|
Post by Garf on Jul 26, 2015 14:07:54 GMT -7
|
|
|
Post by Grug - American Neanderthal on Jul 26, 2015 20:28:26 GMT -7
Well that sounds a lot like reality TV, which is to be avoided upon pain of death.
|
|
|
Post by HiTemp on Jul 28, 2015 8:50:22 GMT -7
A completely different kind of combat: drone with camera versus naked British naturalists (I guess that's the PC word for nudists) Nude sunbathers up in armsWhat's amazing to me is how this group asserts rights out of nowhere, that no craft may fly in "their airspace" without certain credentials, registration, identification, and approval of its purpose being there. If that can be asserted for a privately owned beach, then doesn't every land owner have such rights? If that's the case, Delta Airlines owes me a butt ton of cash. So does Life Flight. And to think England was once a civilized nation!
|
|
|
Post by Grug - American Neanderthal on Jul 28, 2015 10:31:26 GMT -7
I have never got that, they are naked in public so everyone can see, then get offended when people look.
|
|
|
Post by HiTemp on Jul 28, 2015 13:28:34 GMT -7
I suspect what they have tried to do is procure a little piece of "public" and turn it into "private," that way they can enjoy something that would otherwise only be attainable in public yet enjoy it in a setting that's at least somewhat private. Perhaps this is why this particular group got together and purchased that section of beach; they had every intention of cordoning off their own little piece of public. By using signage and dunes, they keep the casual peeper at bay and thus remain in at least a semi-private setting. But now comes a different peeper... one that flies out of reach, flies fast enough to avoid capture, and is digitally recording everything. The person probably most bothered by this is the peeper who has already been filming them for months through the periscope cam of his RC Submarine. Now some weenie comes along buzzing them with a drone causing them to rethink their entire OPSEC and possibly blowing his covert peeper missions. Now the naturalists will be down on the waterline dumping Menthos tablets into Coca-Cola bottles and tossing them into the sea like depth charges! I see opportunity here. What this nudist group needs is a few full-time RC fliers that could come to the beach and fly CAP over their area of concern and enforce a sort of "No-Fly" zone for drones. Got any anphib experience, Honcho?
|
|
|
Post by Grug - American Neanderthal on Jul 28, 2015 17:12:42 GMT -7
heheh, no but but for the right nude beach, I could learn.
|
|
|
Post by HiTemp on Jul 29, 2015 16:23:10 GMT -7
A Kentucky homeowner apparently decided that his airspace was his own too. Story HereSeems the drone's owner claims he was simply overflying the guy's yard en-route to taking some aerial pictures of a friend's home. The shooter, however, claims the drone did not simply overfly his property but instead went into a hover then dropped down to some lower altitude estimated to be 10 feet or so, and continue hovering. That's when he decided to go inside and get his shotgun and down the offending drone. Shooter arrested for firing a weapon in a residential setting. In FL, it's legal to shoot on your own property so long as the projectile does not leave the confines of your property. Shooting a shotgun at a drone ten feet in the air isn't going to cut it unless you own one helluva sized yard, which he does not. The drone owner is whining about damages to his $1800 drone and says he may sue. I want to hear his reasoning for hovering over a stranger's property with his camera aimed at the back patio and NOT anticipating possible damage to his aircraft being that it was out of his visible sight at that time and looking to all the world like it was conducting unwanted surveillance. Next time, use a good stout rake, pull the SD card, then sell the rest of it on E-Bay at a greatly discounted price since there is no transmitter. If it happened to me, that drone would be inside my burn barrel melting into drone oblivion before the cops even arrived.
|
|
|
Post by Grug - American Neanderthal on Jul 29, 2015 17:01:14 GMT -7
Its tresspass. Free airspace is not near ground level like that. Good luck getting anything back from it.
He could have just used the yard pof where he was going to fly to launch from, but got fancy and paid the price, or was simply snooping.
|
|
|
Post by HiTemp on Jul 30, 2015 6:49:22 GMT -7
According to what was reported the drone flew into low hover in 3 other yards as well. We (some neighbors and I) were talking about this in my driveway last night. The voting seemed to go in favor of not a problem if it was well above the house and just transiting A to B, but any kind of hovering or low flight means its purpose is both unknown and suspicious. Anyone dumb enough to do that deserves to get a handful of plastic splinters (minus the camera and SD card) handed back to them if they get anything at all. They'd rather not have them overhead at all but would view a transit overflight as no big deal. I don't think I'd mind it much either though I'd rather they didn't fly over the house.
My feeling on low hovers, as I stated above, is the SD card comes out and everything else goes into a roaring fire. If they want the ashes I'll give them a couple spoonfuls so they can have a drone memorial but no way would there be anything left of it for authorities to find. Far as I was concerned we aren't all that far from the Bermuda Triangle and this sort of thing has happened before... aircraft in flight then suddenly disappears.
It just mind boggling how stupid people can be trying to fly these things into backyards and patios thinking there won't be any consequences. Then they wanna cry victim??? Pfffftttt!
I found the perfect low-drone swatter btw last night out in my shop. A ten foot length of 1.5" PVC pipe. Long enough to reach, light enough to swing, and flexible enough to land with enough wallop to permanently damage a drone if it didn't cut it in half. Might even be fun to samurai just one prop off of it and let the idiot flying it try to keep it in the air long enough for it to hit the house. Then I might consider keeping it around for evidence.
|
|
|
Post by Grug - American Neanderthal on Jul 30, 2015 19:52:58 GMT -7
I watched a video of drone" fails" most were ones that either lost a prop from hitting something or the fight control computer failed, and almost always sent it into a 15g spin and plummet to earth. I imagine a long PVC swatter would work nice, and not even have to make much effort.
|
|
|
Post by HiTemp on Jul 31, 2015 7:50:55 GMT -7
A second length of pipe, 4 - 45° fittings, a couple short pieces of shelf liner, a 4" long bolt, and we have the makings of Drone Forceps. Get one of those Aussie-sounding pitchmen to make an infomercial where they pluck a drone out of the sky while a narrator says "Worried about drones stealing your privacy? Concerned that some remote control peeping Tom thinks it's okay to film your family through your windows? Put an end to it right now with Drone Forceps, the easy solution to your privacy invasions. The patented rubber grips let you grip the drone and hold it firmly in place even when its unseen owner tries a full-throttle escape. Drone Forceps can also be used to swat a moving drone out of your backyard airspace. The instructions include tips on how to resell the drone and camera equipment on auction sites. Two easy payments of $19.95 and if you act now, you'll receive a second set free, just pay the shipping ($19.95) Course there's always the can of hair spray and Bic lighter thing for close-hovering situations. And if cash is not an issue, you could always do some shopping here
|
|
|
Post by Grug - American Neanderthal on Jul 31, 2015 10:30:11 GMT -7
Heh, I bet that Michigan dentist wishes he had about now.
|
|
|
Post by HiTemp on Jul 31, 2015 14:07:06 GMT -7
Apart from the rabid anti-hunters looking to crucify the dentist, and Piers Morgan tweeting that he'd like to stuff and mount the dentist's head in his den, I think most people are overlooking the fact that what the dentist did (or tried to do) is perfectly legal. He hired not one but TWO guides whom he relied on to know the local areas and restrictions and steer him clear of running afoul of the law. Same exact thing happened to our former county Sheriff and some pals who went on a hunt in Montana. The hired a guide who by all appearances seemed legit, had a good history of hunts, good rep, etc. Little did they know the guy let all his permits lapse and was essentially operating on his own outside the law - but how could they know that? They went on the hunt and when another client of the guide got in trouble someone local heard about it and bounced the date (the permits lapsed) against the date of the Sheriff's hunting trip and voila! we have a local scandal. As I recall the Sheriff and his pals were given a small fine for their participation, but it wasn't much of anything. It was essentially like hunting with an invalid out-of-state license or something like that. With the guy's creds lapsed, he wasn't eligible to issue any and I guess that was the violation. The locals here who didn't like the Sheriff made it seem like he robbed a national bank to suit their own political ends but most people saw that they paid good money to an experienced guy to keep them legal and he simply failed them.
That's what I think went on here. The dentist wasn't trying to poach rhino horns, he was trying to participate in a rare but legal hunting opportunity. He paid good money, thought he was operating well within the law but the guys he hired were asshats and let him to land belonging to a national park where he whacked the lion. That would be like some African dude wanting to come to America and experience open carry of firearms and instead of leading him to Arizona or Georgia, he's led to NY City. Who really bears the blame here, the guy who tried to do it right or the idiot who set him up?
|
|
|
Post by Grug - American Neanderthal on Aug 1, 2015 8:20:01 GMT -7
I don't know what is legal exactly in Zimbabwe, and I agree this has become some sort of crime against humanity kind of thing the way people act. However some things kind of stick out to me. For starters, I have never really liked the idea of trophy hunting, and to some extent baiting (though in predator hunting you almost have to). He went after a big cat with a cross bow, which in itself is not wrong, but when you go after a big predator, you make sure you kill and not wound, which means you better have back up with that kind of weapon which they obviously didn't. Second, if close enough to shoot with a crossbow, you would think you would see the radio collar the lion wore, and if not you probably don't have a good angle for a kill shot. The guy either seriously screwed up or ignored some pretty significant red flags. The guides were sketchy, hunting next to a preserve, in a foreign country, and you take on faith things being told to you with out even doing minimal research? He is the one who shot the lion, its he who is going to be responsible for that.
|
|
|
Post by HiTemp on Aug 1, 2015 21:59:13 GMT -7
I have to say I agree with you on the trophy hunting thing. I always picture some pasty-looking old British gent with a monacle trekking through Africa with his pith helmet on, just stepped out of a Range Rover or helicopter while 20 or 30 locals have spent hours humping boxes full of his crap through the jungle to the hunting ground. He shows up, they have the animal cornered, someone cocks a rifle and hands it to him and he shoots the beast then leaves. Big hunter! I understand hunting from the aspect of food, population control for the health of a species, and pest eradication. Outside of those I really don't support it. I used to hunt duck a lot when I was younger and I didn't leave 'em out there injured. They all ended up on a plate.
I too have to question the idea of trying to take a thousand pounds of cat with a crossbow. Really any arrow firing device. Tribal hunting done with spears by folks pretty damned good with one usually take twenty or more wounds just to take the fight out the lion. I'm not sure what some guy with a crossbow expected to do. One thing is clear, though - they were not at all prepared to put the cat down once it was mortally wounded and all the other hunting rules aside, they ought to be jackslapped for that alone. And I put that squarely on the hunter as he ought to have a firm grasp on what's the procedure before ever going out in the bush. If he wasn't carrying a rifle for that purpose, it's on him to make sure someone else does.
I don't know about the radio collar thing. The mane on a cat that big could easily conceal it even from a great shooting angle. Likely it was not in broad daylight because these big cats don't go out during the day like that, it's too hot. They're active mostly around dusk and early morning unless they are desperate for food or water or defending their turf. So likely it wasn't real clear. Another factor is he probably didn't have gobs of time as these cats generally don't attack and eat, they take it to go. Now live kills on the plains they'll eat right there, but coming up on some bait they aren't going to stick around and it's likely the guides told him that. I also have to figure he's firing an arrow knowing if he doesn't hit something vital there's a good chance he's getting a faceful of big cat, so I bet the adrenaline pumps were going full tilt boogey. Last thing on his mind is does it have a radio collar?
I'm not so sure he didn't research the guides. Like in my example with our former Sheriff, these cops DID research both firms they hired for the hunt and both came back with high marks and good testimonials. Who really knows why one of them went sour, maybe money problems or whatever, but unless they show up demanding a full accounting how would they know? No one is going to arrive and do that; they checked him out, he passed, he's good to go. I suspect that's why their fine was so small it probably cost more to process the check than the face value of it.
If these lion hunters weren't hunting ON the preserve there really isn't anything to say other than the guides are slimeballs but legal slimeballs. I don't know if I were to make such a trip that I'd be walking through brush known to contain lions and be thinking about how far am I from the preserve? I think I'd be trusting the guides to know and I'd be on full-time cat alert. Course then again, I'd never attempt to use a crossbow on a beast the size and strength of a lion. Like trying to kill a grizzly with a nightstick IMHO. Better have your insurance paid up to date.
Not to echo Limbaugh's latest rant but I fell the same way he does; why the big fuss over a freakin' LION in another continent while we have Planned Parenthood murdering babies for spare parts and no one seems the least bit upset. Maybe the dentist needs to stop talking about hunting the lion and start saying he was merely aborting him very late. Big city homicide rate is through the roof and folks don't seem to care, but kill one big cat in Africa... GEEZE!!!!!
|
|
|
Post by Grug - American Neanderthal on Aug 2, 2015 6:18:20 GMT -7
Oh there is plenty to give benefit of doubt over, and plenty that went wrong we can condemn. I just know for being around guided elk hunts the mentality some bring with them, and its not in anyway sporting. I don't know this guy or his attitude, but its hard not to cut corners after pending all that money and traveling all that way to make sure you get your trophy.
But you are right, in the big picture people care more about a cat then they do even full grown people on their knees having their heads sawed off much less slaughtering children as they are born. And while I have heard people say we can care for more than one thing at a time, where is that concern and outrage at?
|
|
|
Post by zrct02 on Aug 3, 2015 5:35:32 GMT -7
I just think about the amount of coverage about the lion vs Kathryn Steinle. Then there is the 'brave' Caitlyn Jenner coverage which is even more absurd. The coverage amount should be Kathryn Steinle, lion, practically anything else, Caitlyn Jenner.
|
|
|
Post by HiTemp on Aug 3, 2015 10:02:22 GMT -7
As we can already see with many of the major print newspapers, we're not the only ones disappointed in the media's decisions as to what to cover and how they cover it. Part of the problem is they do not or will not accept the idea that their biased coverage and elevation of idiotic events to headline news is part of what is ruining their businesses. We've seen them all punked by false stories because they were too lazy to check them out. The UV rape case with Rolling Stone magazine comes to mind. Run a ruinous story against an entire university because of ONE unidentified witness, even when the reporter can't find any supporting evidence. It's not the truth that matters but their preconceived notions that whatever facts they gather MUST fit into or they are rejected outright. Nobody cares about Jenner except the media who want to use the situation as a way to shape opinion and sell advertising. I can only vote with my money (subscriptions) and elections of what to watch on TV or the internet. By avoiding those pages or shows that carry these stories it effects how many beans are counted in terms of viewers and thereby ratings and advertising. MSNBC is in the tank and has been, but they refuse to alter the very model that puts them there. Funny it's nearly the same model as Air America radio used, yet they want to continue doing the same thing while expecting different results. I think someone once defined insanity that way. I half expect in this upcoming R debate that Trump will be asked if he's ever trophy hunted for lions. If asked, I suspect he will say that he's too busy making deals so he pays someone to take care of that stuff for him.
|
|
|
Post by Grug - American Neanderthal on Aug 3, 2015 14:26:17 GMT -7
Well MSBSNBC just fired their supposed counter to Limbaugh and Beck, and a couple other hard lefty commentators, trying to get back 'to the middle' or whatever they think will sell. But its not like FOX is the model of actual news reporting either for that matter, if I was running it, I would have not run any story on Jenner, because its not news worth reporting IMO.
|
|
|
Post by HiTemp on Aug 3, 2015 15:06:55 GMT -7
There isn't any one source of news that can be trusted, FOX or anyone else. I think the ticket is just knowing what you're likely to get where and trying to figure out a truth that's somewhere in the middle. You know if you tune in to InfoWars you're going to get Alex ranting about something or other the government is doing in secret, covering it up, and lucky for him he was able to ferret out the ONE source who can put it all together so that Alex might warn you before it's too late. If it's the Huffington Post, you can rest assured 60% of the "story" reads directly off of someone's press release, and any sources that are quoted are always in bed with some liberal "cause" organization. FOX claims to be fair and balanced but they still edit interviews and try to run with the most sensational statements and try to label whoever made them. Then there are weekends full of talking heads that try to explain for you what everything means and what motivates anyone to do anything.
How many years of putting up with politicians who outright lie to get votes do we have to put up with before refusing to accept them at their word about anything? "I'll have the most transparent administration." Yeah. Right. "I won't raise taxes (read my lips!). Yeah. Right. "You can keep your plan, you can keep your doctor." Yeah. Right. "This trade agreement is good for America." Yeah. Sure it is.
It's all B.S. It's about power and control and reporters and their organizations refusing to rock the boat lest they be shut out. I've always thought it would be GREAT if one of them got shut out because they they would start digging for facts instead of writing down whatever the press secretary tells them to. I'd like to see a President stand up and say "No more press conferences, no more press secretary, all you reporters can go home because I want my swimming pool back." Go dig up facts if you want them so bad, we're not here to spoon feed you. Just kick them off the WH property and pretend they don't exist.
Without that, we're faced with sifting the facts and trying to come up with a reasonable answer on our own. A good example is this stuff going on in Baltimore. To hear the Mayor tell it, there is no problem. The Police Commissioner says there is a problem, but it's the community. The community says the problem is the Mayor AND the Police. How do we tell? Maybe the long history of political corruption and power-brokering, budget nightmares, and failed policies that haven't done squat for decades might tell a rational person they're no on the right track, but not the leadership in Baltimore.
Same on a national level. Only 436 people in the nation get a say about what is a law or not, yet all of them run around talking about "what's wrong with this or that." Well if it's wrong, they made it wrong and only they can (and should) fix it, otherwise they should be run out of office. But politics isn't about that anymore, it's all about power and control of money and influence.
Want a better government? Make lobbying a 1st Degree Felony punishable by 25 years in prison. Make every Congressman publish an ongoing list updated current within 72 hours of who's giving them money for what. Maybe pay them by the hour based on hours actually spent working on legislation and not "fact finding."
|
|