Copenhagen airport closure due to reported drone activity

[jarlrmai]

you should not fly low over any controlled airport without a clearance from air traffic control

if people shoot at things without coordination with ATC, we get tragedies like Teheran and Grozny/Aktau.

OY-CDT had full ATC clearance and yet if the German police had seen it...

 

[TinFoilHat]

Why do they have lights on then?

The article didn't say these drones had lights turned on for the Belgium incursions. However if I was making illegal incursions with drones I would spoof my signal (ADS-B) as a plane or helicopter and have appropriate lights on, hiding in plain sight. And once discovered I would turn off the lights and spoofing. Or have some with lights on as a distraction while others move with no lights on. All speculation within the realms of possibilities. We don't know the intention of these drone incursions, the lights could be to show impunity and create a sense of vulnerability to the population.

 

[jarlrmai]

The article didn't say these drones had lights turned on for the Belgium incursions. However if I was making illegal incursions with drones I would spoof my signal (ADS-B) as a plane or helicopter and have appropriate lights on, hiding in plain sight.

Why? With lights out you are invisible at night.

Lights attracts attention and anyone competent can later align your position with flight tracking data and work it out.

 

[ThomasH]

I've heard a rumour twice now:
That the airport actually did have a drone radar, but it didn't pick up anything. So they assumed it was broken, and ordered that mobil version a couple of days later!

It's not confirmed at all, but omg it would be hilarious

 

[jdog]

The article didn't say these drones had lights turned on for the Belgium incursions. However if I was making illegal incursions with drones I would spoof my signal (ADS-B) as a plane or helicopter and have appropriate lights on, hiding in plain sight. And once discovered I would turn off the lights and spoofing. Or have some with lights on as a distraction while others move with no lights on. All speculation within the realms of possibilities. We don't know the intention of these drone incursions, the lights could be to show impunity and create a sense of vulnerability to the population.

I'm sorry, I don't understand this narrative. I have a stealth drone flying in another country, but I equip it with an ADS-B transponder and regular navigation lights, and I only stop transmitting my ADS-B data and turn on the lights to fly silently around airports... hoping they'll be seen by airport employees and disrupt flight schedules and get media attention?

It's this "big enough to be mistaken for an aircraft, small enough not to show up on radar, silent enough that no one can hear it" combination that puzzles me.

And a drone broadcasting fake ADS-B off and on would still show up in the public ADS-B repositories as an aircraft (with some sort of identity and ownership) that just appears and disappears.

 

[JMartJr]

It is also worth noting that the only ones proven to be drones were normal small hobbyist quadcopters type dones -- technically drones, so there ARE some drones involved. But there is no evidence available that indicates any of them are Russian military drones or otherwise something unusual.

I must have missed this?

Sorry, I'm sort of running the whole region together as one "flap," while the thread is specifically about Copenhagen. Up thread are mentions of consumer drone operators in Norway being found flying where they shouldn't be and told to cut it out. That is what I was referring to.

 

[TinFoilHat]

I'm sorry, I don't understand this narrative. I have a stealth drone flying in another country, but I equip it with an ADS-B transponder and regular navigation lights, and I only stop transmitting my ADS-B data and turn on the lights to fly silently around airports... hoping they'll be seen by airport employees and disrupt flight schedules and get media attention?

It's this "big enough to be mistaken for an aircraft, small enough not to show up on radar, silent enough that no one can hear it" combination that puzzles me.

And a drone broadcasting fake ADS-B off and on would still show up in the public ADS-B repositories as an aircraft (with some sort of identity and ownership) that just appears and disappears.

The drones that were detected in Belgium would be considered a military target as they were over a rocket factory that supplies Ukraine war efforts against Russia.

Psychological warfare comes in many forms including causing the civilian population to feel uneasy and unsafe. To the point that even regular planes are being pointed out as drones.

 

[JMartJr]

Psychological warfare comes in many forms including causing the civilian population to feel uneasy and unsafe. To the point that even regular planes are being pointed out as drones.

An interesting take would be that it is cheaper and easier to start a drone panic than it would be to actually fly drones around, and much more deniable. A drone panic being used to disrupt an adversary's economy or peace of mind of the citizenry does not require actual drones, just some early reporting to get the ball rolling, or convert an initial sincere but incorrect report into a rolling panic.

 

[Mendel]

The drones that were detected in Belgium would be considered a military target as they were over a rocket factory that supplies Ukraine war efforts against Russia.

Have you checked that the factory was in a drone dxclusion zone at the time?

Are you certain that the equipment worked as advertised and did not generate a false alarm?

 

[MyMatesBrainwashed]

Psychological warfare will definitely be waged online via social media these days.

Insisting there are drones is possibly partaking in it.

 

[Mendel]

Psychological warfare will definitely be waged online via social media these days.

Insisting there are drones is possibly partaking in it.

just say "that's what the Russians want you think" when someone claims the threat is real

 

[TinFoilHat]

Have you checked that the factory was in a drone dxclusion zone at the time?

Are you certain that the equipment worked as advertised and did not generate a false alarm?

That's a great question! I am not sure how to find that information out.

 

[Landru]

That's a great question! I am not sure how to find that information out.

Article:

UAS geographical zones
On this page, you can see where you are allowed to fly and where there are restrictions.

Source: https://www.en.droneregler.dk/uas-geographical-zones

 

[Mendel]

https://dosequotidienne.ca/2025/10/...e-quand-des-drones-encerclent-lusine-secrete/

[...] The Ministries of the Interior and Defense are floundering in the face of legal complexity. [...]

Since early October 2025, a ballet of unidentified drones has been circling night after night above the top-secret Thales Belgium factory in Évegnée Fort, in the province of Liège. This sensitive facility, authorized to assemble and store explosives for 70 mm rockets, finds itself caught in a vice by silent and stealthy aircraft.

The "legal complexity" is that there's no restriction on operating drones in this area, and that there's no reason to shoot down drones there. It's illegal to destroy someone else flying their drone legally, and it should be!
https://map.droneguide.be/

The fort is the triangle below (touched by) the blue [N604] label in the center of the screenshot.

So even if there is a foreign spy using a drone to gather intelligence on the rocket production going on in the fort, it seems to me it's probably legal?

If they're shutting down production because of that, that's on them. They have a fort with many rooms that are well protected from the air.

 

[UAV Hive]

The article didn't say these drones had lights turned on for the Belgium incursions. However if I was making illegal incursions with drones I would spoof my signal (ADS-B) as a plane or helicopter and have appropriate lights on, hiding in plain sight. And once discovered I would turn off the lights and spoofing. Or have some with lights on as a distraction while others move with no lights on. All speculation within the realms of possibilities. We don't know the intention of these drone incursions, the lights could be to show impunity and create a sense of vulnerability to the population.

The airports should have RF and EO/IR, the latter would readily grab HD video of a drone.

In fact, they put in an equivalent capability at Munich Airport and then they stopped closing the runways as they could verify any reported sightings of lights.

 

[NorCal Dave]

The article didn't say these drones had lights turned on for the Belgium incursions.

The article doesn't say a lot of things, but infers a great many. Votre Dose Quotidienne, or "Your Daily Dose", seems to have lots of stories about the war in Ukraine with some articles on "getting more Zen in your life" and RFKjr scattered in as well. Besides the fluff pieces that are likely AI written, the rest of the articles are all by 2 people, as far as I can tell. There is a Jacques Pj Provost and Maxime Marquette. Here are some samples from the MSN aggregator:

https://www.msn.com/fr-ca/channel/source/Votre Dose Quotidienne/sr-vid-95sttrs2g4wdp66pitxbmxssy7rvv085vcr3cu0iga8mp56due5a?cvid=68dbcc8906ea42d2abf0e62cb6ce62d0&ocid=hpmsn

Most of the Ukraine and drone stories are by Marquette, though Provost takes a shot speculating that the drones are from China as they are testing their future weapons (I'm going screen shot because MSN creates such long links):

I thought the original article about the Thales plant linked up-thread seemed a bit hyperbolic in it's tone (bold by me):

Since early October 2025, a ballet of unidentified drones has been circling night after night above the top-secret Thales Belgium factory in Évegnée Fort, in the province of Liège.

Near the site, radars detect white silhouettes slicing through the air at low altitude.

"I've never seen anything like this," confides a Thales technician, terrified by this systematic intrusion.

Maybe it's the translation from French. Maybe the French just write that way. However, for all the claims made in the article, there is very little evidence of anything presented. It's mostly hearsay with only one Thales high up executive being mentioned by name. All the evidence seems to come from people at Thales. Thales planes to increase it's production of FZ275 anti-drone rockets:

Demand for anti-drone rockets has exploded this year. Thales plans to double its production to 70,000 units per year to meet the needs of NATO and Ukraine. Every night of intrusion delays the supply chain, affects delivery times, and diminishes the confidence of strategic customers.

The article also calls for the EU to create a legal framework allowing private companies to shoot down drones:

Without a unified European framework, each country moves at its own pace, leaving gaps in collective defense. It is imperative to codify the right to neutralize a private air threat without fear of excessive prosecution, while guaranteeing the safety of civilian populations.

Might that private neutralization include using Thales FZ275 rockets? Maybe Thales can enlighten EU members as the arms industry needs to be part of the decision making:

Arms manufacturers are no longer mere suppliers, but strategic players in national security. Their technical expertise must be integrated into public decision-making processes. This mutual exchange will enhance Europe's resilience in the face of new threats.

The article concludes by reaffirming its primary source was a press release alert from.......Thales:

The alert issued by Thales Belgium is not just a news item; it signals a strategic shift. Europe must urgently fill its legislative gaps and strengthen its technical defenses to face the drone war.

An article about supposed drone incursions over a leading manufacturer of anti-drone weapons sourced solely from the manufacturer of said weapons.

Marquette makes some similar un-evidenced claims in another article about drones, (there are several):

At less than €5,000 each, these drones or decoys cost a fraction of the missiles and defense systems deployed to intercept them. This asymmetry transforms "drone warfare" into a formidable economic lever for the stealthy attacker: minimal investment for maximum chaos.

How does anyone know what the cost if no one knows what they are or where they come from? This same article opens with an equally hyperbolic paragraph:

Since the summer of 2025, an electronic shadow has been hovering over Europe: phantom drones crisscross the civil and military skies, spotted from one end of the continent to the other, without ever leaving a tangible trace. These invisible incursions, reported from Copenhagen to Munich, via Vilnius, Brussels, and Liège, raise questions about their origin, their mission, and their future role in marking priority targets in the event of open conflict with Moscow. The urgency is extreme: what do these silent overflights reveal? What if, tomorrow, they became the scouts of a lightning war?

And apparently Marquette know that the drones are "miniature" and use "twisting trajectories" to evade detection:

Military radars, designed to track fighter jets at Mach 2, struggle to distinguish these miniature drones or flying decoys. With their twisting trajectories, crossing radar shadows, and exploiting blind spots, they leave operators reeling: should they warn or not warn, should they ignore or sound the alert? The dilemma paralyzes the chain of command.

And some more rumor mongering:

Some reports suggest the use of miniaturized infrared cameras and LIDAR sensors onboard these drones. Their mission: to illuminate critical infrastructure, measure contours, collect precise geolocation data, and then disappear before any response. The collected coordinates would then be used to guide cruise missile strikes or kamikaze drones.

Concluding, once again, that there is a need for immediate action:

The "ghost drones" in Europe are not just a panic phenomenon but the signal of a paradigm shift: the invisible war is now being played out in the ether, and each undetectable flyby exposes our technical and legal flaws. Before becoming real targets for missiles, these devices are already our strategic priorities: they embody the need for a rapid, coordinated, and legal European response. Europe must urgently address its technical, legislative, and cooperative gaps so that these flying shadows mark not only our vulnerability but also our strategic renaissance. The countdown has begun: in the face of invisible drones, the response must not remain a phantom.

https://dosequotidienne.ca/2025/10/...rre-eclair-contre-la-russie/item/conclusion-6

Votre Dose Quotidienne seems to be a very pro Ukraine, pro west, anti Russia/China publication with 2 main authors. Marquette in particular seems to sound the alarm on drones with little actual evidence, calling for legal changes to allow the shooting down of drones and more cooperation with various weapons producers. Not saying they are a mouthpiece for Thales and others, but they definitely want to ratchet up the panic and concern over the drone flap to strengthen the EU military.

I would take the reporting with a grain of salt.

 

[John J.]

The assumption is that these people are relaying the words of the people inside that know but have no public role, this is how it should be, but it often isn't. Anyone who has worked at a largish organisation with a public aspect will have been involved in this kind of thing, there is misunderstanding, over-simplification 'games of telephone' and also omission / spinning of events to manage public perception.

Their positions give them access to and working knowledge of the airport's monitoring systems, including radar and video surveillance, which they say clearly indicate the presence of drones rather than a training aircraft.
They have authority over operational and communications matters... ...So far, there is no evidence that either holds a background in piloting, flight instruction, or other front-line aviation roles. Their expertise appears to be in administrative oversight and interpretation of operational data rather than direct field experience with small aircraft such as school planes.

Maybe OT on my part, but reading these brought to mind Roswell, where the "flying disc" claims arguably started with a press release from a public information officer:

As @NorCal Dave pointed out, the link between the material recovered near Corona (approx. 85 miles/ 137km from Roswell) and UFOs was made by a USAAF public information officer, Lieutenant Walter Haut in a release to Associated Press dated 8 July 1947:

The many rumors regarding the flying disc became a reality yesterday when the intelligence office of the 509th Bomb group of the Eighth Air Force, Roswell Army Air Field, was fortunate enough to gain possession of a disc through the cooperation of one of the local ranchers and the sheriff's office of Chaves County.

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roswell_incident)
It isn't clear to what extent Haut's statement was his own work, but he might have been responsible for the somewhat sensationalist wording: It must be unlikely that a Lieutenant would, in 1947, be chosen to tell (or at least imply to) the American people that advanced foreign or extraterrestrial vehicles were overflying the United States just a day or so after some foil-like material and wooden struts had been found.

-Not saying that therefore the Copenhagen airport officials are responsible for a similar (and unintended- arguably unlike Haut's) over-interpretation of what they are told. We haven't any evidence at the mo. that they are saying anything that the operations staff (e.g. ATC, radar operators) disagree with. But maybe there's a parallel.

I wouldn't rule out the possible malicious use of hobby drones to cause disruption, and subsequent over-reporting of aerial activity by airport staff/ members of the public adding to the problem; or even foreign (Russian) encouragement / sponsorship of such activity.

Retaining lights on hobby drones would make sense in this context, you'd want them to be visible. Much less likely for genuine covert reconnaissance, and it's hard to see what a hobby drone could find out about the workings of a defence manufacturer in most cases (though it might cause anxiety amongst staff feeling they are under surveillance, and lead to expenditure on countermeasures).

But I'm not sure we've got any strong evidence that that's what's going on re. Copenhagen (and maybe Munich) airport, which might have some characteristics of a flap. Equally, the possibility of malicious drone use is serious, and deserves consideration even if it isn't responsible for all (or any) of the Copenhagen reports.

 

[Godfred Juhl]

We know that "there was something in the air" when the airspace was closed at Copenhagen Airport. I have not been able to find the entire press conference, only chopped up into small pieces. The press conference is held in the middle of the night, an hour after the airport opened, 1:30am. I watched the press conference, the clip is missing the introduction, the journalist's question about the helicopter from the police's "Special Intervention Unit" (SWAT), which is part of the Danish Police Intelligence Service (PET), so the journalist asks again about the authorities' activity, the officer first evades, but then answers (first sentence in the video clip)

"We have had several things in the air, to find out if we could see what kind of drones they were."
That's what Jakob Hansen, deputy police inspector at Copenhagen Police, said last night.


https://www.dr.dk/nyheder/indland/droner-set-over-koebenhavns-lufthavn?focusId=10224398

 

[Godfred Juhl]

I've heard a rumour twice now:
That the airport actually did have a drone radar, but it didn't pick up anything. So they assumed it was broken, and ordered that mobil version a couple of days later!

It's not confirmed at all, but omg it would be hilarious

I've also been wondering about this, from today:

Copenhagen Airport decided to acquire a drone radar earlier this year. But now that the state owns the airport, the purchase requires a tender, which has not yet started. This means that the airport did not have equipment that could confirm in real time the drones that the airport employees saw.

I have no idea what goes on in an airport, the last time I was in one was in 1972, but what kind of equipment is that can register drones in non-real time, a video camera? The article is paywalled, and I don't know if the answer is in the article (doubt it), maybe time to take up old virtues and go to the library and make a photo of the article

https://www.berlingske.dk/indland/k...neradar-men-indkoeb-skulle-pludselig-i-udbud?

At the night press conference at 1:30am right after the airport opened, the police are asked "Haven't you had the opportunity to see them (the drones) on any radars?" the police answer: "Uhm" We have had some conversations with Naviair, who has seen them--on--something--out--in--around the airport, but where exactly -uh- these drones come from, we have not clarified at this time. (He searches for a word a bit, but continues the sentence, without using the "missing word", he was asked specifically about radar)

00:08-00:21

https://www.dr.dk/nyheder/indland/droner-set-over-koebenhavns-lufthavn?focusId=10223991

 

[UAV Hive]

Hobby drone LEDs are only visible to 120m at night and then barely, you'd hear the drone before you saw it. The key thing here is not one authority has mentioned hearing a drone which adds strength to the idea they've made a mistake.

Meanwhile in Norway, Oslo for example, have been found to be using the entry level drone detection system DJI AeroScope that was not even operational. Some AeroScopes are portable and need setting up outside to use, as and when, but even the full install version might not be manned or operated 24/7 if an airport was being tight with money.

https://www.vg.no/nyheter/i/Av6qPn/norske-flyplasser-bruker-kinesisk-droneovervaakning

 

[flarkey]

Another video of 'drones' over Munich airport, but with full time codes & location. It should be able to identify the lights

Source: https://x.com/wow36932525/status/1976758859483017677?t=aKXquqY2F1eN6uiumeFrzQ&s=19

 

[Mendel]

Provost takes a shot speculating that the drones are from China

reminder that the China company DJI is the worldwide market leader in the drone business, so this statement is probably true regardless

 

[anonymoose65]

Another video of 'drones' over Munich airport, but with full time codes & location. It should be able to identify the lights

Two planes headed to Munich International Airport, flying Northeast towards the camera, then turning West: https://www.metabunk.org/sitrec/?cu...ws.com/20923/Attaching_ DE/20251010_225258.js

 

[Godfred Juhl]

Now Filter News can reveal that part of the reason why Norwegian authorities were unable to clarify whether there was actually drone activity at Gardermoen was that the system Avinor uses for drone detection was down at all airports, for unknown reasons – for a full 19 hours.

Avinor's system setup means that data from Norwegian surveillance is in a cloud service from the Chinese company, with servers in Singapore, among other places. Software support is carried out from DJI's office in China, which also sends software updates to Avinor.

https://filternyheter.no/bruker-kin...falt-ut-da-hybridkrig-alarmen-gikk-i-danmark/

 

[UAV Hive]

https://filternyheter.no/bruker-kin...falt-ut-da-hybridkrig-alarmen-gikk-i-danmark/

This is what I've detailed here. https://www.metabunk.org/threads/co...rted-drone-activity.14455/page-13#post-354471

AeroScope will not be necessarily powered or monitored all the time at an airport and can only detect some DJI models.

It's now verified as AeroScope and it sounds like instead of monitoring locally they had DJI monitoring it from China as a service, and a service which intermittently goes down. There's complacency and it's assumed it's fine to have people looking at the night sky as a backup.

https://filternyheter.no/bruker-kin...falt-ut-da-hybridkrig-alarmen-gikk-i-danmark/

 

[John J.]

Posted by @Godfred Juhl, quoting Filter Nyhheter (Filter News),

Avinor's system setup means that data from Norwegian surveillance is in a cloud service from the Chinese company...

If this means what I think it does, Avinor's choice of service provider must be questionable (and I hope is questioned).
Maybe Avinor's procurement/ contract-awarding procedures for security-related systems needs an overhaul.

 

[Trailblazer]

Two planes headed to Munich International Airport, flying Northeast towards the camera, then turning West: https://www.metabunk.org/sitrec/?custom=https://sitrec.s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/20923/Attaching_ DE/20251010_225258.js

It would be good if there was some way in Sitrec to make the plane light brighter/bigger when it is pointing right towards the camera.

The quibble some people might have with this is that the blue dot is smaller (further away) whereas in the video it is brighter and appears bigger/closer. (Of course, this is because it is the bright forward-facing light pointing towards the camera, which fades out as the plane turns away.)

That sitch is saved with spheres rather than models but I tried using plane models with bright landing lights and they don't seem to be "directional": https://www.metabunk.org/sitrec/?cu...aws.com/5177/Attaching_ DE/20251012_075335.js

 

[jarlrmai]

Is this flap dying down? I'm on holiday but not seen many new updates, sightings etc.

 

[UAV Hive]

Is this flap dying down? I'm on holiday but not seen many new updates, sightings etc.

Yes and no, there are no more incidents as better counter-drone gear is in place, but the authorities are still refusing to acknowledge they never had any decent evidence to begin with.

 

[JMartJr]

Yes and no, there are no more incidents as better counter-drone gear is in place, but...

I'm not sure that I understand about counter-drone gear and what it does. Would it detect foreign military drones as drones, for example, or is it geared towards dealing with consumer drones flying where the shouldn't? Does it just detect, or can it also disable? Or is all that deeply held secrets?

 

[ThomasH]

Is this flap dying down? I'm on holiday but not seen many new updates, sightings etc.

I haven't seen a single drone/plane video from Denmark for two weeks now.
Some will say it's because the drones flew away, I would say people just got back to their old life, and not looking up anymore...

 

[jarlrmai]

I haven't seen a single drone/plane video from Denmark for two weeks now.
Some will say it's because the drones flew away, I would say people just got back to their old life, and not looking up anymore...

Are questions still being asked of your authorities?

 

[ThomasH]

Are questions still being asked of your authorities?

No everything is dead, if they're asked questions they say it's an ongoing investigation so they can't comment on it.
It will be like that for a long time and then they will come out saying, they couldn't find out where they came from and who operated them. Case closed ...but Russia did it!

 

[Gary C]

I'm not sure that I understand about counter-drone gear and what it does. Would it detect foreign military drones as drones, for example, or is it geared towards dealing with consumer drones flying where the shouldn't? Does it just detect, or can it also disable? Or is all that deeply held secrets?

It's a use case, not a specific technology. RF and IR jammers, signal analyzers, short range radars and lidars are just some of the competing technologies just on the non-kinetic/non-military side. I know a guy who builds RF jammers for the prison system to keep drone delivered contraband out.

 

[ThomasH]

Source: https://youtu.be/w6xNFR1G6fM


Haha, so funny — I debunked another Danish "drone," and guess what: it was the same little plane again!
So now it's been misidentified by two others after the airport shutdown — but the airport still says it couldn't be.

BTW @Mick West , I've got a big altitude discrepancy on one of the planes again. Can you check if there's a bug in the code, or is it just because it's using barometric altitude only?

https://www.metabunk.org/sitrec/?cu...onaws.com/17922/Tystrup s_/20251013_182228.js

Could it be an idea with a height adjustment offset for a better presentation ?

 

[Mick West]

BTW @Mick West , I've got a big altitude discrepancy on one of the planes again. Can you check if there's a bug in the code, or is it just because it's using barometric altitude only?

https://www.metabunk.org/sitrec/?cu...onaws.com/17922/Tystrup s_/20251013_182228.js

Could it be an idea with a height adjustment offset for a better presentation ?

You can adjust the height of a track by right clicking on it, and then "Alt Adjustment" - it should only be needed for barometric altitude tracks.

 

[ThomasH]

You can adjust the height of a track by right clicking on it, and then "Alt Adjustment" - it should only be needed for barometric altitude tracks.

God dammit I hadn't seen that one, thanks.
641 ft in compensation - that's a lot!

 

[UAV Hive]

TV2 Denmark with not getting transparency from authorities in Denmark, came up with a cunning plan to get evidence from Sweden which helped debunk some of the initial drone sightings.

https://nyheder-tv2-dk.translate.go...=da&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en-US&_x_tr_pto=wapp

 

[Calter]

The Norwegian police investigation around "drone sightings" over Ørland Air Station (I'm not sure if news about it have been posted on this thread) has apparently concluded, with an unsurprising conclusion that it is very unlikely that they were drones.

https://www-nrk-no.translate.goog/t..._sl=no&_x_tr_tl=us&_x_tr_hl=no&_x_tr_pto=wapp

Police: "Very unlikely that it was drones"

The investigation of sightings in Ørland is being concluded, the police report.

The police in Trøndelag write in a press release that a thorough investigation has been carried out after they received a report of a possible drone sighting at Ørland Air Station on Saturday 27 September.

"Very unlikely that it was drones," is the conclusion after the investigation.

"Although it is not possible to completely rule out that drone flying within the prohibited zone has taken place, this is very unlikely," says the prosecutor in the case, John R. Sødahl Furunes in Trøndelag police district.

He emphasizes that the police, with the security policy situation as a backdrop, have taken the case seriously from the start.

"The goal of the investigation has been to confirm or deny whether there have been drones, and if so, who is behind it. The information that has emerged through the investigation indicates that the observations are about twinkling celestial bodies.

"We want to emphasize that it is not uncommon for stars and planets to be confused with drones," says Sødahl Furunes.

The police in Trøndelag have received many tips from residents about possible drone sightings after 27 September. Several of the reports have been followed up, without any verification of illegal drone use.

The police remind that many people use drones legally, in line with the Civil Aviation Authority's rules, and that it is still desirable to have tips about drones at critical infrastructure, oil and gas installations, power plants, airports and military installations.

They seem to have concluded that people were just mistaking stars and planets for drones, and they point out that this is not an uncommon mistake to make. Also worth pointing out that, unless I'm missing something, this was not an instance where the airspace was closed

 

[ThomasH]

TV2 Denmark with not getting transparency from authorities in Denmark, came up with a cunning plan to get evidence from Sweden which helped debunk some of the initial drone sightings.

https://nyheder-tv2-dk.translate.go...=da&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en-US&_x_tr_pto=wapp

Very interesting article!
It looks like the Danish and Swedish police were standing on opposite sides of the water, watching each other's planes and helicopters!

By the way, Soren Sorensen is on the panel of a Danish UFO show and believes in many UFO stories — so it's especially interesting that even he's skeptical this time