What will be true about the mystery drones flying over New Jersey (NJ)?
➕
Plus
161
Ṁ55k
Jan 1
97%
Two or more propositions in this market excluding this one will resolve as true/yes
91%
Linked to China (government/military)
87%
Does not use cellular networks to send and receive data
81%
Many of them are hobbyist drones looking for/chasing the "original" drones
80%
More drones are flying at night after a Sept 2023 change in FAA regulations, leading to an increase in sightings
77%
Four or more propositions in this market excluding this one will resolve as true/yes
71%
The drones will have mostly vanished by inauguration
64%
Their true nature will remain a mystery
64%
Local officials lack equipment sensitive enough to gauge size and relative threat
54%
Some drones use advanced technology not available to the public
40%
At least 1 drone is shot down and recovered
37%
Major Mexican TV network runs story implying drones are alien tech
35%
Belong to a hobbyist
30%
It's just hysteria/mistaken sightings
27%
Someone will attempt to shoot down a drone and end up injuring themselves or others
23%
Belong to the US military/gov
21%
Uses cellular networks to send and receive data
14%
Operated by (foreign) intelligence agency / military of a US adversary
10%
It's a publicity stunt for a company
7%
Belong to a large company

In case there is no information for a long period of time, will close in the Summer of 2025. Answers with no new information will be N/A’ed in order to not tie up mana indefinitely.

  • Update 2024-16-12 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): - Resolution will be based on official sources

    • Multiple different explanations/sources can be considered true simultaneously

    • Resolution will wait for information to be properly verified and sorted through

Get
Ṁ1,000
and
S3.00
Sort by:
bought Ṁ50 NO

Do the counting props count each other? Can I resist asking “will three or more statements that don’t count themselves resolve yes?” This is heady stuff.

@lxgr A Ga-68 pin source was lost in shipment on December 2nd in New Jersey: https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/event-status/event/2024/20241213en.html

There are possible parallels to a case in 2023 in Australia, where a Caesium-137 source was lost and recovered via vehicle-mounted detection equipment: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Australian_radioactive_capsule_incident

bought Ṁ6 NO

These should add up to 100%, right? 🤔

@4fa honestly no clue because there could be some drones that use cellular networks and some that don't...

sold Ṁ87 NO

@benshindel Good point!

@benshindel That's a problem for ~all props here: Since the majority of drones (or "drones") seen/reported by people are probably not the drones they're looking for, it's unclear if these will be included for prop resolution or not.

In other words, do the props need to be true for at least one, the majority, all, or a specific subset of all drones?

The FBI is "investigating" it.

@10thOfficial is it worth making a distinction between the drones the FBI in Newark started investigating in Nov 20, leading them to ask for tips, and the explainable drone sightings amidst the 4,900 tips they discarded?

In other words, drones, but not the drones we’re looking for?

There are some truly hilarious comment sections on r/UFOs right now

@MalachiteEagle it’s like all the stupidest ppl in the country are realizing that the sky exists for the first time in their life

@benshindel I remember seeing dozens of tiktoks at one point of ppl who claimed that the moon didn’t use to be visible during the day

@MalachiteEagle I gotta watch that movie

@benshindel definitely a classic!

bought Ṁ50 NO

Hey @10thOfficial how do you plan on resolving in the inevitable situation where the "drones" as far as people are talking about them are from multiple sources (say, for example, there were initially some military drones being tested and then people went crazy and mostly saw airplanes and satellites, and then hobbyists started flying their own drones to look for other drones... etc)?

@benshindel would it resolve YES for all situations that seem true, or just for those that account for the original source of drones? or the majority? or just ad hoc as you see fit?

@benshindel When I see something from official sources I will resolve it to the best of my ability. It can be one or more things. The dust needs to settle on this one to make proper decisions, there is a lot to sort through.

opened a Ṁ200 YES at 60% order

This lends a lot of credence to the idea that (at least a few of) the drones were/are Navy or other military drones that were being tested for radioisotope detection / logistics capabilities / __insert_reason_here___:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/stephenpastis/2024/12/16/mystery-drones-over-new-jersey-and-nearby-states-trump-claims-the-military-knows-what-the-sightings-are-updated/

It seems likely that there is some chain of command issues where the military does not want to publicly announce the purpose of the testing, incorrectly assumed that people wouldn't notice/care, and now is trying to damage control by saying stuff like "well we know that it's not an enemy" without giving away details about whatever they were testing. Meanwhile politicians are not permitted to release that kind of information publicly but Trump kind of does what he wants and has been briefed on it and then goes out and says something like "well they know what they are but they're not telling you".

@benshindel also it's not UFO's, lol

It's clearly not just hysteria and mistaken sightings, right?

@nathanwei honestly, from what I’ve seen so far, it looks like a small number of random drones and a whole lot of hysteria 🤣

@nathanwei I think this should resolve as hysteria. Every photo you see if of an airplane or helicopter. The latest photos online aren’t even from New Jersey. Maybe there is a kernel of truth there, but it’s floating in a bathtub worth of hysteria.

@Uhbsstunvsryjnssrghnj I have a few comments below that I argue cases against hysteria!

© Manifold Markets, Inc.Terms + Mana-only TermsPrivacyRules