Beet's latest activity
-
It's a question related to the situation. It wasn't a judgement on any guilt or innocence. -
I don't have a misconception. I'm curious as to why they need to fly below 400 feet? I'm implying that there could be an easy compromise to get more eyes in the sky without causing more danger.
-
Did I shrug something off? Did I suggest a conspiracy among the media? Whether or not someone believes the media is their business. If you have 20 media outlets saying the same thing, it's because they have the same source. This isn't new.
-
Really? Suggest that "the media" lied about the incident and shrug it off? Fox News, Huffington Post, and essentially every outlet in between reported the collision. You suggest that they might have all conspired to promote a falsehood?
-
Because contrary to popular misconception, it's not illegal for them to fly below 400 ft.
