2 "The police can confirm that it was drones that flew over both Forsmark and Oskarshamn. (Read on. Can they? ~Joe)
"A security guard from Forsmark's nuclear power plant contacted the police after a drone flew over the facility within the protection area. The drone was of
3 "a larger model that can withstand wind, as it blew hard in the area.
"'We tried 2 locate it for a while, but we did not succeed in finding it again,' says Petra Blomqvist, press spokesperson at the police region Mitt to UNT.
"The event is considered exceptional...
4 "There are no suspects at this time.
Q: Similar testimonies at several nuclear power plants were received by the police at about the same time last night. Do you see that it can be something coordinated?
5 "'We do not speculate about it, but I speak for Forsmark,' says Josef Nylén.
"Staff from the Oskarshamn nuclear power plant also alerted the police at around 7 pm that something described as a drone was flying at the area. On Saturday, the police confirm that it was a drone.
6 "'Last night we were on site at Oskarshamn because they had noted what is described as a drone over the nuclear power area,' says police spokesman Jimmy Modin.
"Shortly after 9 pm on Friday, security guards at Ringhals also contacted the police after hearing something that
7 "sounded like a drone flying over the area.
"The police state on Saturday, after using a helicopter in the investigations, among other things, that no object was found & that it is not possible 2 confirm whether it was a drone.
"'It is not certain that it was a drone at all.
8 "'Staff at Ringhals have suspected this and it may be that they are calling for preventive purposes because they have seen it at other nuclear power plants,' says Peter Adlersson, press spokesperson at Police Region West, to TT.
9 "The police also went to the decommissioned Barsebäck nuclear power plant at midnight after a possible observation of a drone of personnel on site had been made.
"'Nothing could be ascertained at the scene, but the patrol has drawn up a report of unauthorized access to
10 "protected objects & violations of the Civil Aviation Act.'
"The Armed Forces & the Security Police are informed of the incidents. Within the police, there is a national coordination of the investigations."
That's most of it.
"It is not certain that it was a drone at all."
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
LE: Oct. 2017 & coming out of the shadows on that stage with TTSA: With his previous job, he was used to having enemies & being anonymous. He wasn't used to using his name.
2 LE: Lots of people came before us with these type of claims about UFOs, JFK, etc. so I don't take it personally that media didn't take it seriously until the NYT ran their article. This field has a lot of interesting characters so you need to figure out who is who.
3 LE: Pentagon full of good people but when there are pockets of people who are jaded & even corrupts. When I went public, people in my chain of command were pissed off. How come I wasn't briefed? Why were you briefing Sec. of Defense staff & WH liaison & not two-star equivalent
1 Great book. Art Bell partook in some big time #UFO-tainment (Ed Dames was his ratings king) but he was so good at what he did, you didn’t realize it. One of the best interviewers I’ve ever heard and always asked the questions you were thinking.
2 I communicated w/Art on FB & messenger & we talked about 2012 (I wanted him as my host for a 2012 TV show I never did. He was open 2 the idea), Trump (Art really liked him) & I brought up Dames & the dangers of, “I interview the guest & my audience decides if they’re credible.”
3 I wasn’t a fan of that bc Art would prop up & praise Dames in his intro. and make him sound more credible than he was. In reality, after training in NYC, Ingo recommended Dames NOT be a remote viewer bc his imagination got in the way. So Dames was just a monitor in the program
"When we can specially take up that subject, one of our leading ideas, or credulities, will be that near approach by another world to this world would be catastrophic: that
2 "navigable worlds would avoid proximity; that others that have survived have organized into protective remotenesses, or orbits which approximate to regularity, though by no means to the degree of popular supposition.
"But the persistence of the notion that we must be
3 interesting. Bugs and germs and things like that: they're interesting to us: some of them are too "interesting.
"Dangers of near approach - nevertheless our own ships that dare not venture close to a rocky shore can send rowboats ashore -
1 If 2019 West Coast events & other unexplained incursions from "drones" are actually #ufos, it makes many of us think (as Eric Davis said) the phenomenon dictates disclosure. Is it trying to force us into revealing their presence? If so, it could be a mixed bag of good/bad.
2 Are we facing some near-future calamity that will need us to get our act together quickly in order for us to deal with it? Bad. Are "they" trying 2 wake us up? Good. Are "they" trying to alert us that we're also dealing w/some other negative intelligence that's taking advantage
3 of us? Bad. All speculation. Whatever it is, if it's trying to get us to evolve in some way, that could be good. Or, it could be the Vallee control system that's kicking in. If it's "automated" or dictated by certain social conditions that we've reached, that could be bad.
1 #ufo Was referencing Lue's comments earlier today on this
Lue: "Not a single one of these have been shot down, not a single one of these have ever been recovered from the ocean, not a single one of them has had a mechanical issue, not a single one has been able 2B intercepted.
LE: "And by the way, we have helicopters on these ships and not a single one has been caught by one of our helicopters or aircraft. You know, okaaaay. But you really got to do a lot of mental gymnastics then, to prove to me that that is some sort of
3 LE: "drone technology. I’m not saying it’s impossible. What I’m simply saying is you’ve got to build a case then to prove that. Because at this point, that’s a greater feat than saying it’s a UAP. Really. Because at that point, it’s, “Okay, well, we’re really talking about
1 Decent VF article from 12/22/17 that many may have missed.
"For Times editors, the primary considerations that led to the A1 publication of 'Glowing Auras and Black Money’: The Pentagon’s Mysterious U.F.O. Program' were more earthly in nature. 'The reason this was a story was
2 "'because the Pentagon acknowledged it had spent $22 million of taxpayer money to investigate U.F.O.s from 2007 to 2012 - & because Harry Reid had pushed for the funding, and was proud of it, on the record,' Washington Bureau Chief Elisabeth Bumiller, who oversaw the reporting,
3 "told me. 'We talked about it the way we talk about all stories - it had to be airtight.' Bumiller also noted that 'the story did not have a huge presence on A1 in print—it had only a small run on the front. On the Web, it had great play, in part because the video was so