Stupid people in NJ look up at the night sky for the first time, believe every moving light is a drone

[Dbeasy 15612]

FAA warning drones will be shot down. They obviously read Dbeasy’s demands. 

[Captainant 28589]

1 minute ago, Dbeasy said:

FAA warning drones will be shot down. They obviously read Dbeasy’s demands. 

Who's enforcing on that? The air national guard??

[Brisketexan 106980]

7 minutes ago, Dbeasy said:

FAA warning drones will be shot down. They obviously read Dbeasy’s demands. 

If they outlaw flying drones over Lower Alloways Township.....then only outlaws will fly drones over Lower Alloways Township!!!!!

THEY MAY TAKE OUR DRONES, BUT THEY CAN NEVER TAKE OUR

 

[Paper_jam 852]

Can't wait for the USAF/US Army to blow up some $300 drones with million-dollar AMRAAMs or 4-million-dollar Patriot SAMs.

Even more so if they miss the drone and hit Southwest Airlines Flight 1313.

 

 

[Ted Lange 16432]

[Pato del Muerto 53566]

9 hours ago, OU Sucks said:

This showed up in my YouTube feed.

What could it be?

[bolverk 30362]

13 minutes ago, Ted Lange said:

This could be a population density map of the Anglosphere, plus the Netherlands (which should be an honorary member anyway).

[OU Sucks 9405]

28 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

What could it be?

Southwest Airlines 737, which is what it looked like to me just by looking at the pic. I found the original thread, where the OP said they were flying in a circular pattern:

The circular pattern is the downwind, base and final into the 27s at Philadelphia International Airport. And not surprisingly, a Southwest 737 was one of them.

 

[randomhorn 2254]

[PRONG HORN 3223]

 

 

 

 

 

 

[AnTiM 1695]

Who knew airliners actually had headlights?

[Pato del Muerto 53566]

The aliens have helicopters!

[Hank Kingsley 21804]

I prefer lady orbs. 

 

[Farmerted 129]

Didn’t the “war of the worlds” broadcast Halloween 1938 by orson wells take place in New Jersey too? I think that’s all you need to know . People there lost their shit. Remember these are the people that gave us “The Jersey shore” as well. At least they haven’t gone Salem,  Mass. yet . 

[High Plains Drifter 11192]

18 hours ago, Dbeasy said:

Negged for using the term “natty”. 

 

aliens are going to exterminate for using "natty" and "tuddy". 

 

[High Plains Drifter 11192]

18 hours ago, Captainant said:

Who's enforcing on that? The air national guard??

 

Billy Bob and his cousin Joe Dale and his other cousin Billy Wayne after they've had a few. 

 

[randomhorn 2254]

16 hours ago, High Plains Drifter said:

aliens are going to exterminate for using "natty" and "tuddy". 

As they should 

[FORTY NINE TO ZERO 2651]

On 12/18/2024 at 2:58 PM, Hagbard Celine said:

i'm taking a new position

we are experiencing what used to be known as a "UFO flap" which was a series of sightings, sometimes in one location, sometimes across the country

so let's now call them UAPs.......

this phenomenon predates manned flight as the flap of 1896-1897 was documented in hundreds of newspapers across the county

LA 1942 was a single night with a single 'entity' so not technically a flap, just a sighting.... and in that case, a targeting.....

the next flap was 1947 throughout the west, beginning with ken arnold and inclusive of the roswell incident and the phoenix photographs

in the US the other major flap in history was over DC for 3 weeks in july 1952

of course tens of thousands of sightings have 'been reported' worldwide in the last century but it is not often when they happen en-masse in a relatively confined geo-area

most (that we know of) incidents that have been disclosed by military forces around the world including the US Navy happened "by themselves"

other major flaps have occurred around the world, but not reported on in the US MSM for obvious reasons

 

+++

other points for consideration:

- other than alleged 'abductions' UAPs have never attacked humans.....  cattle... different story..... but humans, not so much

- UAPs ***RARELY*** 'look the same' from sighting to sighting - why is there an almost infinite variety of shapes, sizes, and colors over the past 130 years?

- If we are dealing with a phenomenon that is "technology based" then why do 'them/it/they' want to 'make themselves seen' with the lightshow?

- If they don't emit IR or thermal then they are either 1) very special earth-made items or 2) not exactly real, in the sense that we "see" them optically, but we're looking at something that isn't really "there", either a hologram, projection, or trans-dimensional "thing"

- No one contemplates the idea that they are from "elsewhen" or "elseother" not "elsewhere"

 

+++

and to drive home the point this shit has been going on for a long time

- Ezekiel saw the wheel:

Ezekiel 1:15–21

Now as I looked at the living creatures, I saw a wheel on the earth beside the living creatures, one for each of the four of them. As for the appearance of the wheels and their construction: their appearance was like the gleaming of beryl. And the four had the same likeness, their appearance and construction being as it were a wheel within a wheel. When they went, they went in any of their four directions without turning as they went. And their rims were tall and awesome, and the rims of all four were full of eyes all around. And when the living creatures went, the wheels went beside them; and when the living creatures rose from the earth, the wheels rose. Wherever the spirit wanted to go, they went, and the wheels rose along with them, for the spirit of the living creatures was in the wheels. When those went, these went; and when those stood, these stood; and when those rose from the earth, the wheels rose along with them, for the spirit of the living creatures was in the wheels.

 

+++

- Madonna of the Flying Saucer, 1510-1520:

In the Hall of Hercules on the 2nd floor of the Palazzo Vecchio in Firenze is a round painting 1 meter in diameter titled Madonna and Child with the Infant St John

The author is unknown with proposed attributions to Sebastiano Mainardi (d.1513), Jacopo del Sellaio (d.1493) or Filippo Lippi (d.1469)

The painting is dated to "as early as the 16th century" i.e. the 1500s, but if any of the attributions are correct, no later than 1513; the didactic panel next to the painting dates it 1510-1520

there is no wiki for this painting.....

you can read up on it for yourself (links below) but the visuals tell the story, if you are willing to allow yourself to see it:

 

 

 

 

 

https://www.florenceinferno.com/madonna-of-ufo-painting-palazzo-vecchio/

https://www.theflorentine.net/2019/02/11/undentified-florence-objects/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palazzo_Vecchio

 

+++

the battle of nuremburg, 1561

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1561_celestial_phenomenon_over_Nuremberg

 

+++

in order to contemplate seeing something from another dimension, this video is useful

the 4th dimension exists in math but we can't 'replicate' it or 'model it' because we live in 3 dimensions

have some carl:

 

+++

i'll post the review of the 1896-1897 flap later

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

On 12/18/2024 at 6:27 PM, Hagbard Celine said:

the battle of basel, 1566

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1566_celestial_phenomenon_over_Basel

oh, this is the old school coast to coast am content i crave 

🤤

[Rockwell Torrey 1387]

On 12/20/2024 at 9:14 AM, Paper_jam said:

Can't wait for the USAF/US Army to blow up some $300 drones with million-dollar AMRAAMs or 4-million-dollar Patriot SAMs.

Even more so if they miss the drone and hit Southwest Airlines Flight 1313.

 

 

We’re already doing this in the Red Sea with our fight against the modern day equivalent of Mad Max. The USN missiles are even more expensive.

Edited Saturday at 02:27 PM by Rockwell Torrey

[Brisketexan 106980]

oh, this is the old school coast to coast am content i crave 

God. I miss the days when our crackpots were benign and fun. Used to LOVE listening to that show.
I still remember the caller who went into a detailed explanation of the Galactic university system, and how different universities specialized in different things, and once Earth fully entered the galactic community, we’d have incredible educational opportunities. It was delusional insanity, but damn…it sounded nice.
And I bet Texas woulda fared well in the expanded CFB playoff there.

[RPM 26667]

Florida says hold my beer!

 

[Vegas64 714]

Serious question for those who know (because I don't and can't find a definitive answer online):

Is the airspace above the land you own, yours? Do you have to obtain air rights above your acreage in the same way you'd obtain mineral or water rights?

Example:

I own 100 acres in West Texas. I put up "no drones flying over my land signs or will be shot down". Can I then shoot down drones or jam them with electric jammers or what have yous?

Not related to the OP and thread I don't htink (but to be fair, have not read a lick of this) but been wondering about this the past year or two.

[Pato del Muerto 53566]

On 12/21/2024 at 6:25 AM, Rockwell Torrey said:

We’re already doing this in the Red Sea with our fight against the modern day equivalent of Mad Max. The USN missiles are even more expensive.

Well yeah, they can successfully target and intercept a f18. 

[Pato del Muerto 53566]

1 minute ago, Vegas64 said:

Serious question for those who know (because I don't and can't find a definitive answer online):

Is the airspace above the land you own, yours? Do you have to obtain air rights above your acreage in the same way you'd obtain mineral or water rights?

Example:

I own 100 acres in West Texas. I put up "no drones flying over my land signs or will be shot down". Can I then shoot down drones or jam them with electric jammers or what have yous?

Not related to the OP and thread I don't htink (but to be fair, have not read a lick of this) but been wondering about this the past year or two.

If you post “no aircraft” signage, could you shoot down a careflight helicopter or commercial jet while over your property if you had the means to acquire some air defense systems?

[atomheartbevo 90665]

14 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

If you post “no aircraft” signage, could you shoot down a careflight helicopter or commercial jet while over your property

[MrBig 5650]

20 minutes ago, Vegas64 said:

I own 100 acres in West Texas. I put up "no drones flying over my land signs or will be shot down". Can I then shoot down drones or jam them with electric jammers or what have yous?

Electronic jammers are illegal in the United States. They can’t even use them in prisons to block cell phone signals. 

[RPM 26667]

21 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

If you post “no aircraft” signage, could you shoot down a careflight helicopter or commercial jet while over your property if you had the means to acquire some air defense systems?

[Brisketexan 106980]

21 minutes ago, RPM said:

Florida says hold my beer!

 

15 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

If you post “no aircraft” signage, could you shoot down a careflight helicopter or commercial jet while over your property if you had the means to acquire some air defense systems?

Yeah.  No.  This is stupid.  The FAA controls airspace, and the Supremacy clause says that wins.  The FAA also provides that private drones can fly at a max altitude of 400 feet (unless they have a special additional permit).  While local jurisdictions can layer on other laws (e.g., in Texas, you can't use a drone to take photos of property that isn't yours, with plenty of exceptions for emergency uses, surveyors and engineers, etc. -- but generally, it bars dudes flying a drone over the neighbor's yard and taking a photo of their daughter by the pool and whatnot).  None of that gives anyone a legal right to conduct air defense activities (that is, you have no more right to shoot down a drone that is not threatening your life and safety than you would have to shoot a car that is not threatening your safety).

And yeah, think of the obvious - plenty of aircraft fly over many properties every day (I'm in the approach pattern for ABIA -- lots of planes fly over my house.  They're still pretty high, but they're there and visible).  Do I get to shoot them down if they are under 400 feet?  Do I get to shoot them down only if they're unmanned?

Regulating airspace is the dominion of the FAA.

[RPM 26667]

The USAF out of Sheppard flies low level (under 2k) right over my house daily. I ain't saying shit.

[Vegas64 714]

18 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Yeah.  No.  This is stupid.  The FAA controls airspace, and the Supremacy clause says that wins.  The FAA also provides that private drones can fly at a max altitude of 400 feet (unless they have a special additional permit).  While local jurisdictions can layer on other laws (e.g., in Texas, you can't use a drone to take photos of property that isn't yours, with plenty of exceptions for emergency uses, surveyors and engineers, etc. -- but generally, it bars dudes flying a drone over the neighbor's yard and taking a photo of their daughter by the pool and whatnot).  None of that gives anyone a legal right to conduct air defense activities (that is, you have no more right to shoot down a drone that is not threatening your life and safety than you would have to shoot a car that is not threatening your safety).

And yeah, think of the obvious - plenty of aircraft fly over many properties every day (I'm in the approach pattern for ABIA -- lots of planes fly over my house.  They're still pretty high, but they're there and visible).  Do I get to shoot them down if they are under 400 feet?  Do I get to shoot them down only if they're unmanned?

Regulating airspace is the dominion of the FAA.

 

18 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Yeah.  No.  This is stupid.  The FAA controls airspace, and the Supremacy clause says that wins.  The FAA also provides that private drones can fly at a max altitude of 400 feet (unless they have a special additional permit).  While local jurisdictions can layer on other laws (e.g., in Texas, you can't use a drone to take photos of property that isn't yours, with plenty of exceptions for emergency uses, surveyors and engineers, etc. -- but generally, it bars dudes flying a drone over the neighbor's yard and taking a photo of their daughter by the pool and whatnot).  None of that gives anyone a legal right to conduct air defense activities (that is, you have no more right to shoot down a drone that is not threatening your life and safety than you would have to shoot a car that is not threatening your safety).

And yeah, think of the obvious - plenty of aircraft fly over many properties every day (I'm in the approach pattern for ABIA -- lots of planes fly over my house.  They're still pretty high, but they're there and visible).  Do I get to shoot them down if they are under 400 feet?  Do I get to shoot them down only if they're unmanned?

Regulating airspace is the dominion of the FAA.

The scenario of the nosy neighbor is what I was referencing. Something like that with amateur flying drones and invading privacy by taking photos of your land or whatever. Obviously not meant to shoot at a united airliner flying folks to Dallas from El Paso or anything stupid like that.

[atomheartbevo 90665]

43 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

it bars dudes flying a drone over the neighbor's yard and taking a photo of their daughter by the pool and whatnot).  

43 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

 than you would have to shoot a car that is not threatening your safety).

[royiv 9829]

42 minutes ago, Vegas64 said:

 

The scenario of the nosy neighbor is what I was referencing. Something like that with amateur flying drones and invading privacy by taking photos of your land or whatever. Obviously not meant to shoot at a united airliner flying folks to Dallas from El Paso or anything stupid like that.

So you’re growing weed on your property?

[Fudge Nuggets 19467]

It’s scary how much intellectual weight the top 5% has to carry in this nation of dumbasses just to keep the lights on and feed ourselves.

[B00M 6735]

1 hour ago, MrBig said:

Electronic jammers are illegal in the United States. They can’t even use them in prisons to block cell phone signals. 

This is going to be an issue. 

[956 Worldwide 35599]

1 hour ago, Vegas64 said:

Serious question for those who know (because I don't and can't find a definitive answer online):

Is the airspace above the land you own, yours? Do you have to obtain air rights above your acreage in the same way you'd obtain mineral or water rights?

Example:

I own 100 acres in West Texas. I put up "no drones flying over my land signs or will be shot down". Can I then shoot down drones or jam them with electric jammers or what have yous?

Not related to the OP and thread I don't htink (but to be fair, have not read a lick of this) but been wondering about this the past year or two.

No, you cannot. Drones are considered aircraft and shooting at them or trying to use electronic countermeasures or otherwise interfere with flight is illegal under federal law.  You can’t own airspace. 

[BabaYaga 15630]

1 minute ago, 956 Worldwide said:

No, you cannot. Drones are considered aircraft and shooting at them or trying to use electronic countermeasures or otherwise interfere with flight is illegal under federal law.  You can’t own airspace. 

You can't own the airspace, and depending upon the contract with mineral rights, what's under your very feet.  Lots of hunters and land owners use them to track game animals, that you also don't own, even if they are on your land (whitetail, etc.)

[wildcat09 29597]

Air rights are actually a thing and as a general matter yes you own the air above the surface of your property. However, that ownership interest is subject to what is essentially a public easement to use navigable airspace.  

[Brisketexan 106980]

1 minute ago, wildcat09 said:

Air rights are actually a thing and as a general matter yes you own the air above the surface of your property. However, that ownership interest is subject to what is essentially a public easement to use navigable airspace.  

Correct.  You "own it," but it is entirely subject to FAA control and regulation.  

[wildcat09 29597]

1 minute ago, Brisketexan said:

Correct.  You "own it," but it is entirely subject to FAA control and regulation.  

It's pretty fuzzy and depends on context. Can you shoot at shit in your airspace? No. Can you build a building up into what might be considered navigable airspace today? Sure. This is why airports sometimes acquire avigation easements from nearby private property owners to ensure they don't build anything on their land that would fuck up their air traffic patterns (and some cities also impose avigation easements on all land near airports). 

[royiv 9829]

26 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

It's pretty fuzzy and depends on context. Can you shoot at shit in your airspace? No. Can you build a building up into what might be considered navigable airspace today? Sure. This is why airports sometimes acquire avigation easements from nearby private property owners to ensure they don't build anything on their land that would fuck up their air traffic patterns (and some cities also impose avigation easements on all land near airports). 

Structures with a height greater than 200  feet require FAA approval.

[956 Worldwide 35599]

Concede to the surly lawdawgs on ownership, but you cannot shoot or otherwise bring down drones.  

[Pato del Muerto 53566]

Has the navy on navy incident been claimed as a cover up for an unknown drone dropping a super hornet yet?

[Zepol87 9343]

49 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Correct.  You "own it," but it is entirely subject to FAA control and regulation.  

Nobody owns the water man it’s gods water

[smuggs 9399]

2 hours ago, Pato del Muerto said:

Has the navy on navy incident been claimed as a cover up for an unknown drone dropping a super hornet yet?

I thought most navy on navy incidents involved super horny pant dropping.

[Pato del Muerto 53566]

wtf is going on here??!! 2 bright and stationary orbs!  I seen it myself now!

 

[Alex Karev 1070]

Did anyone report all those Drones flying around DKR Memorial Stadium Saturday  night? It was scary.