Gatwick closed by drones

[98elise]

Efbe said:

Oakey said:

If you watch that video at 2m 47s you see how the guy filming the drone struggles to focus on it despite it still being relatively close, and that's taken on a Canon Powershot, not a phone camera.

Whilst it's true this is not a phone camera, that camera is a cheap one, and also Gatwick had the worlds media camping out there for 1 1/2 days with the best telescopic lenses money can buy, being operated by professionals who were there hoping to make huge amounts of money by capturing a picture of this drone. The same drone that was supposed to be circling gatwick for all of this period (I do understand not continuously)

In addition with thousands upon thousands of people going through the airport all the time, the drone has to go in and out of there.

In addition to that, all the drones I know of have lights on, so extremely visible at night. You could probably turn them off, but if your goal is to disrupt gatwick, then why do this?

I really do think it's inconceivable that a drone was flown around gatwick over a 30+ hour period with many people on site and not one person, professional, or amateur was able to capture it at all.
Then a drone flies over parliament and a photo is captured straight away and posted online.
or one spotted here: https://myeverettnews.com/2018/08/11/unauthorized-...
or here: https://petapixel.com/2017/12/16/mans-photo-shows-...
or here: https://abc7ny.com/news/drone-spotted-flying-over-...
or here: https://www.irishtimes.com/sport/racing/drone-spot...

you get the picture...

Where are the pictures of the police drone flown at the time?

[fatboy18]

Was there ever an update on the poor couple who were arrested.
Did they get any compensation for their names being plastered all over the media

[98elise]

fatboy18 said:

Was there ever an update on the poor couple who were arrested.
Did they get any compensation for their names being plastered all over the media

Compensation from the police or the papers?

[swisstoni]

98elise said:

fatboy18 said:

Was there ever an update on the poor couple who were arrested.
Did they get any compensation for their names being plastered all over the media

Compensation from the police or the papers?

Either.

[Fittster]

djc206 said:

Fittster said:

How many people live near Gatwick? Most of who own phones.

Then you have the media interest in the story drawing the press/public to the area hoping to be the one that captures a photo of a drone. A yet no one got a picture of anything.

The lack of evidence seems startling to me.

Did the military equipment deployed detected anything or is it secret?

Edited by Fittster on Saturday 23 February 10:21

There’s not a lack of evidence unless the only evidence you consider valid is photographic.

Is the evidence purely eyewitness accounts?

[Greendubber]

Fittster said:

djc206 said:

Fittster said:

How many people live near Gatwick? Most of who own phones.

Then you have the media interest in the story drawing the press/public to the area hoping to be the one that captures a photo of a drone. A yet no one got a picture of anything.

The lack of evidence seems startling to me.

Did the military equipment deployed detected anything or is it secret?

Edited by Fittster on Saturday 23 February 10:21

There’s not a lack of evidence unless the only evidence you consider valid is photographic.

Is the evidence purely eyewitness accounts?

That's what evidence is a lot of the time.

[djc206]

Fittster said:

Is the evidence purely eyewitness accounts?

I’m not party to the investigation so can’t be sure but I think so yes.

Eye witness testimony is enough to secure convictions for other offences so I don’t feel it can be disregarded as easily as some on here would like just because of the absence of photographic evidence.

[pincher]

Indeed.

“You say you saw the defendant fatally stabbing the deceased?”

“Yes, that’s correct”

“Did you take a photo of it happening?”

“No, I didn’t”

“Then there was no murder!”

[Shakermaker]

Efbe said:

Oakey said:

If you watch that video at 2m 47s you see how the guy filming the drone struggles to focus on it despite it still being relatively close, and that's taken on a Canon Powershot, not a phone camera.

Whilst it's true this is not a phone camera, that camera is a cheap one, and also Gatwick had the worlds media camping out there for 1 1/2 days with the best telescopic lenses money can buy, being operated by professionals who were there hoping to make huge amounts of money by capturing a picture of this drone. The same drone that was supposed to be circling gatwick for all of this period (I do understand not continuously)

In addition with thousands upon thousands of people going through the airport all the time, the drone has to go in and out of there.

In addition to that, all the drones I know of have lights on, so extremely visible at night. You could probably turn them off, but if your goal is to disrupt gatwick, then why do this?

I really do think it's inconceivable that a drone was flown around gatwick over a 30+ hour period with many people on site and not one person, professional, or amateur was able to capture it at all.
Then a drone flies over parliament and a photo is captured straight away and posted online.
or one spotted here: https://myeverettnews.com/2018/08/11/unauthorized-...
or here: https://petapixel.com/2017/12/16/mans-photo-shows-...
or here: https://abc7ny.com/news/drone-spotted-flying-over-...
or here: https://www.irishtimes.com/sport/racing/drone-spot...

you get the picture...

But if you actually go to Gatwick, the terminals are not actually that close to the runway where you can get a decent photo of much going on. There's no public viewing area any more. Maybe if you had a room at the Bloc hotel, or access to the office block in the South terminal you'd get a bit of a better view but of course those aren't so accessible.

The perimeter roads, some of them are better than others. There aren't a lot of places for plane spotters to park up and watch these days. One end is all the A23, you can't stop there. The other side, along Charlwood Road, lots of double yellow lines and they've put up barriers to stop people parking up on the verge to watch and in some of the old laybys. Some space does still exist outside Maple Manor hotel when it isn't full of overnight guests/"valet parking" cars.. but then the actual view of the runway is restricted by the trees.

Otherwise your onto the actual airport property roads. I don't know what restrictions apply but I can't imagine they'd be too happy about ITV News parking up round there and filming

[Cold]

djc206 said:

Fittster said:

Is the evidence purely eyewitness accounts?

I’m not party to the investigation so can’t be sure but I think so yes.

Eye witness testimony is enough to secure convictions for other offences so I don’t feel it can be disregarded as easily as some on here would like just because of the absence of photographic evidence.

But eyewitnesses often produce inaccurate evidence. For instance, sometimes they can be certain that they spotted a drone. However, if they can't differentiate between a nuisance drone and, say, a police drone then their testimony isn't a lot of help.

[djc206]

Cold said:

But eyewitnesses often produce inaccurate evidence. For instance, sometimes they can be certain that they spotted a drone. However, if they can't differentiate between a nuisance drone and, say, a police drone then their testimony isn't a lot of help.

Indeed they can, 90+ credible witnesses would seem quite convincing to me though.

Either way there was a drone and no one got a photo of it. So the lack of photographic evidence is a red herring.

[Cold]

djc206 said:

Indeed they can, 90+ credible witnesses would seem quite convincing to me though.

Either way there was a drone and no one got a photo of it. So the lack of photographic evidence is a red herring.

90+ credible witnesses? Or 90+ people seeing something flown by the police and not knowing the difference?
And 90+ people not pointing their phone at something that grabbed their attention enough to report it.

[anonymous-user]

If there are no photos of the police drone, does that mean it didn't exist?

[djc206]

Cold said:

djc206 said:

Indeed they can, 90+ credible witnesses would seem quite convincing to me though.

Either way there was a drone and no one got a photo of it. So the lack of photographic evidence is a red herring.

90+ credible witnesses? Or 90+ people seeing something flown by the police and not knowing the difference?
And 90+ people not pointing their phone at something that grabbed their attention enough to report it.

I’m referring only to previous comments about there not being any evidence of a drone based on the absence of photographic evidence. We know for a fact there was a drone (police) and yet no one apparently managed to snap that which makes the lack of photo of a rogue drone largely irrelevant I would suggest.

I believe the police cross referenced the reports with when their drone was up? I may be wrong on that. I’m also under the impression that the police drone was only used some time into the closure by which time there had already been many credible reports of a drone from reliable sources.

I personally believe there was at least one being operated maliciously. I have no reason to doubt the controllers, pilots and police at Gatwick’s testimony. I certainly find the lack of photographic evidence to be a red herring for the reasons explained above.

One drone in a 1670 acre site. Not hard to see why people might catch a glimpse but not get a photo. I’m happy to proven wrong but this obsession with photo/video evidence I find odd.

[Greendubber]

La Liga said:

If there are no photos of the police drone, does that mean it didn't exist?

Going by the logic on this thread, yes.....

[Dr Interceptor]

I saw (one of?) the police drone(s), we were flying from gate number 4 which is close to the perimeter road, and it was in that area. We also saw the operator/vehicle.

I din't take a photo, it was 300 yards away at a guess, and I doubt my iPhone X would have picked it out at that distance. Plus it really wasn't photo-worthy.

[Cold]

Greendubber said:

La Liga said:

If there are no photos of the police drone, does that mean it didn't exist?

Going by the logic on this thread, yes.....

Depends. Is there any other evidence that it exists? We're not including a crashed Fire Brigade drone. Nor are we including lots of people saying "I seen it guv". And it's probably best not to arrest anyone from the Ambulance Service who have their own drone.

Something a little more tangible would do.

[FiF]

Jesus, still discussing Schrodinger's drone?

[B'stard Child]

FiF said:

Jesus, still discussing Schrodinger's drone?

well it fills a bit of time

[DrDeAtH]

Its all a massive red herring. It was a bomb scare..

In order to not worry the public, a drone was invented...