More about Gatwick Airport Terrorists

[Mr. Salty]

OK, I’ll bite. Who?

New York Times, Washington Post, Reuters, AP, BBC, Wall Street Journal, the Guardian, NPR, among others.

 

[floyd]

Putting aside all the tongue-in-cheek commentary, down the road there will likely be serious repercussions in the US directly related to this incident. Lawful or unlawful, fair or unfair, right or wrong, it is easy to fly a drone in areas that could be viewed as threatening public safety. All it's going to take is for someone to fly a drone into a football or baseball stadium (and it will happen eventually), before the laws will become so strict and restrictive the hobby will die a slow death.

...which irritates me. (Over simplified, but true) I can walk into a Walmart, legally buy a semi-automatic assault rifle, fill the magazine with bullets, fling it over my shoulder and legally walk into a Hobby Lobby. But fly a drone in a public park and you'll be burned at the stake!

 

[Mr. Salty]

All it's going to take is for someone to fly a drone into a football or baseball stadium (and it will happen eventually), before the laws will become so strict and restrictive the hobby will die a slow death.

It’s already happened: https://www.washingtonpost.com/loca...e8-84a0-458a1aa9ac0a_story.html?noredirect=on

 

[FatherXmas]

Nothing personal at all, but if that's your approach to getting news then I can't help you.

Exactly where did it say that was my approach to getting news??? I have the TV going in the background while I work, sometimes Fox News, sometimes a cooking show or maybe Forged in Fire. I just happened to hear that. So excuse me if my work prevents me from being the news scholar you think I should be. And yes, it does seem like a personal attack.

 

[SpinItUp]

Someone in Gov' got a Job
Seems to be what's come of this
Edit; oh and wrecked (paparazzi'd)2 peeps Christmas

 

[Ren57]

Your news is old too - they have clarified that there is no doubt over the sightings (67 of them) and that the comment that there may have been no drone was mistaken.

That's not entirely true either. The police have been told by powers higher up the food-chain to say that there actually were 67 confirmed sightings. And over 200 sightings reported. What the police actually said was that THEY have received no concrete proof as in photo's or video of these alleged sightings. That's despite the police having helicopters at Gatwick equipped with infra red recording cameras, the worlds media there with broadcast quality recording equipment and the general public who the majority these days will have a fairly good means of taking photo's and video with the recording device that they carry around in their pockets. All that has actually emerged in the form of evidence are a couple of blurry photo's that have been obviously pulled from some drone library images and a couple of even more blurry video's that could have been taken anywhere that our illustrious media obtained from somewhere because they were paying money for them....

Apparently, the authorities have in their possession a crashed drone that was found near Gatwick airport. At first, I thought that it was the authorities that has found this drone but no, it was a member of the public that found it. I'm not being cynical here but does anyone think that could be an attempt to get their hands on the £50K reward? And the authorities have steadfastly (so far) refused to release any pictures of the so called crashed drone.

Other things that don't add up about this story but aren't being reported is that the weather around that area was actually heavy persistent rain for much of the time that this incident was happening. And drones don't work very well in heavy rain....

 

[sar104]

That's not entirely true either. The police have been told by powers higher up the food-chain to say that there actually were 67 confirmed sightings. And over 200 sightings reported. What the police actually said was that THEY have received no concrete proof as in photo's or video of these alleged sightings. That's despite the police having helicopters at Gatwick equipped with infra red recording cameras, the worlds media there with broadcast quality recording equipment and the general public who the majority these days will have a fairly good means of taking photo's and video with the recording device that they carry around in their pockets. All that has actually emerged in the form of evidence are a couple of blurry photo's that have been obviously pulled from some drone library images and a couple of even more blurry video's that could have been taken anywhere that our illustrious media obtained from somewhere because they were paying money for them....

Apparently, the authorities have in their possession a crashed drone that was found near Gatwick airport. At first, I thought that it was the authorities that has found this drone but no, it was a member of the public that found it. I'm not being cynical here but does anyone think that could be an attempt to get their hands on the £50K reward? And the authorities have steadfastly (so far) refused to release any pictures of the so called crashed drone.

Other things that don't add up about this story but aren't being reported is that the weather around that area was actually heavy persistent rain for much of the time that this incident was happening. And drones don't work very well in heavy rain....

You said "that's not entirely true" but didn't say what is not entirely true, and didn't appear to refute anything in my post. I think it is now understood what the police statement was trying to say, although it seems inaccurate - there is at least one video, clearly taken at Gatwick, showing a quadcopter flying over the airport. Perhaps they were unable to verify the date of the video, but that seems unlikely.

The reward is for information leading to the capture of whomever flew the drones, so simply handing in a random damaged drone is not going to get it done.

 

[draver]

Just like my take on UFO’s, show me a decent picture and we’ll talk. We’ve seen decent pics of everything imaginable, including the only Concord crash ever. No pics, = no drone.

 

[sar104]

Just like my take on UFO’s, show me a decent picture and we’ll talk. We’ve seen decent pics of everything imaginable, including the only Concord crash ever. No pics, = no drone.

This video was taken at the North Terminal bus station, looking south over the runways.

Dropbox - Gatwick_drone_video_daily_mail.mp4

 

[Tbredhed]

This video was taken at the North Terminal bus station, looking south over the runways.

Dropbox - Gatwick_drone_video_daily_mail.mp4

It's interesting how even when presented with evidence, people will totally ignore it or say it was stock footage when it doesn't fit their narrative or conspiracy theory.

Now if you'll excuse me I have to go back to proving the earth is flat.
Merry Christmas everybody!

 

[Ren57]

This video was taken at the North Terminal bus station, looking south over the runways.

I think what to you meant to say was that this video was allegedly taken at the north terminal bus station looking south over the runways. I've been there and I don't recognise this as the place but I have to admit it was a few years ago.This blurry video was obtained by the media, not the police or the authorities. But I'll go with it, despite it being blurry it looks to be something like a DJI Phantom. All they have to do now is show us some pictures of the crashed drone and we'll soon see if it matches the profile of this video. Evidence = proof, it's not an exhaustive concept... And also, right from the start of this fiasco, the authorities have been pushing the story that the alleged drone responsible is an industrial type drone, not an over-the-counter DJI Phantom.

And just to clear something up. The police DID say that they had received no conclusive evidence of a drone and they DID say that they were only acting on reports of a sighting from the public and they DID say, there may not have been a drone the whole time. They only changed this statement when it became obvious that higher authorities were somewhat miffed and embarrassed by what they had said and told them to change it!

 

[sar104]

I think what to you meant to say was that this video was allegedly taken at the north terminal bus station looking south over the runways. I've been there and I don't recognise this as the place but I have to admit it was a few years ago.This blurry video was obtained by the media, not the police or the authorities. But I'll go with it, despite it being blurry it looks to be something like a DJI Phantom. All they have to do now is show us some pictures of the crashed drone and we'll soon see if it matches the profile of this video. Evidence = proof, it's not an exhaustive concept... And also, right from the start of this fiasco, the authorities have been pushing the story that the alleged drone responsible is an industrial type drone, not an over-the-counter DJI Phantom.

And just to clear something up. The police DID say that they had received no conclusive evidence of a drone and they DID say that they were only acting on reports of a sighting from the public and they DID say, there may not have been a drone the whole time. They only changed this statement when it became obvious that higher authorities were somewhat miffed and embarrassed by what they had said and told them to change it!

No - I meant to say exactly what I said - the structures in view are unambiguously the south row of bus shelters at the North Terminal. You can even see the lamp post identifier in a few of the frames. You could perhaps dispute when it was taken, but the location is Gatwick Airport and there is a quadcopter flying overhead.

 

[Ren57]

No - I meant to say exactly what I said - the structures in view are unambiguously the south row of bus shelters at the North Terminal. You can even see the lamp post identifier in a few of the frames. You could perhaps dispute when it was taken, but the location is Gatwick Airport and there is a quadcopter flying overhead.

And all I need to see now are some pictures of the crashed drone and see if it matches the video. Then I'll believe it was taken where and when it is stated by the media (not the police) to have been taken.

 

[sar104]

And all I need to see now are some pictures of the crashed drone and see if it matches the video. Then I'll believe it was taken where and when it is stated by the media (not the police) to have been taken.

Are you saying that you still don't accept that the video is from that location? Or have you moved on to focusing on the issue of the recovered drone, which may or may not have been one of the two reported as being seen at the airport?

 

[draver]

That is very likely what it appears to be. It would be even more credible if there were confirming footage and official acknowledgement that this was taken of the drone at the center of controversy.

 

[Fearless Flight]

Exactly where did it say that was my approach to getting news??? I have the TV going in the background while I work, sometimes Fox News, sometimes a cooking show or maybe Forged in Fire. I just happened to hear that. So excuse me if my work prevents me from being the news scholar you think I should be. And yes, it does seem like a personal attack.

Don’t worry about it. Some of his sources are just as laughable but from the other side so the eye is blinded.

 

[sar104]

Don’t worry about it. Some of his sources are just as laughable but from the other side so the eye is blinded.

Are you saying that Fox News is laughable?

 

[Ren57]

Are you saying that you still don't accept that the video is from that location? Or have you moved on to focusing on the issue of the recovered drone, which may or may not have been one of the two reported as being seen at the airport?

I am saying that I want to see a bit more evidence than blurry video that was sold to the media for money and not sent directly to the authorities by the upstanding citizen that took it. And having actually been to the place where the video was apparently taken, did not recognise it as the same the place.However, it appears that you are far better informed than me so whatever you say, I'll believe you Without question......!

 

[offtheback]

Might as well get your 'news' from Fred and Barney.

What's wrong with the news from Fred and Barney?

 

[sar104]

I am saying that I want to see a bit more evidence than blurry video that was sold to the media for money and not sent directly to the authorities by the upstanding citizen that took it. And having actually been to the place where the video was apparently taken, did not recognise it as the same the place.However, it appears that you are far better informed than me so whatever you say, I'll believe you Without question......!

Does this help? Note the lamp post identifier - it was taken two posts down from stop 10, where the video was shot.