'NORAD And The UFO Smokescreen'

There's some interesting reading in the articles below from Australian researcher Paul Dean about UFOs and the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) - mainly concerning their seemingly contradictory claims that they have 'no present activity in investigating UFOs' or that 'no formal documentation' is created by them.

Continuing on from my last blog post, “NORAD And The UFO Smokescreen: Part 1”, I will carry on presenting evidence, in the form of declassified documents, that the North American Aerospace Defence Command (NORAD) has been heavily involved in significant, inexplicable and unexplainable UFO events since its formation in 1957..

Also brought up are the subjects of JANAP 146 procedures and CIRVIS reports as well as info taken from official government documentation involved in cases such as the Flight JAL 1628 incident, the SAC Base flyovers and other historical cases - according to Mr Dean the documents 'establish that NORAD, even so long ago, was very much concerning itself with serious UFO sightings made by US or Canadian forces, and any claims to the contrary are absolute nonsense'.

This blogpost is the third in a series which aims to link, through official and documented record, the UFO matter with the huge North American Aerospace Defence Command (NORAD). For over 50 years, NORAD’s stance on so-called “UFOs” – and I don’t mean merely stray aircraft – is that they know nothing, see nothing and hold nothing on record. However, myriad US military documents prove that NORAD has not been entirely honest. In this post I will highlight two especially unusual occasions where they were certainly involved. But, beforehand, if my readers need to catch up, Part 1 and 2 of this series can be seen here:

NORAD And The UFO Smokescreen

NORAD And The UFO Smokescreen Part 2

NORAD And The UFO Smokescreen Part 3

The infamous Bolender memo also gets a mention (which really does seem to fly in the face of the US Goverment's claims that 'No UFO reported, investigated and evaluated by the Air Force was ever an indication of threat to our national security') and for those that are interested then this video featuring researcher John Greenewald Junior is also a classic and basically shows NORAD are lying through their teeth just by citing their own documents (the part where he nails NORAD about CIRVIS Military pilot UFO reports is around 0:15:00).



Bolender / NORAD?

“Moreover, reports of unidentified flying objects which could affect national security are made in accordance with JANAP 146 or Air Force Manual 55-11, and are not part of the Blue Book system.”

“However, as already stated, reports of UFOs which could affect national security would continue to be handled through the standard Air Force procedures designed for this purpose.”

Nicely done, sir. This is the kind of thread that adds value to the UFO forum. A few years back, there were many more such threads being posted regularly by you and other informed members. Any more the forum seems to have largely devolved into a clearinghouse for lame YouTube videos. Thanks for keeping the real issues alive.

a reply to: karl 12

Bolender / NORAD?

Your threads always give me a mental woody...

Appreciate the diligence.

a reply to: karl 12

There are all sorts of ways that the truth comes out. Ben R. Rich the former head of Lockheed's Skunk Works wrote in his book Skunk Works that as they were doing early testing of the SR-71 in high speed flights across the southwest and coast that they would be sure and call NORAD and tell them the time of the run so they would know it was one of "ours" and not a UFO (commonly called back then as a "fastwalker."

a reply to: karl 12

Id imagine G. H.W. Bush knows. Afterall, he was involved in quite a bit pertaining to this as director of the Ci.a, spoke of a new world order, etc...

Maybe someone should ask him? Wouldnt that be something he ended up revealing the truth to the public.

Appreciate the replies and it certainly is a intriguing article (so hats off to Mr Dean) - in the linked vid presentation J.G.J. mentions how NORAD is now the government's 'information clearing house' for military and commercial UFO reports and quite clearly demonstrates how the classified JANAP 146 E UFO reporting forms go straight through to NORAD from the US/Canadian Military and commercial pilot FAA reports.. so it's a bit of a mystery as to why they pretend they don't exist.

As for government documents, there are plenty more about the SAC Base flyovers in this thread and apparently unconventional aerial objects 'demonstrated a clear intent on the weapons storage areas' - if that's not a National Security issue then I don't know what is.

Since 28 Oct 75 numerous reports of suspicious objects have been received at the NORAD CU; reliable military personnel at Loring AFB, Maine, Wurtsmith AFB, Michigan, Malmstrom AFB, Mt, Minot AFB, ND, and Canadian Forces Station, Falconbridge, Ontario, Canada have visually sighted suspicious objects."

The Commander-in-Chief of North American Air Defense Command, November 11th, 1975.

Incidentally he may be making it up (and I don't think he is) but USAF Radar controller Michael Smith once testified that standard USAF operating procedure when you see a UFO on radar screen is to notify NORAD, not to write anything down and to keep it to yourself on a strictly need to know basis.

He also says NORAD informed him to lie to police officers who were reporting the UFOs by telling them they were not picking any objects up on radar (when in fact they were).


Vid


Cheers.

Thank you, Karl 12, for linking and commenting on this research here. Paul Dean also writes at the end of the third blog you linked that there is more to come at his blog site on this subject:

"In my next blog post I will be discussing the current and ongoing efforts by myself and UK researcher David Charmichael to get to the bottom of how NORAD currently handles the UFO matter. Stay tuned."

The more cracks in the cover-up that get exposed the better. Dean refers to 'thousands' of such cracks in documents that he and other researchers obtained through the FOIA window while it was open. Dean is bringing the details forward now. It would be good to see the development of a website presenting all this, linked to Robert Hastings's site concerning UFOs and Nukes. Thank you again for all you do.

There were always UFO flyovers of SAC bases. Ask anyone that has been to Eielson AFB or Shemya island with Big Martha. They got tired of scrambling the interceptors in the late 70s early 80s

a reply to: Gothmog

Yes, and it continues. The earliest examples of ufo activity over atomic and nuclear sites that I've read about took place over the Hanover nuclear fuel production facility in Washington in 1941. There is probably a thread here concerning the recurring sightings at that location for many years.

It's an interesting topic and I'll check the links out later as well.

If anyone knows about UFO activity it surely must be the people at NORAD.

It reminds of a time about 4 or 5 years ago when a guy called C2C AM and claimed to have worked at NORAD and accidentally let it slip that the code word for them was "Uf-con", or "F-con".

The most interesting part was that the caller also said that jets were ordered to drop flares as a cover-story for one of these craft when it's cloak or invisibility shield had failed on the night of the Phoenix Lights.

Now he could have been full of it. But George Knapp kept him on the line for a good 5-10 mins. until the caller realized he'd let the code word slip and ended the call with something like "...I think I've already said too much".

If anyone's interested in more information then I'll try to find out which show it was.


ETA : In fact that call can be heard here : Alleged NORAD insider talks

It was on the Coast to Coast UFO Special of Sunday - August 28th 2011 and the full show is still available for Coast insiders.

a reply to: mirageman

That is a pretty interesting phone call, and the guy certainly sounds genuine -

- especially toward the end when he lets the "Ufcons" term out of the bag, you can tell he is very disconcerted at that point and wraps the conversation up fast...
...which I don't think he'd have done if he was just 'conning' George Knapp, because you can tell that Knapp was inclined to keep the call going even longer than the 13 minutes it had already gone.

I highly recommend giving it a listen to anyone who hasn't heard it.


There's an ATS thread on the call here: C2C NORAD caller thread

I didn't see any particularly interesting contributions in the posts - it only went for 5 pages, and quite a lot was taken up by an argument about the video of the flares from the Phoenix Lights 'incident'..

UFOs do exist, as physical objects...thus NORAD is involved. NASA & the Canadian Space Agency use military astronauts & both co-ordinate with NORAD which is under their joint command.

They have a lot of people that get involved in stuff, thus some will talk. But it is just storytelling without evidence. Evidence that is more than stories or paper proof.

NORAD calls such reports & videos.."farmer in the field' evidence. And in the end it turns up on some dumb digital UFO show..& dies.

This type of disclosure has happened over & over with the NORAD folks ... & despite being great, interesting & "just like the old days" @ATS.., it doesn't even get a sniff anymore from the 'usual' skeptics or big JIM.

So why can't any amateur astronomers see these events? Great topic..It will be interesting to one day find out who the occupants are of the UFO's. I think we will know pretty soon. Too many countries have released documents about UFO's to allow the US to keep concealing the info.

Pilots should have go pros put in the cockpit and record these UFO's once and for all.

originally posted by: game over man
So why can't any amateur astronomers see these events?

They can, and they do.

It's embarrassing how much our government and especially our DoD lies to the people that pay their salaries. The time for full disclosure yesterday and it won't even come tomorrow. Still 3 excellent pages of reading. Looking forward to more.

On the UFCon- unidentifiable flying (radar) contact? I wonder how many of them were visually identified and if it's a large percentage how do they keep the pilots who intercept so quiet all of these years?

The job of the government is to do what's best for the people. Taken at their word, does anyone see how people might be spooked by reports of ET crafts, when the full story isn't known or cannot be know?

NORAD and god knows how many other agencies & departments around the world know what these are. They won't tell you, but they know. At the very least, they know they are there, and these are apparently what present no threat or defense issues. If you don't watch the whole thing you'll be cheating yourself. How can you account for what's seen in this video? Don't miss the 11 minute mark. Feel free to say that movement is a "bird". Secret military aircraft? This video suggests there are hundreds of them. A very special bird. Strangely, we saw similar motion in a recent video of a ball thing buzzing an apartment block. Put aside the person filmings reputation, mute the video if you must. This is what the general public need to make noise about and demand answers for:

(You may want to skip to 1:50 when the clear action begins)



When you wonder what buzzed JAL flight and what other pilots have seen, or what craft Bob Lazar possibly worked on (he said they had several of them), this video presents you with some pretty good options.

originally posted by: Constance
a reply to: Gothmog

Yes, and it continues. The earliest examples of ufo activity over atomic and nuclear sites that I've read about took place over the Hanover nuclear fuel production facility in Washington in 1941. There is probably a thread here concerning the recurring sightings at that location for many years.

I need to correct the name of the atomic fuel (later nuclear fuel) production facility in Washington state from Hanover to Hanford.

originally posted by: FlyingFox
The job of the government is to do what's best for the people. Taken at their word, does anyone see how people might be spooked by reports of ET crafts, when the full story isn't known or cannot be know?

Sounds like the reasoning a helicopter parent uses. I can't let little Johnny hang out with the other boys because he's smaller and might get picked on. Well maybe Johnny gets picked on because he's used to having a bodyguard and doesn't know how to fit in. Or maybe Johnny will be better off when he's 20 something if he learns how to stick up for himself and/or fit in now.

The government is here to work for us. When's the last time you hired someone and then they dictated to you how they were gonna work or when or why. That's terrible logic. People should know because they will be better prepared to respond, learn, and have informed opinions if they know. Some won't comprehend or will feel fear but that's just genetics they'll have to adapt.

a reply to: Gothmog

I have been aware that UFOs were flying over the Alaskan region for years. JAL 1628 is an interesting case. About two months later, a gigantic UFO came close to an Air Force KC-135.