More about Gatwick Airport Terrorists

[sar104]

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

Okay - so you are proposing that the video was faked. I guess that's the standard response these days to unwelcome news. So far we have (1) it could have been taken elsewhere [disproved], (2) it could have been taken at some other time [problematic in itself] and (3) it's fake.

And no - "evidence" and "irrefutable proof" are quite different concepts, even though the "prove it" fallacy is often deployed against evidence. The video corroborates the multiple reported sightings. It seems like strong supporting evidence.

 

[Bazzam]

Okay - so you are proposing that the video was faked. I guess that's the standard response these days to unwelcome news. So far we have (1) it could have been taken elsewhere [disproved], (2) it could have been taken at some other time [problematic in itself] and (3) it's fake.

And no - "evidence" and "irrefutable proof" are quite different concepts, even though the "prove it" fallacy is often deployed against evidence. The video corroborates the multiple reported sightings. It seems like strong supporting evidence.

These days its hard to trust anything you see online/news outlets - videos, pictures can be doctored.
But I agree with Sar104 - that the video presents to some possiblity of drone activity over Gatwick at some yet undetermined time.

concrete proof ?, Nah but enough to warrant more investigation.

 

[draver]

Your belief that the video is real is valid, as is my conjecture that it could have been easily faked. You seem reluctant to at least acknowledge that possibility. Is that because it is the only physical evidence that may exist?

The lack of official recognition for the video or additional imagery I find quite puzzling. I cannot imagine why that would be if there were as many witnesses to an actual event as claimed. The police stated that 67 persons reported seeing this drone. None apparently took a picture or video. None of them. Your exclusive video was turned over to the media, not the police from what I have read.

 

[sar104]

Your belief that the video is real is valid, as is my conjecture that it could have been easily faked. You seem reluctant to at least acknowledge that possibility. Is that because it is the only physical evidence that may exist?

The lack of official recognition for the video or additional imagery I find quite puzzling. I cannot imagine why that would be if there were as many witnesses to an actual event as claimed. The police stated that 67 persons reported seeing this drone. None apparently took a picture or video. None of them. Your exclusive video was turned over to the media, not the police from what I have read.

You are still missing the point. I don't "believe" anything. Of course it could be fake, but why would that be your first assumption, especially when it is consistent with the multiple reports that this happened?

The police stated that there were hundreds of reports, with 67 having been verified, which I assume means that they spoke to them. Someone apparently did manage to get a video, and I would suspect that it went to the media because they paid for it. Who knows what the police have at this point - they are clearly holding the details of the investigation fairly close, which is not at all surprising.

 

[Tazbone]

Yaaaawwwwwwnnnnnnn!

 

[draver]

You are still missing the point. I don't "believe" anything. Of course it could be fake, but why would that be your first assumption, especially when it is consistent with the multiple reports that this happened?

The police stated that there were hundreds of reports, with 67 having been verified, which I assume means that they spoke to them. Someone apparently did manage to get a video, and I would suspect that it went to the media because they paid for it. Who knows what the police have at this point - they are clearly holding the details of the investigation fairly close, which is not at all surprising.

So it seems we're both really saying the same thing.

I'm going to step off of this train wreck for a while.

Happy Holidays to all, & to all a good night.

 

[Asulliv54]

How stupid are these people in Gatwick,Santa Claus took a short cut and modified his flight plan with a Snowman who wrote the change in the snow in pee that melted too soon because of the weather in Gatwick,it was Reindeer & Santa's Sled what's wrong with people!!

 

[FatherXmas]

How stupid are these people in Gatwick,Santa Claus took a short cut and modified his flight plan with a Snowman who wrote the change in the snow in pee that melted too soon because of the weather in Gatwick,it was Reindeer & Santa's Sled what's wrong with people!!

I confess, that's exactly how it happened. Mrs Claus was feeling a little frisky when I left so was in a hurry to get back to...., well, you know.....

 

[DougT]

There's a huge surprise - feign offense when unable to respond to any of the pertinent points. So now all you are left with is to dispute when it was taken? So a drone buzzing around over Gatwick at any other time is normal? The level of cognitive dissonance here is just staggering.

I’m not feigning, an apology from you would be welcome.

 

[Prmath]

Why all the snarky comments about Fox News? These days there really isn't anyone doing honest reporting.

Being “snarkey” shows the quality of the person involved.......still mad about 2016 I guess

 

[Trolleydodger]

Being “snarkey” shows the quality of the person involved.......still mad about 2016 I guess

Agreed......just can’t let it go. [emoji23]

 

[R.J.]

Fear mongering, agenda setting, media framing ... classic communication persuasion theories ... this is all I observe

 

[choo choo]

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

The Chiefs Constable of Sussex police has been on the radio this morning and admitted that they found 2 crashed drones which were nothing to do with the enquiry, they had been there quite a while. AND admitted that the police had their own drone up at Gatwick, which he believes accounted for the sightings and video of a drone given to the media. Sooo STILL NO CREDIBLE SUBSTANTIATED EVIDENCE of any drone at Gatwick other than eyewitless (sic) accounts and a video of the police drone in action.

 

[SpinItUp]

Article with Constable

 

[Asgard]

No more than the the usual arse covering

 

[draver]

Posted last Tuesday, in response to a claim that the drone video was proof of an intruder:

"I don’t believe I need an alternate theory to question anything, why would I?
Oh wait, I see i’ve already answered you question, the video drone might belong to the authorities searching for clues."

Ta Da !

 

[Robert Mitchell]

My take from this thread and a sign of the times we are in.

Is there incentive to misreport the existence of a drone for multiple reasons, including commercial gain from their eradication? Absolutely.

Have these sightings been erroneous many times in the past? Yes.

Are there many out there, some even on this forum who would be fine with even more restrictions? Sure.

Was there a drone flown near this airport? Probably. Was there a massive overreaction? Probably.

Is it reasonable to question everything, regardless of your “source”? Absolutely.

Should someone be vilified, or belittled for their news source? Nope, because If you think yours is better or unbiased, I’ve got news for you.

Should we be jumping on the more regulation bandwagon because of it? Nahh.

 

[sar104]

Posted last Tuesday, in response to a claim that the drone video was proof of an intruder:

"I don’t believe I need an alternate theory to question anything, why would I?
Oh wait, I see i’ve already answered you question, the video drone might belong to the authorities searching for clues."

Ta Da !

If it turns out that it was a law enforcement drone(s) in the air, and sightings of which were being reported and causing the airport shutdown to continue, then would be spectacular incompetence. I find it hard to accept that they could be that inept but, if they did, contrary to previous reports, have their own drones up then one of them certainly could be the drone captured in the video.

 

[Tay]

I was at a funeral yesterday, unrelated to drones or Gatwick !!.

At the wake I was discussing quite a few topics with a family friend, her son was a Policeman that was part of the police presence at Gatwick over the week of the issues, he had said that no drones had been spotted by the police, despite a significant presence there.

They we're/are not in any possession (that he was aware of) of any photos or videos of the reported drones. Over 100 reports had been made, significantly less were thought to be of a credible or reliable nature.

He did stat that there had been numerous police drones in the area ready to follow drones 'home' or to intercept IF they were spotted.

He mentioned that some of the reports were after the police drones were in the air, and it was quite possible that some reports were of the police drones themselves, but it was not possible to confirm that.

Several drones had been recovered inside the airport perimeter fence, he said analysis was being undertaken to determine how long the drones had been there but the feeling was that these were not the drones they were looking for (apologies on the star wars pun!!), just saying how it was relayed to me.

So, clear as mud then. Although similar to what was reported yesterday.

My feeling is that around that time frame there may have been a credible terrorist threat made against the airport, the safest thing to do was to close it under the guise of drone sightings, less panic for passengers etc.

I doubt we'll ever really know, the fact that the govt really has not pushed the drone legislation side fo things suggests to me that existing laws and future laws for 2019 are adequate for our needs.

 

[FMR]

Whatever the conclusion Gatwick authorities and Police handled the fiasco shamefully.
3 days Airport held hostage over possible Drone sightings the 2nd largest Airport with authorities looking stupid **
Appears Anti Drone measures are disgracefully backward the States and even Australia have electronic pulse Drone Guns **