Consider the following: the FBI and CIA have technology that can read license plates from space.
If the US government is not able to tell us who are behind the drones, this suggests one of two possible outcomes:
1. The FBI is only any good at investigating & prosecuting republicans
Or
2. These are classified US military testing and/or exercises, especially given the fact that most large scale sightings have been around naval or air bases.

Pro tip: mayorkas claiming "it could be contributed to by the fact that federal regulations were relaxed earlier this year allowing for drones to fly at night" is total bullshit because there aren't swarms of drones during the day time as well

>>1368609
Also, mayorkas is the dude who repeatedly said the southern border is just fine. So he has zero credibility.

>>1368609
3. They're chinese and Biden was paid to allow it.

inb4 they're wargaming a military coup in the event Trump turns despot.

>>1368611
Possible, but much less likely than it simple being military tech. Or option 1.

OP I a partisan stupido. 3rd option is close encouters of the 3rd kind. THEY are real, bimbo. I bet you get hard thinking about all that anal proving

>>1368661
Anal probing

>>1368609
these are 100% passenger jets and normal stars. every fucking image and video has either been obviously an airliner or an unrecognizable blur.

bad photography in the age of iPhone 16 or whatever number it is. bad photography in New Jersey, one of the most densely populated states, largest city and busiest airports. This retardation has gone on for weeks and not one good photograph.

>>1368668
>these are 100% passenger jets and normal stars.
Why would hundreds of people suddenly start lying about this? What was the catalyst?

>>1368671
hundreds of people are morons

>>1368603
>These are classified US military testing and/or exercises,
That's not how they're behaving.
For a start, you don't want people to know you don't show them with bright flashy lights - this would be happening somewhere more secluded, not populated. If it was 'just a training excersise' they'd say this. It's a good fallback excuse for many other things, so they've little reason to avoid using it.

I'm putting my money on china, just from the scale of deployment. In a similar stint to that ballon, it's not about the first hand tactical data they can pick up but the record of your response and policies.

>>1368668
I've seen plenty of 'non star' and 'non plane' footage. It's not just NJ this is happening.

>>1368674
>If it was 'just a training excersise' they'd say this. It's a good fallback excuse for many other things, so they've little reason to avoid using it.
Unless the point is to not tell people what's happening and observe the resulting patterns on social media. You know, like a social experiment. Or some kind of AI training.

>>1368673
Truly, you're the smartest among us.

>>1368674
We already know what they are doing anon.
They're nuke sniffing drones. Potential dirty bomb in the works. False flag prior to election of Donald Trump. Targets? Iran, Potentially others.
https://www.pnnl.gov/news-media/drones-fly-low-and-slow-radiation-detection
https://www.designworldonline.com/drone-of-the-week-bomb-sniffing-uavs-can-detect-nuclear-weapons/
https://www.energy.gov/em/articles/radiation-detecting-drone-soars-over-portsmouth-collaborative-testing
https://fly4future.com/development-and-prototyping/radiation-detecting-drone/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NhEkgtjAYUo

>>1368678
In which case it'd be generally ignored on their end. It isn't. Especially around the military bases.

If it was just to scope docile media responses there's easier and cheaper methods to inject this data.

AI training happens all the time. You don't get to see it. Not until you're wanted to as a rule.

>>1368680
>We already know what they are doing anon.
That would explain presense at a few airbases in these parts. Not all instances. Besides this data can generally be gained from satellites. Additionally it's not fitting observable flight patterns. There may be forms of mapping, but radiation if one, will only be one.

I cannot rule out false flag precursor, but occams razor pushes the blade into other flesh.

>>1368681
I will again encourage to consider the incident regarding a derigible. This wasn't a stealth object, it was tracked pretty much the entire way. Easily classified as invasive intelligence gathering, but entirely non-hostile. Got a significant distance across before you'd decided enough and took it down.

But that's what it was for. It didn't give them any data they couldn't get from other means, but it did show them response protocols and procedures.

This feels very much like that. Overt. Harmless. Poking the response and watching the ripples, see where they change shape in unexpected places.

>>1368681
>Not all instances.
Consider the possibility that not everything being reported as a drone is actually a drone. Much of it could be stupid people assuming that low-flying aircraft are drones, or clout-chasers looking for clicks on social media by misinterpreting aircraft lights.
What we do know, though, is that there have been politicians rushing to assert that these drones came from an iranian mothership (???). Aliens are even less likely, given that the UAPs we have seen already are odd geometric shapes and lack any kind of exterior lights.

>>1368681
>AI training happens all the time. You don't get to see it. Not until you're wanted to as a rule.
My wacky idea here is maybe you could train an AI to rapidly distinguish between the organic social media patterns associated with real UAP sightings and fake ones, if you control the realness of the UAPs. Now that I think of it though, doing it so much in one area like on a schedule probably defeats the purpose since they're getting all the civilian copycats flying their own drones and introducing noise.

>>1368684
There will be this. I'm talking of footage I've seen that is clearly small rotorcraft.

Iran is a possible. Solid 'no' at 'mothership'. Unlikely as they lack the resources to deploy at this scale, covertly.

>>1368685
You can do that without the drones, tho. There will likely be civillian copycats. I've already seen an instance of one getting an airport shut down over boston way, and being "identified the drone's location, altitude, flight history, and the operators' position." by "leveraging advanced UAS monitoring technology".

I've heard rumours this was attemtped on the units buzzin' airbases and the firmwares on the offending drones refused to play ball...

>>1368680
>9/11 style false flag framing up Iran
Kek I hope the jews are this stupid, I really do

>>1368616
>despot
How can you be a despot while not having absolute power over your military? How are they gonna do a military coup without the military?

>The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

And yes, shooting something out of the sky constitutes a seizure, not to mention a hazard to people on the ground. God this bullshit is a bunch of dumb nonsense ginned up by paranoid nutbags.

Newsflash, dipshits, it is perfectly legal for whoever the fuck wants to to fly over your house in an ultralight carrying a rifle and a bunch of recording equipment. No sense bitching about drone hobbyists. God this is dumber than the scary clown panic of 2016.

>>1368734
>*shoots your drone down*

>>1368735
>*shoots your drone down*
>gets caught in 4k by the drone's camera, charged, and sued cause you destroyed someone's very expensive property deliberately, not to mention the whole firing upward in a fucking residential area thing

I wish a thousand drones upon you and that you die before your shitty judgement gets someone else killed.

>>1368736
>>1368735
A 2.4ghz radio jammer with a parabolic antenna can be built for under $200 with several amps of gain

>>1368736
>*jams your drone*
>*shoot it*
>*leaves parts in your mailbox*
>*gets away with it while you cry on /news/*

>>1368739
>A 2.4ghz radio jammer with a parabolic antenna can be built for under $200 with several amps of gain
Pretty sure operating a radio jammer in a residential area is a federal no-no, but good luck with that.

>>1368740
If you know the mailbox of the drone operators, maybe you should call the news instead of fantasizing on /news/ about having balls.

>>1368742
>still mad he can't be a creeper on people with drones without repercussions

>>1368743
>still mad he can't be a creeper on people with drones without repercussions
But anyone can? You don't even need drones. A sidewalk will work. Recording someone from a public place is completely legal.

If someone wanted to put on a ski mask and sit outside your house with a camera at all hours of the day, watching your mother, as long as they aren't threatening anybody, they could.

Obviously nobody can creep on you in the basement though. Other than through your webcam, but that'd actually be illegal. You've got it taped, right?

>>1368745
>If someone wanted to put on a ski mask and sit outside your house with a camera at all hours of the day, watching your mother, as long as they aren't threatening anybody, they could.
No actually, they cannot. You don't understand any sort of laws regarding stalking/harassment and recording of individuals, especially in their own home.

Why are you so mad about being told you shouldn't be a creeper? Just stop being a creeper dude.

>>1368747
>No actually, they cannot
He's right.
I do this all the time to my republican neighbor because I am collecting evidence against him to get him arrested for a coup. All the better than the fact I does it makes him seethe so much it's unreal.

>>1368747
>You don't understand any sort of laws regarding stalking/harassment
Requires some form of threat
>and recording of individuals, especially in their own home.
Exception for anything in plain view. Paparazzi take advantage of that shit all the time, even getting pictures of rich fuckers on their estates from like a mile away using zoom lenses.

Dumb shits like you think putting a fence around your backyard means that shit's private. You want privacy, go inside and close the blinds.

>>1368751
>Requires some form of threat
Ski mask + unauthorized recording= threat to any reasonable person in a similar situation

>Exception for anything in plain view. Paparazzi take advantage of that shit all the time
False equivalence. There is established jurisprudence that celebrities have a different expectation of privacy than regular people.

>Dumb shits like you think putting a fence around your backyard means that shit's private
No, it means we have a legal expectation of privacy.

"What is Curtilage for 1000, Alex?"

>>1368752
>Ski mask + unauthorized recording= threat to any reasonable person in a similar situation
People can wear masks for their privacy. You aren't entitled to know what everyone around you looks like. Nothing unusual about wearing a ski mask outside in December either.

>There is established jurisprudence that celebrities have a different expectation of privacy than regular people.
For publishing information about them, not recording them. You wanted to try to sound smart, you should have brought up 1/2 party consent, of course I never said jack shit about audio recording.

Seems to me you don't know much about privacy law.

>What is Curtilage for 1000, Alex?"
Something not a part of this discussion, because I said recording from the sidewalk. Also, you're thinking of curtilage for the purposes of a police search/arrest, eg an officer cannot arrest someone on their curtilage without a warrant. However there is plenty of case law that says cops don't need a fucking warrant to either observe or record anything in plain fucking view on private property, even if it's on the fucking curtilage (or hell, INDOORS). Police helicopters flying over your house do not constitute a fucking search, vis a vis the 4th amendment, for example, even if they can see shit that wouldn't be visible from the ground without a ladder.

You'd sound like less of a dumbass if you'd just said nuh-uh instead of mouthing off about half-remembered bullshit that doesn't actually support your argument.

>>1368758
>People can wear masks for their privacy. You aren't entitled to know what everyone around you looks like. Nothing unusual about wearing a ski mask outside in December either.
Did you know that wearing a mask while intentionally stalking/harassing someone can and has been used by many DA's to enhance criminal penalties for stalking/harassment?

>For publishing information about them, not recording them
There is no such semantical divide between recording and posting, especially since doxxing is already a legal concept that carries its own criminal penalties.

>You wanted to try to sound smart, you should have brought up 1/2 party consent, of course I never said jack shit about audio recording.
1/2 party consent only applies if someone is participating in the conversation. Recording someone from a distance isn't participating in a conversation. Yet another false equivalency.

>Seems to me you don't know much about privacy law.
Yet again more projection.

>Something not a part of this discussion,
If you knew much about privacy law, you would know about curtilage.
>Also, you're thinking of curtilage for the purposes of a police search/arrest, eg an officer cannot arrest someone on their curtilage without a warrant.
Thats not what curtilage is anon. Curtilage is a legal expectation of privacy within the confines of an outside fence or barrier around a structure. It is notably used against aunithorized police searches, but it in no way shape or form prevents an individual from getting arrested. Lmao at that, even.

>However there is plenty of case law that says cops don't need a fucking warrant to either observe or record anything in plain fucking view on private property
Curtilage and plain view are not the same thing anon. Something in plain view is not protected by curtilage, something protected by curtilage cannot legally argued to have been in plain view.

And yes, they do need a warrant to record anything protected by curtilage on your property.

>>1368668
>buy an iphone 16 bro
Jay hands typed this

>>1368760
>Did you know that wearing a mask while intentionally stalking/harassing someone
Did you know that recording someone isn't stalking/harassment? No. You didn't. Shut the fuck up. God damn, you're fucking stupid. Stopped reading here. You're hopeless.

>>1368760
>>1368773
You're both retarded. Stalking and privacy laws vary greatly in different states.