Drones over New Jersey (USA)

[Stuart Galbraith]

https://x.com/Havoc_Six/status/1867600613221314610?t=Ukst7ayet3ti1205cfvRxw&s=19

[Stuart Galbraith]

https://www.reddit.com/r/WeirdWings/s/p0DlYAjr4R

This is going to mess with some heads..

[bfng3569]

If it were some secretive nefarious action or something classified....

awfull good job hiding them with those big ass lights......

Edited December 14, 2024 by bfng3569

[Stuart Galbraith]

Yes, we all remember the introduction of the F117 Stealth Fighter, whose secret night time deployments were always heralded by big ass arc lights hung under both wings.

Its probably something like 2 percent drones, that everyone is flying around trying to find the secret guvimint drones, and 98 percent civilian airliners and helicopters.

Someone was posting up a tweet by a US Senator demanding they be shot down, and the video he linked was clearly a helicopter with a local registration on it. Unmarked Helicopters it isnt.

[Rick]

I got the answer 

 

https://www.google.com/search?q=war+of+the+worlds+radio+broadcast+1938&oq=&aqs=chrome.3.35i39i362l7j46i39i362.3153165509j0j15&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#fpstate=ive&vld=cid:42be9cb3,vid:Xs0K4ApWl4g,st:0

[Stuart Galbraith]

Well yes, its already been pointed how people are primed by mass media to expect to see things, and then they do. That was a good example, but there are others.

For example, Roswell. Nobody was talking about that till Charles Berlitz wrote a book on it. And then came out stories of at least 2 crash retrievals, and Richard Nixon taking his buddies to go and see dead Aliens in jars at wright patterson AFB. Not to mention the stories about reverse engineering alien craft at Area 51.

No truth  in any of it, but its a narrative, and people are desperate to be part of the narrative, even if it means misunderstanding whats right in front of them. Which in this case appears to be airliners.

[glenn239]

3 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

For example, Roswell. Nobody was talking about that till Charles Berlitz wrote a book on it.

Slight correction.  No one was talking about Roswell until the press officer of the 509th bomber squadron (Atomic) held a press conference and announced that the USAAF had recovered debris from a downed alien craft.  Had the American air force itself not made this announcement, nobody would have paid the slightest attention.

[rmgill]

One thing to bear in mind is that some drone use is going to be over entirely innocuous purposes. 

Case in point. 

DJ's Trains flies his drone over a river over an industrial yard in PA. Simply to look at the view of the yard and details of it for the purposes of making better and more realistic model railroad layouts. 

 

 

[bfng3569]

modern day crop circles......

[urbanoid]

Mystery explained by The Donald™ himself

And yes, it's a real post, also on his FB and Twitter:

https://x.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1868000735360905364

 

Edited December 14, 2024 by urbanoid

[Stuart Galbraith]

3 hours ago, glenn239 said:

Slight correction.  No one was talking about Roswell until the press officer of the 509th bomber squadron (Atomic) held a press conference and announced that the USAAF had recovered debris from a downed alien craft.  Had the American air force itself not made this announcement, nobody would have paid the slightest attention.

Which nobody even remembered till Berlitz wrote his book. Roswell, as a myth, didn't exist before that book came out. And it's a damn good book, terribly exciting, even convincing. Till you realise there is no evidence about anything written in it.

 

[glenn239]

1 hour ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Which nobody even remembered till Berlitz wrote his book. 

Generally in those days, when someone reported aliens it was a nobody from the back hills.  So, when the USAAF itself made the statement it was front page news across the country the next day.  Then, the weather balloon retraction and the story went to sleep for decades.  

So I guess the takeaway is that if the USAF doesn't want people thinking they've recovered a crashed alien craft, then the USAF should refrain from calling press conferences where they claim exactly that!

[Sinistar]

in order to get with the idea that extremely advanced visitors have the capabilities to bridge the distance to the earth

they must be sufficiently advanced to overcome the problems of long distance propulsion technology or

somehow alter physical reality in a different way and have mastered their own biological limitations to survive

 

but still they

 

- are detectable by 20th century technology or simply visibly seen (that is, no cloaking technology)

- crash on the earth, which appears to be worse than human error rates sending landers and probes on other planets in the solar system

- do not send recovery parties to rescue their comrades, or recover their bodies or their technology

- leave no evidence of these visits say in the 15th century but instead appear to create their spacecraft to conform

with mid 20th century american film ideas- the 'flying saucer'

- forget that sinistar rules all galaxies and do not surrender tribute to sinistar

 

[Tim Sielbeck]

8 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Which nobody even remembered till Berlitz wrote his book. 

Except that book was released in 1980 and Roswell and it's UFOs was common "knowledge" in the early '70s.  At least it was at my elementary, junior, and high schools.

[DKTanker]

1 hour ago, Sinistar said:

- are detectable by 20th century technology or simply visibly seen (that is, no cloaking technology)

- crash on the earth, which appears to be worse than human error rates sending landers and probes on other planets in the solar system

- do not send recovery parties to rescue their comrades, or recover their bodies or their technology

- leave no evidence of these visits say in the 15th century but instead appear to create their spacecraft to conform

with mid 20th century american film ideas- the 'flying saucer'

- forget that sinistar rules all galaxies and do not surrender tribute to sinistar

 

Have you not watched Close Encounters of the Third Kind?  That shit is real.

[Stuart Galbraith]

4 hours ago, Tim Sielbeck said:

Except that book was released in 1980 and Roswell and it's UFOs was common "knowledge" in the early '70s.  At least it was at my elementary, junior, and high schools.

Wiki says that it was the Stanton Friedman interview with Marcel in 1978 that rekindled it, which seemingly influenced Berlitz to write the book (I think he may reference part of the interview in the book, I dont recall) Personally, I was following all this stuff as a kid (In the pre internet age) and never heard of it. It was the Berlitz book that put it all in the public arena. Everything, from the Majestic 12, to the 'alien autopsy footage' dated from that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aztec,_New_Mexico_crashed_saucer_hoax

All the previous 'The USAF is holding alien bodies' stories were related to the Aztec crash of 1948, which was revealed to be a hoax. If memory serves, Berlitz refers to that crash also in his book as fact, which it certainly was not.

Its rather like Area 51. Yes, there were vague ill defined rumours about what was going on out there, which probably absorbed some of the Roswell myth. But it only became a testing ground for UFO's when Bob Lazar revealld his story in 1988 or so. These stories absorb old myths, and generate new ones.

[glenn239]

9 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

All the previous 'The USAF is holding alien bodies' stories were related to the Aztec crash of 1948, which was revealed to be a hoax. If memory serves, Berlitz refers to that crash also in his book as fact, which it certainly was not.

You stated that Berlitz uncovered the Roswell incident.   The USAAF itself drew nationwide attention to it in 1947 by holding a press conference and declaring the recovery of alien craft debris.  That's what first caused there to be any attention towards Roswell.

[glenn239]

15 hours ago, Sinistar said:

in order to get with the idea that extremely advanced visitors have the capabilities to bridge the distance to the earth

they must be sufficiently advanced to overcome the problems of long distance propulsion technology or

somehow alter physical reality in a different way and have mastered their own biological limitations to survive

Alter physical reality - no.  As for the rest, there is no known barrier in the laws of physics to an advanced civilian of millions or even billions of years in age to overcome interstellar barriers to movement.  We know that the galaxy is about 12 billion years old, able to support life for a significant slice of that timeframe.  That's plenty of time to cross the galaxy at less than the speed of light.  

Quote

- are detectable by 20th century technology or simply visibly seen (that is, no cloaking technology) 

The only actual inference would be that if there is cloaking technology, it's not universally employed.  You know how stealth technology exists but not all aircraft are stealth aircraft?

Quote

- crash on the earth, which appears to be worse than human error rates sending landers and probes on other planets in the solar system

The claims of crashes on Earth are not evidence of crashes on Earth.  (Although, if aliens had indeed crashed in the past, obviously that would end the discussion).

Quote

 

- leave no evidence of these visits say in the 15th century but instead appear to create their spacecraft to conform

with mid 20th century american film ideas- the 'flying saucer'

 

The flying saucer became a cultural stereotype in Hollywood because that's what people were reporting they were seeing, (and occasionally claiming to have photographed).   Moviemaking simply picked up on the claims.  In terms of flying saucers, as Ben Rich said in his book on the F-117, he'd have built it if they could have figured out how to make it fly.  It's the 'ultimate' shape for stealth, (his word).  

Edited December 15, 2024 by glenn239

[Sinistar]

2 hours ago, glenn239 said:

Alter physical reality - no.  As for the rest, there is no known barrier in the laws of physics to an advanced civilian of millions or even billions of years in age to overcome interstellar barriers to movement.  We know that the galaxy is about 12 billion years old, able to support life for a significant slice of that timeframe.  That's plenty of time to cross the galaxy at less than the speed of light.  

The only actual inference would be that if there is cloaking technology, it's not universally employed.  You know how stealth technology exists but not all aircraft are stealth aircraft?

The claims of crashes on Earth are not evidence of crashes on Earth.  (Although, if aliens had indeed crashed in the past, obviously that would end the discussion).

The flying saucer became a cultural stereotype in Hollywood because that's what people were reporting they were seeing, (and occasionally claiming to have photographed).   Moviemaking simply picked up on the claims.  In terms of flying saucers, as Ben Rich said in his book on the F-117, he'd have built it if they could have figured out how to make it fly.  It's the 'ultimate' shape for stealth, (his word).  

 

 

nothing doing

 

this is the typical unfalsifiability pattern of any discussion- just because you are not seeing it does not mean it is not happening or is not there

and that is all that there ever is or seen out of that

 

that would go on forever like that if nothing is ever seen and then tack on the conclusion that therefore it is there but you are just not seeing it

which is an illusion of some kind of certainty about it

 

when these issues are raised, you wind up trying to prove a negative against ideas which  in some way or another tie off loose ends in this way 

it is like trying to disprove the idea that there is a green elephant in the closet which vanishes every time you check the closet- just because it is not seen yet does not mean that it is not there

 

at this point the burden of proof ought to shift to the proponents of the ET visiting theory-

you can always tie off loose ends  admittedly, but what you are not doing is showing anyone what is actually there

 

the evidence that is there is enough to make the ideas plausible, but if the evidence

looks sketchy, it is still plausible

 

always having it both ways: trust that they are considerably advanced when it supports the idea

but not advanced enough or with it in some way which is why are not seeing them yet either

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited December 15, 2024 by Sinistar

[Stuart Galbraith]

2 hours ago, glenn239 said:

You stated that Berlitz uncovered the Roswell incident.   The USAAF itself drew nationwide attention to it in 1947 by holding a press conference and declaring the recovery of alien craft debris.  That's what first caused there to be any attention towards Roswell.

Well to the world he very clearly did. I can't speak for a few schools in the US or what they were discussing, but it seems most likely to be the Aztek crash, not Roswell. I'm not sure it was nationwide, regionwide, and the description Marcel made is very clearly a mogul balloon, not a flying saucer. They couldn't even reveal it was a mogul balloon because that project was classified.

My favourite film as a kid was Hangar 18. But it does not at any point reference the Roswell mythology, even though it released the same year as Berlitzs book. Kinda odd if Roswell was so known before the book, right?

For my part, I knew about the Philidelphia experiment long before I heard about Roswell. The former was in the mythology from the mid 1950s. Roswell came roaring into existence between 1978 and 1980, and considering it was supposed to have happened  30 years before, that's a strange gap.

[sunday]

8 hours ago, glenn239 said:

(...)  In terms of flying saucers, as Ben Rich said in his book on the F-117, he'd have built it if they could have figured out how to make it fly.  It's the 'ultimate' shape for stealth, (his word).  

Avro Canada tried, unsuccessfully

 

[Stuart Galbraith]

So, this is what was seen flying over RAF Lakenheath. Ill let you make up your own minds about it.

 

[glenn239]

17 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Well to the world he very clearly did. I can't speak for a few schools in the US or what they were discussing, but it seems most likely to be the Aztek crash, not Roswell. I'm not sure it was nationwide, regionwide, and the description Marcel made is very clearly a mogul balloon, not a flying saucer. They couldn't even reveal it was a mogul balloon because that project was classified.

I do remember reading a book on Roswell maybe 30 years ago.  I came away with the impression that whatever merit there was in the core original account, there were posers and grifters that had inserted themselves into the narrative.  Seems typical of the entire phenomenon, really.  

[Stuart Galbraith]

15 minutes ago, glenn239 said:

I do remember reading a book on Roswell maybe 30 years ago.  I came away with the impression that whatever merit there was in the core original account, there were posers and grifters that had inserted themselves into the narrative.  Seems typical of the entire phenomenon, really.  

Its certainly not unknown. Think back to the Alien autopsy video that came out. its self evident is a fake, not least because the camera quality is too damn good for the film vintage that was used. But people still insist its real, because they want it to be real.

Its like Rendlesham forest. The majority of the guys claim to have seen lights in a forest. Thats all. But one of the airmen come up with a story that he was threatened by Men in Black. That he saw a structured craft in the woods, and it had a plate on it saying it was a probe from the future. That he had a strange binary code going through his head, and he wrote it down in a notebook....

Ufology gets really depressing after a while. You go into it thinking you are going to learn about aliens, in the end all you can get is a first rate grounding in human psychology and mythmaking.  Which is probably why I come across as so cynical about the same thing. Ive read just too many stories about people mistaking Venus or Mars for alien spacecraft.

[glenn239]

18 hours ago, Sinistar said:

this is the typical unfalsifiability pattern of any discussion- just because you are not seeing it does not mean it is not happening or is not there

Rumsfeld called those 'known unknowns'.  We know that the characteristics of the galaxy and with our understanding of it that aliens being here is possible.  We know that people by the thousands and tens of thousands are reporting sightings each year, each sighting ranging in value from puzzling to easily dismissed.  What we don't know is how it all adds up.  A known unknown.

Quote

it is like trying to disprove the idea that there is a green elephant in the closet which vanishes every time you check the closet- just because it is not seen yet does not mean that it is not there

A comparison that actually has merit, rather than trying to shit on the discussion, would be in juxtaposing UFO sightings with those of the Loch Ness Monster.   For example to compare Loch Ness with 263 billion cubic feet of water to the galaxy's 100-400 billion stars immediately leads to the conclusion that we know far more about Loch Ness than we do about all the planets around 400 billion stars.  Therefore, that the conclusion that the Loch Ness monster does not exist is orders of magnitude more certain than the conclusion that star faring alien species do not exist.

Quote

 

at this point the burden of proof ought to shift to the proponents of the ET visiting theory-

 

Generally speaking, when there is a problem that require explaining and insufficient information to pick between choices, all theories that qualify as possible remain in play, being seen as more or less equally valid even when they are mutually incompatible.  Kind of like a quantum state of uncertainty for us humans until further observations come in.    For one side in such a situation to say that another side must "prove" their position is too dogmatic.  It would be like me saying that for you to prove that an alien race never visited Earth, you need to explore the entire galaxy and prove that no such species ever existed. 

Quote

 

the evidence that is there is enough to make the ideas plausible, but if the evidence

looks sketchy, it is still plausible

 

There is no way to rate the quality many incidents as sketchy or credible.  For example, an Aegis guided missile cruiser radar team once reported an object jumping 80,000 feet on radar in less than one second.  Anyone not directly involved in the technical analysis of radar records and eyewitness questioning is talking out of their ass in terms of whether the incident is solid or sketchy in terms of evidence of vehicles that can do such things.

Quote

 

always having it both ways: trust that they are considerably advanced when it supports the idea

but not advanced enough or with it in some way which is why are not seeing them yet either

 

More chatbabble.  What I find curious is, how did those hill billy farmers back in the 1950's reporting flying saucers happen to guess that the shape they were seeing happens to be the ultimate form for stealth?  

Edited December 16, 2024 by glenn239