Timeline of Gatwick UFO Sightings

a reply to: Assemble

The footage took place in 2004, but there was a large piece run on it in 2015, which must be what the youtube video is referring to.

The youtube video says it was on the east coast.

I see you struggled to provide an description what it looks like - you didn't provide one, this will be the same problem that Gatwick spotters had too.

Not really. It looked like a dot. Not a drone.

The police helicopter couldn't keep up with it,

Missed that part. Can you be more specific? "Taunting" doesn't mean it outflew a helicopter. It means it would land, then takeoff. No witness reports of the drones moving at extreme velocities?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Assemble

The footage took place in 2004, but there was a large piece run on it in 2015, which must be what the youtube video is referring to.

The youtube video says it was on the east coast.

I see you struggled to provide an description what it looks like - you didn't provide one, this will be the same problem that Gatwick spotters had too.

Not really. It looked like a dot. Not a drone.

The police helicopter couldn't keep up with it,

Missed that part. Can you be more specific? "Taunting" doesn't mean it outflew a helicopter. It means it would land, then takeoff. No witness reports of the drones moving at extreme velocities?

Well if there's more of them even better.

How do you explain why it alluded the police helicopter? Either you think it wasn't there and all the witnesses were wrong - which the police have confirmed is definitely not the case, or it's a weather balloon.

Can you tell me what you think it is? I don't want to keep batting backwards and forwards unless it's for something worthwhile. I'm a newcomer to UFO stuff, but I don't know if you know loads, or maybe as much or even less than me.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Assemble

The footage took place in 2004, but there was a large piece run on it in 2015, which must be what the youtube video is referring to.

The youtube video says it was on the east coast.

I see you struggled to provide an description what it looks like - you didn't provide one, this will be the same problem that Gatwick spotters had too.

Not really. It looked like a dot. Not a drone.

The police helicopter couldn't keep up with it,

Missed that part. Can you be more specific? "Taunting" doesn't mean it outflew a helicopter. It means it would land, then takeoff. No witness reports of the drones moving at extreme velocities?

Well if there's more of them even better.

How do you explain why it alluded the police helicopter? Either you think it wasn't there and all the witnesses were wrong - which the police have confirmed is definitely not the case, or it's a weather balloon.

Can you tell me what you think it is? I don't want to keep batting backwards and forwards unless it's for something worthwhile. I'm a newcomer to UFO stuff, but I don't know if you know loads, or maybe as much or even less than me.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Assemble

The footage took place in 2004, but there was a large piece run on it in 2015, which must be what the youtube video is referring to.

The youtube video says it was on the east coast.

I see you struggled to provide an description what it looks like - you didn't provide one, this will be the same problem that Gatwick spotters had too.

Not really. It looked like a dot. Not a drone.

The police helicopter couldn't keep up with it,

Missed that part. Can you be more specific? "Taunting" doesn't mean it outflew a helicopter. It means it would land, then takeoff. No witness reports of the drones moving at extreme velocities?

Well if there's more of them even better.

How do you explain why it alluded the police helicopter? Either you think it wasn't there and all the witnesses were wrong - which the police have confirmed is definitely not the case, or it's a weather balloon, because they could not catch it. Nor could a police drone (the police confirmed they also released their drone to try to track and capture the at least 2 UAV's at Gatwick)

Can you tell me what you think it is? I don't want to keep batting backwards and forwards unless it's for something worthwhile. I'm a newcomer to UFO stuff, but I don't know if you know loads, or maybe just as much or even less than me. I'm going for less than me since you are only taking the critical approach (as it's much easier to criticize than create).

What do you think it is?

a reply to: Assemble

How do you explain why it alluded the police helicopter?

The operator would land it when the police helicopter was in sight.

Can you tell me what you think it is?

I think it (they?) were commercially available quadcopters. As described by the witnesses you cite.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Assemble

How do you explain why it alluded the police helicopter?

The operator would land it when the police helicopter was in sight.

Can you tell me what you think it is?

I think it (they?) were commercially available quadcopters.

If the operator would just land it, do you think that the helicopter could not track where it landed and film the operator? Police helicopters are used to track people on the ground, so if it's not able to track a person on the ground, then what you say about an operator just landing it doesn't make sense to me. Supposing the operator didn't land it next to themself, how could the police helicopter not film still film it landing? How then did the drone manage to stay airborne for potentially hours when the most advanced commercially available drone has something like 35 minutes battery time? See these are things i've considered and I can't see how the drone/operator thing adds up at all.

Do you have any evidence to support that it's a commercially available quadcopter? You mention 'witnesses', again, the witnesses just describe it as 'drone' - actually we don't know how they described it, or what word or words they used, because we haven't seen their statements, we just know that the authorities are calling it drone. This is why I have referred us to the aviation definition of drone which does not mean one that's bought from a shop. Does this make sense to you?

a reply to: Assemble

If the operator would just land it, do you think that the helicopter could not track where it landed and film the operator?

I don't know about you, but I can see a helicopter a good distance away. A drone, being much smaller, is not visible at the same distance. In other words, the drone would land before those in the helicopter spotted it.

How then did the drone manage to stay airborne for potentially hours when the most advanced commercially available drone has something like 35 minutes battery time?

I don't think the drones were airborne for hours.

Do you have any evidence to support that it's a commercially available quadcopter?

The statement of the first witness you quoted.

Good job putting this all together. S&F

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Assemble

If the operator would just land it, do you think that the helicopter could not track where it landed and film the operator?

I don't know about you, but I can see a helicopter a good distance away. A drone, being much smaller, is not visible at the same distance. In other words, the drone would land before those in the helicopter could see it.

How then did the drone manage to stay airborne for potentially hours when the most advanced commercially available drone has something like 35 minutes battery time?

I don't think the drones were airborne for hours.

Do you have any evidence to support that it's a commercially available quadcopter?

The statement of the first witness you quoted.

Police helicopters have cameras on them specifically for filming from distances, so for the drone pilot to land it, it would have to be the case that the police helicopter never have seen it all.

You might not think the drones were airborne for hours, but www.bbc.co.uk... suggests they have been modified for extended battery life. So the problem is that if it was not modified, then the operator would have to replace the batteries to keep it going as the sightings lasted for 10 hours. So if this happened, then the drone operator would have been easily apprehended by the police helicopter, or just by people driving to where it landed.

The airport security officer did describe it as cross shaped, whether that indicates it's a commercial drone or not, remains to be seen.

The only thing I think could explain it is that the drone was operated by a pilot who remained mobile, but, I think that's been considered already by the police. I'll have to look into that.

a reply to: Phage

I think the OP is trying to say that the drones over Gatwick were UFO's similar to that from the Hornet video mate, for example, some UFO's have been reported as being as small as baseballs, and possibly to your everyday person they would just think drone.

Would make the story more interesting as this would be one of the first cases in Ufology where drones and actual UFO's have been connected together. And playing devil's advocate here, I do find it strange that since the story broke, the culprits of the alleged drones were never apprehended, if they wanted to catch them so bad what with helicopters and vehicles and stuff, then I don't understand how they didn't catch them.

Additionally, I haven't read any witness accounts from Gatwick regarding exceptional maneuvers, so maybe it was just drones, or maybe we'll just never know

a reply to: Zcustosmorum

Thank you. I'm new to all this UFO stuff (try a week lol), so it's good to see someone being able to see the same connections that I am

But the conversations on the thread are helping me research this more, so I'm totally grateful for all and any contributions.

a reply to: Assemble



It's not rocket science.

a reply to: andy06shake

lol, I KNEW it was her!

a reply to: Phage

I have taken pictures of drones and airplanes. Now, if I was a police or security officer working at an airport and saw something flying in restricted airspace, I'd definitely photograph it.

a reply to: Phage

Police helicopters have sophisticated equipment and experienced personnel to find and track targets. But somehow they were easily fooled every time just by the operator landing the drone? Not likely.

a reply to: Sublant

Well if the ""Police"" flying them are as inept at there job as the ones tackling crime on our streets, i can easily see them being fooled.

Ion lithium battery powered drones don't exactly return that much of heat or visual signature from any kind of distance, just a thought.

a reply to: Sublant

Police helicopters have sophisticated equipment and experienced personnel to find and track targets.

Air to air? Something the size of a drone? What sort of equipment?

a reply to: Phage

FLIR and hires surveillance cameras are a pretty standard affair for Police helicopters, so those i imagine.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Sublant

Police helicopters have sophisticated equipment and experienced personnel to find and track targets.

Air to air? Something the size of a drone? What sort of equipment?

Here is a drone being filmed from Police Helicopter.

www.cambridge-news.co.uk...

a reply to: alldaylong

Cool. Quite close range.

Pretty stupid to fly in front of a police helicopter. Apparently the Gatwick culprit(s) were a bit more clever about it.