Drones shut down airport

Palmpilot said:
In other words, we don't know what happened yet.
Click to expand...

And we probably won't unless someone has timestamped pictures of the alleged rogue drones.

And WTF was the local constabulary doing launching their drones for? "To engage." To engage WHAT and HOW?

Serious wet the bed stuff going on there...
 
Assuming those drones were unarmed, the only use I could think of would be to follow the rouge drone back to its landing point.
 
dans2992 said:
Assuming those drones were unarmed, the only use I could think of would be to follow the rouge drone back to its landing point.
Click to expand...

I would hope that they could crash into it to take it out : ) It's not like it would total either drone.
 
James331 said:
Zero evidence of a little drone, yet they literally called in the military as they stomped on the few rights their subjects have
Click to expand...

I assume there is *some* evidence - a claimed sighting, a phone call of a drone, something, even if in error. But they did go bat**** crazy on what seems to be a pretty thin "evidence".

And now every terrorist or environmental extremist knows how to shut down a major airport. Buy a 2nd hand drone and use it to disrupt operations.
 
James331 said:
To unnamed witnesses, but zero hard evidence of any drones...aside from the government drones
Click to expand...

Yeah. God knows. At some point they were claiming the drone(s) were "divebombing" the police, with lights flashing on the drone.

One would think that quick thinking police might have thought to record, smart phones, whatever in order to have more evidence when or if they captured the folk. Seems the folk they did arrest were innocent.

Then not even sure there we drones, then again later police saying there we, but not sure how often.
 
Well they put on a good show and probably successfully both scared / impressed some mouth breathers with the power of the crown.
 
When I was a kid I read a book called something like "hoaxes, etc. and the madness of crowds" and it was really interesting. They had the radio broadcast of war of the worlds I think, but what stuck more was someone called the "mad gasser" in some sleepy little Illinois town. A panic spread about a mad gasser that was up to no good, and suddenly everyone was reporting attacks or attempted ones. Turned out to be nothing but the crowd dynamic and fear made everyone hypnotized in a way...authorities were not exempt.

Who knows what happened at gatwick? Apparently nobody.
 
Last edited:
James331 said:
Zero evidence of a little drone, yet they literally called in the military as they stomped on the few rights their subjects have
Click to expand...
You said there were two witnesses. Any particular reason why you're discounting those?

I'm not taking a position on whether the response was appropriate, other than the arrests they made didn't seem to be based on much.
 
Last edited:
Palmpilot said:
You said there were two witnesses. Any particular reason why you're discounting those?

I'm not taking a position on whether the response was appropriate, other than the arrests they made didn't seem to be based on much.
Click to expand...

Confidential witnesses, with zero other proof, plus the reaction of the crown, just smells IMO
 
Palmpilot said:
You said there were two witnesses. Any particular reason why you're discounting those?
Click to expand...

It would be very interesting to get the official versions of the sightings from those witnesses. Witnesses are notoriously unreliable and it is easy for one person who (possibly mistakenly) sees something to convince the guy/gal/spouse standing adjacent that s/he saw it too.
 
James331 said:
Confidential witnesses, with zero other proof, plus the reaction of the crown, just smells IMO
Click to expand...
Press reports are not where I expect to see proof. The reality is that we don't know what happened.
 
kyleb said:
It would be very interesting to get the official versions of the sightings from those witnesses. Witnesses are notoriously unreliable and it is easy for one person who (possibly mistakenly) sees something to convince the guy/gal/spouse standing adjacent that s/he saw it too.
Click to expand...
I agree, but that's not a reason to say that we know what happened; it's a reason to say that we DON'T know what happened.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top