I have been over the blog several times now, I am still sorting out between the onsite teams and what LS is saying, but you seem to make a pretty good case with the explanation of the SIN line, I did find that additional information superb to help illustrate the events. I am not overly concerned with Figel as his changing version is detrimental to the tale as a whole, even though I admit you did a stirling job reporting his version of events and his stance. Did he ever reply to your email? Alternative theories was indeed a nice way to finish the piece, I cannot fault the article myself, and can only say that I agree with it and it is logical. Figel not being invited the the 2010 conference was some dirty laundry that indeed needed airing, but I still remain stunned at the wiring configuration that you have described. This physically proves that the UFO did not affect 10 missiles at ones, and that it would be impossible to do so with a single line fault, which is by all counts what happened. And I would say this is the diamond in your blog. For me, this wiring configuration validates the title of case closed. ET could have been dancing on the nosecones, he still would have not been responsible for the shutdown.
The article certainly is a happy meal (It has it all) and I like that you seem to have broached every aspect of the case in it. From Figel to Carlson to responding to Hastings to what I feel is the actual nail in ET's coffin. Perhaps I was a little hard on Tim in his appraisal as the piece is indeed excellent, however, I would ask that if the both of you could consider the criticisms I laid out earlier as they were not due to the quality of either yours or Tim's work, but the general condition of the industry as a whole.
And scrap the perhaps above. I was too hard on the presentation. Sorry about that.
But you are correct in your observation, my main point was the LF connectivity isolation, it trumps everything in my opinion. Combine that with the only Echo's flight being involved and the final EMP suppression fix then the evidence from a systems design stand point heavily rules out UFO involvement.
You asked an earlier question concerning the secondary actuating door motor on E-2. This motor was used to roll back the launcher closure door during specific maintenance activities: guidance system and RV swap outs and pulling/placing the missile into the launch tube (silo). During an actual launch, explosive charges would propel the door, which is on rails, through the LF fence and out in the field clearing the site for missile launch. During maintenance, that I described above, a special van/trailer was parked directly over the open silo to perform the swap outs. SAC's policy was to avoid at all possible leaving the site uncovered and exposing the RV and missile to Soviet satellite photographing. Probably more information than you asked for.