6 ms·

Deadhorse UFO Incident: NORAD Logs Reveal Insights into Object's Countermeasures

18 points by keepamovin 2y ago

1970-01-01 2y ago
Absolutely no evidence to suggest linking the power failure to the incident. Did I miss anything?
- keepamovin 2y ago
  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.
admjs 2y ago
Occams razor idea -- state actor spy balloon/drone + state actor hackers inside the power system?
- smallmouth 2y ago
  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.
- grahamj 2y ago
  yeah I'm thinking planes and hacks
- keepamovin 2y ago
  probably NORAD with all their sensors hasn't been able to invalidate that idea. hahaha! :)
- steve1977 2y ago
  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?
doctor_radium 2y ago
Skimmed the article and it seemed like a lot of speculation and redacted military communications. From Wikipedia: On February 16, 2023, US President Joe Biden stated that the downed object was probably a civilian-owned balloon and "most likely tied to private companies, recreation or research institutions". https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Alaska_high-altitude_object https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Alaska_high-altitude_ob...
- beefnugs 2y ago
  Yeah fun to read, but jesus "redacted in full: perhaps <insane made up bullshit>" every second entry
  - keepamovin 2y ago
    Insane made up bullshit seems a bit of stretch when NORAD gave it a UAP designator.
    - bitnasty 2y ago
      NORAD giving it a UAP designator is not a free license to fill in the (numerous) blanks with whatever you want.
      - keepamovin 2y ago
        Hahaha! It's not blanks. UAP.
- keepamovin 2y ago
  We need to put more stock in a FOIA release of internal NORAD logs, than WH public statements, here. You wouldn't say?
viraptor 2y ago
> orders the facility remain on emergency diesel generation power until after the UAP20 intercept mission is completed. This is a very odd command to give Since when is "we've got enough fuel, let's deal with one issue at a time" an odd command? > Line 39: A rather lengthy log entry by WO Roberts, possibly describing the countermeasures the UAP deployed against the Raptors that were reported by the pilots involved. Redacted in full. Holy baseless speculation, Batman!
- keepamovin 2y ago
  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 :)
  - viraptor 2y ago
    That specific line was baseless speculation. There's nothing to suggest countermeasures at that point and the whole line is redacted. > for the power-hardened facility it is clearly stated at the start I'm not sure that's as relevant as the page implies. We'd have to know the exact procedures, but having a site with multiple power sources and protections doesn't mean the switching system can never fail. If you have 2 failures in a short time, the best course of action is very likely "stop touching that thing until someone qualified figures out what's going wrong".
    - keepamovin 2y ago
      Heh! :) Okay, I think you might be missing the bigger picture. What is so crazy for you about the idea that there are countermeasures? It does seem like you are trying quite hard to say "This cannot be the case, absolutely."? Also, if you have time, you don't think the first “Installation of the Future” concept prototype... additional microgrids and “self-reliance” power generation systems implies a certain level of technical competence were failures would be highly unusual?

18 points by keepamovin 2y ago

1970-01-01 2y ago

Absolutely no evidence to suggest linking the power failure to the incident. Did I miss anything?

keepamovin 2y ago
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.

admjs 2y ago

Occams razor idea -- state actor spy balloon/drone + state actor hackers inside the power system?

smallmouth 2y ago
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.
grahamj 2y ago
yeah I'm thinking planes and hacks
keepamovin 2y ago
probably NORAD with all their sensors hasn't been able to invalidate that idea. hahaha! :)
steve1977 2y ago
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?

doctor_radium 2y ago

Skimmed the article and it seemed like a lot of speculation and redacted military communications. From Wikipedia: On February 16, 2023, US President Joe Biden stated that the downed object was probably a civilian-owned balloon and "most likely tied to private companies, recreation or research institutions". https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Alaska_high-altitude_object https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Alaska_high-altitude_ob...

beefnugs 2y ago
Yeah fun to read, but jesus "redacted in full: perhaps <insane made up bullshit>" every second entry
- keepamovin 2y ago
  Insane made up bullshit seems a bit of stretch when NORAD gave it a UAP designator.
  - bitnasty 2y ago
    NORAD giving it a UAP designator is not a free license to fill in the (numerous) blanks with whatever you want.
    - keepamovin 2y ago
      Hahaha! It's not blanks. UAP.
keepamovin 2y ago
We need to put more stock in a FOIA release of internal NORAD logs, than WH public statements, here. You wouldn't say?

viraptor 2y ago

> orders the facility remain on emergency diesel generation power until after the UAP20 intercept mission is completed. This is a very odd command to give Since when is "we've got enough fuel, let's deal with one issue at a time" an odd command? > Line 39: A rather lengthy log entry by WO Roberts, possibly describing the countermeasures the UAP deployed against the Raptors that were reported by the pilots involved. Redacted in full. Holy baseless speculation, Batman!

keepamovin 2y ago
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 :)
- viraptor 2y ago
  That specific line was baseless speculation. There's nothing to suggest countermeasures at that point and the whole line is redacted. > for the power-hardened facility it is clearly stated at the start I'm not sure that's as relevant as the page implies. We'd have to know the exact procedures, but having a site with multiple power sources and protections doesn't mean the switching system can never fail. If you have 2 failures in a short time, the best course of action is very likely "stop touching that thing until someone qualified figures out what's going wrong".
  - keepamovin 2y ago
    Heh! :) Okay, I think you might be missing the bigger picture. What is so crazy for you about the idea that there are countermeasures? It does seem like you are trying quite hard to say "This cannot be the case, absolutely."? Also, if you have time, you don't think the first “Installation of the Future” concept prototype... additional microgrids and “self-reliance” power generation systems implies a certain level of technical competence were failures would be highly unusual?