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 :)

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.

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

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