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

A couple of questions Jim.. If I may.

How long would a satellite re-entry be visible? On average?
Are there any other examples of a sat re-entry that state a solid vehicle flew low over multiple witnesses?

As a side note. I saw in another thread you would like specific details of any ISS/Shuttle sightings so you can pull the relevant data. If I could give you dates and times of a 2006 event from NASA live TV could you get a copy of the original video?

Thanks.

Originally posted by UKWO1Phot
A couple of questions Jim.. If I may.

How long would a satellite re-entry be visible? On average?
Are there any other examples of a sat re-entry that state a solid vehicle flew low over multiple witnesses?

As a side note. I saw in another thread you would like specific details of any ISS/Shuttle sightings so you can pull the relevant data. If I could give you dates and times of a 2006 event from NASA live TV could you get a copy of the original video?

Thanks.

Reentries usually cross the sky within a few minutes, max about 3 -- if seen closer to the horizon, a lot shorter.

I think i just posted links to several such examples -- are those enough?

Given the time of a NASA TV broadcast, anyone can order copies of the video. Do you need the address, or can you call JSC [281-483-5111] public affairs and see what they tell you?

reply to post by JimOberg


Thanks for the quick reply Jim.
I can't call the states unfortunately (UK here). I have the audio recorded already. Just needs recoding from an IVR (realplayer) file to mp3 before I do anything with it.

I do have a couple of screen shots though if they may pique your interest.




I'll have to get around to doing a thread about it.. If I can find the time AND take the baiting.

Infact this is from 13 Feb 2008 16.45-17.30 GMT (sorry for the date error, getting old and bad memory etc..)

Originally posted by JimOberg

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.

I can see from your response Jim, that you are simply trolling. I did not provide you a description of "what I thought a falling satellite" looked like. I only explained some reasons why I think its a nonsensical explanation.

You totally ignored my explanation refuting your imagined explanation for the sighting as "falling satellite" or "falling satellite debris" based on the fact that the "object" was clearly passing directly over one witness at very low altitude.

Please respond to the question. What is it that you think you know about how reentry fireballs should look, that the Yukon reports are utterly inconsistent with -- especially in light of the other specific examples that I linked to.

Now's not the time to run and hide.

I don't want to put words into yor mouth, so please use your own words to describe what you have claimed are unbridgeable differences between the two visual phenomena.

Originally posted by bluestreak53

Originally posted by JimOberg

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.

I can see from your response Jim, that you are simply trolling. I did not provide you a description of "what I thought a falling satellite" looked like. I only explained some reasons why I think its a nonsensical explanation.

You totally ignored my explanation refuting your imagined explanation for the sighting as "falling satellite" or "falling satellite debris" based on the fact that the "object" was clearly passing directly over one witness at very low altitude.

Those are some lucky witness
wish i was there myself at that time

the question is .. what were they searching ?
and why the mothership was uncloaked
they normaly dont like to be seen

oh darn.... saw this had jumped up the board again..
this is a very intriguing case, to me... i got all excited
and thought to myself there may be fresh new eyewitness reports
maybe even a photo surfaced or something

but it's just Jim, yet again.
i try very hard to see other people's points of view
take in all possible relevant information and so on
but quite honestly the last couple of pages made me gag.

"well yes, these people say they saw a low, enormous, hovering, metallic object covered in white lights and emitting search beams, but the thing is, geese are often in the sky, and they are white, therefore this is a goose."

rightyo.

Originally posted by decepticonLaura
but it's just Jim, yet again.
i try very hard to see other people's points of view
take in all possible relevant information and so on
but quite honestly the last couple of pages made me gag.

Friendly advice, Laura. If the previous pages made you 'gag', the coming pages
are liable to induce projectile vomiting. So cover your keyboard in plastic wrap, or better
yet, for your peace of mind, ignore all subsequent posts. It's the best approach to true UFOria.



In the discussion, we've had know-nothing but 100%-sincere proclamations that the eyewitness accounts looked "NOTHING" like real satellite reentries look -- from people who are defiantly clueless about what that authentic if rare phenomenon looks like.

I've asked what features of the accounts cannot also occur from misperceived reentries, and provided links to several recent reentries in which people saw -- or thought they saw -- features very similar to the Yukon stories, but had been caused by documented reentries. Nobody has responded, so as the legal principle states, 'silence implies consent'.

Are there any new contributions to this discussion?

It appears that in all the investigation of this event, none of the investigators checked up on possible satellite reentries. Or at least, none reported doing so. Let me do a quick search to see if there are any such mentions. Anybody else is welcome to perform their own searches.

ADD results:

The report is here
The Yukon Territory Encounters, 1996 (Klondike Highway)
www.ufocasebook.com...

and even more deliciously, here:

Best Evidence: Top 10 UFO Sightings - 1996 Yukon case (#8)
www.youtube.com...
see www.ufobc.ca...


Stanton T. Friedman, M.Sc.
“The Yukon case IS emblematic of what a good case should be. I mean, sure, we’d like to have a piece of the craft, we’d like to have the crewmember introduced for dinner. BUT multiple independent witnesses lasting a long time, describing something that’s WAY outside the norm, -- there’s no way you can make it into a 747, for example [chuckle]. And big, but this was much much bigger than a 747. “

“I like it partly because I’ve often talked about you’d use a very large vehicle to go between the stars and small Earth excursion modules to flit around down in the atmosphere, where you have big gravity, high pressure, all the other things. So I like the case, it’s got a lot of data, careful investigation – just a top notch a example of good UFO story.”

Narrator: “Ten years later, after THOROUGH investigation, all that can really be said is that they saw a flying object that remains – Unidentified.”

Originally posted by JimOberg

Friendly advice, Laura. If the previous pages made you 'gag', the coming pages
are liable to induce projectile vomiting. So cover your keyboard in plastic wrap, or better
yet, for your peace of mind, ignore all subsequent posts. It's the best approach to true UFOria.

i'm sorry if you misundestood me, i think the factor that caused me to gag has rather reached a peak.
unless you're going to try and claim that all the witnesses were on drugs, or that Yukon itself is a hoax.
no, on reflection that would just make me smile.

In the discussion, we've had know-nothing but 100%-sincere proclamations that the eyewitness accounts looked "NOTHING" like real satellite reentries look -- from people who are defiantly clueless about what that authentic if rare phenomenon looks like.

I've asked what features of the accounts cannot also occur from misperceived reentries, and provided links to several recent reentries in which people saw -- or thought they saw -- features very similar to the Yukon stories, but had been caused by documented reentries. Nobody has responded, so as the legal principle states, 'silence implies consent'.

well i have to say that, despite my raging and enormous ignorance of all things
i would not expect a satellite re-entering to
cruise slowly along for, what, three quarters of an hour
be the size of a football field
be covered in many separate lights
or flash searchlights about the place.
what i would expect it to do, which is strangely absent from any reports is
you know
re-enter?
a process which, to the best of my sorely limited knowledge, involves an object coming from space
in a more or less fairly straight trajectory
at quite high speeds
culminating in some sort of prolonged and violent contact with the ground.
it is my [admittedly perhaps mistaken] belief that any parties watching said re-entry
would mention that part.

unless we have satellites that just casually come down into the atmosphere, check up on things a bit
and then just go on their merry sedate way into the night

Are there any new contributions to this discussion?

don't ask me, that's why i came to this thread. looking for new contributions. sadly i don't think smug gittiness counts as currency in the contributions world.

It appears that in all the investigation of this event, none of the investigators checked up on possible satellite reentries. Or at least, none reported doing so. Let me do a quick search to see if there are any such mentions. Anybody else is welcome to perform their own searches.

now that i'm typing a reply i can't check, but i thought there was a guy on the last couple of pages who did just that.... turned up something on the same night, possibly russian, but i believe it was several hours too late and far away? i'm not sure but that is what i recall.

ADD results:

The report is here
The Yukon Territory Encounters, 1996 (Klondike Highway)
www.ufocasebook.com...

and even more deliciously, here:

Best Evidence: Top 10 UFO Sightings - 1996 Yukon case (#8)
www.youtube.com...
see www.ufobc.ca...


Stanton T. Friedman, M.Sc.
“The Yukon case IS emblematic of what a good case should be. I mean, sure, we’d like to have a piece of the craft, we’d like to have the crewmember introduced for dinner. BUT multiple independent witnesses lasting a long time, describing something that’s WAY outside the norm, -- there’s no way you can make it into a 747, for example [chuckle]. And big, but this was much much bigger than a 747. “

“I like it partly because I’ve often talked about you’d use a very large vehicle to go between the stars and small Earth excursion modules to flit around down in the atmosphere, where you have big gravity, high pressure, all the other things. So I like the case, it’s got a lot of data, careful investigation – just a top notch a example of good UFO story.”

Narrator: “Ten years later, after THOROUGH investigation, all that can really be said is that they saw a flying object that remains – Unidentified.”

edit on 27-4-2012 by JimOberg because: add links

...oh wait a second, do you mean searched in the REPORTS?
oh jim.
thanks for the extra recaps though, they really do show what a remarkable case this is!

Laura, thanks for the good-humored roll-with-the-punches reply... and the detailed explanation of what you expect a satellite reentry to look like.

What we've actually found out from decades of observations is quite a bit different from the Hollywood SFX images that you describe.

First, decaying satellites are skimming the upper atmosphere with tremendous forward speed, and they don't begin to visible DESCEND until long after they've fireballed into fragments, which occurs between 60 miles up, and a few miles lower. The satellite, and soon after, the fragments of the satellite, are still moving horizontally at about Mach 25.

The fireball phase is most spectacular. Pieces break off and fly parallel, in a cloud of sparks and dazzling stars, multi-colored from different types of metals, and flaring from explosion of fuel tanks -- especially with quick-decaying booster stages in low, unstable orbits, within a few hours [or a day or two] of the original launch.

This mass of stars and light streaks moves, almost 'in formation', across the sky in total silence, another eery feature. At its speed during this phase, it can take two minutes to cross the sky.

Specific examples were linked in a recent post of mine -- the 1999 Tampa video [still a UFO fleet to the local UFO club], the 1990 northern France 'case of the century', the 1960s Zond-4 booster [see Hartmann's study]. People saw the moving lights, in rows, and made reasonable interpretations -- for some, rows of lighted portholes in a vehicle. For others, intelligently-controlled fleets of fiery orbs.

In those cases, they were all understandably and innocently mistaken. The prosaic explanation of those cases should not longer be in dispute.

How about THIS one? It really ain't so different, after all.

You can watch eyewitness interviews of the 1996 Yukon case on many youtube videos, such as this one:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=GI5CfBFSBDQ

Jean VanBibber comments [my transcription]:
“I seen sort of a huge cluster of stars all together. Right away I realized it was a vehicle.”
“It went just below the Big Dipper in the sky and it was the same length.”
“You couldn’t see the outline of the UFO but you could see the lights.. there were individual lights for several stories…”
“It looked like something that huge shouldn’t be moving in a straight line at that speed…”

Now, once the similarities between REAL [not imagined] satellite reentries and the Yukon case are established, there's just one more feature of reentries that's crucial.

They're not invisible. They are well documented in public records of space tracking organizations.

So the question becomes -- is there any satellite reentry -- particularly, say, a booster reentry that can be even more spectacular because of leftover fuel -- any such event that coincides in time, direction, and motion with the consensus flight path of the 1996 Klondike Hiway object?

If there were, would you find that to be suggestive -- or just a random coincidence?

Of course, none of the investigators who have endorsed this case found any such records. What does that tell us about their level of thoroughness or competence? I'm talking about Stanton Friedman here, for example. This case has attained 'Top Ten' -- or higher -- status over the years. How could ALL the researchers miss such an obvious candidate solution? It defies imagination, doesn't it?

Just asking....



.

reply to post by JimOberg


You asked "what does a re-entry fireball look like?"

Well here is one in Denver... but even Fox news has difficulty figuring that out.



And they get PAID for that?



So since all old UFO sightings are likely just space junk, and all NASA UFO's are just space debris, dust or ice accordimg to you, I guess we can just forget about UFO's and go outside and mow the lawn. Since we haven't seen any land in DC no point in wasting time anymore...


And since its the end of the Space Program.... time to get on with life




End of an Era... I guess its true what Bigelow said, "NASA means No Access to Space for Americans"


Sad really sad

Hallowed are the Ori

Never heard this one. Thanks for putting together such an interesting, well made thread.
SnF

I'm asking folks, given what we now have linked to about what satellite reentries REALLY look like, to describe the kind of documentation that would make a credible case -- not proof, but at least suggestive indication -- that such a manmade event could have been the stimulus for these reports. What are the key difficulties with arguiing for such a prosaic explanation?

Let me suggest that one argument is NOT a difficulty -- this one: IF there had been a prosaic explanation, serious ufologists would already have found it, verified it, and published it. This may come as a shock, but as a rule, the 'vetting' for some of the most famous cases is minimal at best [examples can be provided]. Some cases are just too sexy to risk finding a plausible terrestrial explanation -- so as a matter of principle, researchers don't look very hard. But that's a digression...

This might turn out to be another example of that, however.

Originally posted by JimOberg
I'm asking folks, given what we now have linked to about what satellite reentries REALLY look like, to describe the kind of documentation that would make a credible case -- not proof, but at least suggestive indication -- that such a manmade event could have been the stimulus for these reports. What are the key difficulties with arguiing for such a prosaic explanation?

Let me suggest that one argument is NOT a difficulty -- this one: IF there had been a prosaic explanation, serious ufologists would already have found it, verified it, and published it. This may come as a shock, but as a rule, the 'vetting' for some of the most famous cases is minimal at best [examples can be provided]. Some cases are just too sexy to risk finding a plausible terrestrial explanation -- so as a matter of principle, researchers don't look very hard. But that's a digression...

This might turn out to be another example of that, however.

If Jim Oberg has genuine interest in this investigation be might want to order a copy of the report which can be ordered from the UFOBC.ca website.

As I am not the author of the report, I can't speak for the investigator or answer any queries by those who have genuine interest in the case. To my knowledge, he doesn't visit this website.

I can provide the following quotes from the report (most redacted to focus on two most relevant points discussed here):

-----------------------
From: “UFO*BC – Special Report No. 1, June 2000
Giant UFO in the Yukon Territory
Investigated by Martin Jasek, M. Sc., P.Eng.

Page 32 – 33: Possible Conventional Explanations:


1) Hoax?

2) Aurora Borealis (Northern Lights)?

3) A barium-cloud experiment with multiple releases?

4) Launch of a space vehicle?

Kosmos-2335 was indeed launched on December 11, 1996 from Baykonour into a 65 degree inclined orbit, but theoretically should not have been seen more eastward than western Alaska. In addition to this, the angular expanse of the sky by the UFO reported by the witnesses was much too large for any manmade launched vehicle entering orbit. Also the UFO possessed too much structure that would only be noticable at close range. Again, refer to drawings by the witness.

5) Re-entry of rocket or satellite, or strange meteor?

The angular expanse of the sky by the UFO reported by the witnesses was much too large for it to be the re-entry of the rocket or satellite, or strange meteor. There was also too much detailed structure (rectangular lights, search beam, many smaller lights that formed a pattern). See further elaboration below.

6) Multiple light sources on aircraft in a military exercise miles north of the observers?

7) Multiple releases of lighted ballooons (fire balloons or flares tied to balloons, other light sources on balloons)?

8) An ordinary commercial airship, with unusual lights for whatever reason (pranksters?). Such craft can be very large (typical length about 50 meter)

9) A huge lenticular airship (diameter about 500 meters) which the Russians intended to build. Apparently this airship has never been built. Could there be a similar U.S. Project?

10) Mirages?

11) And undisclosed military project or testing?

12) Mass hallucination?

Originally posted by JimOberg
Laura, thanks for the good-humored roll-with-the-punches reply... and the detailed explanation of what you expect a satellite reentry to look like.

what punches?

First, decaying satellites are skimming the upper atmosphere with tremendous forward speed, and they don't begin to visible DESCEND until long after they've fireballed into fragments, which occurs between 60 miles up, and a few miles lower. The satellite, and soon after, the fragments of the satellite, are still moving horizontally at about Mach 25.

The fireball phase is most spectacular. Pieces break off and fly parallel, in a cloud of sparks and dazzling stars, multi-colored from different types of metals, and flaring from explosion of fuel tanks -- especially with quick-decaying booster stages in low, unstable orbits, within a few hours [or a day or two] of the original launch.

This mass of stars and light streaks moves, almost 'in formation', across the sky in total silence, another eery feature. At its speed during this phase, it can take two minutes to cross the sky.

oh, well that sounds exactly like the eyewitness accounts.
or.... maybe nothing like them at all?
let's see.... 60 odd miles up, fireballs, mach 25, mass of stars and light streaks, almost in formation, crosses sky in two minutes.... all that describes Zorgon's video pretty well
yet looks nothing at all like even my wildest imaginings as i read the reports
let alone the myriad sketches and what have you.
so i don't know, personally i am taking that to be mounting evidence that it cannot have been a satellite.
very pretty video though, Z! and very very stupid foxes [though what should we expect?]

Of course, none of the investigators who have endorsed this case found any such records. What does that tell us about their level of thoroughness or competence? I'm talking about Stanton Friedman here, for example. This case has attained 'Top Ten' -- or higher -- status over the years. How could ALL the researchers miss such an obvious candidate solution? It defies imagination, doesn't it?

Just asking....

to me this is suggestive that they have reached similar conclusions to myself.
though it is possible that we are all so pathetic or dishonest or pathetically dishonest
that the world had to hold it's breath until JimO could come around to save the day.


.

Originally posted by decepticonLaura
[....
to me this is suggestive that they have reached similar conclusions to myself.
though it is possible that we are all so pathetic or dishonest or pathetically dishonest
that the world had to hold it's breath until JimO could come around to save the day.

Well, that's happened often enough before. Somebody's got to do it.

Originally posted by bluestreak53
As I am not the author of the report, I can't speak for the investigator or answer any queries by those who have genuine interest in the case. To my knowledge, he doesn't visit this website.

I can provide the following quotes from the report (most redacted to focus on two most relevant points discussed here):

This is a very helpful and constructive response, thank you. Let me go dig out the book I have about the 1990 northern France reentry-sparked UFO flap, and see if there are more eyewitness reports that resemble the Yukon reports. I linked several such events a few days ago, here.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

But more details would help clarify.

The point that is emerging, is that the amazing visual display often created by a satellite reentry is not widely appreciated. Even the videos cannot portray the subtle effect of a large cloud of in-formation flashing lights [separated fragments of the original object] crossing the sky horizontally, in silence. Most folks reasonably imagine ONE flaming object headed down in a noticeably descending path.

Nice sighting....Very "Close Encounters of the 3rd Kind" ish......

Just to let everybody know.....500-700 metres is nowhere near a Mile.

To give you some idea.....a dragstrip is 1/4 mile long or 400 metres. Stand at the start line and look down the track...its a long way. Times that by 4...that is a mile.

This craft was obviously big...but a Mile? (especially when someone said 500-700mtrs, which is not even a 1/2 mile.
Still the people were under duress, excitement etc.

Reminds me a little of that Huge oval shaped craft that a pilot (Air Canada?) saw approach his plane then fly off at great speed, sometime in the 90s I think........Although,... it could have been Venus??

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by decepticonLaura
[....
to me this is suggestive that they have reached similar conclusions to myself.
though it is possible that we are all so pathetic or dishonest or pathetically dishonest
that the world had to hold it's breath until JimO could come around to save the day.

Well, that's happened often enough before. Somebody's got to do it.

haha, woah.
dude, watch out!
your ego appears to be swelling so chronically that you are missing the bulk of people's posts!

Originally posted by decepticonLaura

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by decepticonLaura
[....
to me this is suggestive that they have reached similar conclusions to myself.
though it is possible that we are all so pathetic or dishonest or pathetically dishonest
that the world had to hold it's breath until JimO could come around to save the day.

Well, that's happened often enough before. Somebody's got to do it.

haha, woah.
dude, watch out!
your ego appears to be swelling so chronically that you are missing the bulk of people's posts!

Take a look at this detailed account of another satellite entry. I still can't lay my hands on my copy of the french book about the same event.

www.ufonet.nl...

Egos are only a problem when they interfere with the realization that one has reached a wrong interpretation, and needs to reassess based on new data or arguments.

Fortunately, I've had a lot of practice in doing this, as my '99 FAQs; gives examples to.

But yes, I've historically been the guy forcing other people to reassess, but I just attribute that to particular experiences that are uncommon for most folks -- not superior IQ or such egomaniacal factors.

After all, I was smart enough to quit Mensa after having earned membership. I'm proud of that decision.