More about Gatwick Airport Terrorists

[Ren57]

I’ve seen video if a drone passing over the terminal and car park. Of course it could have been the police drone.

It was a police drone, that's why they've ruled it out of the investigation. And, there's the suggestion that the (now 2) crashed drones that they have in their possession but have been reluctant to release pictures of (when plod is usually only too eager to release pictures of any evidence that they have) are 2 police drones! LOL.....

 

[daasmangi]

It was a police drone, that's why they've ruled it out of the investigation. And, there's the suggestion that the (now 2) crashed drones that they have in their possession but have been reluctant to release pictures of (when plod is usually only too eager to release pictures of any evidence that they have) are 2 police drones! LOL.....

I’ve always wondered what happened to the geofencing software on those drones? Because I was in the middle of the Australian Outback and tried desperately to launch my Mavic Pro but it just wouldn’t take off.. and a few minutes later I realised I was in the vicinity of and airport.. it was a mining company’s airports.. so the cops had clearance to fly there. No wonder

 

[deleted member 877]

I’ve always wondered what happened to the geofencing software on those drones? Because I was in the middle of the Australian Outback and tried desperately to launch my Mavic Pro but it just wouldn’t take off.. and a few minutes later I realised I was in the vicinity of and airport.. it was a mining company’s airports.. so the cops had clearance to fly there. No wonder

Seriously? The police are always going to have access to stuff that you can't access. Why? Because they are the police - simple.

Why were you so desperate to launch your Mavic Pro? Was it a life /death situation?

 

[daasmangi]

Seriously? The police are always going to have access to stuff that you can't access. Why? Because they are the police - simple.

Why were you so desperate to launch your Mavic Pro? Was it a life /death situation?

I didn’t know where I was.. I just camped on the side of the road and I was trying to get some shots of the sunset.. not realising where I was until I hear a plane flying over and the I understood why the drone didn’t take off

 

[Clinton1]

Food for thought.....

 

[Clinton1]

...some more....

 

[choo choo]

I’ve seen video if a drone passing over the terminal and car park. Of course it could have been the police drone.

It was a police drone.

 

[choo choo]

The problem they now have is that without a drone or evidence of one, then no crime has been committed. Certainly no violation of airspace crime. So they’ve got nothing, zilch, nada. Except red faces.

 

[Jaspar]

ET drone home

 

[Toravic]

If this was all staged, whoever came up with the idea really sucks at it. If only the media/police had announced it as a UFO sighting in the first place and then consider the possibility of a drone, they wouldn’t look so useless.
I think this story will end like this:
Drones flown at Gatwick, military and police in hunt for suspects, suspects unidentifiable and no arrests, drones are perfect for crimes = drones are bad

 

[choo choo]

If this was all staged, whoever came up with the idea really sucks at it. If only the media/police had announced it as a UFO sighting in the first place and then consider the possibility of a drone, they wouldn’t look so useless.
I think this story will end like this:
Drones flown at Gatwick, military and police in hunt for suspects, suspects unidentifiable and no arrests, drones are perfect for crimes = drones are bad

It is certainly looking as if your scenario will be the outcome.
From the very first few hours of this fiasco I have voiced my opinion, (and been vilified for voicing it), on here and other sites, that something just doesn’t add up. I wasn’t advancing any conspiracy theories, merely saying that there is not a jot of evidence of a rogue drone flying near or over the airport, over the runway or buzzing the control tower as was reported by various people.
What was purported to be evidence, was in the first instance a helicopter and second the police drone filmed a day or so later.
Why anyone would wish to close an airport down during the busiest time of year is anyone’s guess. But it wasn’t a drone that caused it.

 

[sar104]

It was a police drone, that's why they've ruled it out of the investigation.

Do you have a reference for that?

 

[snoopx]

You seem to be hanging your hat on this one bit of video as irrefutable proof there was a drone flying over Gatwick without conceding the possibility that it could have been easily fabricated. I have seen far too many much more complex clips later revealed as frauds. The lack of official acknowledgement of this footage as genuine is highly suspicious to me. They are investigating “Reports From Witnesses”. Also that the thousands stranded, the authorities, ground crews, pilots, tower personnel, etc. have not produced a single, credible image is beyond amazing. Generally, the public cannot wait to Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, email and text every visual facet of their lives. But NO DRONE PICTURES

Yes, it's puzzling there weren't more videos or pictures of the drones from members of the public.
Here's a video of a drone some distance away (not the Gatwick drone), taken with an Iphone. It's not that hard to do and is better quality than the specks in the sky we've seen so far, which for all they're worth, could have been crisp packets caught up in the wind:

 

[choo choo]

Do you have a reference for that?

The chief constable of Sussex police was on BBC National Radio (and we all trust the BBC don’t we?) and firstly apologised to the couple who were arrested and had their house and belonging searched but believed that they (the police) had probable cause. He further said that the drone video was their own police drone, he believed that the sightings reported were of the police drone.

 

[FoxhallGH]

The chief constable of Sussex police was on BBC National Radio (and we all trust the BBC don’t we?) and firstly apologised to the couple who were arrested and had their house and belonging searched but believed that they (the police) had probable cause. He further said that the drone video was their own police drone, he believed that the sightings reported were of the police drone.

According to the same report, the Police drones were taken to Gatwick to try to track the [civilian] drone that had been sighted violating the airspace. It's highly likely that some of the reports of drone sightings were of the Police machines - BUT - it doesn't detract from there needing to be cause in getting them there in the first place.
They were deployed because unauthorised drones were seen in Gatwick airspace ...

 

[sar104]

He further said that the drone video was their own police drone, he believed that the sightings reported were of the police drone.

No - he didn't say that at all. If you are going to cite a news source then at least read it first.

Police 'sorry' for drone arrest distress

 

[crockit]

The police in the UK are saying they did have 64 reports of drones, but they believe the majority of these were their own drones, looking for the culprits.

 

[choo choo]

No - he didn't say that at all. If you are going to cite a news source then at least read it first.

Police 'sorry' for drone arrest distress[/

With apologies to sar104 and anyone else I may have offended. My post added nothing of any use to the debate, and nothing of any help to out great community. I have withdrawn the post and unreservedly apologise to sat104.

 

[sar104]

Which just proves to me that you knew the source of the story existed or at very least knew where the source could be found and were just spoiling for an argument..that’s why I miss-quoted.
I had read the whole article.
I had originally written that they believed the majority of the sightings were of their own drone, but thought I’d just test my theory out and see if you caught the bait...

That's really pathetic - you are now claiming you were deliberately trolling with incorrect information? I doubt that - I think you are just making up lame excuses for getting it wrong. Anyway, I wasn't spoiling for an argument - I wanted to know where the Chief Constable was on record as stating that the video was of a police drone, because I hadn't seen that anywhere.

I helped you out with some data analysis back in October. After this performance do not expect any future help.

 

[Tbredhed]

Which just proves to me that you knew the source of the story existed or at very least knew where the source could be found and were just spoiling for an argument..that’s why I miss-quoted.
I had read the whole article.
I had originally written that they believed the majority of the sightings were of their own drone, but thought I’d just test my theory out and see if you caught the bait...

More likely is that in the hour between your miss-quoted post and his rebuttal he was able to Google the article and correct you!

Seems to me that by deliberately miss-quoting you are either looking to further your own agenda or spoiling for a fight.

But I'm just a guy that has mostly been watching and reading from the side lines.
Cheers