Man-made and military possibly but certainly not commercial or show me the model. I would admit that the #UFO with the green and red lights don’t look like the typical alien UFO but a lot of photos/videos seem to show some sort of plasma propulsion. Also, there are a lot of sightings of orbs that may be related or not to the UFO with red/green lights. Personally, I saw a few years ago a an orb transforming into some sort of craft then displaying green followed by red lights while being stationary then fleeing at high speed. I can’t say that the ones that are now being seen are the same but it tells me that the orbs and crafts could be one of the same.
Discussion
But when you say these “drones don’t have a connection with the UFO phenomena”, what do you make of the fact that they don’t leave any kind of detectable signature (heat, radio frequency) and that they appear to display some properties typical of UFOs?
To be clear, I'm talking specifically about the objects being seen in NJ over the past week or two.
And I don't know that they don't give off any heat or detectable radio emissions. I think that's an assumption for which there is no empirical evidence.
Local authorities have made statements on them evading radar detection and attempts of intercepting them via helicopters. Here are the photos that seem to be the most consistent with the majority of the observations (besides light/plasma spheres).
#ufos #ufo #uaps #uap #drones #aliens #alien 
I can only judge the 2nd and last pic because the others are unclear. The two I can see clearly both look exactly like fixed-wing aircraft. And they're displaying the exact beacons, their position, and correct color locations as the FAA requires. And the whitish light looks just like the landing lights. Honestly, I don't know how you can look at those images and not immediately recognize them as commercial aircraft. You can see the wings, the fuselage, and the standard beacons.
I disagree that these looks like commercial planes but that’s always the problem with UFO videos and photos, everybody will have his own interpretation. But beyond the photos videos, what do you make of the statements by local authorities? Are they hallucinating or part of a psyop while federal authorities are making statements that there is nothing abnormal here.
nostr:nprofile1qqsxtyf20tghl4w08wkva96e7wl28fz0ngeewdqw2kw0qeu5thrr30cpzemhxue69uhhqatjwpkx2un9d3shjtnrdakj7qg4waehxw309aex2mrp0yhxgctdw4eju6t09uq3wamnwvaz7tmjda3kk7fwdehhxarjxyhxxmmd9usr949g i see your "science hasnt proved anything yet",
and raise you: science can only *attempt to ever prove 100% of something by definition. nothing ever proven, it is all theory. it can never be more than that.
so, the question you can ask yourself, is, after all that (or whenever), what dp you *want to believe
I'm also unfamiliar with any of them displaying one or more of the 5 observables. I'm going to post the 5 observables in my next comment.
The Five Observables
There are five, consistent observations we continue to see that are uniquely associated with Unidentified Aerial Phenomena or UAPs. Understanding these characteristics and their application requires us to have a very good understanding of advanced physics at the quantum level.
The five observables can be categorized as follows:
1) Sudden and instantaneous acceleration: Objects moving in such a manner that they are capable of maneuvering suddenly, deliberately and sometimes in the opposite direction. In some cases, these maneuvers involve a change in direction and acceleration that is well beyond the healthy limitations of any biological system, that we are aware of, to withstand. The anticipated effects of these g-forces on material may even defy our current technological ability to manufacture.
2) Hypersonic velocities without signatures: Objects that are traveling well above supersonic speeds and yet leave no obvious signature behind. Specific signatures normally include acoustic, heat, and electromagnetic and are traditionally recognized as a sonic boom, vapor contrails, and atmospheric ionization. Currently, even the world’s most advanced military and reconnaissance aircraft have detectible signatures.
3) Low observability: Regardless if the object is being viewed electro-optically, electromagnetically, or through the naked eye, the inability to gain a clear target picture remains elusive. Descriptions by witnesses are often difficult to describe, while radar returns often come back nonsensical or even jammed. Objects generally appear opaque and semi-metallic in nature, both on camera and live. In many cases it is nearly impossible to actually see the object and instead reports often include what is seen “around” the object.
4) Trans-medium travel: Objects that have the ability to travel easily in various environments and conditions seemingly without any change in performance capabilities. Our current understanding of physics requires vehicles to be designed specifically according to their application. For this reason, there are stark differences between those vehicles that orbit in space, fly in the atmosphere, and travel in the sea. Objects that can travel in all three mediums using the same design and without compromising performance or degrading lift remains an enigma.
5) Positive lift: Objects that are apparently resisting the natural effects of Earth's gravity, yet without the normally associated aerodynamic means for lift and thrust. These objects have no obvious signs of propulsion (engines, propellers, exhaust plumes, etc.) or flight surfaces (wings, rudders, ailerons, fins, etc.), but yet they are able to move in a very precise manner in our atmosphere despite not having any of those characteristics.
I would say that 1, 2 and 3 have been confirmed in statements made by local authorities.
What statements? I haven't seen any witness statements that describe any of the five observables. You're gonna have to specific on that. Because if these things were acting in defiance of our known physics, that would an enormous detail and one that would compel me to reconsider my current belief about these NJ drones.
There had been multiple statements made by local authorities describing capabilities going beyond what would be expected of commercial crafts/drones but here is one that I shared: nostr:note1eqtmmpn09vh5jt0mmz3vtvzjmf43wjehhrqu36lgmlza7uwtrcsqm2qe5s
Common electric powered drones don't emit any heat, they aren't jet powered or internal combustion engine. Also they receive RC signals to navigate, they don't need to emit unless streaming video footage.
These are just not regular drones.
nostr:note16hycpur4fysj7wvqaj9vpf9q6kpw5x8fp0y755psh5uyc0yusl9qlngt4r