The North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) and Air Force Space Command (AFSPC)

Discussion in 'Science, Tech, & Space Exploration' started by Paul Dean, Dec 7, 2019.

  1. Paul Dean

    Paul Dean Adept

    Messages:
    16
    Folks, I'm not sure if this is the correct location for what I want to present or discuss, but the Admins can decide on that later.

    I'm an Australian-based researcher who, long ago, decided to focus on - God forbid - the actual frontline of the UFO issue.. You know?, the locations where everyone should be honing in on like a laser beam. Instead, 99.99% of UFOlogy (and I'm talking about half decent researchers, not even the kooks right) has bogged itself down with every distracting fool garbage thing from the CIA's mythical role in secretly investigating UFO's and witnesses on a massive, bullying, organised scale, to the FBI's shock role in the discovery of non-existant crashed "discs", to the fabled "Area 51" (which is actually titled "Detachment 3, Air Force Flight Test Center" and hasn't been "Area 51 for.. a while) fakery and hokum which infests UFO discussion like a poison dye.

    I have spent 6 years begging people to look at precisely where UFO's (should they exist) would actually be detected, tracked, tagged, logged, vectored in on (by combat jets), investigated, etc.

    It is, for the USA and Canada, the bi-national and almost-silent North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) and the USAF's huge Air Force Space Command (AFSPC) who are on the frontline of atmospheric detection, identification of objects (one hopes planes usually), space surveillance, etc. Its more complex than that of course.. One has to grasp the massive and ever-changing organisational charts of both entities over time. Simply put, 1) NORAD is responsible for aerospace/air sovereignty, the chasing down of stray or hijacked aircraft, military airspace management (with the USAF's MAJCOM's), and, finally, NORAD are a customer of space data, which comes from, the next entity, 2) AFSPC, who manage the Space Surveillance Network (SSN) which detects and tracks everything in low earth space the size of a golf ball and bigger, and then even objects right out to 40,000 miles above Earth too. AFSPC have 21 sites (ultra-long-range radars like the old SPACE TRACK or SPACE FENCE, and the Ground Electro-Optical Surveillance System (GEODSS) systems, and even a portion of the critical Ballistic Missile Early Warning System (BMEWS) which continually look for new objects like sudden missile launches by rogue nations, and space junk break-ups, and even satellites that "maneuver" in space.

    Of the two (NORAD and AFSPC), I have tackled NORAD the most, and what I have found is shocking. Massive concealing of even 50 year old documents; endless lies to researchers (in writing), like the use of the term "UFO" in vast Senior Directors Logs despite claiming SD's and intel staff don't use that term (UFO) in any capacity; Command Directors Logs filled with UFO sighting from military AND civilian pilots; specifically charging UFO researchers more money for basic FOI request searches (internal HQ memos demanded FOI staffers to charge Robert Todd and the Citizens Against UFO Secrecy boys more than they could ever pay on UFO file requests); the NORAD History Office pretending it didn't exist; on and on and on... An entire intel/analysis cell dedicated to analysing so-called "NORAD Remaining Unknowns" with not a single explanation of what they do, even to Congressmen; NORAD having a say in what USAF space detection data should be classified; Condon's team not allowed to see anything at Cheyenne Mountain NORAD Battle Center that wasn't merely well-known and endlessly orbiting space junk; OPREP-3 "Serious Incident/Serious Event reports sent to NORAD HQ and elsewhere when an "Unknown Track" acted up (which in itself is fine, except...) which hales back to Brig. Gen. Carrol H. Bolender's 1969 Air Staff Study which mentioned OPREP-3's (actually he stated AFM 55-11 which contained OPREP-3 usage info, but same deal) as being perfect for "UFO reports which affect national security"; on and on and on...

    Anyway, its a big read, and very dry. Many readers wont be bothered with this, but, in order, this is what I have penned on NORAD so far (below). There are at least 40 more entries coming out in the next few years. Its that big.

    UFOs - Documenting The Evidence

    UFOs - Documenting The Evidence

    UFOs - Documenting The Evidence

    UFOs - Documenting The Evidence

    UFOs - Documenting The Evidence

    UFOs - Documenting The Evidence

    UFOs - Documenting The Evidence

    UFOs - Documenting The Evidence

    UFOs - Documenting The Evidence
     
    • Awesome Awesome x 3
    • Thanks Thanks x 1
  2. nivek

    nivek As Above So Below

    Messages:
    20,955
    Excellent post and links Paul, I've already read parts of those reports recently, will continue reading more today...Does NORAD also have a say in the affairs of NASA and what they say and release?...For instance, when there is a live feed from NASA and an unknown object comes into view many times the live feed is abruptly cut off, are those instructions coming from NORAD?...

    ...
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 1
  3. nivek

    nivek As Above So Below

    Messages:
    20,955
    All uncorrelated target data becomes classified if it isn't resolved?...I didn't know that, are they ever brought out for review again or compared to other uncorrelated targets in attempts to resolve their identity or is that data forever shelved to forever remain classified?...

    ...
     
    • Like Like x 1
  4. nivek

    nivek As Above So Below

    Messages:
    20,955
    bump...:Whistle:

    ...
     
  5. Paul Dean

    Paul Dean Adept

    Messages:
    16
    Well, not in the way you think.. Remember, NORAD isn't responsible for space surveillance (that's detection and tracking of objects (known or unknown), verification, impact prediction, tagging, etc). AFSPC is. NORAD is only a "customer" or "stake holder" in AFSPC space surveillance data. In other words, NORAD doesn't do an ounce of frontline space surveillance themselves, but their some of their missions (like confirmed missile warning and space junk impact prediction announcements ) do rely on processed data from the AFSPC's operational space surveillance wings and squadrons. So what you probably mean is "Does NASA take cues from AFSPC at times".. The answer is indeed yes. I have seen USSTRATCOM (the head honcho's even above AFSPC) guides, manuals, command directives, etc that list NASA liaison cells at top echelon AFSPC posts. I've also seen AFSPC manuals, guides, etc that say exactly the same thing. Simply put, AFSPC centers (like the AFSPC-dominated Joint Functional Component Center for Space (JFCC_SPACE) and their ultimate bosses (USSTRATCOM) maintain doctrinal records (of which I have copies, and I can send them if you want) that list NASA, the NRO, the NMCC, and piles of others as being right there on the floor when it comes to dedicated space detection, tracking, tagging, etc. Often these huge, hitherto classified publications have glossaries, for starters, and NASA is always in there. Read further and there are lists of contact cells where either AFSPC has staff at NASA, or NASA has staff at AFSPC. They have to. AFSPC aid NASA in everything: orbiting space junk that pay pose a problem for NASA spacecraft like Hubble; the monitoring of NASA rocket launches as redundancy backups lest NASA monitoring systems fail right at the crucial moment; the governance of NASA payload releases - when the payload is a AFSPC (or some other area of the overall USAF) satellite; on and on. The issue of NASA video feeds being cut or switched to other camera feeds is probably an inhouse NASA task.. But.. NASA's staffing is very heavy on USAF officers, retired or not, as well as US Navy and US Army personnel.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Thanks Thanks x 1
    • Awesome Awesome x 1
  6. Paul Dean

    Paul Dean Adept

    Messages:
    16
    This one is very complex.. The Space Surveillance Network (SSN) has been, since say the late 1970's, made up of so many sites and so many varied missions.. Some sites have been "Dedicated" SSN system sites. Some are "Collateral". Some sites are on foreign soil, and answer to this or that countries space agency just as much as the USAF or NORAD (NORAD used to do space surveillance as a primary mission, but not now, as I mentioned above). Some sites and their systems were made up US Navy's massive Naval Space Command's NAVSPASUR surveillance system, which fed into the old USSPACECOM's Space Defence Operations Center (SPADOC). Then, specifically, SPADOC was partially run by the 1st Command and Control Squadron (1CACS). Then there are the powerful ultra-long-range radars which have been in and out of operation, like the old SPACE TRACK. And the still operational Ground Electro-Optical Surveillance System (GEODSS) systems. And the Ballistic Missile Early Warning System (BMEWS) which has traditionally been placed within the 21st Space Wing of AFSPC.

    So... Of all the piles of declassified paper I have read, it depends on era, and even the controlling agency possibly making a mistake in their doctrine. Some documents state that "Uncorrelated Target" object data is classified SECRET, no matter what. Some docs state that "Uncorrelated Targets" are SECRET until confirmed as a known and unclassified object (ie not a classified US or allies satellite). Some state that all "Uncorrelated Targets" are SECRET, but can be downgraded to CONFIDENTIAL when in use by other agencies or even in university thesis work. Where it gets complex is when they choose to segregate different PARTS of "Uncorrelated Target" detection and track data: Maybe the "orbital element set" of an "Uncorrelated Target" object is UNCLASSIFIED/releasable, but not the associated "space object identification" (SOI) data. Maybe the sensor site where the "Uncorrelated Target" object was picked up should remain SECRET, but the rest of the data (element set, cross section (size), impact prediction assessments, etc) can all be released.

    Something else, which is most important here: Just because something is UNCLASSIFIED, doesn't mean its instantly releasable. I could write acres on this. UNCLASSIFIED information still has to be assessed before its an open slather. In Australia, the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) often keeps whole sets, or blocks, of UNCLASSIFIED records from me because it may, when all put together, form a bigger picture that should be classified say CONFIDENTIAL or even SECRET. Its called the "mosaic principle". I once asked, under the FOI Act, our RAAF for a "list" or "index" of ALL operational doctrine of the 41 Wing. This vital Wing and its squadrons do most of Australia's long range detection and tracking, so this was going to be most important. I wanted a list of titles of records, and then I could FOI request what I thought was interesting. Anyway, they decided to invoke the "mosaic principle" and not release any list of any operational doctrine. THEN, I FOI'ed my FOI!! I asked for all the correspondence that went on within the RAAF about my FOI request. They furnished me with piles of inhouse emails. One of the internal emails simply said that "...releasing a full index of 41WG's standing instructions and ops doctrine would create a classified environment".

    Finally, and so elegantly simple, I have a close family member who has been in the Aussie Army for 40 years. Incredible. Anyway, many years ago, when I was less astute in all this, I asked him about UNCLASSIFIED Army records. I specifically asked him about bringing me anything interesting.

    He said "Nope. Not a chance".

    I said, "Why.. Its not classified?!"

    He said, "Doesn't matter, I can't do it".

    I said "Why??"..

    He said "Simple.. I'm not authorized to."

    And that's what (even if your in the military) getting hold of even the most mundane, duplicated, unclassified records boil down to... You have to ask someone, then he/she asks someone higher up, and so on.
     
    • Awesome Awesome x 2
    • Like Like x 1
    • Thanks Thanks x 1
  7. Paul Dean

    Paul Dean Adept

    Messages:
    16
    I was just discussing a reasonably well worn story about UFO's and the now-replaced Defense Support Program (DSP) satellites, and thought I should get some facts down before I forget it all again.

    The story is, of course, that of "Fast Walkers" and their detection and tracking by the DSP platforms (now replaced by the SBIRS satellites). The rumour, within the various iterations of this wider topic, is that "Fast Walkers" are none-other than alien UFOs being picked up and watched on screens by amazed NORAD/USAF staffers, and the whole thing is super-highly classified, blah blah blah..

    Like many things, some of this hoopla is quite true. "Fast Walker" detections from space based platforms (like the old DSP satellites and the new SBIRS platforms) MAY be something really important, but not IS really important. We just dont know yet. And what we know so far isn't robust enough to fight Air Force Space Command (AFSPC) and others just yet. Resources are slim when it comes to engaging military agencies for their highly classified data. Another thing.. NORAD have almost nothing to do with it all..

    Again, the bottom line is this: The UFO community have, for some time now, latched on to the curious term “Fast Walker” right..? Moreover, UFO enthusiasts have variously claimed that Fast Walkers are alien spacecraft zooming around Earth, and that these events are detected in space by American reconnaissance satellites. Another claim is that the topic is ultra-highly classified. Interestingly, there is indeed some truth to these fantastic assertions. Firstly, “Fast Walker” is indeed an official term. It wasn’t just made up by enthusiastic UFO buffs. Secondly, it does indeed refer to objects in space whose identity may not, at least initially, be known. Thirdly, the topic is indeed highly classified. Almost no documentation has ever been released, and no public statements have ever been made. In fact, there appears to be a whole “Fast Walker Program”. Beyond those points, nothing I can verify supports the more outlandish claims that these detections are other-worldly spacecraft.

    The issue, however, is worth discussing. The Defence Support Program (DSP) was a long-life, space-based network of satellites that use infrared detectors to sense the intense heat invariably associated with missile launches, nuclear detonations, and even the afterburners of combat jets. Although an old statement, the Federation of American Scientists (FAS), says of DSP satellites:

    “DSP satellites have been the space-borne segment of NORAD’s Tactical Warning and Attack Assessment System since 1970. The satellites feed warning data, via communications links, to NORAD and US Space Command early warning centers within Cheyenne Mountain. These centers immediately forward data to various agencies and areas of operations around the world. Members of the Air Force Space Command 50th Space Wing's 1st Space Operations Squadron provide command and control support for the satellite.”

    Anyway.. Sometimes a DSP satellite would detect and track an object in space, and this is where the term “Fast Walker” appeared. "Fast Walker" refers to a foreign or unknown satellite that briefly come into the field of view (FOV) of DSP satellites. Jeffery T. Richelson, in his indispensable 1999 book, “America’s Space Sentinels: The History Of The DSP And SBIRS Satellite Systems”, states, on Page 107:

    “Most Fast Walkers have been routine observations of foreign spacecraft. The infrared readings obtained by DSP, resulting from the reflection of sunlight off the spacecraft, provided analysts at the CIA, DIA and Air Force Foreign Technology Division (now the National Air Intelligence Center) with data on spacecraft signatures and movements.”

    The reason the UFO community latched on to is due to the claims of UFO researcher Joe Stefula in the mid-1990’s. In 1996, for example, Stefula stated:

    “At 1126Z, 5 May, 1984, a DSP platform detected an object with heat in the 9,000 KW/SR range coming out of deep space and passing within 3 kilometers of the DSP. Its star tracking telescope first detected the object. The observation lasted nine minutes... …A detailed investigation failed to explain what caused the sensor reading, other than a real object of some type.”

    However, Jeffery T. Richelson reported that there was a more mundane explanation. In his above-mentioned book, he states:

    “The object that came perilously close to Flight 7 [DSP satellite] was not a UFO but a signals intelligence spacecraft, probably the VORTEX satellite launched on Jan. 31, 1984, from Cape Canaveral by the publicity-shy group of terrestrials who constituted the National Reconnaissance Office. The spacecraft in question, had failed to enter its proper geostationary orbit.”

    Obtaining records regarding Fast Walkers has been extremely hard. But there are a few examples. Air Force Space Command (AFSPC) regulation 55-55, dated 30th of December, 1992, and titled “Operations – Space Based Sensor (SBS) Large Processing Stations (LPS) And European Ground Station (EGS) Tactical Requirement Doctrine (TRD)” describes, on Page 38, a Fast Walker as a "detection of a space object in a satellites FOV”.

    There are two unclassified USAF theses, both written for the Air Force Institute of Technology (AFIT), that discuss Fast Walkers. Neither discusses UFO’s.

    The earliest one, published on June 20th, 1989, is titled “Orbit Determination of Sunlight Illuminated Objects Detected by Overhead Platforms”, and was written by Captain Richard P. Osedacz. He states in his introduction:

    “Due to the multitude of objects in the geostationary belt, overhead platforms are being saturated by reflected sunlight from orbiting objects passing through the ’sensors field of view. These objects, known as fastwalkers, are creating a suspicion that some uncatalogued objects may exist or are being cross-tagged within the data base. The North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) tasked the Foreign Technology Division, Flight Performance Division (FTD/SQDF) to analyze these 15 to 30 minute data tracks and determine the element set, identifying the object.”

    This is very interesting as it shows that "Fast Walker" data is sent to the Foreign Technology Division (now NASIC).

    The other thesis, published in March 2008, and written by US Army Captain Bradley R. Townsend, likewise discusses the detection and imaging of Fast Walkers. Titled “Space Based Satellite Tracking and Characterization Utilizing Non-Imaging Passive Sensors”, Cap. Bradley’s introduction states:

    “Satellite based sensors looking down at the Earth’s surface occasionally observe reflected light from an object passing through the image which is moving too fast relative to the background of the image to be located within the atmosphere. These objects are commonly called fastwalkers. This term refers to any orbital object seen passing through the field of view of an Earth observing sensor which is suspected of being in orbit.”

    To sum up, we do not know much about "Fast Walkers" or the associated “Fast Walker Program”. But what we do know, from the available, if limited, information, is that America’s old DSP satellites (and newer SBIRS satellites) sometimes detect bright sunlight which is reflected from objects that rapidly pass by. Frustratingly, we don’t even know if the program, or even the term “Fast Walker” is still currently used. The UFO community, however, often claim that this issue is somehow part of a huge cover-up, by NORAD, to monitor UFO’s as they travel about. This is simply speculation, and has no basis in reality. It is possible, of course, that if UFO’s do exist in near-Earth space, then they could be detected by dedicated space assets and labelled a “Fast Walker”. What happens after that is unknown, except that further investigations or data processing would surely be embarked on. But, for now, the more outlandish assertions of some UFO buffs cannot be substantiated at all. What we need is AFSPC data. The same data that is fed to NORAD and other customers. Not likely.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  8. Thomas R. Morrison

    Thomas R. Morrison Administrator

    Messages:
    1,203
    So in the course of your research, what do you feel is the most compelling data from official sources that argue in favor of the presence of unexplained anomalous vehicles performing radical maneuvers in terrestrial airspace? I've heard you talk about your revelations from uncovering "Operation Have Fear" during the Vietnam War - would those reports qualify as "best official evidence" in your view, or would you point to other official documentation?

    And you've read ungodly reams of official doctrine - what would you cite as the top three indications that the military knows about exotic devices in our airspace, and has been sending official reports about such incidents to intelligence units for subsequent analysis?

    In other words, if we think of ufology researchers as a bazooka that you could aim at the weakest points in the UFO secrecy apparatus, then what points would you target?

    @1963
     
    • Awesome Awesome x 1
  9. Kchoo

    Kchoo At Peace.

    Messages:
    2,368
    Paul,
    Thank you for the informtion. I will be reading it with interest.

    Thomas,
    While I admire people’s curiosity, and I understand that people want to know, I do not think using words like “bazooka” and “target” when talking about government agencies will help. Lol.
    You might be only encouraging doors to be slammed in your face...

    Besisdes, if any of this is Aliens, (and some of it might be, but I doubt it) If Aliens are threatening to us, we would know. The government would not need to share information about it, because it would be obvious if we were being invaded....

    It is more likely that these agencies don’t want to share information on space debri and unidentified fast walkers because they do not know for themselves. And if they do know, simply can’t divulge the secret.
     
  10. Kchoo

    Kchoo At Peace.

    Messages:
    2,368
    From part 8:

    Oh I LOVE this one:

    As you probably know, we are required under the Freedom of Information Act to release upon request from the public any “reasonably described” material in our possession that qualifies as a record and is not exempt from disclosure. However, the record must exist at the time of request. It is estimated that 340 hours of computer time and 400 manhours in addition to eight boxes of computer paper would be required to create the record of uncorrelated objects detected by NAVSPASUR.”


    8 boxes of computer paper... for existing uncorrelated objects...







     

Share This Page