-the-art, and, you know, very much fit the bill of a UAP.
And you know so I think it's important to remember that you know this started in 2022 at Langley Air Force Base. Happened again in 2023 at Langley Air Force Base, same time period. And Langley Air Force Base is, you know, essentially the Air Force equivalent of the base I was operating at. It's only separated by about 100 miles, which is basically nothing in the air. So this is like an adjacent sister airspace to where we were having all these incidents from 2013ish to even today. So, can we tie them together? You know it's.. I don't think we can definitively make that statement right now but you know that's what adds to I think the mysteriousness of this event that's occurring. It's you know it's happened over years, it's been adjacent to areas that have had reports of this for nearly a decade, if not longer, and we're still no closer, it seems, to understanding what they are.
I keep meaning to add:I want you to trademark that phrase, so you can collect each time they use it...![]()
add
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?" Source: https://thedebrief.org/white-house-issues-statement-on-mystery-drones-that-leaves-more-questions-than-answers/
you mean besides the Press Secretary statement linked in the comment i was responding to?Did we ever hear back from the President or his Chief of Staff on this?
where does it say that in the "previous announcement", can you link and quote it?but failed to mention that almost all sightings were almost all misidentified normal aircraft traffic, planes and helicopters as per the previous announcement.
https://www.faa.gov/newsroom/dhs-fb...ent-ongoing-response-reported-drone-sightingswhere does it say that in the "previous announcement", can you link and quote it?
Also this, 5 days earlier: https://www.dhs.gov/archive/news/2024/12/12/joint-dhsfbi-statement-reports-drones-new-jerseyExternal Quote:Having closely examined the technical data and tips from concerned citizens, we assess that the sightings to date include a combination of lawful commercial drones, hobbyist drones, and law enforcement drones, as well as manned fixed-wing aircraft, helicopters, and stars mistakenly reported as drones. We have not identified anything anomalous and do not assess the activity to date to present a national security or public safety risk over the civilian airspace in New Jersey or other states in the northeast.
External Quote:Historically, we have experienced cases of mistaken identity, where reported drones are, in fact, manned aircraft or facilities. We are supporting local law enforcement in New Jersey with numerous detection methods but have not corroborated any of the reported visual sightings with electronic detection. To the contrary, upon review of available imagery, it appears that many of the reported sightings are actually manned aircraft, operating lawfully. There are no reported or confirmed drone sightings in any restricted air space.
This maybe?where does it say that in the "previous announcement", can you link and quote it?
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/dr...and-other-professionals-say.13869/post-331499External Quote:Having closely examined the technical data and tips from concerned citizens, we assess that the sightings to date include a combination of lawful commercial drones, hobbyist drones, and law enforcement drones, as well as manned fixed-wing aircraft, helicopters, and stars mistakenly reported as drones. We have not identified anything anomalous and do not assess the activity to date to present a national security or public safety risk over the civilian airspace in New Jersey or other states in the northeast.
that doesnt say "almost all sightings were almost all misidentified normal aircraft traffic, planes and helicopters".This maybe?
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/dr...and-other-professionals-say.13869/post-331499External Quote:Having closely examined the technical data and tips from concerned citizens, we assess that the sightings to date include a combination of lawful commercial drones, hobbyist drones, and law enforcement drones, as well as manned fixed-wing aircraft, helicopters, and stars mistakenly reported as drones. We have not identified anything anomalous and do not assess the activity to date to present a national security or public safety risk over the civilian airspace in New Jersey or other states in the northeast.
That's fair, that statement at least acknowledges them as a part of it.that doesnt say "almost all sightings were almost all misidentified normal aircraft traffic, planes and helicopters".
i know MB say that and maybe almost all the sightings MB chose to investigate HERE were planes or helicopters, but from the administration point of view (Biden or Trump) i dont see how they would have anyway of knowing that.. ergo how can they be being misleading?
To establish whether these sightings were predominantly conventional aircraft or drones, it would be useful to collect all the video clips published on social media during this period, and attempt to discriminate between the ones which show conventional aircraft and the ones which show actual drones (as well as the clips which show Venus and other celestial objects, and those which show illuminated LED kites). This would be a considerable task, and would not really have a particularly useful answer.i know MB say that and maybe almost all the sightings MB chose to investigate HERE were planes or helicopters, but from the administration point of view (Biden or Trump) i dont see how they would have anyway of knowing that.
The field of interest is also contaminated by hoaxers -- people flying their own drones in odd ways and recording them, people knowingly recording aircraft for lolz, people posting other people's footage in misleading ways, and people doing CGI. So we know most of those "reports" can't be positively identified as conventional aircraft and drones.To establish whether these sightings were predominantly conventional aircraft or drones, it would be useful to collect all the video clips published on social media during this period, and attempt to discriminate between the ones which show conventional aircraft and the ones which show actual drones (as well as the clips which show Venus and other celestial objects, and those which show illuminated LED kites). This would be a considerable task, and would not really have a particularly useful answer.
However it seems to me that the number of video clips of this type that actually show real drones of any kind are very few and far between, whereas the number that show misidentified planes are legion. This is just my subjective opinion; maybe other members have a different view.
For those interested, discussed here:There have been drone flaps before.
I'd disagree that drones are, qua drones, scary. They can certainly be put to scary uses, but so can most everything.Drones are scary, look at their use in the Russia Ukraine war.
Guess what caused today's incident in New Jersey:Compare (source: avherald.com):
Article: ![]()
Indeed.Please don't think that drones can be ignored as a threat or as a source of unidentified aerial phenomena. I think we are only at the start of a drone-filled future, one which will have consequences for us all, for good or ill.
Article: A Hokkaido Air System Avions de Transport Regional ATR-42-600 on behalf of JAL Japan Airlines, registration JA12HC performing flight JL-2757 from Sapporo Okadama to Hakodate (Japan) with 44 passengers and 3 crew, was accelerating for takeoff from Okadama Airport when the aircraft collided with a fox prompting the crew to reject takeoff.