Why the Leipzig Explosive Drone Incident Needs Real Visual Proof – sUAS News

Dear Dr. Pintaske,

I respectfully request that, insofar as legally and investigatively possible, you publish clear photos of the drone seized at Leipzig/Halle Airport and the other aircraft associated with the case, or release them for verifiable documentation.

Since the German government publicly named Russia as responsible, the situation, in my understanding, has changed. Those who used the equipment are already familiar with its appearance. Therefore, publishing details about its external condition, design, attachments, and payload would reveal nothing new to this group. However, it would allow the public to distinguish the Leipzig find from mere sightings and unsubstantiated attributions.

This is of considerable importance. The credibility of European authorities regarding drone allegations has been seriously damaged by several incidents. Transparency about the actual device is the quickest way to distance Leipzig from this.

Copenhagen, September 2025. The hours-long closure of the airport was portrayed as a serious hybrid attack. In June 2026, the Copenhagen police closed the case with the statement that drone activity could neither be proven nor ruled out. This lack of transparency is evident. Based on our own research, and the public statement of the key witness to Frihedsbrevet , later corroborated by documentary evidence, a clearer picture emerges: The initial sighting was most likely a misinterpretation of a training aircraft. Investigators informed the witness that experts assessed her photograph as showing an aircraft or light reflections, not a drone. Nevertheless, the official line remains deliberately ambiguous. Anyone who knows the misidentification and fails to clearly disclose it to the public undermines trust in any subsequent drone reports.

Gatwick, December 2018. After several days of chaos without a usable image of the alleged intruders, the police announced the discovery of a “drone” near the airport fence. Freedom of Information documents and subsequent analysis show that it was a child’s toy in the bushes. That this device had nothing to do with the sightings was immediately apparent upon basic inspection. Nevertheless, the discovery fueled headlines for several days and fueled an investigation that yielded neither perpetrators, nor a functioning device, nor usable footage of the alleged flying objects.

Belgium, autumn 2025. Investigative journalists revealed that Defense Minister Theo Francken had personally leaked video footage to a tabloid newspaper, portraying it as a drone flying over Zaventem Airport. It was actually a police helicopter. Following the VRT/Pano report, the Brussels public prosecutor’s office has opened an investigation into the related events.
https://www.vrt.be/vrtnws/nl/2026/04/17/parket-onderzoek-drones-pano/

In addition, there was the incident in Borris. Danish armed forces fired on an object perceived as a drone. Independent reports have raised serious doubts as to whether a Norwegian passenger plane was mistaken for one, and accuse the defense of retrospectively altering the timeline and delaying the release of information.
https://frihedsbrevet.dk/forsvaret-nler-udskyder-svar-i-betndt-dronesag/

These cases have left the impression that drone reports are too quickly politicized and too rarely supported by verifiable footage, and that evidence or videos are sometimes published as long as they support the narrative, but withheld or obscured as soon as they weaken it. Leipzig is a different situation: Here, a concrete device containing explosives is involved. Precisely for this reason, clear recordings would be suitable for separating serious evidence from speculative accusations without, according to public opinion, demonstrably jeopardizing the investigation.

I would be grateful if you could review this request and let me know if and in what form approval is possible.

Best regards

Ian Hudson

Related