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?