Yukon UFO "Mothership" Incident: December 11th, 1996

Originally posted by TeaAndStrumpets

Originally posted by JimOberg
The brain chemistry of individuals is interesting, but we have here multiple witnesses widely distributed geographically. Something much more widespread -- and reproduceable -- seems required, IMHO.

Here are some more eyewitness drawings from the October 30, 1963 reentry of the kosmos-20 booster over Ukraine.
[snip]

Interesting. Is there more substantial data available on the whole mass of sightings from that 1963 reentry? I'd like to know to what extent such spaceship drawings are the norm, vs. being statistical outliers? Are they the exception, or the rule? I'd guess there must've been many people that day who accurately described what they saw, without inserting windows and thrusters and all?

Excellent points, and when the full report gets posted, I'll link to it. Those are exactly the right questions to ask.

Meanwhile, my satellite tracking experts have come up with the ground track of the decaying satellite, and it matches the ground sightings in direction, time, and duration, here:

OK, now that the tracking data is in, and shows the Kosmos-20 rocket body was passing at the right place, time, and direction, the set of eyewitness drawings can be offered as evidence that eyewitnesses seeing a fireball swarm can sometimes, indeed, misinterpret them as a nearby, slow-moving structured object -- which I argue also happened over the Yukon in 1996.

On June 13 I introduced the eyewitness drawings from the October 30, 1963 Kosmos-20 booster reentry, with a structured spaceplane drawing here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Later I linked to these two conflicting interpretations:
Fireballs files.abovetopsecret.com...
windowed craft: files.abovetopsecret.com...

Here are some new views:




...and here are some views where the swarm became ambiguous....

Now, here are some eyewitness drawings of how some witnesses saw the SAME thing, and interpreted them as structured craft:

Here's the link to the Russian report on the October 30, 1963 fireball swarm over Ukraine.

www.jamesoberg.com...

This amazing report may provide unprecedented insight into how eyewitnesses can react to a bizarre visual stimulus, caused by a satellite reentry.

It may for the first time allow a proper understanding of the kinds of UFO reports exemplified by the Yukon 'giant mothership' story.

Look also at the scatter of clock times, and the occasional 'out-lier' estimate of sighting duration. Precisely the same scatter was a characteristic of the Yukon reports.

I think this could be really important. But I also understand how proponents of a favored interpretation of the phenomenon would want it NOT to become widely known or discussed.

So let's see what happens now...

Interesting Data, Jim. This looks like incredibly compelling information but fails to address my point (relating to triangulation).

Originally posted by DeadSeraph
Interesting Data, Jim. This looks like incredibly compelling information but fails to address my point (relating to triangulation).

Please restate your point. I've lost that chain of thought.

Do you want somebody to map out the locations defined in the report to see if they are consistent with the Kosmos-20 rocket body reentry?

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by DeadSeraph
Interesting Data, Jim. This looks like incredibly compelling information but fails to address my point (relating to triangulation).

Please restate your point. I've lost that chain of thought.

Do you want somebody to map out the locations defined in the report to see if they are consistent with the Kosmos-20 rocket body reentry?

That would actually put the issue to bed if you could do so in such a way as to correlate your theory with witness testimony (all of the witnesses, mind you)

Originally posted by DeadSeraph

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by DeadSeraph
Interesting Data, Jim. This looks like incredibly compelling information but fails to address my point (relating to triangulation).

Please restate your point. I've lost that chain of thought.

Do you want somebody to map out the locations defined in the report to see if they are consistent with the Kosmos-20 rocket body reentry?

That would actually put the issue to bed if you could do so in such a way as to correlate your theory with witness testimony (all of the witnesses, mind you)

"With all of the witnesses..."

Ahhh, there's the rub. Are you insisting that the raw accounts of each and every witness must be accepted without question as totally accurate?

If that's the case, why bother with any investigation at all?

Wait a minute -- that seems to be the policy of many posters hereabouts [present company excepted].

What the Kosmos-20 1963 Ukraine report seems to indicate is that while there may be an approximate correlation of multiple accounts with parameters such as clock time and event duration, some of the reports are going to be out-liers -- will fall outside the average of the majority of reports.

Sometimes these out-liers are indeed telling us something, but sometimes they're just random fluctuations of inaccuracy of situational awareness, or of memory. Life's like that.

Where the crux of what is provable is located is here: to establish extraodinariness of a stimuli, an argument must be made persuasively that the report[s] could NOT have been engendered by prosaic events. For this argument to fail, a "devil's advocate" does not have to PROVE to the same standards that a different explanation MUST be true -- only that it could be true, that it's plausible.

Yes, this is assymetric. It almost looks rigged. But it's the basis of scientific reasoning regarding acceptance of NEW models of reality.

A careful examination of the scatter of reports from 1963 will reflect, I would argue, remarkable similarities to the body of reports from the Yukon.

And in both cases, entirely separately from the eyewitness testimony, we can establish beyond doubt the presence of a decaying rocket stage, moving in the same location, along the same direction, and with similar angular rates [hence, duration of visibility] to the average eyewitness reports.

I cannot find a single characteristic of the 1996 Yukon reports that differs in any way from the characteristics of the Ukraine 1963 reports. Hence I ascribe the same causative mechanism to both events.

Now, this probably requires additional analysis and discussion, but I think my argument has gotten a whole lot stronger with the discovery of the Ukraine reports [and my ability to read Russian].

And that strengthening, I owe to the candid give-and-take of this discussion board. It's one of the greatest rewards of participation here, making it worth my time and effort. Attaboys all around -- wherever we wind up in this debate.

Enjoy meaty ufo posts like this, informative and intriguing.
Way to go!

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by DeadSeraph

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by DeadSeraph
Interesting Data, Jim. This looks like incredibly compelling information but fails to address my point (relating to triangulation).

Please restate your point. I've lost that chain of thought.

Do you want somebody to map out the locations defined in the report to see if they are consistent with the Kosmos-20 rocket body reentry?

That would actually put the issue to bed if you could do so in such a way as to correlate your theory with witness testimony (all of the witnesses, mind you)

"With all of the witnesses..."

Ahhh, there's the rub. Are you insisting that the raw accounts of each and every witness must be accepted without question as totally accurate?

If that's the case, why bother with any investigation at all?

Wait a minute -- that seems to be the policy of many posters hereabouts [present company excepted].

What the Kosmos-20 1963 Ukraine report seems to indicate is that while there may be an approximate correlation of multiple accounts with parameters such as clock time and event duration, some of the reports are going to be out-liers -- will fall outside the average of the majority of reports.

Sometimes these out-liers are indeed telling us something, but sometimes they're just random fluctuations of inaccuracy of situational awareness, or of memory. Life's like that.

Where the crux of what is provable is located is here: to establish extraodinariness of a stimuli, an argument must be made persuasively that the report[s] could NOT have been engendered by prosaic events. For this argument to fail, a "devil's advocate" does not have to PROVE to the same standards that a different explanation MUST be true -- only that it could be true, that it's plausible.

Yes, this is assymetric. It almost looks rigged. But it's the basis of scientific reasoning regarding acceptance of NEW models of reality.

A careful examination of the scatter of reports from 1963 will reflect, I would argue, remarkable similarities to the body of reports from the Yukon.

And in both cases, entirely separately from the eyewitness testimony, we can establish beyond doubt the presence of a decaying rocket stage, moving in the same location, along the same direction, and with similar angular rates [hence, duration of visibility] to the average eyewitness reports.

I cannot find a single characteristic of the 1996 Yukon reports that differs in any way from the characteristics of the Ukraine 1963 reports. Hence I ascribe the same causative mechanism to both events.

Now, this probably requires additional analysis and discussion, but I think my argument has gotten a whole lot stronger with the discovery of the Ukraine reports [and my ability to read Russian].

And that strengthening, I owe to the candid give-and-take of this discussion board. It's one of the greatest rewards of participation here, making it worth my time and effort. Attaboys all around -- wherever we wind up in this debate.

Jim, I am honored to be discussing the subject with someone as esteemed as you. Let me make no mistake about it, I am curious about your theory and I am genuinely convinced of your honest intentions. Where I can't make heads or tails is your version of events, vs eyewitness testimony.


I truly appreciate your efforts at rationalizing this case, but unless you can do so with a solid case, I am prone to believe the eye witness testimony. You have presented compelling evidence (and I appreciate your honest efforts) but I have difficulty coming to the conclusion this was a re-entry when one witness saw the object pass directly over his car, and the other witness saw the object pass directly over the former witnesses car.

This is but 2 witnesses . The others have another story to tell. All together, I think you have constructed a lovely story for the average skeptic to use. Unfortunately, I don't think it meets the requirements of a thorough debunking.

Well, I'm going to sleep now, let's see what I can dream up!

Does your assessment of the Yukon stories also apply to the Ukraine stories -- that many witnesses saw a swarm of fiery fragments of the Kosmos-20 booster reentering, 60 miles overhead -- but other witnesses outside that night did NOT see the fireballs going by because they were focussed on a mechanical flying vehicle of unknown origin passing only a few hundred meters over their heads, in their own descriptions?

And that none of the Yukon witnesses noticed the satellite reentry because they, TOO, were fixated on the true UFO much closer overhead?

Did the 'true UFO' in front of their eyes some distract from, or even entirely block, the coincidental passage of the burning satellite debris?

Thanks for the discussion.

Originally posted by JimOberg
Well, I'm going to sleep now, let's see what I can dream up!

Does your assessment of the Yukon stories also apply to the Ukraine stories -- that many witnesses saw a swarm of fiery fragments of the Kosmos-20 booster reentering, 60 miles overhead -- but other witnesses outside that night did NOT see the fireballs going by because they were focussed on a mechanical flying vehicle of unknown origin passing only a few hundred meters over their heads, in their own descriptions?

And that none of the Yukon witnesses noticed the satellite reentry because they, TOO, were fixated on the true UFO much closer overhead?

Did the 'true UFO' in front of their eyes some distract from, or even entirely block, the coincidental passage of the burning satellite debris?

Thanks for the discussion.

According to FOX 6, the taped music began slowing down, so the 'blockage' also affected the electricity. The investigation makes no mention of the music that was being heard, but we were told that the tape slowed down. Presumably this was not radio music being affected by the phenomenon. Interesting case, in any event.

Originally posted by JimOberg
Well, I'm going to sleep now, let's see what I can dream up!

Does your assessment of the Yukon stories also apply to the Ukraine stories -- that many witnesses saw a swarm of fiery fragments of the Kosmos-20 booster reentering, 60 miles overhead -- but other witnesses outside that night did NOT see the fireballs going by because they were focussed on a mechanical flying vehicle of unknown origin passing only a few hundred meters over their heads, in their own descriptions?

And that none of the Yukon witnesses noticed the satellite reentry because they, TOO, were fixated on the true UFO much closer overhead?

Did the 'true UFO' in front of their eyes some distract from, or even entirely block, the coincidental passage of the burning satellite debris?

Thanks for the discussion.

You have definitely made a good case regarding the incident in the Ukraine. But these are two very different cases, and the eyewitnesses for the Yukon case didn't draw a range of different vague shapes. They all drew a very similar object. Furthermore, if I'm not mistaken, the witness that saw the object pass low, directly over a car, reported that it then stopped over the lake and hovered there. The testimony of the object scanning the ground with beams of light has also yet to be explained with your theory.

However, the data you've presented on the trajectory of the rocket body seems very compelling. I still don't think it's enough to put this case to bed, but it certainly goes a long way towards offering a rational explanation for what the witnesses claimed to see.

If I ever see a real life UFO I would never tell anyone but close friends. I would hate to have total strangers telling me that I saw "black" when I saw "white". Great case, this Yukon UFO is though.

When an important UFO case is solved, as in this case by ATS member Jim Oberg and his friends, IMHO it’s important to continue the old thread so that members can follow the whole story.

The alternative is to have two threads for each of those UFO events for which an acceptable prosaic solution has been proposed. Not, methinks, a particularly good idea.

Have a good Christmas.

i was born 11 december 1996 at 10:03pm

a reply to: Joshualien

I was born at 4:15am!!! Crazy coincidence right. And in june too!!!😮

a reply to: JimOberg

of all those drawings the only one that doesnt look like a meteorite are the bottom ones on the second image
everthing else looks like an meteorite
also the yukon is an undebunkable ufo sighting theres none and never was proof showing it was an meteortic re-entry

originally posted by: humanoidlord
a reply to: JimOberg

of all those drawings the only one that doesnt look like a meteorite are the bottom ones on the second image
everthing else looks like an meteorite
also the yukon is an undebunkable ufo sighting theres none and never was proof showing it was an meteortic re-entry

Please read my entire linked report on Kiev, and the links on the Yukon case which provide documentation that a satellite reentry was occurring at the precise location, time, and direction of the Yukon event. Who ever said 'meteoric re-entry', which is tautology anyway, as meteors [meteorites, actually] only enter, never re-enter, the atmosphere.

a reply to: JimOberg

yup same thing as before theres no way that what the witnesses described was an re-entry