The disappearance of Nicola Bulley

Werewolf said:
Yes. That's quite a silly statement.

It's odd how different things pose different problems, and how a multi hundred million pound, extremely specialist tool for pure science use might be able to do something, whilst a completely different tool under extremely different condititions can't do something.

Sonar is not massively "precise" and highly dependent on the angles at which it works.
It doesn't work like say "low light" camera*, it works by trying to pick up a returning sound signal and building a rough image of what it is "seeing" and what it is "seeing" can be at an extreme angle and obscured by all sorts of things.


*And early versions of those used by the military were at times almost worse than just trying to see in the dark without the "assistance"
Click to expand...
Having used sonar both on a river boat (in murky water) and on a fishing boat (again in silty water) i can vouch 100% that sonar in that type of river, if she was in the reeds/roots, there would be next to zero chance of seeing her. Hell even the angle you approach something with sonar makes a massive difference to the profile it produces on screen
 
Werewolf said:
Yes. That's quite a silly statement.

It's odd how different things pose different problems, and how a multi hundred million pound, extremely specialist tool for pure science use might be able to do something, whilst a completely different tool under extremely different condititions can't do something.

Sonar is not massively "precise" and highly dependent on the angles at which it works.
It doesn't work like say "low light" camera*, it works by trying to pick up a returning sound signal and building a rough image of what it is "seeing" and what it is "seeing" can be at an extreme angle and obscured by all sorts of things.


*And early versions of those used by the military were at times almost worse than just trying to see in the dark without the "assistance"
Click to expand...
Aye, slight tangent here, but isn't the reason why the JWST able to peer so far back, also because of chance? Due to gravitational lensing permitting such observations? So if certain stuff didn't "happen" to be there to perform the extra lensing, the opportunity would not be there either? Also, there's no obstruction there either, if there was, much like in a murky water, it too will be obscured, so in a way, I think it's sort of similar too.
 
No sonar search took place where the body has been found. That Peter guy actually said that his team had found nothing in the section of the river they searched. Attention to detail is key here
 
RedWarrier said:
No sonar search took place where the body has been found. That Peter guy actually said that his team had found nothing in the section of the river they searched. Attention to detail is key here
Click to expand...

Really? Given it was only a mile away that seems like quite an omission?
 
RedWarrier said:
No sonar search took place where the body has been found. That Peter guy actually said that his team had found nothing in the section of the river they searched. Attention to detail is key here
Click to expand...
Sounds like they went pretty far. How far is the first weir as they went further than this

This is what he said

“Our involvement is we’ve searched it extremely thoroughly and we’ve ruled out, especially, the area where Nicola supposedly went in all the way down to the first weir and then onward down the river quite a distance.
 
Last edited:
Zenduri said:
Someone correct me if im wrong but havent the police just been searching the same 300m of river over and over with sonar and divers and hadnt looked further downstream?
Click to expand...
I live downstream of this (approx 800m from the river) although haven’t been near the area since this happened. They’ve had police at the opening to the sea and as it widens so you’d assume they’ve also covered the area in between.

With ref to closing it off, it’s a bit of a rat run as an alternative route back from the lakes and Lancaster.
 
Last edited:
thenewoc said:
Exactly, so quite a stretch to assume someone had drowned in the river. I think they just relied upon a guess and maybe with a 50:50 chance got lucky perhaps in getting it right.
Click to expand...
how ****** disrespectful to a number of people doing their job.
There's a reason you and none of us are cops or detectives. To then guess how they are doing their job is pathetic.
Grow up.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Minusorange said:
I thought it was said they searched a few miles up the river ?
Click to expand...
“Our involvement is we’ve searched it extremely thoroughly and we’ve ruled out, especially, the area where Nicola supposedly went in all the way down to the first weir and then onward down the river quite a distance.

Seems so from Peters comments, though not sure how far the first weir is, but then he says quite a distance beyond this
 
So the internet detectives were wrong and the police were right, why am I not shocked.

I don't blame the partner for being "100% sure", as he was emotional. I do blame the "expert" for saying multiple times that he believed she wasn't in the water.

The worst mistake the police made was giving into pressure from the internet idiots, let's hope that doesn't happen again.
 
mcast123 said:
So the internet detectives were wrong and the police were right, why am I not shocked.

I don't blame the partner for being "100% sure", as he was emotional. I do blame the "expert" for saying multiple times that he believed she wasn't in the water.

The worst mistake the police made was giving into pressure from the internet idiots, let's hope that doesn't happen again.
Click to expand...

Spot on, on all 3 counts.

I'm glad there is some closure for the family. I can't even imagine what her kids are going through.
 
mcast123 said:
So the internet detectives were wrong and the police were right, why am I not shocked.

I don't blame the partner for being "100% sure", as he was emotional. I do blame the "expert" for saying multiple times that he believed she wasn't in the water.

The worst mistake the police made was giving into pressure from the internet idiots, let's hope that doesn't happen again.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, we all know at best it stops the next case or two, but after that it'll flare right back up again. :(
 
More importantly, how long realistically will it take for the police to formally identify? I presume first port of call is a visual identification from the husband - which might be a bit difficult if she's been submerged under water for 3 weeks? I'll also assume they don't just take his word for it, and will do things like DNA checks, dental record checks etc.
 
mcast123 said:
So the internet detectives were wrong and the police were right, why am I not shocked.

I don't blame the partner for being "100% sure", as he was emotional. I do blame the "expert" for saying multiple times that he believed she wasn't in the water.

The worst mistake the police made was giving into pressure from the internet idiots, let's hope that doesn't happen again.
Click to expand...

There is a strong correlation between the posters calling out the police and those that, on the evidence of their posts across this forum, I wouldn't trust to look after my goldfish.
 
Last edited:
Semple said:
More importantly, how long realistically will it take for the police to formally identify? I presume first port of call is a visual identification from the husband - which might be a bit difficult if she's been submerged under water for 3 weeks? I'll also assume they don't just take his word for it, and will do things like DNA checks, dental record checks etc.
Click to expand...

Totally depends if identifiable from anything external. 3 weeks in rover water would do what to a body?

Autopsy will reveal everything anyway.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom