How the New Jersey Drone/UAV Incident Might Be Linked to Government Surveillance – Part 2

How the New Jersey Drone/UAV Incident Might Be Linked to Government Surveillance – Part 2 In Part 1 we examined the government response around the New Jersey Drone / UAV situation. In Part 2, we will run the facts by Artificial Intelligence (AI) to see what AI thought of the situation. The following results leave…

Rusty Brooks

December 15, 2024

Our dedicated prepping experts choose every product we feature. We may earn money from the links on this page.

How the New Jersey Drone/UAV Incident Might Be Linked to Government Surveillance – Part 2

In Part 1 we examined the government response around the New Jersey Drone / UAV situation. In Part 2, we will run the facts by Artificial Intelligence (AI) to see what AI thought of the situation. The following results leave many possible end case scenarios and the results are very interesting.

I’ve underlined the sections of the response which I found to be of significance that we can expand upon further.

Prompt: Why would the government knowingly be flying drones at night over a certain area. The government is denying involvement but all sources point to them.

ChatGPT said: If the government is reportedly flying drones at night over a certain area, but denies involvement while all sources suggest otherwise, there could be a few potential reasons for this:

1. Surveillance and Security Operations: Governments sometimes conduct surveillance for security purposes, especially in sensitive areas like borders, military installations, or areas with critical infrastructure. Drones can be used for:

Monitoring crime or terrorist activity.
Border security to prevent illegal activities.
Tracking movements of certain individuals or groups of interest.

The government may deny involvement to maintain secrecy about these operations or to avoid public backlash.

2. Military or Defense Testing: Military or intelligence agencies may be using drones for testing or training exercises. Drones can be used for:

Simulating military operations in preparation for potential threats.
Testing new technologies or equipment.
Covert operations (such as reconnaissance missions) where operational details need to be kept secret for national security reasons.

Again, they might deny involvement to avoid compromising their strategies or security measures.

3. Covert Intelligence Gathering: The government might be gathering intelligence on foreign or domestic threats. Drones can gather detailed information, such as:

Intercepting communications or monitoring certain groups.
Tracking activities that might suggest unlawful behavior, such as trafficking, espionage, or subversive activities. The government could deny involvement to prevent tipping off targets or alerting adversaries.

4. Testing of Public Reactions (Psychological Operations): Governments might use drones as part of psychological operations (psyops), to study public reaction, instill fear, or monitor civil unrest without revealing the scale or nature of the operation. Denial could be a tactic to downplay any public anxiety and maintain control over the narrative.

5. Unmanned Aerial System (UAS) Regulation Enforcement: There could be instances where government agencies or contractors are flying drones to monitor restricted airspace, enforce UAS regulations, or ensure that no unauthorized drones are operating in certain areas. They may be enforcing flight rules or preventing illegal drone activity.

6. Weather, Environmental, or Scientific Research: Drones are used in some instances for scientific research or environmental monitoring, such as studying weather patterns, wildlife, or natural resources. The government may be collecting data related to climate studies, air quality, or other environmental concerns.

7. False Flag Operations (Deliberate Misdirection): In rare cases, some reports may suggest that the government might be engaged in a false flag operation, where activities are conducted in a way that leads people to believe another group is responsible for them. This tactic is often used in military or intelligence scenarios to confuse adversaries or the public.

Why the Denial?

The government’s denial of involvement could be driven by several motives:

National security concerns: Revealing such operations could compromise strategic objectives.
Public panic or opposition: If the public were aware of such activities, it might cause backlash, raise privacy concerns, or provoke civil disobedience.
Legal or regulatory reasons: There may be laws or regulations in place that restrict the acknowledgment of certain government actions.

Ultimately, while there may be a strong suspicion that the government is involved, the true purpose behind these drone flights will likely remain classified or undisclosed if national security is at stake.

Surveillance and Security Operations

I find there are some very plausible responses, many of which are very concerning. The challenge with determining which is correct is we only have publicly available information. As the situation advances, time will tell which of these scenarios is most likely.

In regards to Surveillance and Security Operations, government statistics show that “382 individuals whose names appear on the terrorist watchlist were stopped trying to cross the U.S.-Mexico border illegally between ports of entry from FY2021 to FY2024”

Cite: House Homeland Security Subcommittee on Counterterrorism, Law Enforcement, and Intelligence Chairman August Pfluger (R-TX) and Subcommittee on Border Security and Enforcement Chairman Clay Higgins (R-LA)

Perhaps the drones are part of a terrorist watch campaign. The next logical question is what is the threat level. – We’ll dive in to this further in Part 3.

Testing of Public Reactions (Psychological Operations)

Where it suggests : Governments might use drones as part of psychological operations (psyops).

The US Government is no strange to Psy-Ops.

Following 9/11, the Patriot Act expanded government surveillance powers, allowing agencies to collect data on citizens under the pretext of national security. The Act’s provisions enabled mass data collection programs, such as those revealed by Edward Snowden in 2013, where the NSA monitored phone records, emails, and internet activity of millions, often without warrants. This led to widespread criticism over privacy violations and government overreach.

Similarly, FISA Court abuses came to light, as secret courts issued warrants based on questionable evidence, often targeting U.S. citizens. High-profile examples include surveillance tied to political campaigns, such as during the 2016 election. Critics argue these actions undermined public trust, exploited legal loopholes, and blurred the line between protecting national security and violating constitutional rights. These programs are often seen as modern PSYOPs, using fear of terrorism to justify invasive government actions.

Where might this Psy-Op be applicable?

The drone-countering authorities – authorized as part of the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018 – are expiring next week on Dec. 20 unless congress acts quickly!

What is the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018?

The FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018 granted certain federal agencies drone-countering authority to address the growing concerns over unmanned aircraft systems (UAS). These authorities, included under Title III, Subtitle A, specifically allowed designated agencies to detect, monitor, and, when necessary, mitigate potential threats posed by drones. Here’s an overview of these drone-countering provisions:

Authorized Actions

The law allows these agencies to:

Detect drones using radar, radio-frequency detection, visual observation, and other technologies.
Identify drones to determine their ownership, purpose, and payload.
Track and Monitor drones and their operators.
Disrupt drones through signal jamming, disabling their control signals, or other non-kinetic methods.
Destroy drones if necessary, particularly when they pose an imminent threat.

I think it’s important to note, as shown in Part 1, the government agencies listed below are the same saying they have no authority however they are granted the powers listed above.

Agencies Authorized

The act authorized specific federal agencies to take actions against drones posing security risks. These agencies include:

Department of Defense (DoD):
- Can counter drones threatening national defense or military operations.
Department of Homeland Security (DHS):
- Authorized to handle drones posing a risk to critical infrastructure or national security.
Department of Justice (DOJ):
- Counter-drone authority for law enforcement purposes, such as protecting mass gatherings or responding to criminal use of drones.
Department of Energy (DOE):
- Can address drone threats to nuclear facilities and other critical energy infrastructure.

False Flag Operation

Theoretically, a false flag operation using a drone attack could be crafted to implicate Iran or another adversary, especially in a politically charged context. A false flag is designed to shift blame, manipulate public opinion, and justify specific actions, such as military intervention or sanctions. Here’s how and why such a scenario might unfold:

Why a Drone False Flag Could Be Plausible (IRAN Narrative)

Ease of Attribution Manipulation:
Drones are accessible and can be retrofitted or modified to resemble those used by a specific country, making it relatively simple to fabricate evidence. For example, claiming the use of Iranian-made drones, like the Shahed series, could align with existing tensions and lend credibility to the narrative.
Existing Geopolitical Narrative:
Iran is often portrayed as a threat to U.S. interests, particularly in the Middle East, and is accused of supporting terrorism. A drone attack falsely linked to Iran could escalate tensions and justify actions like increased sanctions, military strikes, or even bolstering regional alliances.
Public Manipulation:
A drone strike on U.S. soil or assets, especially targeting civilians or critical infrastructure, would evoke strong emotional responses. Blaming Iran could rally public support for a stronger U.S. military posture or policy shift without initial scrutiny of the evidence.
Technological Plausibility:
Drones are a known tool of modern warfare, and Iran’s advancements in drone technology are well-documented. A staged attack could leverage these perceptions to make the attribution more believable.

We have already seen headlines suggesting that Iran could be blamed for potential drone attacks, a notion that fits within a broader geopolitical context. Iran has long been a focus of hawkish rhetoric from both major U.S. political parties, with some policymakers openly advocating for direct confrontation. Recent reports indicate that Iranian-made drones, such as the Shahed series, have been used in attacks against Israel, further intensifying tensions. This connection creates a convenient foundation for crafting a narrative about a retaliatory attack by Iran, potentially targeting the U.S., justified as a response to America’s unwavering support for Israel.

The conflict between the U.S. and Iran is rooted in decades of tension, exacerbated by recent events. These include the U.S. withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal (JCPOA) in 2018, re-imposed sanctions, and the assassination of General Qasem Soleimani in 2020. Iran’s support for groups like Hezbollah and Hamas, along with its strategic ties to Russia and China, has only deepened suspicions about its regional ambitions. Furthermore, the ongoing war between Hamas and Israel has spotlighted Iran’s role as a supplier of weapons and technology, making it an easy scapegoat for any alleged escalation.

Given this backdrop, a narrative involving an Iranian drone attack on U.S. soil could serve as a catalyst for military action. The story could frame Iran as retaliating against American military aid to Israel or U.S. operations in the Persian Gulf. Such a claim would tap into existing fears about Iran’s advancing drone technology and its perceived willingness to strike U.S. interests directly or through proxies. It also aligns with efforts to portray Iran as a rogue actor threatening global security.

However, this kind of narrative would face significant challenges. Analysts and international investigators are now equipped with tools to trace drone components, flight patterns, and communication signals. Any discrepancies in the evidence could lead to skepticism and blowback. Additionally, Iran has consistently denied direct involvement in many regional attacks attributed to it, often highlighting such accusations as pretexts for aggression. A false attribution or escalatory response could prompt Iran to retaliate in ways that destabilize the already fragile Middle East.

In the context of U.S. politics, some factions might seize upon a drone attack narrative to justify stronger intervention in the region, potentially including direct strikes on Iranian targets or increased sanctions.

Public opinion, historically sensitive to allegations of Iranian aggression, could be swayed if the incident were framed as an immediate threat to national security. The risks, however, remain high: miscalculation or exposure of a fabricated claim could undermine U.S. credibility both domestically and internationally.

Key Insights from a Prepper Perspective

1. Classified Operations:

The suggestion that drones could be tied to national security operations to track criminal networks or other threats is plausible. From a prepper standpoint, this raises concerns about the extent of government surveillance, especially in urban areas. While it could be a necessary tool to track illegal activities, the use of drones to monitor civilians raises privacy and security concerns, especially when considering potential abuse of such surveillance technologies.

Prepper Consideration: Preppers might want to invest in counter-surveillance measures like signal-jamming technology or other privacy tools, given the increasing use of drones for government and private purposes.

2. Avoiding Public Alarm:

The idea that the government might avoid public alarm is valid, as it could exacerbate concerns about border control and security. For preppers, this is a reminder of the importance of staying informed and aware of governmental responses to security threats, even when public details are scarce.

Prepper Consideration: Preppers should be cautious about relying on government information in times of crisis, recognizing that sometimes key details might be withheld for broader strategic reasons. Staying ahead with personal security measures and preparation becomes crucial.

3. Plausible Deniability:

This perspective suggests that foreign entities could be monitoring the situation from a strategic standpoint. For preppers, this raises the possibility of heightened foreign interest in the country’s vulnerabilities. While plausible deniability is a key element, it also points to an international dimension of threat that may not always be publicly acknowledged.

Prepper Consideration: Preppers should consider the broader geopolitical implications of an influx of unauthorized individuals and how it might affect national security. Foreign surveillance could pose risks to both infrastructure and individual safety.

4. Jurisdictional Confusion:

The idea of confusion between federal, state, and local jurisdictions is realistic. It points to the complexity of managing both security and immigration issues. For preppers, this suggests a breakdown in coordination during times of crisis, which could result in delays in responses or even contradictory actions.

Prepper Consideration: This reinforces the need for personal preparedness, as individuals might find themselves navigating a fragmented response system in the event of a security crisis. Preppers should be proactive in creating localized defense strategies and community cooperation.

5. Testing New Technology:

The potential use of drones for testing surveillance technologies is intriguing. Preppers might view this as an indication that the government is experimenting with technologies that could be used to monitor or control populations during emergencies.

Prepper Consideration: As technology becomes more advanced, preppers may need to adapt by learning how to evade or counter such technologies. This could include researching advanced camouflage techniques, noise reduction, or other methods to remain undetected.

6. Misinformation or Disinformation:

The idea that drones could be part of a misinformation or disinformation campaign resonates with preppers who understand the role of information in shaping public opinion during crises. The intentional use of drones to gather intelligence or disrupt law enforcement activities adds another layer to the challenges preppers must prepare for.

Prepper Consideration: Preppers should be wary of both misinformation and disinformation, especially during uncertain times. Relying on multiple, independent sources for information is vital to ensuring accurate situational awareness.

In Part 3, we consider the implications of the drone situation in regards to a government surveillance operation towards a hostile act.