Air Force One Just Had A Near Miss With A Drone According To Reporter Onboard

originally posted by: lakenheath24
Ergo why its in the breaking news section, and i used the word ALLEGEDLY in the OP.

You did, and I don't have any problem with that.

But saying we have confirmation that several people saw is not true or, at least, confirmed by what information is available on this thread.

Several websites have asked Andrews for a comment.

As they should, that's the most obvious thing to do.

How do you know its not true? There is more than one window.

Anyway, I am waiting for further info. I just thought it interesting as a helicopter was shot in the same area last week.




a reply to: ArMaP

originally posted by: lakenheath24
Ummm yes. She is a second person confirming several people saw an alleged drone. Therefore it is no longer a single source.....firsthand knowledge. The other person merely noted how close it was to AF 1.



a reply to: ArMaP

The only thing confirmed is that she is saying that other people saw it.

First off, one person telling what other people said is hearsay. To confirm that those several others saw it, we need those several other to tell us they saw it.

Secondly, even if she confirms that the guy who tweeted actually said at the time that he saw something, that does not mean that he actually saw something. If I said I just saw Bigfoot run past my office window, and someone else in my office conforms that I said that, that's not the same as confirming that I actually saw Bigfoot run past my window, or if I saw something it was Bigfoot. It only conforms that I told someone that's what I saw.

It's quite possible that several others really did see it. I'm not necessarily doubting that. However, just because one person (Jennifer Jacobs) says there were other eyewitnesses who said the saw it, that is not a confirmation of fact.

Awww man, thanks for sorting me out! Please note the category this is posted in and the word alleged in the OP. Oh, and the post about awaiting respinse from Andrews.

a reply to: Box of Rain

originally posted by: lakenheath24
How do you know its not true? There is more than one window.

Did you stop reading at the word "true"? I specifically wrote: "... or, at least, confirmed by what information is available on this thread"

Anyway, I am waiting for further info. I just thought it interesting as a helicopter was shot in the same area last week.

As I said, no problems with the thread, my only problem is with the interpretation of what the article says.

originally posted by: lakenheath24
Awww man, thanks for sorting me out! Please note the category this is posted in and the word alleged in the OP. Oh, and the post about awaiting respinse from Andrews.

a reply to: Box of Rain

I mean, the story is out there. I would fully expect news outlets to ask Andrews for a comment.

Again, that is not a confirmation that several people saw it. Maybe they did; it's plausible. But just because someone states a plausible thing as fact does not automatically make it fact.

If a person is given a piece of information from another source (whether it be from the news, or on the internet, or in school), there is nothing wrong with accepting it at face value as being "general information to be considered." But before they accept it as fact they need to find a way to corroborate, authenticate, or verify it in some manner.

a reply to: lakenheath24

The category where this was posted doesn't mean we have to accept what someone says as being confirmation of what happened when what was said was not that.

Breaking news, as opposed to the regular news....means the story is fluid. Nobody has made an official statement or filed an official story.

Is that too simple to digest for people? This may be nothing, it may be something legit.

As stated, I am waiting for a follow up to see if this is legit or not.




a reply to: ArMaP

No kidding? Thanks for clarifying, except I havent claimed anything is true or false.

I am waiting to see is Andrews responds to multiple requests for comment.




a reply to: Box of Rain

They will probably use this as an excuse to go after people who fly drones including toy drones. Sooner or later the world will become like the one in Demolition man, with a side of idiocracy.

Ok...now this is kinda funny. Took me a second to realize it was satire.
Anyone know this website?


extranewsfeed.com...

originally posted by: lakenheath24
Breaking news, as opposed to the regular news....means the story is fluid. Nobody has made an official statement or filed an official story.

Is that too simple to digest for people? This may be nothing, it may be something legit.

I know what it means, that's why I said I don't have a problem with the thread.

originally posted by: lakenheath24
Thanks for clarifying, except I havent claimed anything is true or false.

You have, and that's the problem.

originally posted by: lakenheath24
She is a second person confirming several people saw an alleged drone. Therefore it is no longer a single source.....firsthand knowledge.

The above is not true.

originally posted by: acackohfcc
"drone" is a poor description here.
Was the "drone" a full size aircraft?
was it a battery operated quad copter?

Reporters and journalists certainly would not lie...

Call me crazy, but when something like this happens to AF One with POTUS onboard isn't that info generally locked down pretty hard by the AirForce? An absolutely NO it doesn't matter who POTUS is. It's just SOP until such time as it's investigated. Unless it involves National Security.

a reply to: ArMaP

It did help,thank you.


X-45C

The color of this Drone.

nworeport.me...

originally posted by: XL5
They will probably use this as an excuse to go after people who fly drones including toy drones. Sooner or later the world will become like the one in Demolition man, with a side of idiocracy.

I guess I'll go ahead and preemptively move into the sewers. Wait... I don't live in a stupid city. I'm golden.

Lol was the reporter Brian Williams? He has a history of close calls while riding in aircrafts 😂

The Pentagon is investigating the issue.



www.foxnews.com...

originally posted by: lakenheath24

"@realDonaldTrump just landed at Andrews on AF1. Shortly before, while descending, we flew right over a small object, remarkably close to the president’s plane. Resembled a drone though I’m no expert."

Air Force One Just Had A Near Miss With A Drone According To Reporter Onboard

"Remarkably close" doesn't mean much to me.

Some people might be surprised to learn that around airports, landing planes tend to be separated horizontally by at least 3 miles, however, the required vertical separation is only a tiny fraction of that, 1000 feet minimum, which is less than 0.2 miles! That might seem "remarkably close" to someone, yet still be a completely ordinary, commonplace occurrence, fully compliant with air traffic control rules. The tweet, while vague about many details, at least seems to be clear that it's the vertical separation the reporter thought was small, and required vertical separation is not really very much, at least 1000 feet doesn't seem like much to me.