- 24,617
- Anoka, MN
So the possibility of human conspiracy cannot be excluded either.
Just have the motive be a couple guys wanting to get out work and you have a real life comedy movie!
So the possibility of human conspiracy cannot be excluded either.
"History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce."Just have the motive be a couple guys wanting to get out work and you have a real life comedy movie!
Not a good look, Danoff. Windshields and jet engines don't fare too well after getting hit with one of these.If it's the former, I say let the planes take off and land and just ignore it.
I've read that the entire airport - which is not overly large - was closely ringed by onlookers and reporters during the entire event, and that not one of them saw a drone. Apparently all, now 67, sightings were by airport employees and/or security. So if passengers, people around the perimeter and reporters were all looking for a drone and saw none, how does that square? Surely something doesn't add up here.We're told the "no drone" comments were a "miscommunication". BBC.
Police say they're examining a damaged drone found near the perimeter and that the Drone Dome system was used. They don't directly link the damaged drone to Drone Dome in any statement I can find but it's easy to presume that they're related.
I've read that the entire airport - which is not overly large - was closely ringed by onlookers and reporters during the entire event, and that not one of them saw a drone. Apparently all, now 67, sightings were by airport employees and/or security. So if passengers, people around the perimeter and reporters were all looking for a drone and saw none, how does that square? Surely something doesn't add up here.
Aliens.
If you say so. What do you know? I have seen a viewpoint expressed that the drone story was a cover for another equally serious but undisclosed security problem.Aliens.
If you say so. What do you know? I have seen a viewpoint expressed that the drone story was a cover for another equally serious but undisclosed security problem.
The Rand Corporation, in conjunction with the saucer people, under the supervision of the reverse vampires are forcing airport personnel to say they are seeing drones in a fiendish plot to eliminate the meal of dinner!
We're through the looking glass, people.
Humpf. With that many sightings from that many formal statements, where are the photos? Where are the videos? Where are the witnesses coming forth to the press? Until I see evidence, it's hard not to be skeptical that the whole affair isn't some kind of scam.Maybe, but there were 200 sightings with 67 formal statements taken. Not all those sightings (as I understand it) were from "airport personnel".
Is there any indication of any injuries they're supposed to have sustained?The arrested couple have made a statement saying they feel completely violated and are now receiving medical care.
Is there any indication of any injuries they're supposed to have sustained?
Nor have I and I'd assumed that much, but I considered the possibility you had information that I did not.I haven't seen specifics but it will likely be treatment for emotional trauma.
I mean...I don't think it's necessary to. What's been reported (and the nature of it having been reported, for crying out loud) is concerning as it is.Can you imagine if you added Police brutality to this story!
I mean...I don't think it's necessary to. What's been reported (and the nature of it having been reported, for crying out loud) is concerning as it is.
Did they find the perps?I'm glad they found the perps. I'm by no means a drone enthusiast but [censored plural adjective] like these give true enthusiasts a bad reputation.
I'm glad they found the perps.
Did they find the perps?
So you're confused by the fact people that were trained, employed and under instructions to spot a drone were more likely to see a drone than people that were not?I've read that the entire airport - which is not overly large - was closely ringed by onlookers and reporters during the entire event, and that not one of them saw a drone. Apparently all, now 67, sightings were by airport employees and/or security. So if passengers, people around the perimeter and reporters were all looking for a drone and saw none, how does that square? Surely something doesn't add up here.
So you're confused by the fact people that were trained, employed and under instructions to spot a drone were more likely to see a drone than people that were not?
I'm puzzled by a couple of things.So you're confused by the fact people that were trained, employed and under instructions to spot a drone were more likely to see a drone than people that were not?
I'm puzzled by a couple of things.
1) Dozens of employees and security types were ordered to see and report drones and so they did - AND at the same time even more people immediately outside the fence line were trying to see the same drones but couldn't. Not even one of them.
2) Not even one of the dozens of employees and security types who reported drones to their bosses have offered photos, videos or witness statements to the press.
Until I see the evidence, I am going to skeptically surmise that were no drones, but that the employees and security folks dutifully submitted reports exactly in accordance to their orders to do; they produced no photos or videos because there were no drones; out of embarrassment not one "witness" submitted himself or herself to the press. So until some shred of credible evidence comes forth, I call the whole thing a mummer's farce. Whatever motivated this strange play in two acts remains inscrutable for the moment.
Did they find the perps?
It seems you were right... man and woman arrested over drone incursion.
I thought they did according to the link in the post below but maybe I'm wrong.