New Jersey Drone Sightings May Not Be Drones. By Professor Will Austin.

[DARKSeifer]

Remember back last year when some folks here were predicting a wave of assaults and robberies of drone pilots identified by their RID signals? Some were bragging about the bear spray, firearms, and body cams they'd tote around while flying.

Now some of the same folks are predicting physical and legislative horrors and imminent dangers from the lights in the sky. There are calls to blast them out of the sky and claims that they're foreign or interplanetary enemies.

But, so far, the number of crimes against drone pilots using RID stands at the same level as the number of injuries or instances of damage done by those lights in the sky.

ZERO Yes, 0.

Drone confrontations are a usual part of the hobby, so present, that you can even easily "force" them by flying VLOS and 100% within the rule boundaries, anywhere in the world.

I can just pick my drone, and find a confrontation in less than 30 minutes if I want. And after the recent "propaganda" of the NJ events, I'd say even in 5 minutes by just taking the drone outside the bag in a crowded area.

In that scenario, a drone emitting your location to the public is not only a privacy violation, it is a personal safety concern.

And then you have to add the Aeroscope, police and fines to the sauce and there you have why this is such a marginal hobby that I only spot 2-3 drones each year despite living in one of the most touristic places of Spain.

I don't have confrontations anymore because I take off and fly to prevent them. I always takeoff from private fenced property, I climb to 120m ASAP and move the drone 300+ meters away, so the sound doesn't lure in any karen around, and in the case of the M3, both Aeroscope and RID are disabled by the hack or at least, I haven't found any way to make it appear on the DroneScanner/OpendroneID apps.

I also never hover more than 3-5 seconds to make the drone stable and take the pic and move to another location, hovering drones is what most upsets people around.

You want problems with your neighbors, with your HOA, with random people, with the local police? Just buy a drone and fly it legally, thinking that complying with the rules prevents anything of that.

I already had problems sometimes, doing architectural or landscape photography with a DSLR and a tripod, but the drone is on a level of his own, it's a problem magnet, just like if you were holding a sword or a shotgun in public.

 

[tstr14]

Ok. I'm convinced. Between that photo and your profile photo, I have to conclude that you have an affinity for strapping strange things to your head.

But secret malevolent government plots?

It's easy to cry, "Wolf!" Any support whatsoever for the claim?"

State and local law enforcement overwhelmed?

Again, easy to make the claim. Which state and local governments are overwhelmed? How many states? How many cities?

That's the great thing about conspiracies - you don't need true facts to believe them! Just a few grains of not-necessarily connected truth is usually enough!

I will support the statement though that some government agencies are overwhelmed, but that is more from lack of funding, than mountains of complaints or reports. Both the FAA and FCC fall into this category. With FAA, their obvious central focus is on manned aircraft, commercial and private for obvious reasons and the number of staff available to monitor UAV's is rather meager as evidenced by the number of illegal flights that take place. The FCC has the same problem with illegal radio transmissions, that are probably more frequent that illegal drone operations since many radio transmissions originate from outside the US and thus outside their jurisdiction.

If asked, I am sure either agency would welcome funds to add more agents but overall, the people who control the purse strings don't consider the problem worth the cost. With the incoming administration hell bent on reducing government spending, look for matters to get worse, not better in this respect. It is entirely possible the feds may relinquish some of their control in order to deal with the problem by allowing state and local government to make and enforce regulations that are the same as federal regulations but it's doubtful the feds would allow any laws that are in addition or conflicting of the federal rules and regulation. Turf wars between the two have existed even before we were an actual country, with neither side willing to give ground.

 

[mavic3usa]

Don't forget it was the military that harped on these "super drones" for years and not the public. Remember the drone in AZ that led police helicopter on a wild chase across the city for hours at breakneck speeds avoid all detection before disappearing. Police claimed it was flying int the 1000s of feet altitude and several officers saw it but no had a clear image or video clip of that drone either. The public never saw that drone(s) but it made the news and the police insisted it was true. The respond from the drone community not even once did they suggest the police were chasing planets or seeing planes landing and taking off from the airport. Instead, wild speculation about experiment drones made in a basement or someone taunting the police and whoever they are needs to be caught and locked up.

Thread '100 MPH Drone?'

Jul 8, 2021

Tucson police chase 100 mph drone across city

New details are emerging about a drone that led police on a high-speed chase across Tucson before disappearing.

www.12news.com

• BikerGeek
• Replies: 23
• Forum: News

• 
• 
• 

And before the NJ incidents, military bases were screaming there is a drone problem in the UK and in restricted military bases in the US:

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[MS Coast]

In that scenario, a drone emitting your location to the public is not only a privacy violation, it is a personal safety concern.

And yet, there have still been no reports of actual incidents.

You want problems with your neighbors, with your HOA, with random people, with the local police? Just buy a drone and fly it legally, thinking that complying with the rules prevents anything of that.

I already had problems sometimes, doing architectural or landscape photography with a DSLR and a tripod, but the drone is on a level of his own, it's a problem magnet, just like if you were holding a sword or a shotgun in public.

I don't see that degree of problem here in the US.

 

[Zbip57]

This is what I didn't say: "Drone reports are coming exclusively from NJ." that would be a stupid statement.
Here's what I did say:

Why aren't people in Chicago, Atlanta, Los Angeles, and other big city busy airports not calling in fake drone sighting when planes from those areas line up in formation like they've done for years? Why didn't people in NYC airports report the same last year?

Ok, so you're not referring to the many other supposed drone sightings all across the USA, not even the ones in your "Here's a clue: It's all documented" North Texas video, which you posted earlier.

I think I understand now. You are referring only to the reported drone sightings where they "line up in formation", and you're saying those have happened only recently and exclusively in NYC, and no other "big city busy airports" have reported similar "line up in formation" sightings. Is that correct?

Ok I get it; you don't have an answer so you pretend like you didn't understand the question.

No pretending involved. I just find it difficult to follow and untangle your logic.

You cannot claim NYC airports are the only airports in the country that cause nearby residents to become alarmed at the traffic and start reporting manned aircraft as drones because the airport is super busy.

Wait! There you go confusing things again. I never claimed that! It's you who's claiming that NYC airports are the only place this is happening, and nowhere else in America!

Not a single busy airport elsewhere in America have residents who live nearby have mistaken the landing aircraft for drones; that just isn't a thing. Does it happen? Sure. But that's not what is going on here. Don't you think "airport landing light syndrome" would affect at least one other busy airport somewhere else in the country?

To summarize what you appear to be saying here, we are definitely not discussing the hundreds of media reports and "UFO drone sighting" videos from all across America where we are shown videos of steady red/green wingtip and white tail marker lights, and flashing white wingtip strobes, and flashing red top/bottom strobes, and spotlights illuminating the airline's logos on vertical tail-fins and vertical wingtip winglets, all of which have been repeatedly broadcast as supposed evidence of "UFO drone" sightings. Nope, definitely not any of those.

Instead, you are referring only to the "airport landing light syndrome" cases, which you insist have only recently occurred exclusively in NYC, and nowhere else in America. Correct?

Well...

I don't keep an indexed catalogue either of every video I've ever watched. So, of course, I can't now find the one I'm looking for again. This particular clip has been included in many other supposedly credible media reports, even like in this report all the way from Pakistan!

The original clip includes commentary from the American doing the recording. It, like every other "UFO drone" sighting, shows "lights" in the sky. The only thing that is clearly recognizable is the brightly lit building, which even I, [Canadian, eh ], am able to recognize is definitely NOT located in New York City!

The clip opens showing a small "light" just to the right of the dome, travelling right to left. The Pakistani reporter in this particular version is speaking Urdu. If that bothers you, just turn off the volume. In the original English version, the guy recording says something like, "there's another one!", and zooms in tighter.

The camera then pans to the right, showing more flashing "lights", and he says, "That's just a plane."

Then the camera pans to the left of the dome to show three lights, mysterious "orbs" hovering in the sky. The guy says something like, "Look, they're not moving. They're just hovering there."

That same clip has appeared in numerous media reports, [I just can't find an English version at the moment]. It's yet another classic case of "airport landing light syndrome" showing normal aircraft lining up in sequence to land at a busy airport. Yet it's reported as another "UFO drone" sighting.

In any case, it is most definitely located somewhere in America OTHER than in NYC.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[mavic3usa]

Ok, so you're not referring to the many other supposed drone sightings all across the USA, not even the ones in your "Here's a clue: It's all documented" North Texas video, which you posted earlier.

I think I understand now. You are referring only to the reported drone sightings where they "line up in formation", and you're saying those have happened only recently and exclusively in NYC, and no other "big city busy airports" have reported similar "line up in formation" sightings. Is that correct?


No pretending involved. I just find it difficult to follow and untangle your logic.


Wait! There you go confusing things again. I never claimed that! It's you who's claiming that NYC airports are the only place this is happening, and nowhere else in America!



To summarize what you appear to be saying here, we are definitely not discussing the hundreds of media reports and "UFO drone sighting" videos from all across America where we are shown videos of steady red/green wingtip and white tail marker lights, and flashing white wingtip strobes, and flashing red top/bottom strobes, and spotlights illuminating the airline's logos on vertical tail-fins and vertical wingtip winglets, all of which have been repeatedly broadcast as supposed evidence of "UFO drone" sightings. Nope, definitely not any of those.

Instead, you are referring only to the "airport landing light syndrome" cases, which you insist have only recently occurred exclusively in NYC, and nowhere else in America. Correct?

Well...

I don't keep an indexed catalogue either of every video I've ever watched. So, of course, I can't now find the one I'm looking for again. This particular clip has been included in many other supposedly credible media reports, even like in this report all the way from Pakistan!

The original clip includes commentary from the American doing the recording. It, like every other "UFO drone" sighting, shows "lights" in the sky. The only thing that is clearly recognizable is the brightly lit building, which even I, [Canadian, eh ], am able to recognize is definitely NOT located in New York City!

The clip opens showing a small "light" just to the right of the dome, travelling right to left. The Pakistani reporter in this particular version is speaking Urdu. If that bothers you, just turn off the volume. In the original English version, the guy recording says something like, "there's another one!", and zooms in tighter.

The camera then pans to the right, showing more flashing "lights", and he says, "That's just a plane."

Then the camera pans to the left of the dome to show three lights, mysterious "orbs" hovering in the sky. The guy says something like, "Look, they're not moving. They're just hovering there."

That same clip has appeared in numerous media reports, [I just can't find an English version at the moment]. It's yet another classic case of "airport landing light syndrome" showing normal aircraft lining up in sequence to land at a busy airport. Yet it's reported as another "UFO drone" sighting.

In any case, it is most definitely located somewhere in America OTHER than in NYC.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

I dunno, thanks for complicating a simple questions. Honestly, I think that's a strategy but if that what you use to debate, fine.

No one else in the country who lives near a major US airport is suddenly having an issue recognizing ordinary manned aircraft taking off and landing at the nearby local airport and confusing regular ordinary airline traffic with consumer drones. It's not happening in NY, it's not happening in NJ, it's not happening anywhere in America. IT'S NOT A THING.

Simple.

You're fixated and obsessed on photos and videos. If you next post (reply) can answer without reference to a photo or a video then you might get the point.

 

[Droning on and on...]

Drone confrontations are a usual part of the hobby, so present, that you can even easily "force" them by flying VLOS and 100% within the rule boundaries, anywhere in the world.

I can just pick my drone, and find a confrontation in less than 30 minutes if I want. And after the recent "propaganda" of the NJ events, I'd say even in 5 minutes by just taking the drone outside the bag in a crowded area.

I take you at your word.

For some reason this happens to you, but not to me, and apparently @MS Coast and pretty much every other drone pilot I've known in ten years in this hobby.

My experience is that confrontation doesn't happen. I have had, though, countless curious bystanders, and friendly encounters.

Why do you think it is you experience such hostility?

 

[mavic3usa]

Maybe this might explain what some drone operators are going thru:

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Zbip57]

You keep wanting to critique a video clip [...]

Because that's the only "evidence" we're ever been shown.

It's almost better off there is no video clip and therefore you can only go with what a person sees with their own eyes [...]

In many cases, YES, absolutely! We'd be much better off if the person being interviewed gave an honest and credible description of what they saw, leaving it up to everyone to interpret it however we see fit. But every single TV interview is always accompanied by video of either stock footage taken from somewhere else, or footage of something supposedly intended to look like video shot by the person being interviewed, or even sometimes [rarely] it is said to be actual video shot by the same person being interviewed.

Unfortunately, in every single case, the video shows either a clearly recognizable normal aircraft or blurry unrecognizable lights that are most probably also perfectly normal aircraft. But the media report unfailingly identifies them as "these drones" or as another reported "drone sighting".

The result is that gullible people are being programmed to identify every flashing light as a "UFO drone", whereas anyone with common sense would ask, if you can't recognize WHAT it is, why ISN'T it a perfectly normal aircraft?

Let me know when you are ready to move past the video clips; they're irrelevant at this point.

The videos are totally relevant, because they are conditioning gullible Americans into reporting every light in the sky as a suspicious drone. Media reports constantly show the same perfectly normal lights in the sky, identifying them as, "These are the drones you're looking for!"

There's important things to discuss once you get onboard with the rest of us who already know there were drones flying around the NJ area [...]

"The rest of us", being those who have already been assimilated?

 

[mavic3usa]

Because that's the only "evidence" we're ever been shown.


In many cases, YES, absolutely! We'd be much better off if the person being interviewed gave an honest and credible description of what they saw, leaving it up to everyone to interpret it however we see fit. But every single TV interview is always accompanied by video of either stock footage taken from somewhere else, or footage of something supposedly intended to look like video shot by the person being interviewed, or even sometimes [rarely] it is said to be actual video shot by the same person being interviewed.

Unfortunately, in every single case, the video shows either a clearly recognizable normal aircraft or blurry unrecognizable lights that are most probably also perfectly normal aircraft. But the media report unfailingly identifies them as "these drones" or as another reported "drone sighting".

The result is that gullible people are being programmed to identify every flashing light as a "UFO drone", whereas anyone with common sense would ask, if you can't recognize WHAT it is, why ISN'T it a perfectly normal aircraft?


The videos are totally relevant, because they are conditioning gullible Americans into reporting every light in the sky as a suspicious drone. Media reports constantly show the same perfectly normal lights in the sky, identifying them as, "These are the drones you're looking for!"


"The rest of us", being those who have already been assimilated?

I wouldn't let those photos and videos consume you and your thinking. They are ok but they are not everything. There are other facts to consider. When you start to think video and photos are the *only* evidence that matters then YOU are the one who is easily manipulated by the press and social media. They control you with the videos and images. Regardless of what anyone tells you, you won't listen and you only respond to a video or a photo. Because video and photos are so pronounced and explicit, they have a way of overcoming and overriding everything else to the point where other facts are ignore or discards. We call them sheep because they will the first ones that fall for the deepfakes and growing doctored/manipulated media hype that is upon us.

Learn to say "No sir, that's NOT what I see in that video." There's a thing called the totality of the circumstances. Photos and video have their place in the universe but they are not everything. When I put everything together, when I consider *all* the data that I am aware of and I weight everything and analyze (not overanalyze) everything in my mind, I come to a different conclusion than you do. That's ok. I know what is right for me and I understand what is right for me *isnt* necessarily always right for everybody else. That's the difference between you and I.

 

[Zbip57]

Thanks for complicating a simple questions.

As simple as it is, you still manage to make it complicated.

Why are you now suddenly limiting this only to consumer drones?

No one else [?] in the country who lives near a major US airport is suddenly having an issue recognizing ordinary manned aircraft taking off and landing at the nearby local airport and confusing regular ordinary airline traffic with consumer drones. It's not happening in NY, it's not happening in NJ, it's not happening anywhere in America. IT'S NOT A THING.

Which of these did you actually mean to write?

1. "No one else in the country...", or
2. "No one in the country..."?

It makes a difference, eh.

Are you claiming no one in the entire country is confusing normal aircraft landing lights with formations of UFO drones? Or, no one else?

Who is the "else"?

People are reporting seeing formations of drones flying in patterns, one at a time, line astern, SUV-sized drones, 20-foot drones, 6-foot drones, 50 drones rising from the ocean, or even consumer drones, whatever... I thought we had already narrowed this down to focus solely on the white "orbs", the line of white lights which you call the "airport landing light syndrome".

 

[mavic3usa]

People are reporting seeing formations of drones flying in patterns, one at a time, line astern, SUV-sized drones, 20-foot drones, 6-foot drones, 50 drones rising from the ocean, or even consumer drones, whatever... I thought we had already narrowed this down to focus solely on the white "orbs", the line of white lights which you call the "airport landing light syndrome".

In this situation, there is no such thing as "airport landing light syndrome" for the residents. That's fake.

 

[Zbip57]

In this situation, there is no such thing as "airport landing light syndrome" for the residents. That's fake.

In which "situation"???

It was you who introduced the term "airport landing light syndrome"! Are you now saying there's no such thing?

 

[mavic3usa]

In which "situation"???

the events which are the topic of this thread

It was you who introduced the term "airport landing light syndrome"! Are you now saying there's no such thing?

show me that post where I mentioned such nonsense

 

[Photo Booth]

You want problems with your neighbors, with your HOA, with random people, with the local police? Just buy a drone and fly it legally, thinking that complying with the rules prevents anything of that.

I already had problems sometimes, doing architectural or landscape photography with a DSLR and a tripod, but the drone is on a level of his own, it's a problem magnet, just like if you were holding a sword or a shotgun in public.

I live in an HOA (174 detached homes). I fly my drone around our neighborhood fairly regularly. Nobody has ever complained. A couple of neighbors have stopped to ask questions because they were considering getting a drone (one of them did). That's it.

Ditto when I fly my drone in other places. All anyone does is ask questions. I've never had anyone get upset or act threatening.

Perhaps part of the reason for my "success" has something to do with the fact that I never let my drone linger at lower altitudes when near someone else's property. I don’t launch near crowds. I avoid flying directly over crowds. As best I can, I place respect for other people's comfort ABOVE what is "legal" for me to do.

In other words, I try to fly reasonably and responsibly and use common courtesy. If that means I occasionally decide to not fly in a certain location, so be it.

All that said, I am a hobbyist pilot. If you are a Part 107 pilot with jobs that require you to be more assertive about your right to fly, your mileage may vary.

Mark

 

[mavic3usa]

Many drone bans (TFR) in place across the NJ/NY area. Why?

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Zbip57]

It was you who introduced the term "airport landing light syndrome"! Are you now saying there's no such thing?

show me that post where I mentioned such nonsense

You've not only confused me, now you've even confused yourself?
You said this in post #179 above.

Don't you think "airport landing light syndrome" would affect at least one other busy airport somewhere else in the country?

You said that, as though this cannot possibly be happening anywhere in your country. So I showed you an example where it obviously is happening in Washington DC.

Now you're claiming that the landing lights of aircraft sequenced one after another, either landing or taking off from an airport, cannot possibly be confused by anyone in your country for anything other than normal aircraft?

Nobody could confuse those lights, despite the fact that there are endless videos being posted showing exactly that with every media source calling these "UFO drones"?

 

[eEridani]

If FOX News shows video of a 737 in flight, taken at night from a distance and complete with audio clearly sounding like a 737 some distance away, then says something about drones, 90% of it's viewer base will think the video is of a drone and will report similar sightings as drones.

Critical thinking isn't in many viewers their toolkit.

 

[Zbip57]

And when the authorities can't explain what those people are claiming to see, it doesn't mean the government is hiding stuff from you. It just means the government knows what a normal 737 looks like and they're wondering WT* people are imagining.

I see a normal airplane. You see a "UFO drone". I say, "I don't know what you think you're seeing, but that's an airplane."

 

[mavic3usa]

Ok I get it; you don't have an answer so you pretend like you didn't understand the question. You cannot claim NYC airports are the only airports in the country that cause nearby residents to become alarmed at the traffic and start report manned aircraft as drones because the airport is super busy. Not a single busy airport elsewhere in America have residents who live nearby have mistaken the landing aircraft for drones; that just isn't a thing. Does it happen? Sure. But that's not what is going on here. Don't you think "airport landing light syndrome" would affect at least one other busy airport somewhere else in the country?

Post $179 above in full context.

Instead, you are referring only to the "airport landing light syndrome" cases, which you insist have only recently occurred exclusively in NYC, and nowhere else in America. Correct?

Nowhere in my post #179 should you interprete or twist that paragraph to mean "What we are looking with the NYC airports are cases of "airport landing light syndrome" and this syndrome doesn't exist anywhere else in the country but only the NYC airport.

That's ridiculous.

The entire tone of my paragraph is railing against this being a problem associate with an airport and planes landing and I simply pointed out that it cannot be a problem at NYC because if it was, wouldn't we have the same problem at other airports? What makes them different?

I really using the words "only" and "nowhere" to enhance the meaning not to qualify the meaning and as such have thrown you off and likely confused you but I thought I made it clear when I said this:

No one else in the country who lives near a major US airport is suddenly having an issue recognizing ordinary manned aircraft taking off and landing at the nearby local airport and confusing regular ordinary airline traffic with consumer drones. It's not happening in NY, it's not happening in NJ, it's not happening anywhere in America. IT'S NOT A THING.

But instead you are nitpicking on the words and the wording and coming up with a narrative that suits your own story instead of focusing on what I meant. I've seen some of these paragraphs and they are long and involved and cover many topics so it's easy to become confused and I'm learning with you (lately) I just have to keep it short and sweet and to the point else you'll go off the deep end. So I have to dumb down my statements for you. I honestly thought you could handle the complex set of conditions going on here at the same time because when the government speaks, you're clear about what they say yet the rest of the world is confused. So there's that.

Let me be clear: Anyone who suggests the residents in the area affected by the events of this month have any kind of adverse reaction due to their proximity to an airport, I disagree with that idea completely. There's no reason why NY/NJ residents would suffer but residents who live in other nearby locations to an airports don't suffer. Unless there is something specific to the affected area, airplanes landing and taking off, airport patterns and approaches, runways and airport landing lights and anything like that in general is not at issue here. Someone made the statement along the lines of when an airplane is landing at the airport, it sometimes looks like it is hovering. That may be true but that's the end of it. I don't believe that is a legitimate explanation why a person may mistake a [landing] manned aircraft for a drone. I disagree and the reason why I disagree has been mentioned elsewhere so I won't go into it here.

So that's my last complex, multi-paragraph comment to you since you're easily confused and when you combine that with excessive nitpicking, no telling what you might conclude. You're ridiculous if you think I believe NYC/NJ residents have become hysterical about drones only because they live near the airport and are getting confused by the manned aircraft traffic and if they lived in the countryside (or elsewhere) they wouldn't have said anything. I've explained multiple times what I think people believe they see and I've explained multiple times why I think people are reporting what they see. And it's not because of the aliens that you apparently believe in since you've mentioned "UFO" so many times in all of your previous posts.