Drones over New Jersey?

[Mendel]

Note also that the flight restriction over Pictinny Arsenal is recent and temporary, only 4 miles in diameter, and only applies below 2000 ft. altitude; and there's an exception for drone operators with a valid work order who received authorisation.
https://tfr.faa.gov/save_pages/detail_4_8833.html

Edit: this means it is still legal to fly drones not that far from the arsenal, where they can be seen and reported.

 

[BlackHoleNFO]

Imagine 100 people out at night with their smartphones, and 80 of them correctly identify aircraft, while 20 do not.

that means war ^^, and i hope this happens.
its a great debate: "your smartphones are dumb, they show drones instead of airplanes...no, you can't zoom the right way, this is Drone...and you, you are night blind..."

 

[Mendel]

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?

"objective" is the important word here: show photos, videos, or other sensor data, with date/time, location, and provenance.

Edit: and for comparison, show data how many drones would normally be operating in the area

 

[jarlrmai]

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?

This doesn't answer the question.

The Navy could not tell stars from drones in the famous green pyramid video so I doubt them.

There's also big differences between craft they were operating under a mission and some army people saying the saw an unknown drone.

 

[Mendel]

that means war ^^, and i hope this happens.
its a great debate: "your smartphones are dumb, they show drones instead of airplanes...no, you can't zoom the right way, this is Drone...and you, you are night blind..."

I assumed they'd be out separately, not together.

 

[BlackHoleNFO]

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

Drones or Airplane...people runnning in circles

 

[AllTheQuestionsToday]

"objective" is the important word here: show photos, videos, or other sensor data, with date/time, location, and provenance.

Edit: and for comparison, show data how many drones would normally be operating in the area

I'm confused; are you arguing the military doesn't need to show "evidence" and prove a "there is nothing to it" statement, but they need to qualify and prove any "there is something to it" statement?

Why not hold them to matching standards, regardless if the outcome is preferable to your view/position?

Aren't thumbs on scales always wrong?

 

[FatPhil]

@Jack Mallory
View attachment 74317

I'll spoil any joke - that's painted not carved!

 

[FatPhil]

So I'm genuinely puzzled at what is the objective standard where we can say people are reporting actual drones

Something that actually looks like a drone and behaves like a drone would be a good start. So far that's been almost entirely absent, if not entirely absent.

 

[Kyle Ferriter]

Note also that the flight restriction over Pictinny Arsenal is recent and temporary, only 4 miles in diameter, and only applies below 2000 ft. altitude; and there's an exception for drone operators with a valid work order who received authorisation.

Also there's a ton of land around that TFR region where it's still legal for a random civilian to fly a drone and for that drone to be visible to others including potentially to people at Picatinny Arsenal.

I don't know where this notion came from that a drone seen near a military base that isn't operated by the military means that drone must be doing nefarious surveillance or is a threat. Ross Coulthart for example is making statements as if he's under the impression that any drone seen remotely near something like a power plant or military facility is doing airspace violations and should be shot down under current law. Maybe drone no-fly zones should be expanded around sensitive areas, but right now recreational drone laws are pretty permissive.

 

[BlackHoleNFO]

I assumed they'd be out separately, not together.

Yes, sorry, I misread that a bit. This bias thing is true, but as a result, this "grouping" can happen anyway.

If this is going on, people are creating groups and going hunting, and as "Gustave Le Bon" wrote, people in groups can be stupid, and even professors can be influenced by this stupidity.

Social media explains human life very well. We need attractions, deflections, and lies. If we detect that our life is boring as hell, chaos ensues. Yes, okay, there are two sides to chaos right now.

You can map that onto anything.

For this topic, I would say:

- Collecting more videos, debunking them as airplanes.
- Waiting for the FBI or whoever comes first to claim there are no drones, just airplanes, or actually drones.
- People getting arrested.

 

[FatPhil]

I'm confused; are you arguing the military doesn't need to show "evidence" and prove a "there is nothing to it" statement, but they need to qualify and prove any "there is something to it" statement?

This is the old "you can't prove a negative" scenario. It's been thrashed out a million times in a million fora, if you're unfamiliar with the arguments, please do a bit of background reading. Heck, it's been brought up dozens of times here on Metabunk.

It's another candidate for a drop-in replacement for Godwin's Law. Anyone asking an authority to show evidence proving an absense of something has automatically lost the argument.

 

[AllTheQuestionsToday]

Anyone asking an authority to show evidence proving an absense of something has automatically lost the argument.

I get that. I don't dispute it at a high level, even if one could quibble about a specific topic; the government's been caught lying plenty of times.

My confusion is -- we're told/conditioned to default accept statements of "nothing found/known" about anything mystery or weird.

But the first time the government barely starts to say -- yes, there IS here THIS time something mystery or weird -- we're doubting them?

That's a double standard.

 

[NorCal Dave]

I'm confused; are you arguing the military doesn't need to show "evidence" and prove a "there is nothing to it" statement, but they need to qualify and prove any "there is something to it" statement?

I don't think anybody here would suggest there are NO drones in some of these reports. Unlike alien UFOs, drones are a known thing that we know exist, I have 2, one from Amazon and one from Costco. It's entirely plausible that SOME reports, including the ones around Picatinny army base MAY have included actual drones. But what does the article say:

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.

There were 11 confirmed "sightings" over a few weeks. This is hardly a swarm or invasion.

Seven other sightings remained unconfirmed, including one reported Friday at the military research and manufacturing facility in Jefferson and Rockaway Township.

7 more, though unconfirmed, sightings but not at the army base, rather at a different location. And again, "unconfirmed". Sounds like some people, we're not told who, reported what they thought was a drone, but that's about it.

Finaly we get:

"Confirmed" means a police officer or security guard "visibly witnessed a drone" while or after receiving the report, military officials said.

https://www.nj.com/morris/2024/12/n...firmed-mystery-drone-sightings-army-says.html

What does this mean? A security officer saw and identified an actual Mavic DJI 3 Pro drone:

Or maybe they identified the drone as a Autel EVO II:

Or maybe they saw some lights in the sky after someone reported a drone (lights in the sky) like this:

This was of course reported as a drone, no doubt, and filmed and shared. It's not a drone, it's an airliner heading into Newark.

We have no idea what these security people saw or how they went about identifying and confirming whatever they were seeing were in fact drones. There is nothing in the article that says what was seen or how they were identified.

If someone saw lights on an airliner and thought it was a drone, then had a security person come out and see the same lights, did the security person then go through some sort of process to identify the lights? Did they check with the base, then check with ATC? Or did they show up and say "Yep, I see the lights too, must be a drone"?

Given that so far, any actual visual evidence offered for the supposed drone swarm/invasion almost all turnout to be non-drones, it's safe to say there is a large amount of misidentification going on. Is it also safe to say these security personals might be making the same misidentifications? I would argue yes. If even a few of the supposed Army "confirmed" reports were things like aircraft or other non-drone lights, then it's even less than 11 reports.

Again, it's perfectly plausible and even likely that a few reports are in fact small consumer drones or even semi-professional drones operating in greater NJ. Drones are a common item. However, a few drones, with a lot of misidentified other non-drones, does not make an invasion, it makes a flap.

 

[Kyle Ferriter]

New article in Newsweek today, alleging that mysterious drones are now in New York.
https://www.newsweek.com/fbi-issues-statement-mystery-drone-sightings-reach-new-york-1998614

Diane Atkins, a Brooklyn resident, captured videos of the objects near the Verrazzano-Narrows Bridge, describing them as loud and numerous. "There had to be 10, maybe 12 total of these things," Atkins told PIX11. "Definitely not planes, and there were too many of them."

Congresswoman Nicole Malliotakis shared Atkins's videos on X, questioning the lack of information from authorities. "The FAA, FBI, Department of Homeland Security, and NYPD should let the public know what's going on here," she wrote.

"Are these drones and why are they flying over sensitive facilities and infrastructure? After the Chinese Spy balloon, anyone can understand why community is concerned!"

Malliotakis was referring to a 2023 incident when the United States Air Force shot down a Chinese spy balloon off the coast of South Carolina, a week after it had entered U.S. airspace.

The first piece of evidence cited in this article to support the idea that there are numerous unexplained drones flying overhead is this post by a Brooklyn resident who filmed nearby aircraft:

Source: https://x.com/DianeAtkins/status/1865979665061388343


US House Representative Nicole Malliotakis reposted Atkins' tweet and called on the FAA, FBI, DHS, and NYPD to get involved in investigating what the aircraft in the videos were and whether they were flying over sensitive infrastructure.

Source: https://x.com/NMalliotakis/status/1866128104193663421


People in the replies of both posts suggest shooting at these aircraft. Perhaps relevant to the audience being inclined to shoot at planes and be willing to immediately embrace conspiracies about "the government" here is that Atkins is a MAGA activist and Rep. Malliotakis is a MAGA Republican and 2020 election denier.

Atkins told the reporter she saw maybe 10-12 aircraft, and said "Definitely not planes, and there were too many of them".

I want to reiterate that this is Brooklyn, NY, which is near 3 of the busiest airports in the world, and has a high level of helicopter traffic as well. And she is referring to a 15 minute period. Every location in Brooklyn is close enough to all 3 of those airports that the lights on the planes going in/out of all 3 of them would be expected to be visible on a clear night, assuming the vantage point is unobstructed by buildings. I would guess it is not rare for there to be 10+ aircraft potentially visible in the sky from Brooklyn simultaneously at every point of the day in the 6am-1am window. Everyone who's lived there for a year or more surely has seen thousands of planes and many helicopters, at least peripherally. The aircraft in the video posted by Atkins and reposted by US Representative Malliotakis all look like normal air traffic, from what I can tell. This is all very incredible to watch unfold.

 

[John J.]

we're told/conditioned to default accept statements of "nothing found/known" about anything mystery or weird.

Were you though? I don't remember being conditioned or taught that.

Even pre-internet, and when there were less TV stations (which therefore had larger audiences) there were occasional programs about UFOs/ cryptids/ ghosts/ "psy" phenomena etc. that were less than critical. Many people will know of the Barney and Betty Hill case not from the Hill's own accounts, which were bizarre and contradictory, but from the 1975 TV Movie The UFO Incident or similar retellings (which omit Barney seeing a smiling redheaded Irishman and a Nazi wearing a scarf watching him from the UFO, or Betty clearly saying in later years that the aliens closely resembled South American natives, not "greys").

Uri Gellar was a regular on peak-time chat shows, baffling his respected hosts and their audiences. He was often taken at his word.

TV series like In Search Of... (Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_Search_of..._(TV_series)) and Arthur C. Clarke's Mysterious World (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_C._Clarke's_Mysterious_World) were popular. Both sometimes expressed a sceptical view, but not too often.
Larger bookstores often had a New Age/ UFO/ occult section, maybe my memory deceives me but much more so than has been the case in the last 10 years I think.

Mainstream national news channels would sometimes carry reports about a claimed UFO sighting, or the latest expedition in search of the Yeti or Loch Ness Monster; I found this clipped image of the front page of Britain's (now defunct) best-selling Sunday newspaper News of the World from October 1983, referring to the Rendlesham Forest incident,

The Reader's Digest, which claimed to be the world's most widely read magazine, often had articles on esoteric subjects; I remember reading Velikovsky's Worlds in Collision as a "condensed book" in RD.
Lots of newspapers and magazines continue to publish horoscopes.

Many of us might have had some religious education or upbringing which contained teachings or claims that require some suspension of rational understanding if they are taken as literally true.

As a kid, I was always interested in sciencey things, but I must have been 16 or 17 before I learnt anything about scientific methodology, and realised science was a process, not a body of facts agreed on by bright people.

Broadly, I think our current cultural milieu is very accepting of extraordinary claims without extraordinary evidence, it's much more interesting than having to do statistical analyses of actual data.

 

[john.phil]

How to say "airplane" without actually saying "airplane" (00:00 - 00:19):

Witness (Diane Atkins from post #215) - They started to change from like white lights. They started to get like more like reddish green blinking lights. There had to be in total 10, maybe 12 of these things. And some of them came closer they went over my building. You could hear the whirr of the motor. They seemed pretty large.

Reporter - All right, so we got this mystery in the sky...

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fN4cGNoarnU

 

[Mendel]

But the first time the government barely starts to say -- yes, there IS here THIS time something mystery or weird -- we're doubting them?

"The government" is CT-speak. The government is people, in this case police or army officers sent out to "confirm drones" when there is no indication that they even know how tell a drone from an aircraft. I don't distrust "the government", I distrust these "confirmations", if they've been made as described.

I'm confused; are you arguing the military doesn't need to show "evidence" and prove a "there is nothing to it" statement, but they need to qualify and prove any "there is something to it" statement?

No, I don't think I've implied that.

Why not hold them to matching standards, regardless if the outcome is preferable to your view/position?

Because one claim is ordinary, and the other is extraordinary.

"There's a normal amount of drone activity" is an ordinary claim, which I'll assume is true until shown evidence to the contrary.

"There's an uncommon amount of drone activity" has me asking, "How do you know? Where is the evidence?"

Likewise, "the goverment is operating lawfully" is the ordinary claim, and the coverup conspiracy claim is the one that I need to see evidence for to consider it.

Aren't thumbs on scales always wrong?

The person making the claim has to prove it—not the other way around.

 

[Jack Mallory]

The first piece of evidence cited in this article to support the idea that there are numerous unexplained drones flying overhead is this post by a Brooklyn resident who filmed nearby aircraft:

Source: https://x.com/DianeAtkins/status/1865979665061388343

Another excellent source. I wonder if she, too, is a "trained observer"?

I'm not sure how much more I can take of this. Maybe I'll just start my own TikTok/Instagram stream.
OMG! Does anyone know what these things flying in the skies could be? If I didn't know any better, I'd say they're behaving and sounding exactly like regular commercial air traffic! What could this possibly be!?!?

 

[Mauro]

My confusion is -- we're told/conditioned to default accept statements of "nothing found/known" about anything mystery or weird.

I never heard anyone is told/conditioned this way, really. This looks like a big strawman premise to me. Ie., I remember I very much accepted the astonishing fact of the accelerating expansion of the universe when it was first discovered and reported.

 

[TEEJ]

New article in Newsweek today, alleging that mysterious drones are now in New York.
https://www.newsweek.com/fbi-issues-statement-mystery-drone-sightings-reach-new-york-1998614



The first piece of evidence cited in this article to support the idea that there are numerous unexplained drones flying overhead is this post by a Brooklyn resident who filmed nearby aircraft:

Source: https://x.com/DianeAtkins/status/1865979665061388343


US House Representative Nicole Malliotakis reposted Atkins' tweet and called on the FAA, FBI, DHS, and NYPD to get involved in investigating what the aircraft in the videos were and whether they were flying over sensitive infrastructure.

Source: https://x.com/NMalliotakis/status/1866128104193663421


People in the replies of both posts suggest shooting at these aircraft. Perhaps relevant to the audience being inclined to shoot at planes and be willing to immediately embrace conspiracies about "the government" here is that Atkins is a MAGA activist and Rep. Malliotakis is a MAGA Republican and 2020 election denier.

Atkins told the reporter she saw maybe 10-12 aircraft, and said "Definitely not planes, and there were too many of them".

I want to reiterate that this is Brooklyn, NY, which is near 3 of the busiest airports in the world, and has a high level of helicopter traffic as well. And she is referring to a 15 minute period. Every location in Brooklyn is close enough to all 3 of those airports that the lights on the planes going in/out of all 3 of them would be expected to be visible on a clear night, assuming the vantage point is unobstructed by buildings. I would guess it is not rare for there to be 10+ aircraft potentially visible in the sky from Brooklyn simultaneously at every point of the day in the 6am-1am window. Everyone who's lived there for a year or more surely has seen thousands of planes and many helicopters, at least peripherally. The aircraft in the video posted by Atkins and reposted by US Representative Malliotakis all look like normal air traffic, from what I can tell. This is all very incredible to watch unfold.

She is filming aircraft on approach to La Guardia.

11pm-11:15pm 9th Dec NY time is 04am-04:15am UTC/GMT time 10th Dec.

Press play bottom left in the following link.

https://globe.adsbexchange.com/?replay=2024-12-10-04:00&lat=40.604&lon=-74.037&zoom=12.0

Her times are approximate but I make out at least 9 airliners in that 15 minute window on approach to La Guardia.

N37318
N898DN
N465FX
N369DN
N764US
N432YX
N807QS
N480UA
N372DA

 

[Jack Mallory]

Um...
Secondhand and thirdhand accounts with zero evidence incoming!
Listen. Carefully. To every word. Is there a "there" there?

Source: https://x.com/blackvaultcom/status/1866601285522428423

For reference:
Island State Park, New Jersey

 

[JMartJr]

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?

CLear video showing drones would be a good start. So far, all the footage clear enough to see what you are looking at show planes (barring one still image of a consumer drone that I've seen, and a couple of vids that seem to show Venus/Jupiter.) If there are a lot of giant mysterious scary drones flying around, where is the footage documenting this?

If all of the footage that shows anything clear enough to identify shows planes, maybe that is telling us something?

 

[NorCal Dave]

A bit off topic here, but I figured we could use an actual real drone being identified in a classified area and the pilot being arrested. Unfortunatly for this thread, it happened on the other side of the country:

Federal police arrested Yinpiao Zhou on Monday after he was allegedly caught flying a drone over the Vandenberg Space Force Base, in California.

The complaint against Mr Zhou, filed in California, says he admitted to installing software on his drone to evade both limits on the height the device could fly at and a virtual fence around the Vandenberg base.

The drone was allegedly in the air for 59 minutes and took photographs of SpaceX rocket pads and other sensitive areas

Notably, as this was a real drone, it was picked up the real security detail on base:

The flight was picked up by the base's security team, who traced Mr Zhou to the nearby Ocean Park, where he was standing with another man.

And Mr. Zhou appeared to be using his drone around actual secret stuff, as opposed to a Trump golf course or an Army base that specializes in small arms ammunition:

The incident took place on the same day that a SpaceX rocket took off from the base with a "sensitive payload" for the National Reconnaissance Office, which is the federal intelligence agency that runs spy satellites.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/tech...-arrested-after-drone-flown-over-us-air-base/

So, at least 1 drone in restricted government airspace, though not in NJ

The Picatinny army base where a number of "confirmed" drones were seen:

The Arsenal is the headquarters of the US Army Combat Capabilities Development Command Armaments Center. It is known for developing the ubiquitous Picatinny rail, as well as being the Army's center of expertise for small arms cartridge ammunition.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Picatinny_Arsenal

 

[JMartJr]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/tech...-arrested-after-drone-flown-over-us-air-base/

I get a 'Whoops this page does not exist" message from that.

 

[Ann K]

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?

See @jarlrmai 's post #198. Who is "they"? And if "they" don't know, then the sightings remain unknown. That doesn't mean you can read in any other interpretation you like.

 

[Ann K]

@Kyle Ferriter

Drones are officially in Brooklyn!

Oh, just wait until a few thousand teenage boys open their Christmas presents.

 

[Mendel]

And Mr. Zhou appeared to be using his drone around actual secret stuff, as opposed to a Trump golf course or an Army base that specializes in small arms ammunition:

also, Vandenberg is a bona fide airport (if military), which means there's a restricted zone (controlled airspace) down to the ground where you're only allowed to fly with ATC clearance, so this was "unauthorized" in the sense that it's actually unlawful to fly unauthorized there.

The fact that they found the operator is definitive proof that it was a drone, btw.

 

[Mendel]

@Kyle Ferriter

Drones are officially in Brooklyn!

Oh, just wait until a few thousand teenage boys open their Christmas presents.

get them now before Trump raises the tariffs (DJI is a Chinese company).

 

[Ann K]

I get a 'Whoops this page does not exist" message from that.

Brief story here: https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/bay-area-man-allegedly-took-drone-photos-19972170.php

It's paywalled, but you can get around that by choosing "show reader".

 

[Jack Mallory]

Brief story here: https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/bay-area-man-allegedly-took-drone-photos-19972170.php

It's paywalled, but you can get around that by choosing "show reader".

Spies these days...
Don't they teach "CLEAR YOUR BROWSING HISTORY!" in Chinese foreign intelligence training?

Upon searching Zhou's cellphone, agents found that a month earlier, he had Googled "Vandenberg Space Force Base Drone Rules"

 

[jdog]

FWIW, another New Jersey NOTAM pointed out by Aaron Stewart-Ahn on Bluesky, which he sums up as "Basically… the only people who should be flying drones in this specific area where all the first weird drones were seen are classified military contractors working around Trump's golf course and nearby military installations, or people doing work like firefighting & law enforcement": https://tfr.faa.gov/save_pages/detail_4_1797.html
(Copy-paste of the HTML was hideous.)

 

[justthefacts]

The flap has spread to the UK now. (Source)

View attachment 74277

OP asks "Who could coordinate this without getting caught ....." One report in social media and it spreads worldwide. As a result large numbers of people who never paid attention to the skies above them are now looking up, and, having never or rarely done so before, identify every routine object as a drone.

 

[RTM]

I hope this fizzles out before Christmas or we will have reindeer misidentified as drones.

 

[Jack Mallory]

I hope this fizzles out before Christmas or we will have reindeer misidentified as drones.

Don't shoot Santa!

 

[Jack Mallory]

I just can't.

Source: https://x.com/UAPJames/status/1866643104922734955

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

Stormy weather is coming in, which should dampen this particular flap in the Northeast. Will it flare up again when the weather clears up?

 

[Mendel]

FWIW, another New Jersey NOTAM pointed out by Aaron Stewart-Ahn on Bluesky, which he sums up as "Basically… the only people who should be flying drones in this specific area where all the first weird drones were seen are classified military contractors working around Trump's golf course and nearby military installations, or people doing work like firefighting & law enforcement": https://tfr.faa.gov/save_pages/detail_4_1797.html
(Copy-paste of the HTML was hideous.)

View attachment 74332

Note that this is a continuation of the Nov 22 TFR. It's only 2 miles across, and only goes up to 1000 ft. This is higher than consumer drones are allowed to fly, but wouldn't restrict e.g. a helicopter much.

(And it obviously doesn't prevent anyone from seeing airplanes when they look in that direction.)

Also, the TFR permits commercial operations with a work order (e.g. roof inspections?), but the FAA must be notified.

 

[jarlrmai]

Stormy weather is coming in, which should dampen this particular flap in the Northeast. Will it flare up again when the weather clears up?

Aye what this flap needs is some low heavy thick cloud so people stop seeing planes.

 

[jackfrostvc]

Looks like penalties for flying drones over sensitive areas can be fairly heavy. This article that just came out mentions how a chinese citizen who flew over Vandenberg Space Force Base and took pictures of it with his drone, can face up to 4 years in jail. The article says they detected the drone flying for almost an hour and at almost 1 mile(5280 feet) above ground level

https://www.cbsnews.com/losangeles/...taking-photos-of-vandenberg-space-force-base/