PFLDO founding chapter (drones)

[Physics Guy]

Saying that drones are lethal military weapons is like saying that motor vehicles are lethal military weapons. Tanks are indeed motor vehicles, but this does not mean that we should treat mopeds like tanks. The Reaper, for example, is deadly because it has a 66-foot wingspan and carries eight Hellfire missiles, not just because it’s a drone.

[subgenius]

A few weeks ago I pulled to the stop sign to make a left and exit my community. Two 20ish black guys riding small dirt bikes of the knockoff variety you'd get for cheap from Amazon were just arriving at the intersection and pulled in front of me, circling, to prevent me from moving into the intersection. I made sure my doors were locked and observed. They didn't look at me. A few seconds later, about twenty black guys mostly on small motorcycles came storming by, while a couple broke off to join the guys circling in my vicinity. After those passed, a group of 100+ all packed together in the right lane of more black people mostly riding e-bikes and e-scooters with some standard bicycles made its way across my lane. There were older people now and and families, and some were really friendly, waving or nodding as they passed by.

I didn't call the FBI. I have no idea what they were doing or why, and I'm not that curious about it. There was certainly quite a bit of playing fast and loose with the law in terms of the kinds of vehicles using the public roads. I reckon if a few citations were written it will serve them right.

There isn't much difference between this kind of behavior, which isn't that unusual to be honest, and a bunch friends getting together and flying their large drones over New Jersey. The fact that some people are panicking over what they are doing isn't their problem. It's not illegal to fly a drone at night, most of the drones are equipped with green and red lights and white lights on the tail, and at worst they are playing fast and loose flying over Picatinny Arsenal, but while the Arsenal reps say 11 have flown over this month, that isn't so large a number compared to the overall number of drones being sighted. Some officials are reflecting the outrage of some of the public, talking about shooting them down and all kinds of draconian measures based on nothing other than the fears they are conjuring up about what could be going on. Well, we live in a world where people are allowed to buy assault rifles and do all kinds of crazy things, and I really don't see evening large drone operation as rising to any significant level of concern.

If a blacked-out RV drives down my street, I don't demand the police make a stop just to satisfy my curiosity that it isn't aliens, or to provide answers to me about their motives. Personally, I'd rather be buzzed by a large drone -- which have been reported as relatively quiet by some -- than have an underpowered Harley Davidson rumble down my street. And so I've launched the first chapter of PFLDO, People For Large Drone Operators, in order to show my support of people who want to fly their large drones around at night and don't feel they need to answer to their neighbors or congress about why they are doing it. Fines for disobeying drone operation laws can rack into the hundreds of thousands of dollars, and if the FAA and local law enforcement make an arrest for any illegal drone operation, then that's fine by me. Large drone operators need to know that the PFLDO will not come to your support if you're breaking the law.

The PFLDO is quite concerned about legal overreach. Consider the massive interest of the UAP phenomena -- the drones are getting lumped into this, and people are essentially demanding congress to "do something" merely because they are curious about aliens, while using national security and public safety as a pretense. Even captain Orange has indicated he's for "disclosure" now. Note that it's the unhinged right-wing congress critters fighting the hardest for disclosure. This subject area is a perfect chance for the religious right to secure more power over institutions at the public's behest, and so the PFLDO recommends folks be careful what they wish for. Do you really want to give Nancy Mace and Donald Trump more power over the military, or explore crossing posse comitatus boundaries to appease what boils down to idle curiosity about aliens?

Lots to unpack here, from the overtly racist intro to the oddly imagined reality that would support PFLDO. And I write "imagined" because of Yinpiao Zhou, who raises the question " what is your point here?".

[Markk]

Saying that drones are lethal military weapons is like saying that motor vehicles are lethal military weapons. Tanks are indeed motor vehicles, but this does not mean that we should treat mopeds like tanks. The Reaper, for example, is deadly because it has a 66-foot wingspan and carries eight Hellfire missiles, not just because it’s a drone.

You are just trying dumb down the concerns of people in Jersey. Why, I don't know. Drones in warfare are the new weapon of choice. They are relatively cheap, can be easily mass produced, insanely accurate, with little or no human loss potential. If you watched the video I pasted, a small drone dropped a grenade in a open tank hatch and took the tank out. My point being, a Amazon type delivery drone could do the same at a public event very easily. There are bad people, very bad people in our world and country, and it will happen, it is just a matter of time. So my point was and is, given the size of these drones, their locations, and how long it is taking to identify them; and that the military is on alert because of this, is alarming to me and the state of New Jersey. A lot of time and money is being spent on this with no answers.

Your argument is just a misuse of context, I could say that a target rife or mining explosives are not lethal weapons, using the same silly argument. I believe folks here, and maybe that is my mistake, can understand the military use of drones as lethal weapons.

I honestly believe these are military drones being tested, but could be way wrong. One reason is that Trump is not politically exploiting this. He, I assume, is getting briefed as Commander and Chief, and he probably knows what these drones are.

If they are hobbyists, they are breaking the law and they should pay for tax payer money being expended on the issue. And again if it takes this long for our national security teams to figure that out, that is also alarming.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/12/11/us/new-j ... index.html

[Gadianton]

Saying that drones are lethal military weapons is like saying that motor vehicles are lethal military weapons. Tanks are indeed motor vehicles, but this does not mean that we should treat mopeds like tanks. The Reaper, for example, is deadly because it has a 66-foot wingspan and carries eight Hellfire missiles, not just because it’s a drone.

According to a right-wing congressmen, they are Iranian drones unleashed by an Iranian mothership just off the coast. Apparently he didn't do Markk's Trump math, that if Donald Trump hasn't indicated concern, then there is no reason to be concerned. Perhaps that guy ought to come under review?

One of the first civilian interviews I saw was a woman who said she quit seeing planes once the drones appeared -- quite a paradigm shift. Many pics mainstream news had been using have been taken down from X after it has been pointed out to them that they are planes.

I think we're seeing a real use case of arguing from ignorance. We just don't know what they are, therefore we must assume the worst, even though much of the worst have been ruled out by the military -- they haven't been totally silent.

[Gadianton]

Gad, do you foresee a day when your organization might merge with PFDOUS (People For Drones Of Unusual Size)?

I wouldn't say it's mine or anyone's organization other than that of the members, but I don't see it merging any time soon. Once there are hurt feelings on the table, no amount of practical benefit will ever be enough.

[ceeboo]

I think we're seeing a real use case of arguing from ignorance. We just don't know what they are, therefore we must assume the worst, even though much of the worst have been ruled out by the military -- they haven't been totally silent.

While I almost always do not get overly concerned with these types of things, I must admit that these drone reports are, at least, really bizarre. Sure, I have no idea what they are, who is operating them, or if ill intent might be in play - But I am a nobody. I can't believe that our government isn't providing answers to the nation.

I guess we will find out sooner or later (or not).

[Gadianton]

This is a classic problem of unknown unknowns. Everyone up the chain from folks on the street to governors and congress critters don't know what they don't know. And there's a lot to know in order to have any kind of meaningful opinion.

They don't know, for instance, that they don't know what the civil rights are of a large drone operator. the PFLDO is highly concerned about a large drone operator's civil rights and will root for any large drone operator in court whose rights are violated by law enforcement getting anxious. Rest assured, large drone operators can afford lawyers. Large drones aren't cheap.

I could pick any number of issues. One complaint is that the Jersey Drones aren't emitting RF signals, and so LE can't track them. LOL. First of all, there is no easily identifiable class of "Jersey drones". The way the public and authorities alike are talking, if a car on the I-5 is breaking the law, by golly, the cops better get out there and lay down spikes to stop "cars on the I-5". Which drone did the police decide to tail and why? What technology were they using to monitor the RF? Are they sure they know how to use their detection equipment properly?

We can't be certain that "these drones" really aren't emitting RF. Maybe some are and maybe some aren't. I question the cops capabilities to even settle this question because they are unlikely to have much experience doing it. Suppose a drone is identified for suspicious behavior -- monitoring the RF could violate several laws especially privacy laws, and they would need a court order to do it. So they're going to identify a single drone at night, somehow communicate that particular drone to a judge and get a court order to monitor it, and there's still time to pursue it?

DHS and DOJ can monitor drones under The Preventing Emerging Threats Act of 2018 if the drone is posing a threat, but are these drones posing a threat beyond what the frenzied minds of the paranoid can imagine? And its not just that the drone needs to pose a threat for the feds to take immediate action, the offense must occur within a designated "covered facility" such as certain airports. Only within certain areas would the feds be allowed to essentially "shoot first / ask questions later". And nothing like that applies to the relatively open airspace of Jersey where the alleged drone operators are enjoying their freedoms as Americans.

Saying that you want to "Know who they are" is akin to saying you want to know who the person is on the other end of a cell phone conversation your neighbor is having.

[Dwight]

I saw two of the clearest videos of these drones and they were planes.

https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/ ... _I've_seen/

We should be concerned that people living under flight paths are looking up and unable to recognize a plane in the sky.

[Gadianton]

Yes, and lets hope those getting ready to shoot at them can also tell the difference. One local creator boasted that in New Jersey, everybody has got a gun, and it won't be long before one is brought down. His next segment pointed out that there are large quadcopters that carry people, seemingly without making the problematic connection.

I do wonder why the alien crowd is so mad at the government. According to them, these are floating in from sky above the sea as energetic balls of light that transform into drone-like vehicles. What is it they think the government can do about that? If the present administration wants to have a little fun themselves for once, on the way out, perhaps they should tell people what they want to hear? "Folks, you're right. President Biden would like to confirm your worst fears (or hope). It is aliens. Because their technology is hundreds of thousands of years ahead of ours, shooting at them would be unwise, and it would be a complete waste of money to try and track them, and so we're going to go ahead and take the most rational and least expensive action and do nothing, aside from hoping they are friendly."

If they are foreign actors flying around with FAA compliant lights while they graze the same uninteresting spaces over and over again, they are really shooting themselves in the foot for future intelligence operations. If it's going to be a conspiracy, the most logical one floating around is the government itself trolling the public in order to get the public behind counter-UAV legislation:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-con ... ill/4/text

The more sane speculators suggest it could be a pen test (penetration test) by the government. In that case, the public reaction likely wasn't predicted, but it could be fortuitous for closing the gaps on the many jurisdiction and procedural ambiguities.

There was a similar incident in Colorado a few years ago and it got some coverage but nothing like this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019%E2%8 ... _sightings

I think the fun part here is there just isn't a very good explanation. I'm hoping it's civilian operators exercising their rights to fly their large drones mostly within the bounds of the law, although I don't mind a little cat-and-mouse with the authorities. I was a fan of The Dukes of Hazard growing up and this is bringing me back to the good clean mischief of that time.

[drumdude]

This is an amazing example of the weakness of eyewitness testimony. We have hundreds, maybe thousands of people claiming to see something firsthand which in all likelihood does not exist, or is not what they are claiming it to be. Even in the age of 400mm telephoto lenses with 40 megapixels, eyewitnesses are an extremely unreliable source of truth.

If you put these people on the stand under oath in a courtroom, they would all claim to have seen a drone when the reality is they just saw a manned aircraft at night.