Apparently they are now investigating the possibility that there were no drones in the first place.

They’ve found drone!

Not surprised that they’ve found at least one abandoned / broken drone in that whole area.

No we were in Brentford, so the between the overground, M4 & A4, Heathrow was just one of many sources of noise

Live right under the flight path. About 400 planes fly over the house each day. Was worried when we first moved but after a week I don’t really notice them. First take off is 06:45. Landing is at any time. I’m opposed to the third runway because I think there are better options, but can’t complain about the planes.

I rather like them actually. and teen 2 is training to be a pilot and starts work at LHR as a Security Officer next month. Can’t abide motorway noise though!

And how they can publish names and photos in National Media is beyond me. It’s disgraceful. I’m actually shocked.

Det Ch Supt Jason Tingley added there was “always a possibility that there may not have been any genuine drone activity in the first place”

If he’d read STW from the start he might have realised that some days ago.

Also I not sure how that fits with the “confirmed sighting” at 5:10 on Friday evening. It was dark so the confirmed sighting must have been from pros with some kind of electronics, rather than punters?

I’m still behind the Battle of Los Angeles theory.

The necessity criteria would be for a prompt and effective investigation.

They need to split them up to interview them and make sure they couldn’t collude between interviews. They also wanted to conduct a house search and have the option of asking questions about any relevant items found during that search. Arrest would also allow for forensic options to be kept open.

Thanks, I see the logic. I still think if they’re cooperating all of that could be achieved without arresting them, apart from the forensic options, whatever they are.

Still, I get the feeling you’re in the know, so looks like it was legit.

Det Ch Supt Jason Tingley added there was “always a possibility that there may not have been any genuine drone activity in the first place”

this was the sunday mail front page this morning

Maybe it’s about Megan and Kate on the inset above.

stupid women is quite topical 🙂

The MOS may find that headline costs them in the long run. The questionmark won’t help their case

They’ve found drone!

Source?

A damaged drone found close to the airport on Saturday was being forensically examined, he said.

sauce

My wild theory..

It’s all a cover for a terrorist threat where there was a bomb on a plane, but nobody knows which plane, so a quick way of grounding a load of flights without causing too much panic is to have a drone sighting.

(or maybe I’ve been watching too many films!)

It’s all a cover for a terrorist threat where there was a bomb on a plane, but nobody knows which plane, so a quick way of grounding a load of flights without causing too much panic is to have a drone sighting.

Are you kidding? The authorities would love an actual proper threat like that. Think of what they could get away with doing during the (even greater) media frenzy. Think of the new laws they could come up with to misuse at a later date.

I’ve been wondering all the way through if this isn’t just the equivalent of a hacker doing a DoS attack for the shitz ‘n’ giggles, with no agenda other than ****ing things up for a great many people with little chance of being caught.
It could also be a proof of concept for future terrorist attacks.

@rene I did say it was a wild theory! 😉

@BBCBreaking Birmingham Airport says it must “temporarily suspend services” following air traffic control fault https://t.co/YANiqsmP3s

Countzero – Something is afoot!

Stress testing for B-Day

Stress testing for Tues-Day . ftfy

If he’d read STW from the start he might have realised that some days ago.

Thank goodness the authorities don’t pay any attention to STW, or we would have had surface to air missiles and large bore ammunition being launched across South London…

Its aliens innit.
If you were travelling from another galaxy you are bound to just follow other flying objects and see where they are landing.

surface to air missiles and large bore ammunition being launched across South London

Now I’ve got a stiffie.

just follow other flying objects and see where they are landing.

Not Gatwick then.

surface to air missiles and large bore ammunition being launched across South London

Now I’ve got a stiffie.

Yep – I’m frankly failing to see the downside.

surface to air missiles and large bore ammunition being launched across South London

It’s nearly getting to that scale anyway.

I hate this trying to post images.

“Detective Chief Superintendent Jason Tingley added there was no available footage of the drones.”

“Asked about speculation there was never a drone, he said: “Of course, that’s a possibility. We are working with human beings saying they have seen something.
“Until we’ve got more clarity around what they’ve said, the detail – the time, place, direction of travel, all those types of things – and that’s a big task.”

23/12/2018 17:36 GMT
https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/possibility-there-was-no-drone-activity-detective-says_uk_5c1fc27fe4b0407e907c2cd7?utm_hp_ref=uk-homepage

I find this puzzling, they only had around 50 sightings of the drone (that we know of) presumably a fair number from airport staff.

If anyone reported a sighting, esp given the seriousness of the ongoing situation, would you not ask at the time of it being reported where and when it was seen and what it was doing?

If there are so very many individual reports that it becomes a “big task” to collate the information then either the area is teeming with droves of liars and fantasists or people actually saw something. I find the police statement really odd.

How many people saw an emergence of the drone some time that day? At least 50 reports were made, but thats not a huge list of info to deal with, especially as you would see the police as practiced at handling huge amounts of info during cases.

If for arguments sake 10 people saw every emergence that would be a max of 500 reports which would seem more to have to study and collate, but if 500 people said they saw one, why would you even doubt the drone/s existed?

but if 500 people said they saw one, why would you even doubt the drone/s existed?

Quite easily especially at night. Plenty of records of things which are almost certainly mass delusions.

Plenty of records of things which are almost certainly mass delusions.

“Brexit will be simple and we’ll all be richer afterwards” type of thing?

“Its beginning to feel a lot like Brexit…”

“Plenty of records of things which are almost certainly mass delusions.”

I can understand mass misinterpretation of something seen, of mistaking what you see, but not people seeing something that was never there at all.

It was not even a massed event, say a religious gathering for example, where a load of over excited people were all in the same location doing the same thing, promoting some kind of mass hysteria.

Reports must have come in from many locations and over a longish period.

I think they are back tracking / creating doubt and confusion to try and cover up a paid ransom or perhaps even as simple as trying to ‘downgrade’ the threat retrospectively, as the government is looking so bad over this event (no awareness of drone issues despite it being obvious, no planning, no military call in within a sensible time frame, possibility even the military were not adequately equipped etc).

There was no genuine threat at all, so the government were right not to pre-plan…

Authorities backtracking already…

Mon 24 Dec 2018 12.02 GMT
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/dec/24/suggestion-that-drone-did-not-exist-down-to-poor-communications

“Suggestions that there may never have been a drone at Gatwick Airport were down to “poor communications” rather than a genuine possibility that the incident was baseless, police have told the government.”

“However, following the call, a government source said police accepted that there had been a communications failure.”

“There were more than 200 drone sightings, and police had taken 67 statements, including from police officers and airport workers.”

“It is understood that the Cabinet Office minister, David Lidington, pressed for the Home Office and the Ministry of Defence to update their rapid deployment protocol for signing off requests for military assistance.

The police and the Home Office were said to be working together to amplify the message that flying drones near airports is illegal.”

Not sure that will make a big difference – is there anyone in the UK who does not already know its both illegal and a stupid thing to do?

Let’s hope the French don’t decide to invade us with an army of drones after Brexit. We’ll be defeated within a matter of days.

Does a drone have the range to get over the English Channel?

Not sure that will make a big difference – is there anyone in the UK who does not already know its both illegal and a stupid thing to do?

I would guess a good few million. A lot of people don’t have a clue about laws and even more people don’t know what things would be considered stupid things to do.

Do we need tougher laws to control the use of drones that were never there?

but not people seeing something that was never there at all.

Ever been out on a night ride with crap lights and stopped for a few mins and then got worried about that tree which has just morphed into something else?
In theory it should be low probability once they got proper observers out but given most reports seem to be at night I can easily believe after the initial story lots of people seeing planes at a distance/star/random light as a drone. Given they have now reversed ferreted on it who knows what the actual truth is. I guess it depends on whether the army really did manage to knock one out of the sky or not.
It does all seem a tad confused.

is there anyone in the UK who does not already know its both illegal and a stupid thing to do?

Almost certainly and before last week I would have said definitely. Now though the numbers will be lower but still not zero I reckon.

Should be in gatwick in 2 hours flying from Montpelier, will update if I see anything.

Midnighthour

If there are so very many individual reports that it becomes a “big task” to collate the information then either the area is teeming with droves of liars and fantasists or people actually saw something. I find the police statement really odd.

Remember Jean Charles de Menezes? Just about every variation of events that could possibly have happened was reported by witnesses and almost all of it was proved to be fantasy or lies. And remember it doesn’t have to be “nothing there”, it could something else there- people see the lights of a high level plane or even spot a satellite or similar, or a bird, and fill in the gaps.

It’s pretty much a given that a huge proportion of the sightings were either imagined or made up. All? It’s a stretch. Personally I reckon there’s genuine sightings at the start then mostly false positives.

Anyone who has spent any length of time at a busy airport will see hundreds of different flashing lights in the sky. Warning lights on cranes, electricity pylons, Tv masts , tall buildings etc, plus the lights on the planes themselves . Add in some car lights on / near the horizon and its easy to seee how people could be confused
Its the same as strobe lights on bikes, sometimes , if the pulse is slow , its difficult to guage an accurate distance . Not always , but sometimes. Moreso when there are other light sources in the area.
I am not saying this is what has happened , there may well have been a drone fly over , and then fly back. but the subsequent reports could all be false postives as outlined previuosly.

Then mass hysteria sets in , its like drone wars with dozens of drones whizzing about at high speed, except there aren’t any as its either bored chavs being moronic, people who are suddenly enjoying the new found love of quiet skies, or people genuinely mistaken who beleive they have seen something.
There is a solution , IFF or some sort of radar refelctive strip. In WW2 they dropped tin foil in budles to confuse enemy radar , and its still used today as ‘chaff’ but isnt foil, but micro fibres coated in radar reflective substance. If every drone had to carry, by a law an A5 sized reflector then i would image it would show up on ground control radar. Might need some work on size and shape , as obvs if its flat side on to the emitter the bounce will be negligable.
I am not a radar avioinics engineer ( but I do know one )

If every drone had to carry, by a law an A5 sized reflector then i would image it would show up on ground control radar

Yes, make it the law that people illegally flying drones near airports have to carry radar reflectors. While we’re at it we can have a law that says anyone robbing a bank has to leave their full name and address with the teller on the way out.