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

[Droning on and on...]

It would appear that these are a reaction to the mass hysteria episode.

What is there that so seriously needs protecting from drone overflights?
It wasn't important a week ago.
But now that unexplained "drones" are believed to be around it's a national security priority?

If there really are nefarious drones out there and their operators really see value in flying there, why would you think a TFR would have any effect on them?
There is no consistent logic in this.

It's easy to confuse people in a thread like this.

I haven't concluded there are nefarious drones flying in NJ. Nor have I concluded absolutely nothing's going on and this is a case of mass hysteria.

I'm trying to fit the verifiable facts into a cohesive explanation. Facts like airport closures, and TFRs. Right now, I'm not willing to accept the FAA issued TFRs for simply the reason of mass hysteria over drone sitings.

If that is what constitutes the "National Security" condition resulting in the TFRs, I'll accept it when I see something from the FAA. otherwise, I don't believe the FAA is that reckless.

 

[mavic3usa]

This is an interesting post:

B

Post in thread 'Drones "Spying" on New Jersey.'

Friday at 5:12 PM

Drones over Lockheed Martin F35 factory and Carswell Naval Air Station.

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

• Berf

 

[Chip]

I haven't concluded there are nefarious drones flying in NJ. Nor have I concluded absolutely nothing's going on and this is a case of mass hysteria.

I'm trying to fit the verifiable facts into a cohesive explanation. Facts like airport closures, and TFRs. Right now, I'm not willing to accept the FAA issued TFRs for simply the reason of mass hysteria over drone sitings.

If that is what constitutes the "National Security" condition resulting in the TFRs, I'll accept it when I see something from the FAA. otherwise, I don't believe the FAA is that reckless.

I agree. In addition, if something is nefarious, it is criminal, evil, malicious and wicked. Some things can be immoral, illegal or wrong without reaching evil, malicious and wicked. Such may be the case if the federal government is deliberately manipulating public perception or intentionally failing to disclose enough information to address fears, questions, and concerns for improper reasons.

 

[Chip]

Duplicate post.

 

[Zbip57]

It's evidence Canada has some reason to restrict drone flights in that area. Open and shut case, there's no legitimate argument. And that's all it's evidence of.

Totally agreed. Each one of our new restrictions have legitimate reasons for being added.

Most are detention centres (prisons) which weren't previously included in the list of all other such centres already covered by Flight Restrictions. A couple of them are for nuclear power plants which, until this update, were only covered by NOTAMs. And, the Halifax addition is the home of Canada's Navy's Atlantic Fleet.

Those all make perfect sense. Canada is a big country. There's plenty of space elsewhere to fly drones. If you have a convincing need to fly in those restricted zones, there's a process to apply for approval.

Since TFRs are disruptive, they're not issued without a good reason. What's the reason?

Your recently added TFRs [at least the few I checked] cover small areas around critical things like electrical sub-stations. It's perfectly reasonable to exclude hobbyists from flying within those areas.

The bigger issue is, when Canada announces a legitimate new Flight Restriction, here it's permanent [unless later rescinded].

However, your FAA announced TFRs, which are "Temporary", in place for only just one month over Christmas!

What's the point of that?

After one month hobbyists will again be free to fly over your power stations? Or does the FAA need to re-issue all that paperwork to publish monthly TFRs? That's a dumb system.

 

[Droning on and on...]

If something is nefarious, it is criminal, evil, malicious and wicked. Some things can be immoral, illegal or wrong to do without reaching evil, malicious and wicked. Such may be the case if the federal government is deliberately manipulating public perception or intentionally failing to disclose enough information to address fears, questions, and concerns.

I am using "nefarious" in the common, colloquial understanding as a synonym for "bad".

However, I'll avoid it in the future unless I mean to imply criminal, evil, malicious or wicked so as to avoid a side argument.

I'll close this response by noting such concepts are subjective, and one man's immoral is another's wicked, and both are right.

 

[Photo Booth]

That is evidence the FAA is shutting down more airspace. It is not evidence there is increased drone activity.

This forum is not the only forum in which people are discussing this matter. I belong to a forum that has a semi-private area that is only open to people who have a certain number of posts. In that forum a person living in New Jersey, who is well known to other forum members, and who is clearly knowledgeable regarding U.S. airspace, has said he has personally seen an increase in drone traffic in his area since November.

Based on his history of accurate and thoughtful comments regarding a variety of topics of discussion, I already had the opinion that he is very credible. Thus, I am inclined to believe what he has shared.

Whether you like it or not, his “testimony” is evidence.

Mark

 

[Chip]

I am using "nefarious" in the common, colloquial understanding as a synonym for "bad".

However, I'll avoid it in the future unless I mean to imply criminal, evil, malicious or wicked so as to avoid a side argument.

I'll close this response by noting such concepts are subjective, and one man's immoral is another's wicked, and both are right.

Don't change anything! You misunderstood. I forgot to insert Meta 4's question which you were responding to. He used the word nefarious. I was just trying to say its a loaded word. Sorry about confusion.

 

[Droning on and on...]

Totally agreed. Each one of our new restrictions have legitimate reasons for being added.

Most are detention centres (prisons) which weren't previously included in the list of all other such centres already covered by Flight Restrictions. A couple of them are for nuclear power plants which, until this update, were only covered by NOTAMs. And, the Halifax addition is the home of Canada's Navy's Atlantic Fleet.

An important distinction in the US, those sorts of restrictions are usually not TFRs (Temporary Flight Restriction). TFRs are, as the title implies, temporary, and are issued for circumstances where the conditions justifying the restriction are short term. Classic examples are Presidential visits and Sporting events.

Fact: The FAA in the last few days has issued some TFRs in the areas that have been the source of these drone siting reports. Why?

Were I to purely speculate, I'd say they're using it as a tool to try and nail down what these intruder drones are, if they exist. A TFR will keep a lot of honest hobbyist, and pretty much all commercial fights out of the area, making it easier (perhaps much!) to detect and track any "rogues".

 

[Droning on and on...]

In that forum a person living in New Jersey, who is well known to other forum members, and who is clearly knowledgeable regarding U.S. airspace, has said he has personally seen an increase in drone traffic in his area since November.

This is in keeping with a point I've made in one of these threads several times about the skies here in Santa Cruz, and how obvious an increase in nighttime drone activity would be.

Seeing 3 drones buzzing around every night for weeks would make the evening news. Not surprising as "normal" is none. Zilch. Zero.

I related a time when one drone was seen at night buzzing around the Santa Cruz boardwalk (and warf), enough to make mention on the SC community Facebook page.

That was me. Shooting Hyperlapses with my Air 2S

So, I wonder what the situation is w.r.t. above in these various places in NJ where the hysterical are implying when the sun goes down, squadrons of drones appear, clearly not "business as usual". Is it?

 

[Droning on and on...]

Whether you like it or not, his “testimony” is evidence.

Absolutely.

People are sitting on death row right now on the strength of Eye Witness testimony.

Of course this is, like any evidence, subject to impeachment.

 

[Zbip57]

This is an interesting post:

Why is that post in another thread any more interesting than the video you already previously posted of the same story right here in this thread, post#155, where you said:

Here's a clue:
You won't be able to rewrite this, it's all documented.

If anything, the previous video was more interesting, because that video claimed to show actual cellphone recording by the police officers.

In response to a woman reporting seeing "a formation of six drones", "officers already in the reported area spotted the aircraft. This is cellphone video they recorded." That certainly sounds as though it would be more credible.

However, the cellphone video shows only a single "drone", not a formation of six. Furthermore, the cellphone video shows only the same thing as every other cellphone video -- flashing lights that look exactly like any other FAA mandated lights for normal aircraft.

Your new "interesting post" shows the same footage again, but this time there's no mention of it having been recorded by police officers. Why is that?

 

[Berf]

It all looks pretty clear to me what is going on. How much more evidence do you want?

Chinese man arrested, accused of flying drone over and taking photos of Vandenberg Space Force Base

A Chinese national has been arrested for using a drone to capture images of Vandenberg Space Force Base in California.

www.cbsnews.com

 

[Droning on and on...]

It all looks pretty clear to me what is going on. How much more evidence do you want?

Chinese man arrested, accused of flying drone over and taking photos of Vandenberg Space Force Base

A Chinese national has been arrested for using a drone to capture images of Vandenberg Space Force Base in California.

www.cbsnews.com

Please explain to me what is clearly going on. Facts only, no opinion, supposition, speculation.

 

[Berf]

If I have to explain it, then you probably either won't understand, or will refuse to listen. I'm not here just to argue. Read the article yourself and see what conclusions you come to on your own.

I'm out of here.

 

[mavic3usa]

Why is that post in another thread any more interesting than the video you already previously posted of the same story right here in this thread, post#155, where you said:


If anything, the previous video was more interesting, because that video claimed to show actual cellphone recording by the police officers.

In response to a woman reporting seeing "a formation of six drones", "officers already in the reported area spotted the aircraft. This is cellphone video they recorded." That certainly sounds as though it would be more credible.

However, the cellphone video shows only a single "drone", not a formation of six. Furthermore, the cellphone video shows only the same thing as every other cellphone video -- flashing lights that look exactly like any other FAA mandated lights for normal aircraft.

Your new "interesting post" shows the same footage again, but this time there's no mention of it having been recorded by police officers. Why is that?

Sorry I can't help you parse and dissect and analyze the video or the difference between this one and the last one. You'll have to do that for yourself and if you come up with zilch....you're loss. All I can do is advise and recommend you to stop fixating on the shiny lights and the fancy video clips and listen and rely on the overall tone and the message you're getting. Close your eyes and listen to it again and pay attention to what you are being told and learn to read in between the lines. My suggestion, take it or leave it. I'm not in a good place to lay it all out for you....again.

ETA: Sorry but just to be fair, I will if you want me to, I just don't want to get into a pissing contest about video resolution, light refraction over the pacific vs the Atlantic, or aircraft landing patterns at small airports vs military airports or the new F999999 that NASA purchased late last year. Or even the style and layout of the new clips and how it was presented and what was said at the same time whatever was shown irrelevant nonsense.

 

[Droning on and on...]

If I have to explain it, then you probably either won't understand, or will refuse to listen. I'm not here just to argue. Read the headlines yourself and see what conclusions you come to on your own.

I'm out of here.

Well, that was lame.

You made a vague statement. I asked you to be specific. That's your response? Level insults and run away with your tail between your legs?

Okay.

 

[eEridani]

Right now, with this example, I'm finding you pretty stupid. Can you figure out why? Hint: You're comparing the hypothetical act described above to a TFR.

Now why would that be stupid? Enormously so? Laughably so?

Please.

So this discussion has devolved into name calling because I asked one simple question. lol

 

[Chip]

So this discussion has devolved into name calling because I asked one simple question. lol

What is the question?

 

[Chip]

Okay well I've not done the Carnac thing for a while but let me try: The answer to your question is:

Military base incursions, eyewitness accounts, government deception, Security TFRs.

Am I right?