
The Colorado mystery drones weren’t real - tpc3
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/884xv3/the-colorado-mystery-drones-werent-real
======
ALittleLight
This seems unbelievably credulous on the part of Vice.

On the one hand, we have 23 sightings a week, across the town, from a variety
of people, including a helicopter pilot, over a sustained period of time. On
the other hand, we have a government report that all of those sightings were
of "stars, planets, or hobbyist drones". The people of this town have never
seen a star before? Really? Is the government report really more believable?

It sounds like the scene in Men in Black, but even more lame. "No. Those
weren't drones. Those were nothing."

"Mass hysteria" is an explanation that seems hard to swallow. These people
weren't panicking, they weren't seeing demons or magic, they were making
reports of real things (drones) acting in plausible ways. That a group of
local government officials couldn't find any evidence doesn't seem to mean
anything. What evidence would we expect them to find?

I'd like to know what the usual rate of false drone reports is in a typical
town. Is this an average number of reports? More than average, and if so, why?

I work with lots of people who seem to have this attitude. When customers
submit bugs that immediately think the customer is imagining the problem, or
doing something wrong, or that the bug is magically a transient issue that
isn't worth investigating or something like that. I think the reality is
investigations are hard and sometimes yield nothing, but that doesn't mean we
should jump to preposterous conclusions.

~~~
crispyambulance
There is a precedent for exactly this kind of thing: The Marfa Lights
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marfa_lights](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marfa_lights)).
These were strange sighting of moving lights in a desert landscape. They were
attributed to UFO's or exotic ball lighting (all this was "pre-drone"). The
phenomena were regular enough that some physicists performed a spectroscopic
analysis. Turned out, it was headlights of cars in the distance and small
campfires.

Lights in a place where you can see very far away tends to confuse our
perception of scale, distance and speed.

> I think the reality is investigations are hard and sometimes yield nothing,
> but that doesn't mean we should jump to preposterous conclusions.

I agree. "Occam's Razor" is wise.

~~~
carapace
> The first historical record of the Marfa lights is that in 1883 a young
> cowhand, Robert Reed Ellison, saw a flickering light while he was driving
> cattle through Paisano Pass and wondered if it was the campfire of Apache
> Indians. Other settlers told him they often saw the lights, but that when
> they investigated they found no ashes or other evidence of a campsite.

So it wasn't car headlights in 1883 and "no ashes or other evidence of a
campsite".

~~~
icedistilled
>Lights in a place where you can see very far away tends to confuse our
perception of scale, distance and speed.

Did the campfire smoke spell out their exact location to nicely make up for
the distorted distance perspective for lights at night?

------
opwieurposiu
Very common for people to report drones when there are no drones. This is what
shut down gatwick airport for 3 days!

[https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/gatwick-
dron...](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/gatwick-drones-never-
existed-sussex-police-investigation-footage-couple-released-a8697306.html)

~~~
draugadrotten
The article you link mention they found a damaged drone on the ground. That
doesn't sound like evidence of "no drones" to me.

~~~
rwiggum
That's what the article is saying though. That the entire origin story of
"drones over Gatwick airport" is that someone found a damaged drone. That
doesn't mean that the damaged drone was ever "over the airport", it just means
someone found a damaged drone. No mention of how close to the airport, how
long the drone had been there, etc. It could have been in a park nearby and
someone crashed it into a tree weeks ago and it fell to the ground more
recently.

------
c3534l
The best part of the article, I can't believe no one has mentioned it yet:

The next day, the Yuma County Sheriff T.C. Combs received an email from a man
who wanted to get deputized in order to “form a special task force dedicated
to the clandestine monitoring, capturing, and prosecution of those responsible
for the recent public panic. My team will be dedicated to the liberation of
our skies,” he wrote, and would be known as “Team Alpha WarHawk.” He
identified the strengths of each team member, including his own (“comic
relief”). His second in command was the “culinary expert” and was “great, but
not amazing. However he’s what we got.” The third member of the team
specialized in “weapons/Ammunition expert” but was also “just an all around
great guy.” One “recruitment pool candidate” makes a “mean pot of coffee”
while another is “the most charming man I’ve ever met.” The lone member with a
name of Hispanic origin was their “linguistics expert.” It went on like this.

~~~
333c
Is this a reference to some movie? Or just a peculiar email?

~~~
c3534l
It sounds like it would make a good movie, but it doesn't ring any bells.

------
testis321
We might be laughing now, but this kind of things bring us new laws,
limitations and regulations.

Drones are a great tool, even in the hands of a total amateur. Some regulation
is needed (eg. not flying over crowds of people), but otherwise a top-down
view shows many, many interesting things, from far crash remains (missing
people, atleast finding a body) to illegal dumping operations (eg. a company
pouring toxic waste into a river), etc.

~~~
mterrel
They are a great tool. We know a roofer that's using them to easily inspect
and do initial quotes for roof repairs & replacements now...safer, easier,
faster. Great idea.

~~~
sneak
It would be really nice to get a blanket permission for all drone activities
under 50 feet AGL.

As someone who loves to use them to shoot video instead of using a ladder (for
shots 15-20 feet in the air), the insane panic around their use at all has
been massively inconvenient: it is illegal to fly one 20 feet off the ground
in a national park as a platform for video/stills. This seems crazy to me.

Nothing that low/close poses any threat to anyone.

------
java-man
CDPS “confirmed no incidents involving criminal activity, nor have
investigations substantiated reports of suspicious or illegal drone activity.”

this means the "activity" was legal.

~~~
deadmetheny
Exactly this. I'm not convinced in the least that nothing happened, merely
that nobody was breaking any laws with whatever they were doing.

~~~
crooked-v
> 13 were determined to be “planets, stars, or small hobbyist drones.” Six
> were commercial aircraft, and four remain unconfirmed.

Sounds to me like a case of one or two guys flying drones sometimes that
turned into "What's that light in the sky?! It must be a drone!!"

~~~
bonestamp2
That would be a completely reasonable explanation and I could see that
happening. But, there are some other details about the story that make me
think there was more to it than that.

There were Sheriffs who reported seeing these fleets of drones. Sheriffs would
normally try to calm hysteria rather than contribute to it, and it would be
pretty hard to mistake a fleet of drones, not to mention they saw them moving
in what they called a "search pattern". The numbers they were talking about
were also higher than the number of traditional aircraft than can normally be
seen at once, even near major airports with parallel runways in operation. If
someone spots a few drones, I could see that being a mistake, but 17 flying in
a search pattern? That person saw something exceptional no matter what it was.

Given the way that they worded this response, it seems like there was activity
and that activity was found to be legal (ie. the operators had the appropriate
107 waivers to operate multiple drones and at night). It could have been your
average joe, but that many drones makes it unlikely.

What else could it be? Lockheed Martin has a significant presence in Colorado
and they hold both of these waivers that are necessary to operate multiple
drones and at night (the FAA database is public and I looked in there for
anyone who holds both waivers). Lockheed also has a small drone product in
production that operates as a fleet with an extraordinary flight time and
range using mesh networking:

[https://www.lockheedmartin.com/en-us/products/indago-vtol-
ua...](https://www.lockheedmartin.com/en-us/products/indago-vtol-uav.html)

Not to mention, Air Force Global Strike Command, "confirmed that it conducts
counterdrone exercises" and it "oversees underground Minuteman silos spread
across northeastern Colorado, southeastern Wyoming and western Nebraska, the
area where the drones have been spotted nightly the past two weeks"

[https://gazette.com/military/colorado-drone-mystery-
sighting...](https://gazette.com/military/colorado-drone-mystery-sightings-
finally-might-be-solved/article_c8d375be-2e6f-11ea-85b7-2335e1d42476.html)

Unfortunately, we'll never know for sure -- it's impossible to prove something
didn't happen. All they can do is not find them when they try, and that was
over a month after the initial sightings. Of course, it's completely logical
not to believe it unless there is definitive proof too.

~~~
JohnFen
> Sheriffs would normally try to calm hysteria rather than contribute to it

Sheriffs (and similar such professionals) are no more immune to the effects of
mass hysteria than most other people.

------
shadowprofile77
So, all of a sudden large numbers of people (among them some, like a
helicopter pilot, with presumably much greater than average experience in
noting different kinds of aerial phenomena) start misidentifying the stars or
suffering mass hysteria or whatnot for the first time in their lives in a
single concentrated space of time over a fairly specific geographical area?
I'm sorry, that sounds even less plausible than them having actually seen
something unusual. This is not to say that they witnessed actual UFOs or
literal phantom drones but it still doesn't seem to add up to believable in
the way the government report tries to paint it.

------
newnewpdro
"That’s because the drones never existed."

This is the kind of narrative embarrassed authorities push when they've
utterly failed. "Nothing to see here, move along."

Legally, the drones never existed, otherwise the authorities have to admit
incompetence and an inability to defend against and investigate this sort of
activity.

It's far more plausible that multiple hobbyists have been simply playing with
drones in the area. They are after all fairly popular, and to assert the
drones never existed is to also assert that absolutely no hobbyists are flying
drones at night in the area. How can you possibly assert that?

------
hexane360
I'd also like to point out that much of the initial coverage included quotes
from people selling "drone defense" services. It seems reasonable that these
companies were incentivized to do whatever they could to stir up public fear.

------
dang
The previous thread about this:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21876818](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21876818)

------
aaron695
Recently in Australia they have had the Satanic ritual child abuse mass
hysteria come around AGAIN.

They are still facing prison after 2 years of investigation.

We know it happens but we rinse and repeat. Watch out there are two shooters!
People loot after disasters! Most of the time there's a chemical leak at a
school or business. (ie The plane that dumped fuel over a school recently)

Given a day by day counters for the Coronavirus on social media, it'll hit
hard. The mass hysteria for the 2019 n-CoV is going to kill a lot more people
than the virus itself although you can't slow / stop the Coronavirus without
mass hysteria, it's hard to know if it's just collateral damage or an incident
in itself.

~~~
mark-r
Just this afternoon I saw a post on a photography site where someone is
worried about cancellation of events he wants to photograph due to
Coronavirus, in September and October.

------
shrubble
There is so much military and government in the state of Colorado that the
concept that 'authorities were baffled' is laughable.

Anything that was happening in the air, someone knew about. Whether they were
able to speak on the record about it is a different matter.

------
Jamwinner
This kind of 'Journalism' exemplifies my feelings about vice news.
Sensentional, missing the point of the core premise, and sporting a profoundly
misleading headline.

------
mirimir
I love the quote from Sheriff Combs. It's priceless. That guy has quite the
sense of humor. Reminds me of Tommy Lee Jones in "Men in Black".

------
Awelton
"You didn't see anything, and here is a crappy vice article to prove it"

------
exabrial
Had anyone correlated the sightings with weather radar?

~~~
semi-extrinsic
I believe weather radar doesn't even see large jet airplanes. They're probably
tuned not to see airplanes, you just want to see the weather. So forget about
drones.

------
basicplus2
"These aren't the drones you are looking for.."

------
alecjaco
Move along sir, nothing to see here

------
nkrisc
Thirty years ago it would have been aliens, right? I'm a little surprised no
one reported being abducted by the drones.

~~~
dmix
Did you notice in the police report that "someone got a picture of the drones"
but it turned out to just be a picture of a "white light in the sky".

This would definitely be UFO two or three decades ago.

Also the number of spelling and grammatical errors in the sheriff's email was
quite... surprising. Or maybe not, for small town police...

~~~
ALittleLight
I'm not sure what you would expect to see in a photograph of a drone at night.
A white light certainly seems like a reasonable thing. My drones have lights
on the bottom.

If you photographed a drone without a light it would look like the night sky.
If you photographed a drone with a light it would look like a light in the
sky.

~~~
jjwiseman
I would have found it more convincing if there was video showing "large
wingspan drones traveling in groups". Even at night, it should be possible to
shoot a video of a group of drones that looks plausibly like a group of
drones. But there doesn't seem to be any such video. Aircraft with thermal
cameras went up looking for the drones, and didn't find anything.

Multiple government organizations, at the local, state and federal government
level, investigated. They claim not to have found any evidence of strange
groups of large drones flying around. No physical evidence or recordings
exists of groups of large drones flying around. There are eyewitness reports,
but they are definitely not independent--People were primed to see drones
after the first reports. The local news report is a good example of a
relatively easy debunked sighting that seems to have resulted from a strong
expectation of seeing drones. And almost all of the reports were debunked,
according to government claims.

It's possible there's a large-scale government coverup of a large-scale drone
flight operation. The operation must be pretty important for so many levels of
government to be convinced to lie about it. Very important, very secret, but
for some reason still had to be done over populated areas, continuing for
weeks after it became a big story--so it wasn't actually a very high priority
to hide the drones from eyewitnesses. Coincidentally, and very luckily for the
government coverup, not a single one of the many eyewitnesses has any
convincing physical evidence or imagery of the flight operations.

I feel like someone _is_ being overly credulous, but it's not Vice.

~~~
ALittleLight
There's no need to think about a government cover up, and I feel like it's a
way to phrase the argument such that it appears one either believes in strange
drones or a government cover up. You can argue against the "large-scale cover
up" and pretend like you are arguing against the existence of the drones, but
in reality, you are not. Incidentally, the government has many times tested
technologies that it did not acknowledge to the public or to the press.

In reality, the government team investigating said they couldn't find any
evidence of illegal drones. You don't have to invoke a conspiracy to explain
this - they didn't find any evidence. As I've written before, what evidence
would we expect them to find? Drones flying through the air tend not to leave
tracks.

Much of what you write here is incorrect. For example, you say that the
government investigation found no evidence of strange groups of drones. That's
wrong, in the week of January 6 to January 13 the team investigated 23
sightings and listed 4 of them as "confirmed by law enforcement but unable to
identify." [1]

You write that the eye witnesses reports aren't independent because they were
influenced by earlier reporting. The story was first reported by The Denver
Post and in that story there were multiple reports from different people. [2]
Subsequent reports may, or may not, be influenced by the initial story, but
the multiple reports in the initial are independent.

You say that there is no imagery or photographs of the flight operations. This
isn't true. Here's a photo of one of the drones they are investigating [3] and
there are news stories referring to the collection of videos and photos though
I didn't find them with a Google search. [4]

Regarding your implication that I'm being credulous - I hardly think so. I
wouldn't rule out the possibility that many people simultaneously imagined a
drone fleet flying over them, but I need better evidence than "a government
team investigating weeks later didn't see the drones that weren't there any
more". A good video would be more compelling, but it doesn't surprise me that
it's difficult to take a good video at night with a phone.

1 -
[https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/publicsafety/news/updates-i...](https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/publicsafety/news/updates-
investigations-suspicious-drone-activity-ne-colorado)

2 - [https://www.denverpost.com/2019/12/23/drones-mystery-
colorad...](https://www.denverpost.com/2019/12/23/drones-mystery-colorado/)

3 - [https://www.canoncitydailyrecord.com/2020/01/09/colorado-
hom...](https://www.canoncitydailyrecord.com/2020/01/09/colorado-homeland-
security-plane-couldnt-find-drones/)

4 - [https://www.denverpost.com/2019/12/31/drone-video-yuma-
count...](https://www.denverpost.com/2019/12/31/drone-video-yuma-county-
colorado/)

------
droithomme
The article didn't convince me at all that it was mass hysteria, in fact that
conclusion seems fairly specious.

