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

Originally posted by JimOberg
Has anyone seriously searched for space events such as launchings, rocket firings, explosions, or reentries that might coincide in time, location, and direction with this wide-area family of reports? What sort of evidence would be needed to offer such a prosaic hypothesis for serious consideration?

Surely the possibility suggested itself to somebody involved in the investigation. Did they rule it out -- or never bother to look?

Did you actually read through the report and all the analysis that was conducted?

You do realize that the UFO/craft was viewed in several communities spanning a hundred miles of the Alaska highway, and many of these sightings were in close proximity. One witness was directly below the UFO/craft. It was estimated using triangulation from multiple witness sightings that the UFO/craft was between 1 and 2 km in diameter!

The witness descriptions of the UFO do not match in any way with a rocket firing, explosion, falling satellite.

Your totally lame attempt at debunking this sighting just demonstrates that you are yourself an armchair debunker, too lazy to even bother to read the reports of the sightings you are throwing your "alternate hypothesis" dreamed up without even a cursory attempt to familiarize yourself with the case.

reply to post by JimOberg


Jim,

1996 December 11 - . 12:00 GMT - . Launch Site: Baikonur. Launch Complex: Baikonur LC90/19. Launch Pad: LC90/pad?. LV Family: Tsiklon. Launch Vehicle: Tsiklon-2.
Cosmos 2335 - . Payload: US-PM s/n 8. Mass: 3,150 kg (6,940 lb). Nation: Russia. Agency: MO. Program: EORSAT. Class: Military. Type: Military naval signals reconnaisance satellite. Spacecraft: US-PU. Decay Date: 1999-01-01 . USAF Sat Cat: 24670 . COSPAR: 1996-069A. Apogee: 418 km (259 mi). Perigee: 403 km (250 mi). Inclination: 65.0000 deg. Period: 92.80 min. Summary: EORSAT, second of three to be stationed at 120 degree intervals on the same orbit with a 143 degree ascending node. However cutbacks in program resulted in the constellation not being completed. Still in operation as of December 1999.

Very interesting indeed. Still thinking about this.

Cheers.

Originally posted by bluestreak53
The witness descriptions of the UFO do not match in any way with a rocket firing, explosion, falling satellite.

Do you even know what a 'falling satellite' really looks like?

If you don't -- and I suspect you don't -- you're using a classic 'argument from ignorance' here.

Tell me, what WOULD a falling satellite, say, a rocket booster still containing some unused propellant, look like from the ground as it reentered the atmosphere? How big -- angular size -- would the fireball and trail be? How level or teep would the descent path be?

In your opinion?

Regarding the idea of using space events as a witness calibration test, I've played around with the notion for some time -- maybe now is the time to formalize it:

www.debunker.com...

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by bluestreak53
The witness descriptions of the UFO do not match in any way with a rocket firing, explosion, falling satellite.

Do you even know what a 'falling satellite' really looks like?

If you don't -- and I suspect you don't -- you're using a classic 'argument from ignorance' here.

Tell me, what WOULD a falling satellite, say, a rocket booster still containing some unused propellant, look like from the ground as it reentered the atmosphere? How big -- angular size -- would the fireball and trail be? How level or teep would the descent path be?

In your opinion?

How about referencing the actual witness reports???

Three witnesses on highway along Fox Lake...

Fox1 – three rows of rectangular windows,

Fox2 – huge object with row of lights hovering out over lake

Fox3 – huge object over lake, high domed top outlined with small diffuse lights, two rows of large rectangular lights across middle, three long rectangular lights on left and right sides of UFO, stacked three high and orange in color

Trapper who had close up view on his trapline near Pelly Crossing...


Pel1 – long row of 100 or more rectangular lights, each an estimated 7 by 20 feet, centered over these about 100 to 150 feet above, 7 larger rectangular lights and estimated 20 by 20 feet in size, beam of white light emanated from bottom of craft, swooping ground once right to left, large luminiscent green beam shining out horizontally from “front” (right side) of UFO, two large parallel beams of light coming down at 45 degree angle at back/left side of craft – illuminating ice crystals in air.

Do ANY of these sound like a falling satellite to you? Please present some photographs of falling satellites that have rows of white rectangular lights and emit searchlights sweeping the ground.

Hi UFO fans.

This case being quite near the north of earth, it would be fun
to check if some pilot reports are not close to the same dates ?

I remember a case where a pilot was affraid to hit a BIG UFO,
and made manoeuvres. . .and it was over sea. . .

The **dates** would be the important links between the cases.
The size, I know it was BIG for all.

Blue skies.

Originally posted by Chovy
great thread. but there will always be skeptics untill they land and shake hands with the president.

Given the massive amount of misinformation, lies, and outright bullcrap associated with the subject, a landing on the White House lawn is not a ridiculous thing to ask for anymore. Every hoax just raises my proof requirement an equal amount. The better the hoax, the more proof I want. As it should be.

Originally posted by jkrog08
Firstly who said it wasn't the military? Secondly I would think that if a alien species had the technology to build a mile wide interstellar spacecraft that they would probably would have mastered stealth technology long ago, at least enough to get past our rather primitive detection techniques.

Too bad these kinds of things never happen over more heavily populated areas. But that's a question, isn't it? Where is the logic behind selecting a relatively remote location to fly around, then cover your craft with bright lights? Had it gone a little farther east, it could have really been out in the middle of nowhere with only a few deer for witnesses. It's almost as if it was trying to be seen, but only by a small number of people. Or maybe it was more random than that. Or it was looking for something specific.

One thing about aliens. They rarely get points for being logical.

Originally posted by Strype
Apparently it's much easier to catch incredibly small anomolies on film, but when an enormous mile wide craft enters our atmosphere, it's impossible to gather any visibile evidence. Why?

This is where you start getting into speculation that moves far away from the actual facts of the case as they're known. If you accept that this sort of strange thing happens every once in a while, and that it's a "real" event and not a hoax or a misidentification or mass delusion, then you have to think that somebody is going to eventually come up with some decent evidence of it beyond eyewitness reports. But nobody ever does.

Then THAT becomes a clue. The suspicious lack of better, more solid evidence. Think about it. Expand your range of possibilities. How could that happen? I have my own conjecture and speculation. Maybe you'll come up with something similar. But that's all it is. Conjecture.

eyewitness account equals nothing
no matter how credible they are it dosent matter all you end with is a good story
we all like a good story but its not going to go any furthur
didnt a president of the usa admit to a sighting and even thats not good enough
so until they, if there is even a they actually land on this planet and make contact
none of these stories and multiple witness stories will ever be anything more then a story
we will never find the smoking gun,not on youtube not on ats not anywhere we can look
if there out there maybe some day they will come here but until then stories and drawings and videos will never be enough
this is just my opinion please dont ask for proof of my opinion

Originally posted by JimOberg
Has anyone seriously searched for space events such as launchings, rocket firings, explosions, or reentries that might coincide in time, location, and direction with this wide-area family of reports? What sort of evidence would be needed to offer such a prosaic hypothesis for serious consideration?

Surely the possibility suggested itself to somebody involved in the investigation. Did they rule it out -- or never bother to look?

I know that aurora borealis has been dismissed as a potential source for the sighting, but it might also we worthwhile to check and see what the solar flare activity was at the time. It's interesting to note that some of the lights were described as green or yellow. Not to say that aurora by itself could explain it all away, but what about a combination of the various factors?

Originally posted by Blue Shift

Originally posted by jkrog08
Firstly who said it wasn't the military? Secondly I would think that if a alien species had the technology to build a mile wide interstellar spacecraft that they would probably would have mastered stealth technology long ago, at least enough to get past our rather primitive detection techniques.

Too bad these kinds of things never happen over more heavily populated areas. But that's a question, isn't it? Where is the logic behind selecting a relatively remote location to fly around, then cover your craft with bright lights? Had it gone a little farther east, it could have really been out in the middle of nowhere with only a few deer for witnesses. It's almost as if it was trying to be seen, but only by a small number of people. Or maybe it was more random than that. Or it was looking for something specific.

One thing about aliens. They rarely get points for being logical.

I think its an exaggeration to say that these events "never take place over heavily populated areas". Just take the Phoenix Lights flyover of the huge boomerang craft/object.

But I agree with you that the "logic" behind the Yukon sighting escapes me. Presumably since the object/craft was seen in at least three widely separated locations along the Alaska Highway that night, it would have passed over A LOT of empty, unpopulated areas between those locations - seen only by frightened or mystified deer. (LOL) If a giant UFO travels over the forest, does anybody see it? Only the trapper.

If it WAS an ET spacecraft (or something similarly unusual/non-mundane), then you have to wonder what they were up to? There seems to be no practical reason for lighting the exterior of a craft, unless it is for the intention of attracting attention. Or to dissuade other flying objects from colliding into the craft. But that is really just theorizing, and we really have no way of knowing.

Originally posted by Blue Shift

Originally posted by Strype
Apparently it's much easier to catch incredibly small anomolies on film, but when an enormous mile wide craft enters our atmosphere, it's impossible to gather any visibile evidence. Why?

This is where you start getting into speculation that moves far away from the actual facts of the case as they're known. If you accept that this sort of strange thing happens every once in a while, and that it's a "real" event and not a hoax or a misidentification or mass delusion, then you have to think that somebody is going to eventually come up with some decent evidence of it beyond eyewitness reports. But nobody ever does.

Then THAT becomes a clue. The suspicious lack of better, more solid evidence. Think about it. Expand your range of possibilities. How could that happen? I have my own conjecture and speculation. Maybe you'll come up with something similar. But that's all it is. Conjecture.

I agree with you that this IS the essential paradox behind the "UFO mystery". I certainly can appreciate why many, many people find themselves concluding that there simply must be nothing behind the mystery beyond a vast set of hoaxes, misperceptions, deluded people, etc.

From my experience with UFO investigations, I think the vast majority of sightings are really mundane origin. So you have A LOT of crappy sightings that are just noise, and they do make it seem like there is no "unsolved mystery" to casual observers. So I assume that "whatever is behind" unsolved reports, the true anomolies are really probably quite few. I do agree with those that suggest we SHOULD have better evidence of "ET visits" if that is the "real explanation" behind many sightings. Although, I am not sure who we would go to find that evidence if none of the major technologically adept authorities (eg. NASA, NORAD) are even willing to even admit there is a possibility that the hypothesis of "ET visitation" is remotely probable (and thus worth studying).

Originally posted by bluestreak53
Do ANY of these sound like a falling satellite to you? Please present some photographs of falling satellites that have rows of white rectangular lights and emit searchlights sweeping the ground.

edit on 24-4-2012 by bluestreak53 because: spelling

Thanks for the detailed response.

First, since there are no photographs of THIS UFO with windows/searchlights, your request for photograph is unfairly asymmetric.

However, there are LOTS of verbal reports of near-horizontally descending fireballs, both natural and spacecraft related, where witnesses have reported windowed wingless fuselages.

If you go back to MY original question -- do you have any clue what satellite reentries often look like -- we can close this loop and approach a consensus.

How large in the sky can a reentry appariton be?

How fast do reentry apparitions move?

How many bright separate objects in 'formation' can a reentry produce?

What kind of trajectory across the sky can a reentry produce?

How are those perceptions fundamentally different from those reported in the Yukon that night?

Thanks!

reply to post by JimOberg


Jim,

Further to my previous post, I thought the 12.00 GMT Baikonur launch of Cosmos 2335 at 65 degrees inclination might be relevant.

www.russianspaceweb.com...

But the timing of this launch seems wrong.

However, some of the witness descriptions collected by Jasek do seem consistent with a distant rocket launch.

So over to you.

Chers.

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by bluestreak53
Do ANY of these sound like a falling satellite to you? Please present some photographs of falling satellites that have rows of white rectangular lights and emit searchlights sweeping the ground.

edit on 24-4-2012 by bluestreak53 because: spelling

Thanks for the detailed response.

First, since there are no photographs of THIS UFO with windows/searchlights, your request for photograph is unfairly asymmetric.

However, there are LOTS of verbal reports of near-horizontally descending fireballs, both natural and spacecraft related, where witnesses have reported windowed wingless fuselages.

If you go back to MY original question -- do you have any clue what satellite reentries often look like -- we can close this loop and approach a consensus.

How large in the sky can a reentry appariton be?

How fast do reentry apparitions move?

How many bright separate objects in 'formation' can a reentry produce?

What kind of trajectory across the sky can a reentry produce?

How are those perceptions fundamentally different from those reported in the Yukon that night?

Thanks!

edit on 25-4-2012 by JimOberg because: typo

Again Jim, if you actually read through the witness reports you would realize that your proposed explanation does NOT fit the witness observations.

Just check with the witnesses at Fox Lake. They were located at three separate locations. The one furthest north was directly below the UFO as it approached him and slowly drifted directly over him. FOX2 could see that the UFO had a solid smooth surface."

The FOX3 witness stopped his car half a mile behind FOX2 and watched the UFO slowly pass over FOX2.

FOX4 and 5 were travelling in a vehicle headed north, about 4 miles south of FOX3. They saw the same object passing low on the horizon, slowly travelling from west to east over the lake.

So we know just from these four sightings that, the object was travelling low in altitude, passing directly over one witness. If it had been a "falling satellite, breaking up", it would have crashed close to the witnesses and they would most certainly have heard that. Plus if it had been a falling satellite passing at low altitude over FOX1, then it would have passed very quickly over him. He would not have seen an object with a smooth surface, covered in regularly shaped lighted rectangles.

It seems to me, that you have taken one little part of one or two sightings and are desperately trying to "force fit" the observation into something that you imagine can be interpreted similarly.

Originally posted by bluestreak53
So we know just from these four sightings that, the object was travelling low in altitude, passing directly over one witness. If it had been a "falling satellite, breaking up", it would have crashed close to the witnesses and they would most certainly have heard that. Plus if it had been a falling satellite passing at low altitude over FOX1, then it would have passed very quickly over him. He would not have seen an object with a smooth surface, covered in regularly shaped lighted rectangles.

It seems to me, that you have taken one little part of one or two sightings and are desperately trying to "force fit" the observation into something that you imagine can be interpreted similarly.

Thanks for the detailed explanation.

It's now clear you are completely unfamiliar with what fireballs from reentering satellites look like.

So you are using your imagination to GUESS what they MUST look like. Maybe based on what you've seen in some Hollywood sfx.

But you are guessing wrong, wildly wrong -- and nobody has told you that before.

Is that 'desperation'? No, it's just a hitherto unrecognized limitation on your experience base.

It's standing in the way of your better understanding of phenomena such as this.

Let me see if there are some graphic desciptions out there on the 'net for known satellite entries and how they were perceived by ground witnesses, so we can establish a common ground of experience to work from.

They truly do not appear, in the sky, as people assume they would or should. You are in very good company in not realizing this.

Thanks again for spending the time to patiently explain to me what you thought, and why. This is progress.

Originally posted by JimOberg
These aren't deliberate experiments, of course -- but an opportunistic analysis of several dozen famous UFO cases explainable by space/missile events might allow some qualitative insight into the perceptual process that no amount of theorizing, rationalizing, or excuse-making can provide. That insight can then be applied across the board to reports generated by uncertain-source stimuli, to see how reliably -- or not -- the perceptual process results can be 'walked back' to the range of potential stimuli -- including extraordinary stimuli, if required. In mathematical terms, if you define a perceptual process by seeing how 'test inputs' produce perceptions, are you better able to postulate an inverse perceptual process to map the plausible range of stimuli that can generate on-hand witness reports?

You do realise that the same theorem applies to NASA Jim ?

How's that return to the Moon Mission going bud ?

Bout time we got all the HE3 from that rock and made use of it

reply to post by Somamech


Hu-mons don't need free safe clean energy It's too good for them. NASA and the Good Ole Boys intend to keep it for themselves

Originally posted by bluestreak53
Again Jim, if you actually read through the witness reports you would realize that your proposed explanation does NOT fit the witness observations.

You're not the first enthusiast to insist on this interpretation. recent example was Ignatius Graffeo, UFOSEEK.org, regarding a September 7, 1999 booster reentry fireball seen from Tampa, Florida.

Tampa Home Video Shows Details of Large Triangle Craft

Original URL: members.aol.com...

Found at web.archive.org...://members.aol.com/ufoseek/tampa.htm

October 8, 1999 // Ignatius Graffeo, UFOSEEK.org

Other news links:
web.archive.org...://www.sptimes.com/News/90899/TampaBay/Mystery
web.archive.org...://www.tampatrib.com/sections/mt090802.htm

Graffeo: “Booster debris or space junk reentering and burning up in the atmosphere do not have multi-colored signal lights flashing, hover, then go straight up, nor are triangular-shaped, level-flying objects… . The Tampa video appears to be an object that is under intelligent control, not a burning hunk of space junk.” He later added, “Witnesses … said at one point during the sighting the UFO hovered motionless and then ascended rapidly out of view.”

The video just shows parallel-moving lights, which Graffeo insists were all on one large structure: “The characteristic triangular shape is evident even in the conversion copies …You must not simply look at a ‘flat picture’ but perceive the subtle highlights and linear perspective of the object in the video as it moves with the brighter areas. Watch the 2 lights on the left side of the object very carefully. The craft displays distinctive lights, especially at the corners, which reflect off its metallic-looking frame revealing its symmetrical, triangular shape. The upper surface area appears to be a structural matrix of some kind. If you view the video, you will clearly see 2 lights blinking-- alternating red, white, green and amber on the left wing section, and a larger white light pulsate on the front of the object. The craft seems to be moving from left to right.”

Graffeo dismisses the reentry explanation as preposterous: “I'm amazed how such a sighting could be mistaken for a rocket booster re-entering the atmosphere! The craft was observed to be moving very slowly. It tilts and reorients itself. This is not what a falling rocket booster does! The news report is rife with disinformation and confusion. It is truly frightening how this type of craft can flaunt itself in our skies and be explained away and dismissed so easily. This video speaks for itself.”

I later wrote about this and similar cases for Space.Com, here:

Space Vehicles Arrive -- But Whose?
Space.com // 05 November 1999
www.jamesoberg.com...


Then there is this 1990 French 'UFO Flap" caused by a booster reentry....

Letter to MUFON UFO Journal (Dennis Stacy) // August 17, 1992
www.jamesoberg.com...

I criticized an article that claimed that "a structured object was perceived by witnesses," writing: "This is a classic fireball phenomenon, where bright lights (individual fragments) are mentally integrated by witnesses into illuminated sections of a single craft. The estimates of "enormous size" are worthless since only angular size is directly perceivable. This is basic eyewitness interview technique and standards."

Also relevant is the 'UFO fleet' seen by several airliner pilots over Turkey on November 1, 2002, at approx 5 AM local time. Reported at www.siriusufo.org.... Detailed description of horizontally moving formation of multicolored lights, that were fragments of the reentry fireball of a Soyuz booster rocket.

Lastly, there's Hartmann's report of the 1968 Zond-IV booster reentry in which some witesses reported -- and drew -- rows of square windows down the side of a cigar-shaped body...

files.ncas.org...


---- ADD

A newer link for the 1999 Tampa video is www.ufoseek.org...