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

[Chip]

No, I think we really should worry about semantics.

In post#356 you shared a video of White House Press Secretary, Karoline Leavitt, making an announcement, which you insist is some sort of "confession" from the FAA. It's nothing of the sort.

It only appears that way to you because you are distorting the semantics of what she said.

Here is a transcript of what she actually said,


The statement says that:

• This was NOT a statement from the FAA, it's a statement from President Trump.
• The FAA authorizes drones to be flown. It does NOT say they were being flown by the FAA.
• The FAA authorizes flights for research and various other [commercial] reasons.
• The FAA also authorizes hobbyists, recreational, and private individuals that enjoy flying drones.
• If you see a drone, it most likely has a legitimate and authorized reason for being there.
• There is zero reason to assume a drone was launched from Iranian motherships in the Atlantic.

Semanitcs, eh.

Yes thank you for the summary. But its not necessary. Because the FAA has taken full ownership. Drone flights were "authorized by the Federal Aviation Administration for research and various other reasons." The FAA simply refuses to explain what research is being conducted by who and for what purpose. You may have no curiosity or concern about why but I do if that is okay with you.

 

[Droning on and on...]

I think we should just split the difference and say some regulated research was occurring.

 

[Chip]

 

[Zbip57]

Yes thank you for the summary. But its not necessary. Because the FAA has taken full ownership. Drone flights were "authorized by the Federal Aviation Administration for research and various other reasons." The FAA simply refuses to explain what research is being conducted by who and for what purpose. You may have no curiosity or concern about why but I do if that is okay with you.

Again, apparently the summary is necessary, because of semantics.

You are deliberately omitting parts to suit your own conspiracy interpretation. You insist the FAA has somehow "taken full ownership", while you quote only the bit about how the FAA authorizes flights for research. You think the FAA owes you some sort of justification or explanation of what any research flight is about.

The video you posted, claiming it's some sort of a "confession" from the FAA, is a press release from the president's office. It is the President's press secretary speaking for the president, not the FAA. Here is what she actually said:

"From President Trump directly, an update on the New Jersey drones.
After research and study, 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. Many of these drones were also hobbyists, recreational, and private individuals that enjoy flying drones. In time it got worse due to curiosity.
This was not the enemy."

Since you evidently didn't understand it the first time, I'll summarize it for you again. She says, the FAA authorizes drone flights for many different reasons, including research, hobbyist, recreational, and private individuals that enjoy flying drones.

The FAA also authorizes all sorts of other flights, including commercial airlines, private general aviation, even rocket launches.

The FAA is not required to reveal to you the purpose of authorized research flights conducted by companies unwilling to share their business interests with the public. For example, the FAA frequently authorizes rocket launches carrying secret military payloads to orbit.

In exactly the same manner, the FAA is not required to reveal to you the purpose of every Part 107 or recreational drone flight conducted by private individuals who simply enjoy flying drones, even though those are also authorized by the FAA.

Your claim is absurd, that by authorizing any drone flight the FAA somehow takes "full ownership" and therefor cannot "simply refuse to explain what research is being conducted by who and for what purpose".

You may have no curiosity or concern about why but I do if that is okay with you.

Anyone seeing you fly your drone won't know whether you're doing it for research or just for fun. You seem to believe that, just because someone is curious or concerned, they're somehow entitled to an explanation directly from the FAA as to the purpose of your flight. That's absurd.

 

[Chip]

@Zbip57 this is a great speech you just gave. I kept thinking of the Man of La Mancha. You know the guy who tilts at windmills. You are like that guy but with an anger management problem.

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

 

[Chip]

A straw man argument is a fallacy where a person sets up and attacks a position that is not being debated. The term comes from the idea of a straw scarecrow, which is a dummy that is easy to attack. In a straw man argument, the person arguing distorts the original position and then argues against the distorted version.
Examples:

"In exactly the same manner, the FAA is not required to reveal to you the purpose of every Part 107 or recreational drone flight conducted by private individuals who simply enjoy flying drones, even though those are also authorized by the FAA."

"Your claim is absurd, that by authorizing any drone flight the FAA somehow takes "full ownership" and therefor cannot "simply refuse to explain what research is being conducted by who and for what purpose."

"Anyone seeing you fly your drone won't know whether you're doing it for research or just for fun. You seem to believe that, just because someone is curious or concerned, they're somehow entitled to an explanation directly from the FAA as to the purpose of your flight. That's absurd."

 

[Meta4]

The FAA simply refuses to explain what research is being conducted by who and for what purpose.

And you've asked how many times?

 

[Zbip57]

@Zbip57 [...] You are like that guy but with an anger management problem.

I am indeed struggling with an anger management problem. I do apologize, because it's unfair of me to unleash that on this forum.

I've been deeply engaged in a Facebook holy war over whether it's acceptable for a certain world leader to threaten the annexation of Canada. As a proud Canadian, such stupidity makes my blood boil with anger, some of which then leaks out here.

But enough about politics, let's talk about your straw man fallacy...

Rather than using logical arguments or facts of your own to dispute what I wrote, or to demonstrate how it is in any way incorrect, you instead deflect away and create your own straw man fallacy by calling me the Man of La Mancha.

I am merely pointing out that the video of the President's Press Secretary, which YOU posted, does not support your own argument, and in fact says completely the opposite of what you claim it says. Where am I wrong in that?

Similarly, the video posted by @mavic3usa in Post#367 of John Kirby's statement is clear enough. There is no evidence to suggest a threat from these "drone sightings" to national security or public safety, and not from any foreign entity. Using "very sophisticated electronic detection technologies", federal, state, or local law enforcement agencies have been unable to corroborate ANY of the reported visual sightings. Many of the reported "sightings" are actually manned aircraft being operated lawfully, as is plainly obvious in nearly every image shared by media reports.

You claim semantics don't matter, but your entire debate is based on a difference in semantics. These two phrases say completely different things;

• drones were flown by the FAA for research
• the FAA authorizes drone to be flown, for research and other reasons like ...

Your entire argument, about how the FAA has somehow "taken full ownership", is based on your own straw man fallacy of misinterpreting and distorting those phrases.

As I have repeated twice already, and will for a third time, what the President's press secretary (not the FAA) actually said is: The FAA authorizes drones to be flown for research, and various other reasons, such as by hobbyists, recreational, and private individuals that enjoy flying drones. etc

She did NOT say the FAA were conducting secret research flights and deliberately hiding their true purpose from the public in order to create panic and mass hallucination in New Jersey causing everyone to misidentify every light they see in the sky as a drone threatening their very existence.

You defined Straw Man Fallacy as: "A straw man argument is a fallacy where a person sets up and attacks a position that is not being debated."

You posted a video, claiming it proves your theory which therefor cannot be further debated, while your video actually proves exactly the opposite of what you're claiming, which is:

Wait up...are you not curious what secret experimental research the FAA was conducting that was so important that it warranted gaslighting the entire American public?

 

[Chip]

I've lost track of the Regulate v. Research debate... who's winning?

Gotta keep this focused on what's important, after all.

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

 

[Chip]

I am indeed struggling with an anger management problem. I do apologize, because it's unfair of me to unleash that on this forum.

Understood.

But enough about politics, let's talk about your straw man fallacy...

Okay but I am not sure you understand the concept.

Rather than using logical arguments or facts of your own to dispute what I wrote, or to demonstrate how it is in any way incorrect, you instead deflect away and create your own straw man fallacy by calling me the Man of La Mancha.

Point of order. You are improperly mixing metaphors and conflating concepts.

I am merely pointing out that the video of the President's Press Secretary, which YOU posted, does not support your own argument, and in fact says completely the opposite of what you claim it says. Where am I wrong in that?

Let me try something here. Describe what you see in the drawing:

If you say half empty and I say half full who is right? People can perceive and interpret differently. More than two things may be true at once.

You claim semantics don't matter

It always depends on circumstances. If you believe the FAA does no research or not the kind of research the White House mentioned in its press conference then good for you.

but your entire debate is based on a difference in semantics. These two phrases say completely different things;

• drones were flown by the FAA for research
• the FAA authorizes drone to be flown, for research and other reasons like ...

What? I am not debating the difference in those two phrases. This is nowhere near as complicated as you are making it out to be. I stand with the New Jersey officials who believe they have not been given a full or satisfactory explanation of what "research and other things" were being conducted, by who and for what purpose? If you do not care or you already know the answer or you do not think its a question that should be asked then I am sorry but this is a public forum and I suspect it may continue.

You defined Straw Man Fallacy as: "A straw man argument is a fallacy where a person sets up and attacks a position that is not being debated."

You posted a video, claiming it proves your theory which therefor cannot be further debated, while your video actually proves exactly the opposite of what you're claiming, which is:

This further illustrates why I said you remind me of the Man of La Mancha tilting at windmills. In other words fighting imaginary enemies that do not exist. You think I did not know what the New Jersey state legislator said in the video I posted? He said that what we are being told about the drones makes no sense and the people of New Jersey deserve more answers. You know, exactly what I am saying here.

BTW there are many New Jersey state officials who feel this way. Did you not read what I posted before:

FAIR LAWN, N.J. — A local congressman isn't satisfied with the White House's answers about the mysterious drones seen across New Jersey skies late last year. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said most of the drones were "authorized to be flown by the [Federal Aviation Administration] for research and various other reasons," and many additional sightings were simply hobbyists. Officials did not disclose exactly what kind of research the drones might have been used for, however.

Rep. Josh Gottheimer calls for transparency from FAA

New Jersey Congressman Josh Gottheimer, a Democrat, said that just adds another level of confusion.
"[They] said those drones were literally for research and study and other reasons. I'd like to know what research and study, and what other reasons we're talking about. Why are they flying these drones over Jersey?" he said.
"I'm glad the White House confirmed today that there is no national security threat related to the recent drone activity over New Jersey. However, today's briefing raised new questions and confusion. I've reached out to the FAA and asked them to immediately clarify what they meant by 'research and various other reasons.' As I've been urging for months, I am also calling on the FAA to hold a public briefing to address the concerns of Jersey families. Transparency is essential, and the public deserves clear answers."

In the video you refer to, the other New Jersey legislator and former Apache pilot says he does not believe the FAA was doing research because they are a conservative organization and do not do this kind of research. Is this your big GOTCHA moment? Do you want to re-argue whether the FAA conducts research? Or what kind of research they do or what it means when the FAA authorizes and/or sponsors research conducted by third parties with or without a Non-Disclosure Agreement? I inserted another clip below of the same guy in a different interview for your edification.

I think we should just split the difference and say some regulated research was occurring.

I realized it was a rabbit hole and a funny one at that. I even posted a cartoon of a guy in a job interview bragging about his research skills. You see @Zbip57 its called having a sense of humor and not taking everything too personally on an internet forum.

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]

What? I am not debating the difference in those two phrases.

Yes, you most certainly are debating that difference. And you're still doing it.

If you believe the FAA does no research or not the kind of research the White House mentioned in its press conference then good for you. [...] the other New Jersey legislator and former Apache pilot says he does not believe the FAA was doing research because they are a conservative organization and do not do this kind of research. Is this your big GOTCHA moment?

For the last time, I don't care about your debate over whether the FAA merely regulates or has ever conducted, or continues to conduct, their own research flying their own FAA drones, or whether the FAA authorizes other private groups to do research for business interests (Zipline), or even whether the FAA contracts other businesses to do research on behalf of the FAA, or whatever else you're so worked up about.

That's not the point. The issue isn't whether the FAA does research of not.

BTW there are many New Jersey state officials who feel this way.

Woop-dee-do. There were also many "officials" who reported seeing drones which were obviously full-sized normal manned aircraft, or even the star constellation Orion, with those same "officials" then demanding "clear answers" from the FAA as to why those manned aircraft and star constellations should be allowed to be where they are.

Is this your big GOTCHA moment? Do you want to re-argue whether the FAA conducts research?

No!

My point is that you are distorting what was actually said by the Press Secretary in order to fit your pet theory that the FAA has somehow "taken full ownership" and thus owes you or anyone else an explanation for why the public sometimes sees drones, airplanes, or stars in the sky.

For example, you include this statement, which again misquotes what was actually said by Leavitt:

New Jersey Congressman Josh Gottheimer, [...] said,
"[They] said those drones were literally for research and study and other reasons. I'd like to know what research and study, and what other reasons we're talking about. [...] the public deserves clear answers." [...]
FAIR LAWN, N.J. — A local congressman isn't satisfied with the White House's answers about the mysterious drones seen across New Jersey skies late last year. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said most of the drones were "authorized to be flown by the [Federal Aviation Administration] for research and various other reasons," and many additional sightings were simply hobbyists. Officials did not disclose exactly what kind of research the drones might have been used for, however.

Go back and watch the video you yourself posted, or read the transcript which I have already posted several times.

Semantics matter, and commas make a difference.

You, and the "local congressman", interpret the press statement as some of sort of confession saying the FAA flew most of the drones "literally for research". Since the FAA is funded by taxpayer money, you insist the FAA owes the public an explanation as to "exactly what kind of research" was being done.

Read the transcript and note the comma. What was actually said is that the FAA authorizes drone flights for all sorts of reasons, including research, recreational, hobbyists, etc. The "various other reasons" could include things like mapping, surveys, delivering pizza, whatever. There are endless possible applications for drones, ALL of which are authorized and regulated by the FAA under Part 107.

It is totally irrelevant whether a particular drone flight is conducted by the FAA themselves, or by private individuals or private companies. It's EXACTLY the same and EXACTLY as irrelevant when you spot nav lights in the sky which may belong to a commercial airliner, a private plane, or helicopter. All are authorized and regulated by the FAA, and the FAA has zero obligation to explain to anyone who asks whether ANY of those flights, manned or unmanned, are being carried out for research purposes or any other purpose. The FAA only cares whether flights are being carried out safely and legally.

Your whole argument has been that the FAA have confessed to conducting secret research flights and thus owe the public an explanation. My argument is that the White House press secretary never said that, and the FAA certainly never said that.

 

[Droning on and on...]

Let me try something here. Describe what you see in the drawing:
View attachment 180982
If you say half empty and I say half full who is right? People can perceive and interpret differently. More than two things may be true at once.

Oh lord, we're in trouble now... this crowd, with that imprecise diagram?!?!!?

The new debate is coming. No, it's less than half full. More than half empty. About 40% filled with liquid.

Let the debate commence...

 

[GFields]

Thread has gone sideways.

​