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

[Zbip57]

We've seen politicians proposing that, "flight restrictions be imposed over these sensitive areas". And "somebody" who owns a golf course in Bedminster recently proposed "blasting" these drones out of the sky.

Think of the possible consequences if people start blasting at lights in the sky, whether or not they're flying over "sensitive areas" or over areas where "flight restrictions" are already fully in effect.

For example;

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]

If it's just a blurry light in the sky, there's no way to tell how far away it is, how big it is, or what it is. If you're convinced it's something other than a normal aircraft, provide just a few details. Details like, I was standing at this location here - X, the light was in the sky to the NorthWest, at this angle above the horizon, exact time, etc. Any factual details would help people figure out what you actually saw.

I just watched a video where some woman is recording a red light "hovering" high in the sky. You can see nothing but a fence and a red light in a black sky. So, take a shot from the same location and angle the next day in daylight, so we can at least exclude the possibility that it's just the marker light at the top of some tower. Why does every random light in a black sky automatically become labelled as a "drone"?

And more importantly, even if it is a drone, why does that suddenly mean the North Koreans or Iranians are hiding nuclear bombs in downtown New York? Really? Get a grip folks.

I'm neither angry or frustrated. I'm baffled, and amused. Why are people so gullible and so easily led to swallowing nonsensical conspiracy theories? Everyone has eyes and a brain. What's up with this nonsense, "others control access to the truth"?

I run a dash-cam in my car. In daylight it records crisply detailed 4k video. Here's a short 1-minute sample documenting the flock of 20 aliens currently invading our neighbourhood. [Ignore that SUV-sized drone appearing at 25-secs.]

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

At night, the dash-cam video quality isn't nearly as good.

If I'm following another vehicle at a distance on a long straight road, the video shows only two blurry red tail-lights "hovering" in the distance, not getting any closer or moving farther away. The lights appear to not be moving at all, just mysteriously "hovering" there in the distance ahead of me. Ergo, it can only be a "drone"! I can't tell for sure whether it's an Iranian drone, or North Korean drone, or even a whether it's one of them Military drones, but it can only be one of those mystery drones I've been hearing so much about.

Every now and then an extremely bright white light appears in the far distance right on the horizon. It's not moving either, just slowly getting larger. That's gotta be another "drone"! Suddenly it goes flashing right past me, narrowly missing my car!

Here's a screengrab from my dash-cam video captured just last night. This is definitely the "clearest image yet captured of one of these mystery UFO drones"!

Some of you might jump to the obvious conclusion that this is just a normal car, but that just means you're naive in trusting whatever the mainstream media wants you to believe. Unless the Government proves to me this thing isn't up to some nefarious purpose, I'm convinced it's actually a spy drone. People all across New Jersey have seen similar things and therefor we know that this is actually a hovering SUV-sized drone firing laser beams. This photo should be proof enough.

View attachment 179843

Okay, so again, I get that for some reason you want to convince me that you know more about conditions on the ground and in the air from your location in Canada than the state and local officials who live and work in New Jersey and actually have legal obligation to safeguard their communities. Your position seems to be based on the perception that no one has yet presented you with a photo or video you deem of acceptable quality and provenance. My suggestion would be to send a letter to New Jersey officials and assure them you have cracked the case from Canada, this is all in their minds, and they should quit sniveling and do what ever they are told by big daddy DHS.

 

[Chip]

Same goes for you @Meta4 although you have to switch England for Canada.

 

[groggysbird]

Sorry no aliens

DHS, FBI, FAA & DoD Joint Statement on Ongoing Response to Reported Drone Sightings

DHS, FBI, FAA and DoD have issued a joint statement regarding the ongoing response to reported drone sightings.

www.defense.gov

 

[Droning on and on...]

I have no idea what's going on in NJ, or if there's been any change in the presence of drones in the sky at night starting in November. I'm making no assertion about the siuation 3000 miles from me.

That said, I will assert the following: Here in Santa Cruz, on the west coast, a drone of any kind flying around at night anywhere in the Santa Cruz County area would be noteworthy. There simply aren't drones flying around at night, nor are the skies filled with manned aircraft that can be mistaken as such.

So, if night after night numbers of drones were observed flying around for hours, it would be more than enough reason to wonder what's going on, and being dismissive about it as mistaken manned aircraft wouldn't be an answer to "what's going on".

Is what's happening on rhe east coast similar to this in terms of a indisputable, significant change?

 

[Chip]

I have no idea what's going on in NJ, or if there's been any change in the presence of drones in the sky at night starting in November. I'm making no assertion about the siuation 3000 miles from me.

That said, I will assert the following: Here in Santa Cruz, on the west coast, a drone of any kind flying around at night anywhere in the Santa Cruz County area would be noteworthy. There simply aren't drones flying around at night, nor are the skies filled with manned aircraft that can be mistaken as such.

So, if night after night numbers of drones were observed flying around for hours, it would be more than enough reason to wonder what's going on, and being dismissive about it as mistaken manned aircraft wouldn't be an answer to "what's going on".

Is what's happening on rhe east coast similar to this in terms of a indisputable, significant change?

I heard John Kirby say that a big part of the problem is that people just stopped looking up at the sky years ago and suddenly they resumed the practice and it is all new. I chuckled and said to myself, what gullible fool will believe this nonsense?

 

[eEridani]

I heard John Kirby say that a big part of the problem is that people just stopped looking up at the sky years ago and suddenly they resumed the practice and it is all new. I chuckled and said to myself, what gullible fool will believe this nonsense?

Actually, only a gullible fool wouldn't believe it, because it is a fact.

Before you claim there is a problem, prove there is a problem. Then others might agree. Until you can prove the airspace is being coopted, I'll carry on thinking it most likely isn't.

I can't prove the airspace over the US isn't being coopted by Iranians or whoever you want to politicize this week; just like I can't prove there aren't aliens amongst us. Neither lack of negative proof means either is true.

 

[Zbip57]

Okay, so again, I get that for some reason you want to convince me that you know more [... blah, blah, blah.]

It's not up to me whether you also suspect the tooth fairy or the Easter bunny truly exists. It's not my goal in life to deprive you or anyone else of your fantasies. If you still believe that Santa Claus lives at the North Pole, more power to ya. It's probably ingrained in one of your many Constitutional Amendments, the Right to believe anything you want, and the Right to talk about it anywhere you want. That's all fine and good.

Your position seems to be based on the perception that no one has yet presented you with a photo or video you deem of acceptable quality and provenance.

My position is that of all the videos and photos shared on YouTube or elsewhere, none have conclusively shown evidence of SUV-sized drones invading the skies of New Jersey. The images are all either obviously normal aircraft, or merely blurry lights. If you instead want to believe those are drones threatening your national security, go for it. That's your Right.

The media keeps talking about hundreds of reports of "drone" sightings, when they're actually just sightings of "lights", as though we should be worried about that. Where are the photos/videos showing these things actually are "drones" and not anything else? The media keeps asking various "experts" for their opinion on all these "drone" sightings, yet in none of these interviews has anyone ever corrected the interviewer to clarify they're just sightings of "lights".

Please show how any of those lights are supposed to be drones and not just normal airplanes.

Is it not my job to conclusively demonstrate beyond a shadow of a doubt that this blurry flashing red light in the sky is really not Rudolph's glowing red nose as he's towing Santa Claus and his sleigh? I cannot 100% prove or disprove anything based on one blurry photo.

Call me skeptical, but if people point at red lights in the sky insisting that it's Santa Claus, I don't think the Government is required to post definitive evidence to dispel those rumours. Furthermore, whether the Government declines to comment, or whether the Government actually does respond to officially state they have no evidence verifying the presence of Santa Claus and flying reindeer in the sky, such a statement should not be misinterpreted as proof of a Government conspiracy trying to hide the existence of Santa Claus.

 

[mavic3usa]

Easy to pick on the defenseless and the fringe lunatics in the community, please step up to the majors and analyze these videos please; would be curious to know your thoughts:

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

 

[eEridani]

I can't recall the event nor time and place, but I do remember the US Government declared there IS a Santa Claus. Even NORAD tracks his flights.

Official NORAD Tracks Santa

www.noradsanta.org

 

[Chip]

It's not up to me whether you also suspect the tooth fairy or the Easter bunny truly exists. It's not my goal in life to deprive you or anyone else of your fantasies. If you still believe that Santa Claus lives at the North Pole, more power to ya. It's probably ingrained in one of your many Constitutional Amendments, the Right to believe anything you want, and the Right to talk about it anywhere you want. That's all fine and good.

Again, I have no idea why you get so worked up. Please just send a letter to New Jersey officials and assure them you have cracked the case from Canada and this is all in their minds. BTW are most Canadians still just looking at the ground all the time or have you all recently started glancing up at the sky?

 

[eEridani]

Easy to pick on the defenseless and the fringe lunatics in the community, please step up to the majors and analyze these videos please; would be curious to know your thoughts:

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

That first video shows an image claiming to show a drone, yet it is Jupiter (I initially thought Venus, but the pilot said it was orange), so the grand planet slips in). The entire video is suspect and a collection of unverified amateurish images wanting to believe they have something special to share. Planetary conjunctions are real. So seeing three or four planets does happen. If any one of the planets is bright enough to cast glare on the water, like Venus and Jupiter, the glare can make the object appear to move, especially if broken clouds are present (many examples of this misidentification are documented in the project bluebook reports). And, as reported in the program, satellites can be very bright as the solar panels reflect sunlight. Look up Iridium flares as an example, or the SpaceX sats, which are cofounding observatories because they are limiting Earth based astronomical research (at one point SpaceX tried to paint them black to help lower their visibility).

Second video starts of with pilot asking ATC about lights at his 10 o'clock position. And guess what, there is an aircraft at 10 o'clock. Far enough away that atmospherics can play with light enough to cause visual artifacts: at 30kft a horizon of 170 miles, jets about 120 miles apart, so the ocean jet would look pretty low through 120 miles of wet air (Oregon). One would really need to look up the conditions of the day to know what the atmosphere was actually doing, so being bored I did. Clouds were moving through and around 8-9 pm the skies cleared but there was mist in the air (wet was accurate). Based on weather, I'd guess the distant plane was bobbing in and out of sight, and as drier air moved under the planes refraction made the apparent position zip around as the reporting pilot says, and any cloud layers/inversions /water reflections would explain multiple lights. Think desert mirages.

But based on what we know about the visual conditions, what is being seen can be explained as unusual atmospherics at play. The pilots saw something, it was real; but not what their imaginations were telling them. You might then say "But these are experienced pilots with thousands of hours of flight time!" to which I'd reply: "True, but have any of them experienced exactly those conditions before?"

If it were perfectly clear, no temp inversions, and the pilot said "I see multiple bogies" I'd probably be more convinced he was seeing multiple somethings.

Newport December 7, 2024 Historical Weather (Oregon, United States) - Weather Spark

weatherspark.com

These are examples on one single inversion caused four discrete images of the scene looking forward. The conditions between the two jets likely had more than one inversion in place - inversions happen for several reasons, temperature being only one of them, air pressure differences, airflow (wind), air density changes (humidity), etc.

 

[eEridani]

Again, I have no idea why you get so worked up. Please just send a letter to New Jersey officials and assure them you have cracked the case from Canada and this is all in their minds. BTW are most Canadians still just looking at the ground all the time or have you all recently started glancing up at the sky?

Personally - I'm not worked up at all, and see no reason to waste the time of people on the public payroll by even talking to them about a non-thing like this. Since you do seem to be worked up about this and are fearful something bad is happening in our skies, perhaps you should spend some time investigating and try finding some factual evidence that the "bad stuff is about to happen" and lend your time and expertise to the authorities. Save us taxpayers some money. Please.

 

[mavic3usa]

That first video shows an image claiming to show a drone, yet it is Jupiter (I initially thought Venus, but the pilot said it was orange), so the grand planet slips in). The entire video is suspect and a collection of unverified amateurish images wanting to believe they have something special to share. Planetary conjunctions are real. So seeing three or four planets does happen. If any one of the planets is bright enough to cast glare on the water, like Venus and Jupiter, the glare can make the object appear to move, especially if broken clouds are present (many examples of this misidentification are documented in the project bluebook reports). And, as reported in the program, satellites can be very bright as the solar panels reflect sunlight. Look up Iridium flares as an example, or the SpaceX sats, which are cofounding observatories because they are limiting Earth based astronomical research (at one point SpaceX tried to paint them black to help lower their visibility).

Second video starts of with pilot asking ATC about lights at his 10 o'clock position. And guess what, there is an aircraft at 10 o'clock. Far enough away that atmospherics can play with light enough to cause visual artifacts: at 30kft a horizon of 170 miles, jets about 120 miles apart, so the ocean jet would look pretty low through 120 miles of wet air (Oregon). One would really need to look up the conditions of the day to know what the atmosphere was actually doing, so being bored I did. Clouds were moving through and around 8-9 pm the skies cleared but there was mist in the air (wet was accurate). Based on weather, I'd guess the distant plane was bobbing in and out of sight, and as drier air moved under the planes refraction made the apparent position zip around as the reporting pilot says, and any cloud layers/inversions /water reflections would explain multiple lights. Think desert mirages.

But based on what we know about the visual conditions, what is being seen can be explained as unusual atmospherics at play. The pilots saw something, it was real; but not what their imaginations were telling them. You might then say "But these are experienced pilots with thousands of hours of flight time!" to which I'd reply: "True, but have any of them experienced exactly those conditions before?"

If it were perfectly clear, no temp inversions, and the pilot said "I see multiple bogies" I'd probably be more convinced he was seeing multiple somethings.

Newport December 7, 2024 Historical Weather (Oregon, United States) - Weather Spark

weatherspark.com

These are examples on one single inversion caused four discrete images of the scene looking forward. The conditions between the two jets likely had more than one inversion in place - inversions happen for several reasons, temperature being only one of them, air pressure differences, airflow (wind), air density changes (humidity), etc.

I deleted what I had written here earlier and replaced it with this: Ok, thanks for the reply. I wish you well! Have a good day.

 

[Zbip57]

Again, I have no idea why you get so worked up.

Excuse me? You think I'm getting worked up?

I'm saying people are seeing lights in the sky, lights which VERY likely are just normal aircraft and absolutely nothing to get worked up about.

You, on the other hand, said this,

[...] if it is the DOD's response to possible nuke or dirty bomb terrorist attack then it is the sum of all fears and all bets are off.

Who's getting "worked up" here?

 

[Chip]

Personally - I'm not worked up at all, and see no reason to waste the time of people on the public payroll by even talking to them about a non-thing like this. Since you do seem to be worked up about this and are fearful something bad is happening in our skies, perhaps you should spend some time investigating and try finding some factual evidence that the "bad stuff is about to happen" and lend your time and expertise to the authorities. Save us taxpayers some money. Please.

I have studied the eyewitness statements and interviews by New Jersey officials. I find many of them very compelling. If you wish to discount all of them for any reason I am fine with that. Thank you for your suggestion that I stop commenting on the topic and do something else. I greatly appreciate it. If I may suggest another option to you: do not read what I write.

 

[eEridani]

I have studied the eyewitness statements and interviews by New Jersey officials. I find many of them very compelling. If you wish to discount all of them for any reason I am fine with that. Thank you for your suggestion that I stop commenting on the topic and do something else. I greatly appreciate it. If I may suggest another option to you: do not read what I write.

I think you might be misunderstanding what I mean here. I'm not suggesting you stop posting. Rather, I am suggesting you also try finding some facts to support your posts.

 

[Chip]

Excuse me? You think I'm getting worked up?

I'm saying people are seeing lights in the sky, lights which VERY likely are just normal aircraft and absolutely nothing to get worked up about.

You, on the other hand, said this,

So what? What is your point? Have I done something wrong? Have I violated the journalistic standards of Canada or those of the forum? Did you even read exactly what I said? Did you actually read the twitter post and listen to video explaining why the drones may be used for sniffing radioactivity? Did you actually go to the website I linked and verify for yourself the radiation levels in the areas identified? Draw your own conclusions and move along.

Who's getting "worked up" here?

Well, my suggestion to you is do not look up into the sky for the answer. Look into a mirror.

 

[mavic3usa]

Let's face it. Somebody supremely f*d up and the cat is out of the bag and it didn't go as planned and now they are scrambling to cover their tracks. They got caught with their hand in the cookie jar. Too many people noticed, too many spoke up, this has gone farther than they expected and likely it got out of hand and now they are dealing with it trying to get it under control by first telling everyone all is ok (which is it, the government is not going to hurt the community) and then telling you to forget what you saw, or you didn't see what you think you saw. they are depending on "if you can get it right and explain it perfectly and prove your point then nothing you say is true and it just didn't happen." That's the oldest trick in the book.

As usual, the government is rife with unprofessional, incompetent, immoral people and they royally screwed this one up and now it's clean-up time although they are not finding it easy to sweep this under the rug. They are capitalizing on the public's fears by exaggerating people are hysterical when they aren't (nobody really cares that much, they just hate being lied to by their government), they are putting out fake explanations so the gullible will pickup on and parrot the nonsense, and they flat out lie to the American people which is borderline treason (Im thinking of that POS Kirby). so they'll have a classified briefing and now everybody has to shut up.....

There are no aliens, there are no Chinese or Iranians, there are no terrorists....the US f*d up and you shouldn't be surprised. Honestly, I don't really care because like I mentioned, it's the recreational and commercial drone community that is going to take a big hit. We've been hit so hard we don't even know it yet because the entire community is practically unconscious. I am an activist and I fight against more government rules and regulations but even I have no idea how to properly defend against the tsunami that is about to setback what has been a very good run with drones and drone tech up until now.

All I can think about is how to fight this from a legal/court perspective because we've completely lost the moral high ground and the legislative agenda; all that hard work is a total loss; there's no one in their right mind who will support a more free drone environment. I'm not an agitator and I never would have imagined the events of today as an option that would eclipse anything that has ever impacted the drone community as this is even bigger than a drone ban and sadly it's not over yet. Even I didn't think they would go this far. This is more than just a news cycle and because the door is wide open and practically anything and everything is on the table, I keep asking myself how many times do we to depend on sheer luck to save the hobby's skin because I hate to say it but in 30 days, a change in the administration just might be what we need to turn the corner on this nightmare (just looking for a hail mary).

 

[Zbip57]

BTW are most Canadians still just looking at the ground all the time or have you all recently started glancing up at the sky?

Funny you should say that. Read on...

please step up to the majors and analyze these videos please; would be curious to know your thoughts:

There are various versions of that second video, with pilots reporting seeing "lights", and the first guy saying, "I've seen that a few times over the last month in the same area."

Your first video starts off with this image showing some "lights" in the sky with the reporter saying, "There are concerns after at least four pilots flying over Oregon reported seeing bright lights like these recently."

Again, the displayed image lacks any relevant context. Are these supposed to be the same lights seen by the pilots, or just "lights like these"? Is that merely a stock photo pulled from a library, or is that intended to illustrate the same lights seen by the pilots?


Given time/date/location and direction of view, it might have been possible to identify each one of those lights.

For @Chip, yes, some Canadians do occasionally look at the sky. Here's a photo I took of Comet Tsuchinshan-ATLAS using my cellphone, while facing due West off our dock, at 7:22pm Oct 17th, 2024. The streaks to left and right are normal jet contrails. The comet is at centre with its tail extending up to the left.

Time/date/location/direction are important, because all of those lights in the sky do move as our planet rotates, the other planets orbit the sun, the comet moves, etc. Venus had just set below the horizon where indicated by the arrow. Handy programs are available allowing you to track these movements and to click on any object to identify what it is. See: stellarium-web.org/



I can't say with any certainty, given the lack of information provided in your video, but the three stars circled in my photo bear a striking resemblance to the three in the image from your video. ** If ** that's the case, then your image would be facing West like in my photo.

The position of Venus [brightest object in the early evening sky], against the backdrop of other stars, changes over time. Could that brightest spot shown in your video image actually be Venus? The pilot admits he's seen the same lights "a few times over the last month in the same area."

I'd say that's a MUCH more likely explanation than alien UFOs. But sadly, like most media reporting, they don't say where or when that photo was taken.

The comet changed position too. It's long gone now.


The rest of that news video is entirely useless. It shows a fuzzy image of a blurry orange object that "could be anything" but certainly doesn't look like a drone. By the way, unlike mostly white stars, Mars has that sort of a red tinge to it.

Here's another photo of the comet, taken by me using just my cellphone. Yes, cellphones [maybe only Canadian cellphones?] actually are perfectly capable of taking clear photos at night! Why the **** is no one in New Jersey capable of capturing a clear photo of any of these supposed mysterious drones?