> orders the facility remain on emergency diesel generation power until after the UAP20 intercept mission is completed. This is a very odd command to give
Since when is "we've got enough fuel, let's deal with one issue at a time" an odd command?
> Line 39: A rather lengthy log entry by WO Roberts, possibly describing the countermeasures the UAP deployed against the Raptors that were reported by the pilots involved. Redacted in full.
Holy baseless speculation, Batman!
Or not "baseless" on the assumption the power fluctuations are both: unusual (for the power-hardened facility it is clearly stated at the start); and coincident with the shootdown.
I don't think "we've the fuel, one at a time" is odd, but that's not the oddness that's inferred there.
It's odd because that facility should be experiencing those issues, and those issues should not be somehow linked to an op. Multiple ways to read, but I think's obvious. Also more fun! hahaha :)
That specific line was baseless speculation. There's nothing to suggest countermeasures at that point and the whole line is redacted.
> for the power-hardened facility it is clearly stated at the start
I'm not sure that's as relevant as the page implies. We'd have to know the exact procedures, but having a site with multiple power sources and protections doesn't mean the switching system can never fail. If you have 2 failures in a short time, the best course of action is very likely "stop touching that thing until someone qualified figures out what's going wrong".
Heh! :) Okay, I think you might be missing the bigger picture.
What is so crazy for you about the idea that there are countermeasures? It does seem like you are trying quite hard to say "This cannot be the case, absolutely."?
Also, if you have time, you don't think the first “Installation of the Future” concept prototype... additional microgrids and “self-reliance” power generation systems implies a certain level of technical competence were failures would be highly unusual?
Absolutely no evidence to suggest linking the power failure to the incident. Did I miss anything?
To the contrary: it is suggestive but you couldn't say it's definitive. The redactions prevent making a conclusion either way, right now. Unfortunately, I suppose.
Occams razor idea -- state actor spy balloon/drone + state actor hackers inside the power system?
My thoughts as well.
„Could these so-called UAP “countermeasures”, deployed over thousands of miles with pin-point accuracy be the real reason for government non-disclosure?“
Could the infiltration of defense systems by an adversary not be as good a reason?
Speaking from personal experience, occam's razor goes straight out the window when one sees one of these things up close.
Anyway, Robert Hastings has written and researched extensively on this very phenomenon.
probably NORAD with all their sensors hasn't been able to invalidate that idea. hahaha! :)
yeah I'm thinking planes and hacks
Skimmed the article and it seemed like a lot of speculation and redacted military communications. From Wikipedia:
On February 16, 2023, US President Joe Biden stated that the downed object was probably a civilian-owned balloon and "most likely tied to private companies, recreation or research institutions".
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Alaska_high-altitude_ob...
We need to put more stock in a FOIA release of internal NORAD logs, than WH public statements, here. You wouldn't say?
Yeah fun to read, but jesus "redacted in full: perhaps <insane made up bullshit>" every second entry
Insane made up bullshit seems a bit of stretch when NORAD gave it a UAP designator.
NORAD giving it a UAP designator is not a free license to fill in the (numerous) blanks with whatever you want.
Hahaha! It's not blanks. UAP.