(Has anyone posted this yet?)
Obligatory: I didn't create this, I #yaRRR'ed π΄ββ οΈ it from the other site
Someone in Maine seems to have failed to ID the moon last week, so Jersey isn't doing so bad.
this post was submitted on 17 Dec 2024
460 points (97.1% liked)
memes
10636 readers
1855 users here now
Community rules
1. Be civil
No trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour
2. No politics
This is non-politics community. For political memes please go to [email protected]
3. No recent reposts
Check for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month
4. No bots
No bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins
5. No Spam/Ads
No advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live.
Sister communities
- [email protected] : Star Trek memes, chat and shitposts
- [email protected] : Lemmy Shitposts, anything and everything goes.
- [email protected] : Linux themed memes
- [email protected] : for those who love comic stories.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Oh also
I keep seeing Starlink pics claimed as dronesβ¦
Drone:
The Maryland governor actually posted a picture saying he was worried about drones and it was orion's belt with a couple other stars in the picture.
https://www.newsweek.com/mystery-drones-restricted-areas-2002176
Happy Wheels is just all drones?
π§βππ«π§βπ
Why is your name blue?
Itβs supposed to be purple. Iβm the voyager dev π€
Oh sick, thanks!
Ohhhh, I've seen you around and wondered what your name color meant. Maybe you should show why a name is colored a certain way when you click a username?
Oh, TIL.
Are you using Voyager?
Yes
I'm not even American and even I have figured that a lot of that shit seems to be being push by the Republican party.
Instead of "bread and circus" they are just giving you "aliens and Iran".
Remember the poors killing that sweet, innocent healthcare denier? Well, DON'T!
LOOK! DRONES!
Gotta whip up the hate so we can justify Iraq War 3. Wouldn't be surprised if we get a bunch of new Chinese Balloon Invasion and Mexican Border Crisis hysteria in the next year, as well, since we want to pick fights with both of them.
Americans are the most propagandized people on earth. We have the tools to get them to believe just about anything, simply be saturating their eyeballs and ear holes with terror.
Mexican Border Crisis hysteria in the next year
No, no, no, don't be silly!
The migrant caravans aren't scheduled to come until one month before the next midterm. We have at least two years before we hear about that one again.
Trump has already been spitballing military intervention in Mexico "to fight the cartels", like we don't already provide Mexico with a ton of anti-insurgent trainers and totally-not-special-ops guys who totally do not do violence in-country.
The absolute best part is...it's USA. The moment your military gets actually slight spook, of the you know, short gasp variety...you know it because your military complex temporarily forgets limits of today's technology and produces some sci-fi shit. And yet ya all are still able to be made to be scared of... looks into his book Mexico and...Iran...
Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt, it's the same FUD tactics the wealthy have used for decades to distract from the real problems that should have been resolved decades ago.
The "with props" implies that all the other ~~planes~~ drones dont have props. All hail the prop-less Cesena!
Well if they are unmanned they are technically drones. How can you tell from so far away and the middle of the night and with a crappy recording device.
If I see cold war migs doing low altitude passes I'm calling somebody lol
Bottom mid is an SU-37. Which would be slightly more alarming.
Put the toy quad copters you can get at Costco on there
I guess the army doesn't know a drone from a plane then? the following comes from the DOD.
_We have had confirmed sightings at Picatinny Arsenal and Naval Weapons Station Earle," the spokesperson said
"To date, we have no intelligence or observations that would indicate that they were aligned with a foreign actor or that they had malicious intent," the spokesperson said. "But ... we don't know. We have not been able to locate or identify the operators or the points of origin." _
"We have had confirmed sightings at Picatinny Arsenal and Naval Weapons Station Earle," the spokesperson said. "This is not a new issue for us. We've had to deal with drone incursions over our bases for quite a time now. It's something that we routinely respond to in each and every case when reporting is cited."
It's not explicitly stated, but my read is they get normal consumer-style quadcopters regularly, and this is simply a continuation of that. Perhaps an increase because people are now trying to explicitly spy on the military.
The public drone sightings, on the other hand, definitely don't seem to be consumer quadcopters. They mostly look suspiciously like 737s, V-22s, or out of focus stars.
Perhaps an increase because people are now trying to explicitly spy on the military.
Is that a new development? You'd never know the Cold War had been a thing for half a century.
Sorry, could have been clearer. I was talking about random dumb civilians.
Quadcopters have been buzzing military bases for years, basically since they became available to the public.
With all this PR about drones and people sometimes blaming the military, the number of dumb civilians thinking about 'spying' on military bases will be on the rise.
Counterpoint: Civilians get arrested all the time for flying FPV drones and similar over military bases. See this article for an example: https://www.military.com/daily-news/2024/12/11/chinese-citizen-arrested-after-allegedly-flying-drone-taking-photos-of-space-force-base.html
This is the US military we're talking about. They have the capabilities to know exactly what's above their base's airspace and have still chosen to do nothing. This implies that most of the drones are military controlled.
They may be making a PR decision to issue warnings rather than actually arrest people.
I don't see anything in the article that suggests they know drones have gone above their bases but not been identified or dealt with.
I think the reference to not being able to identify everything is in reference to civilian reports.
we have no intelligence or observations (..) we don't know. We have not been able to locate or identify
They have no clue by their own admission.
To claim that what amounts to a literal UFO might belong to a hostile actor just because you don't know that it doesn't is irresponsible at best, scaremongering jingoism at worst.
Crazy how you can have a budget in the trillions for national security but "Idk, maybe their not unfriendly? We need another six months to look into it" is the best our top military brass can come up with.
Really makes you think about how easy 9/11 was to pull off.
It's like trying to disprove Bigfoot. Someone comes to you with a shaky, out of focus video with no audio, time, date, or precise location.
I can't prove it's not bigfoot. That doesn't mean I think it is Bigfoot, or that you should think so.
If you have good video and know where it was shot from and can cross-reference that with aircraft trackers? Then maybe they can do a good investigation. There's been a few of those where it turns out to pretty obviously be a helicopter, a V-22, or just a 737.
Especially since it's rather hard to judge scale on airborne things some distance away.
I canβt prove itβs not bigfoot.
I mean, its trivial to prove something isn't Bigfoot on the grounds that Bigfoot Isn't Real. That's just Hitchens's Razor. The burden of proof is on the person presenting the claim, not the one refuting it.
Especially since itβs rather hard to judge scale on airborne things some distance away.
A bunch of the sightings have literally just been stars in the night sky.
I mean, its trivial to prove something isnβt Bigfoot on the grounds that Bigfoot Isnβt Real. Thatβs just Hitchensβs Razor. The burden of proof is on the person presenting the claim, not the one refuting it.
Shifting the burden of proof doesn't disprove the claim. You can look at a picture and call someone an idiot for believing it's bigfoot/a drone, but still not be able to swear that there is no way it could possibly be a drone.
Shifting the burden of proof doesnβt disprove the claim.
It eliminates the concern. NASA isn't setting it's launch schedule against the possibility of a vessel colliding with Russell's Tea Pot, because there's simply no evidence it exists.
You can look at a picture and call someone an idiot for believing itβs bigfoot/a drone
If I hand you a blank piece of paper and tell you it's a photograph of a Yeti, you aren't obligated to prove I'm wrong.
Exactly. The military isn't obligated to look at every single picture and tell you that it's not a drone. But if they don't do that, they can't say "we have looked at every single picture and confirmed there are no suspicious drones".
The military is rightly refusing to prove a negative.
NCD would like to know your location.
Which one is the goddamn Batman?
747 F16 Piper Comanche
A320 Mig 15 AN2
737 Russian thing RV4
Concord F35 C172
777 SU27? RV6A
Fokker tri motor Caravan?
Looks like a MiG-29 to me
F14?
The Iranian mothership should be a drone, would be funnier IMO.
Or is the image for that something specific? Been too busy playing the India Jones game all day so I've missed news etc.
@IDKWhatUsernametoPutHereLolol
I don't see any indigenous birds on this list
They don't exist
They do. They're just drones, tho.
That's because they're all dead
view more: next βΊ