{"id":20522,"date":"2025-05-05T23:30:07","date_gmt":"2025-05-05T23:30:07","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.theblackvault.com\/documentarchive\/?p=20522"},"modified":"2025-05-20T15:11:02","modified_gmt":"2025-05-20T15:11:02","slug":"dhs-briefing-details-select-drone-sightings-in-new-jersey-highlights-potential-misidentifications-among-5000-reports","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.theblackvault.com\/documentarchive\/dhs-briefing-details-select-drone-sightings-in-new-jersey-highlights-potential-misidentifications-among-5000-reports\/","title":{"rendered":"DHS Briefing Details Select Drone Sightings in New Jersey, Highlights Potential Misidentifications Among 5,000+ Reports"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/a>Following a surge of more than 5,000 drone sighting reports in New Jersey in late 2024, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has released internal briefing materials through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) that outline select incidents under investigation. The documents, obtained by The Black Vault, reflect a federal response involving the FBI, DHS, Coast Guard, and other agencies — but they also point to possible misidentifications of conventional aircraft in some cases initially believed to involve drones.<\/p>\n

The FOIA case, designated 2025-HQFO-01452, was filed by The Black Vault on December 11, 2024.<\/p>\n

According to a December 18, 2024, DHS document titled \u201cCTAB \u2013 NJ Drones,\u201d the FBI \u201copened an investigation when a drone was reported over DoD facilities in NJ.\u201d That was followed by the establishment of a tip line which, the briefing states, received \u201cover 5000 \u2018reported drone sightings.\u2019\u201d<\/p>\n

While that number suggests a widespread phenomenon, the internal presentation only highlights four specific cases, all of which appear to include conventional explanations or observations suggestive of misinterpretation.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>One case describes an incident involving a medevac helicopter attempting to land in New Jersey. \u201cThree drones were observed in close proximity to that medevac unit forcing the unit to abort the landing and look for another landing zone,\u201d the document states. At the same time, three commercial aircraft were on approach to the SOLEBERG VOR, with their alignment giving \u201cthe appearance to observers on the ground of them hovering in formation while they were actually moving directly at the observers.\u201d<\/p>\n

Another case notes a group of six to seven \u201clarge drones\u201d reported \u201ctraveling in from the ocean toward the base and then hovering over the coastline.\u201d However, flight tracking during the same period showed commercial airliners approaching JFK Airport from the south, turning inland near Sea Girt, then turning back out to sea. The report observes, \u201cFor these periods of time, they would appear to almost hover in the sky as they flew toward, and then away from, land.\u201d<\/p>\n

A third incident focused on sightings near a nuclear facility. \u201cMore than (3) three drones were observed hovering for an extended period of time over the waterlines at the nuclear plant,\u201d the document states. But coinciding aircraft activity was also noted, including a Cessna C150 and a UH-60 Black Hawk helicopter operating near the same location.<\/p>\n

In the fourth incident, a witness described an object that \u201cdipped down and went back up again… and reported it sprayed a gray mist.\u201d DHS analysis determined the object to be a Beechcraft Baron 58 experiencing turbulence. According to the report, \u201cWhile regaining altitude, it is likely the rapid pressure change over the wing\u2019s surfaces cause wingtip vortices (condensation clouds) that may appear as gray mist.\u201d<\/p>\n

Collectively, the selected cases present scenarios where initial drone reports were either mistaken identity or had plausible alternative explanations. However, the documents do not clarify whether these four incidents are representative of the larger pool of 5,000+ reports, or if they were specifically selected because they were explainable.<\/p>\n

Despite the ambiguous framing, the documents do affirm significant interagency coordination. \u201cDHS Components in the local area are fully engaged including Newark FAMS field office, and multiple U.S. Coast Guard stations,\u201d the document reads. It also notes that the DHS Science and Technology Directorate, through the National Urban Security Technology Laboratory (NUSTL), \u201chas deployed state of the art detection equipment,” but redacted what it deployed.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

The documents also had other areas withheld from release. These redactions were made primarily under FOIA exemptions (b)(5) and (b)(7)(E).<\/p>\n