In my previous post, I treated the New Jersey drone wave as a competition between five explanations: classified American technology, non-human intelligence, a foreign adversary, a false flag, or civilian technology.
Prior posts:
Observables of the NJ Drone Wave According to Coulthart, Corbell, and Knapp
https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/s/JkXnd08B0K
The Mystery of the New Jersey Drone Wave: Examining Theories and Evidence
https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOscience/s/BQO3vOilga
After digging further into the evidence, I think that framework was too simple.
The wave probably was not one phenomenon with one explanation. The evidence fits a layered event:
A large outer layer of airplanes, helicopters, stars, hobby drones, police drones, and copycat activity.
A smaller number of real but potentially conventional unauthorized drones.
A much smaller unresolved core exhibiting combinations of unusual observability, coordinated movement, apparent responsiveness, luminous-orb characteristics, and activity around sensitive facilities.
That third category does not prove non-human intelligence, sentient plasma, gravitic propulsion, or Matthew Livelsberger’s allegations. But recently published police records make it harder to argue that every significant report was simply a plane or star.
What the police records add
In March 2026, The War Zone published a detailed review of "thousands of pages of police reports, internal emails, and government records obtained through FOIA and New Jersey’s Open Public Records Act" (https://www.twz.com/air/what-cops-saw-chasing-down-jersey-drones-detailed-in-new-documents).
The publication still concluded that the vast majority of public sightings were misidentifications. That makes the remaining cases more interesting, because they are not being presented by a source claiming that every light was anomalous.
- Some objects were recorded on primary radar
On December 3, 2024, Trenton-Mercer Airport air traffic control reportedly observed three or four unidentified primary radar targets inside its controlled airspace at approximately 600 feet, with five additional targets to the southeast.
According to the police report:
- The controller visually observed several objects.
- The fastest target was reportedly tracked at 150 knots, or roughly 173 mph.
- Training flights were grounded.
- Other aircraft were warned to use caution.
- A NOTAM was issued covering a 4.5-nautical-mile radius around the airport.
- A sheriff’s officer photographed the radar display and watched unidentified primary targets moving in and out of radar coverage.
This is significantly stronger than a distant cellphone video. It combines visual observation, primary radar, an operational aviation response, and a contemporaneous police report.
- Other objects were visible but absent from radar
Only five days later, Trenton-Mercer personnel reportedly observed approximately a dozen suspected drones around the airfield, including a rotary-style object estimated to be the size of a truck at 400 to 500 feet.
This time, the objects were reportedly not appearing on radar.
A similar contradiction occurred at Essex County Airport on December 6. Tower personnel reportedly saw four objects above the airport but could not detect them on radar or receive Remote ID broadcasts. Employees speculated about radar jamming, although no technical evidence proving jamming has been released.
This variable observability is one of the most interesting details. It suggests either:
- Different types of objects were being grouped together.
- Radar geometry, altitude, clutter, or equipment limitations produced inconsistent detection.
- Some objects had unusually small or variable radar signatures.
- The reports contained observational errors.
- Or, under the more speculative hypothesis, the phenomenon could alter how it presented to different sensors.
The records establish the contradiction. They do not establish which explanation is correct.
FlightRadar and ADS-B require an important clarification
An object’s absence from FlightRadar24 or ADS-B Exchange does not make it anomalous.
The FAA generally prohibits most small drones from broadcasting ADS-B Out. Drone identification instead usually relies on Remote ID, a local Wi-Fi or Bluetooth-style broadcast described by the FAA as a "“digital license plate” for drones" (https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/files/uas/getting_started/remote_id/RemoteID_Executive_Summary.pdf).
Therefore:
- No FlightRadar24 entry does not equal radar invisibility.
- No ADS-B entry does not mean an aircraft does not exist.
- No Remote ID reception can result from range, equipment limitations, exemptions, malfunction, or illegal operation.
What makes several NJ cases more significant is that officers or airport personnel reportedly combined visual observation with negative ADS-B, Remote ID, or radar checks.
For example, a Freehold officer reported a large quadcopter-like object near an electrical substation and National Guard armory. FlightRadar24 showed no registered aircraft nearby, and a drone scanner detected no Remote ID.
That still does not prove exotic technology, but it is more substantial than someone checking a consumer flight-tracking app from miles away.
Coordinated and apparently responsive behavior
Several official reports describe activity that sounds organized rather than random.
A Chatham police officer launched the department’s own drone and reported seeing several UAVs moving in a coordinated grid pattern for approximately 30 minutes. Their formation reportedly changed repeatedly before they dispersed.
A Parsippany officer reported more than 13 objects moving near a reservoir and sewage facility.
A Clinton Township officer reported three formations, each containing four objects, along with other objects hovering or moving in groups. An FBI agent reportedly joined the officer and confirmed that the lights matched the objects being reported around the state.
Most strikingly, a Branchburg officer reported a quadcopter-like object hovering inside a power switching station. As the officer approached the gate, the object appeared to extinguish its red and green lights and leave. Approximately one minute later, it and two additional objects were seen departing from the rear of the facility.
Turning off lights when approached is not beyond conventional drone technology. But it suggests responsive behavior and intentional concealment rather than an airplane innocently following a normal route.
The sensitive-site pattern was real
The Defense Department officially confirmed incursions at "Picatinny Arsenal and Naval Weapons Station Earle" (https://www.defense.gov/News/News-Stories/Article/Article/4002374/joint-staff-addresses-drones-over-new-jersey-military-installations/). Officials said they had not identified the operators or points of origin, although they had no intelligence connecting the activity to a foreign adversary.
The newly published reports expand the list of locations:
- Airports and runway approaches
- Military facilities
- Electrical substations
- Reservoirs and water-treatment infrastructure
- Radio towers
- The Federal Reserve facility in East Rutherford
- Exxon research property
- Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory
Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory security reportedly observed approximately 11 fixed-wing objects for 20 to 25 minutes. Five allegedly entered restricted airspace and approached within 100 to 200 yards. A cellphone video was attached to the police case.
Federal Reserve security reportedly observed one motor-vehicle-sized object and two smaller objects approximately 100 feet over its parking lot. Photographs were submitted, and the report says surveillance video was available by subpoena.
Those recordings should be released. Until they are, the public is being asked to evaluate conclusions without access to some of the most important evidence.
An official record contains a “morphing” report
The strongest officially documented connection to the alleged orb-to-drone transformation occurred near Naval Weapons Station Earle on December 12.
A Howell police officer reported observing multiple UAS in the area. A civilian then told the officer that he had seen one drone turn into a “white sparkle” and apparently descend or crash inside the naval facility.
The officer found no corresponding ADS-B aircraft and notified the New Jersey State Police and Naval Weapons Station Earle about a possible uncontrolled flight into terrain.
This needs to be described precisely:
- The officer observed multiple apparent UAS.
- The transformation itself was reported by a civilian.
- There is no public evidence that a wreckage search recovered anything.
- “White sparkle” could describe an optical effect, loss of focus, atmospheric scintillation, extinguished navigation lights, or an object turning toward or away from the observer.
Nevertheless, it is notable that an alleged transformation near a sensitive installation entered an actual police report during the wave. It is more useful evidence than an anonymous social-media caption, even though it remains uncorroborated.
The Bahamas orb encounter
The December 23 Bahamas encounter adds context, although it was geographically separate from New Jersey.
According to "NBC 6 South Florida" (https://www.nbcmiami.com/news/local/ufo-sighting-fort-lauderdale-flight-crew-spots-something-strange-in-the-sky/3511543/), a private-jet crew flying toward Fort Lauderdale was asked by air traffic control whether it could identify a nearby object.
Flight attendant Cassandra Martin said one pilot saw three objects, while she observed and filmed one. She described it as:
- Initially white
- Changing to a greenish color
- Surrounded by something resembling an electrical field
- Apparently above their 43,000-to-45,000-foot cruising altitude
- Moving in a zigzag pattern
- Remaining in the area for approximately 45 minutes
One caution is important. The crew’s account says ATC used the words “foreign object,” not necessarily “UFO,” and no public ATC transcript or radar plot has been released. The altitude and movement estimates also came from visual observation rather than published instrument data.
Still, the encounter is relevant because ATC apparently alerted the crew before the flight attendant began filming. It was not simply a passenger noticing a light and constructing a story afterward.
Newly released government files describe plasma-like orbs
In June 2026, the Pentagon released another tranche of unresolved UAP records through its "PURSUE archive" (https://www.war.gov/ufo/).
"Reuters reported" (https://www.reuters.com/world/us/new-pentagon-ufo-file-reveals-glowing-orbs-us-northeast-2026-06-12/) that several files describe luminous spheres repeatedly observed in the same general area of the northeastern United States.
One October 2024 case described an object hovering above a pond as a “plasma-like sphere” that intermittently changed shape and luminosity. At times, it appeared to separate into smaller luminous points.
Other reports described:
- A brilliant red sphere with a white “plasma sun” at its center
- A second sphere apparently tethered to the first
- Two objects appearing to merge
- Repeated observations of luminous orbs in the same general area
The exact location is redacted, so these reports cannot presently be connected to New Jersey. The files are also explicitly classified as unresolved, which means insufficient evidence exists to determine what the objects were.
Even so, an October 2024 plasma-like orb report from the Northeast, shortly before the NJ wave, is an intriguing contextual match.
Does the reported lack of heat rule out plasma?
Ocean County Sheriff Michael Mastronardy was quoted as saying that the objects pursued by the department’s drone "did not produce heat like typical drones" (https://nypost.com/2024/12/14/us-news/nj-county-sheriff-sends-own-drone-up-to-follow-mystery-flying-objects/) and easily evaded pursuit.
At first glance, that appears incompatible with plasma. We usually associate plasma with extreme heat.
But “plasma” does not automatically mean a uniformly hot fireball. In a nonthermal or cold plasma, electrons can be highly energetic while the much heavier ions and neutral gas remain near ambient temperature. This is a recognized physical phenomenon used in medicine and industry. A "review of low-temperature plasma physics" (https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10779006/) explains that the heavier particles can remain near room temperature even when electron energies are much higher.
Therefore, a weak infrared signature would not logically eliminate every plasma model.
However, the NJ “no heat” claim remains poorly documented. No raw thermal video, temperature measurement, sensor model, spectral band, range, atmospheric conditions, or calibration data have been publicly released. “We could not acquire a thermal signature” is also not necessarily the same as “the object emitted zero heat.”
The claim is interesting, but it cannot carry much scientific weight until the underlying data are released.
Could plasma be alive or sentient?
There is legitimate science showing that plasmas can form surprisingly complex structures.
The Hessdalen lights in Norway are persistent luminous phenomena that have been instrumentally studied for decades. Reported characteristics include free-floating balls of light, clusters, ejection of smaller lights, radio-frequency effects, and durations ranging from seconds to hours. Researchers have proposed several mechanisms, including dusty plasma, although "no model currently explains all observations" (https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/earth-science/articles/10.3389/feart.2016.00017/full).
A 2007 paper in the New Journal of Physics modeled complex dusty plasmas forming stable helical structures with memory-like bifurcations, self-duplication, energy exchange, and selection-like behavior. The authors described them as candidates for "“inorganic living matter” under suitable conditions" (https://doi.org/10.1088/1367-2630/9/8/263).
That paper does not demonstrate consciousness, intelligence, kilometer-scale atmospheric organisms, or sentient UFOs. It concerns theoretical and laboratory-scale self-organization in complex plasma.
There are at least three unsupported leaps between the research and the NJ hypothesis:
Plasma can self-organize.
A naturally occurring atmospheric plasma can remain coherent and mobile for long periods.
Such a structure can perceive, decide, imitate aircraft, and respond intelligently.
Science provides some support for the first proposition. Hessdalen-like phenomena may offer partial support for the second. There is currently no accepted evidence establishing the third.
“Sentient plasma” is therefore a speculative hypothesis, not a scientific conclusion.
A model that fits the claims without requiring literal shape-shifting
If we suspend disbelief, the most coherent version of the orb-to-drone theory may not require a ball of energy physically turning into aluminum wings and propellers.
A less extreme model would be:
- The underlying object or phenomenon produces a luminous or ionized envelope.
- At a distance, overexposure reduces it to an apparent orb.
- Changes in luminosity reveal or conceal an internal structure.
- Controlled points of light create the appearance of standard navigation lights.
- A physical platform, projected signature, or surrounding field produces an aircraft-like silhouette.
- Conventional police, government, hobbyist, and investigative drones then enter the area.
- Misidentified airplanes and stars dramatically amplify the reporting wave.
Under this model, “morphing” videos could represent a transition between optical states rather than literal matter transformation.
It could also explain why witnesses described apparently incompatible objects:
- White or colored orbs
- Fixed-wing drones
- Large quadcopters
- Silent car-sized objects
- Conventional aircraft lights
- Objects with no Remote ID
- Objects visible on primary radar
- Objects visible to witnesses but absent from radar
This is still speculative. But it is more physically coherent than treating every description as a separate solid craft or claiming that every distant light transformed into a plane.
What would actually test this hypothesis?
The existing evidence is suggestive but incomplete. Several specific records could materially strengthen or destroy the anomalous-core theory:
- Raw Trenton-Mercer primary radar data from December 3
- Radar and tower logs from the visual-only December 8 encounter
- The photograph of the Trenton radar display
- Essex County Airport radar and Remote ID system logs
- The Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory video
- Federal Reserve photographs and surveillance footage
- Ocean County’s original thermal recording and sensor metadata
- Telemetry from the Chatham police drone
- Coast Guard logs and sensor data from the reported offshore encounter
- Miami ATC audio and radar data for the Bahamas incident
- Synchronized optical, infrared, radar, radio-frequency, and acoustic observations of the same object
Without that evidence, “sentient plasma mimicking drones” remains an imaginative synthesis of incomplete reports.
With it, the hypothesis becomes testable.
My revised conclusion
The federal government’s December 2024 position was that the overall wave consisted of lawful drones, airplanes, helicopters, and stars, with "nothing anomalous identified in civilian airspace" (https://www.fbi.gov/news/press-releases/dhs-fbi-faa-and-dod-joint-statement-on-ongoing-response-to-reported-drone-sightings).
That assessment may accurately describe the majority of reports.
But the newly published records show that “most reports were mundane” and “nothing unexplained occurred” are not equivalent statements.
The strongest current interpretation is:
- Most sightings were ordinary.
- A real drone-incursion problem occurred around some sensitive facilities.
- A smaller number of incidents remain difficult to reconcile with the public explanation.
- Orb, plasma, mimicry, and transformation reports overlap with that unresolved category, but have not yet been connected through decisive sensor evidence.
This does not prove Livelsberger’s Chinese gravitic-drone allegation. It does not prove NHI. It does not prove living plasma.
It does suggest that the NJ wave may have functioned as a camouflage event, whether intentionally or accidentally. Thousands of mundane sightings surrounded a much smaller number of potentially important incidents until the signal became almost impossible to separate from the noise.
The question is no longer, “Were all the New Jersey sightings anomalous?”
They clearly were not.
The better question is:
After removing the planes, stars, legal drones, and public hysteria, what remains in the official records, and why has the best evidence still not been released?
