"Top Ten" UFO Case - Yukon, Canada, 1996 - BUSTED!?

DeadSeraph
reply to post by torsion

 

Some artistic license to say the least, but at least one witness did describe the object scanning the ground with a beam of light. I suppose re-entries must do that all the time, but I've yet to get confirmation on that fact from Mr.Oberg. ,,,,.

Again I direct you to Molczan's recent note and to links to a dozen 'heavy booster' reentries which generated witness reports that should go a long way to satisfying your reasonable requirements.

www.satobs.org...

Let me also say again -- your requirement to document how such perceptions OFTEN result from this kind of satellite reentry is totally proper. There's no A PRIORI way to argue in theory that they would be expected -- I know that -I- would not have believed it myself if some 'expert' theorized it.

It's the careful analysis of the data base of satellite reentries that HAVE been observed -- an effort that Molczan has been engaged in for more than a year -- cross-checked against UFO sighting reports [where I've assisted him, along with some other ATSers] that has only recently created this startling and compelling conjecture.

Credit must also go to generations of diligent amateur chroniclers and data collectors around the world who spent enormous energy in the hope that someday the data they preserved would cast light onto at least part of this mystery.

add -- for searchlight I particularly recommend the 1990 French 'wave' report

as well as this

Here are some witness drawings of the Nov 5, 1990 France booster reentry:

reply to post by JimOberg


Jim, I am curious if have any reasoning or thoughts on why "search lights" would be such a common perception? I imagine these reentries can get rather bright.

ZetaRediculian
reply to post by JimOberg

 

Jim, I am curious if have any reasoning or thoughts on why "search lights" would be such a common perception? I imagine these reentries can get rather bright.

It baffles me, too. I wonder whether somebody with a planetarium could experiment with glare streaks -- but maybe their projection system couldn't get bright enough.

One clue MIGHT be that the reentries that create the most dramatic apparitions are NOT run-of-the-mill satellites. Once Molczan and I got a long-enough candidate list of 'best' UFO perceptions, I noticed they were almost all Russian upper stage rockets. Not payloads or window covers or jettisoned trash cans, but big, hunking conglomerations of engines, heavy support bracing, and tanks -- many of which might be not entirely empty. Would they, as they heated, spray through broken valves or hull cracks? I'm asking around the 'rocket scientist' community.

But I totally agree, it is an unpredicted and so far inexplicable feature that the DATA has insisted we accept as REAL whether it's in accord with our going-in models or not. That's what I find so wonderful about raw data -- it can slap you in the face with surprises.

Thank you, JimOberg, for such seemingly thorough and scholarly obfuscation.

Scdfa
Thank you, JimOberg, for such seemingly thorough and scholarly obfuscation.

If the words confuse you, how about the pictures?

The visual impressions of the Yukon 1996 event seem eerily evocative of other earlier events, such as France in 1990.

In all these cases, fireball swarms from satellite reentries were simultaneously occurring, moving in the same direction as the reported UFOs.

Where is the anti-prosaic argument aside from pique and mind-shutting?

Here are some witness drawings of the 1963 Ukraine booster reentry with ‘light spikes’:

Robert Sheaffer has just blogged on the Canadian program:
badufos.blogspot.com...

Look at the Ed Walters sightings.....They were discredited because some kid said he found a model....but HUNDREDS of other people had similar experiences during the flap.......
Is the whole sighting to be dismissed because a three minute re entry occured during the shennanigans?
The chances of getting the aliens to admit it was theirs are nil, so it couldnt be theirs?
duh

stirling
Is the whole sighting to be dismissed because a three minute re entry occured during the shennanigans?

Not by itself, I agree.

Only after the same pattern repeats again and again and again -- witnesses startled by fireball swarm, some then perceive a repeated pattern of perceptions -- that such a theory would pass the test of the data.

And it has.

reply to post by JimOberg


Thank you, but I'm not confused. Don't get me wrong, Mr. Oberg, as a young boy I was a big fan of stage magicians, and I still appreciate a skillful display of sleight-of-hand.

It's been established that this rocket booster was only ten meters in length, roughly the size of a truck, and it was over two-hundred kilometers from any of the witnesses. In the wrong direction, I might add, which you conveniently ignore. Go out and look up at the International Space Station with the naked eye, and tell me what you see. It's a little further away at 250 miles altitude, but it's also far larger; 109 meters by 73 meters. It is bigger than an entire football stadium. Nearly ten times the size of your booster rocket, and yet the ISS is all but invisible to the naked eye. You may see a tiny speck of light, if the sun happens to be glinting off it at just the right angle, but that's it. Seeing features like windows is simply not possible.

Furthermore, it's been established that the booster was INTACT until it was far beyond a position in which it could have been seen by any of these witnesses. So there goes your theory that the rows of square windows were debris burning after the booster broke up. The facts simply do not conform to your theory. BUSTED indeed.

But you know this, and if you worked at NASA, then you know at least the basics of the "UFO" situation. So why devote your time, your energy, and most importantly your impressive intellect in service to a position that is ultimately untrue? Who chooses to fight for the losing side of history? Ah well, I'm certain you must have very valid reasons. Perhaps it's essential to our survival that the public remain unaware of what is ultimately very, very heavy news. Perhaps it's simply a case of toeing the company line.

Anyway, in the future I suggest you work with the witness statements in their entirety, rather than pick only the elements that could be twisted to fit your pet theories and ignoring the majority of what these people have to say about their experience. You ignore important aspects of their testimony regarding not only the object's appearance, but also its flight characteristics; velocity, direction, relative positioning, you even ignore the statements that the object displayed the ability to hover.

"Hmm, a booster rocket re-entering the atmosphere isn't capable of hovering, so let's gloss over that...but here they say there were windows, which I can bend to fit my booster theory, so let's go with that. But they say the saw it in another direction, so they must be wrong on that part of it too. After all, witnesses are so incompetent. Except about the stuff that fits my prosaic explanation, that is. On those details, they're completely reliable."

It's smacks of a deliberate attempt at obfuscation. Some might even call it downright underhanded, and I'm surprised you don't get called on it more often. It sure as heck ain't science.

As far as I can see, the biggest difference between a "UFO" debunker/denier and a stage magician? The magician has a beautiful female assistant.

Scdfa
reply to post by JimOberg

 

Thank you, but I'm not confused. Don't get me wrong, Mr. Oberg, as a young boy I was a big fan of stage magicians, and I still appreciate a skillful display of sleight-of-hand.

It's been established that this rocket booster was only ten meters in length, roughly the size of a truck, and it was over two-hundred kilometers from any of the witnesses. In the wrong direction, I might add, which you conveniently ignore. Go out and look up at the International Space Station with the naked eye, and tell me what you see. It's a little further away at 250 miles altitude, but it's also far larger; 109 meters by 73 meters. It is bigger than an entire football stadium. Nearly ten times the size of your booster rocket, and yet the ISS is all but invisible to the naked eye. You may see a tiny speck of light, if the sun happens to be glinting off it at just the right angle, but that's it. Seeing features like windows is simply not possible.

Furthermore, it's been established that the booster was INTACT until it was far beyond a position in which it could have been seen by any of these witnesses. So there goes your theory that the rows of square windows were debris burning after the booster broke up. The facts simply do not conform to your theory. BUSTED indeed.

But you know this, and if you worked at NASA, then you know at least the basics of the "UFO" situation. So why devote your time, your energy, and most importantly your impressive intellect in service to a position that is ultimately untrue? Who chooses to fight for the losing side of history? Ah well, I'm certain you must have very valid reasons. Perhaps it's essential to our survival that the public remain unaware of what is ultimately very, very heavy news. Perhaps it's simply a case of toeing the company line.

Anyway, in the future I suggest you work with the witness statements in their entirety, rather than pick only the elements that could be twisted to fit your pet theories and ignoring the majority of what these people have to say about their experience. You ignore important aspects of their testimony regarding not only the object's appearance, but also its flight characteristics; velocity, direction, relative positioning, you even ignore the statements that the object displayed the ability to hover.

"Hmm, a booster rocket re-entering the atmosphere isn't capable of hovering, so let's gloss over that...but here they say there were windows, which I can bend to fit my booster theory, so let's go with that. But they say the saw it in another direction, so they must be wrong on that part of it too. After all, witnesses are so incompetent. Except about the stuff that fits my prosaic explanation, that is. On those details, they're completely reliable."

It's smacks of a deliberate attempt at obfuscation. Some might even call it downright underhanded, and I'm surprised you don't get called on it more often. It sure as heck ain't science.

As far as I can see, the biggest difference between a "UFO" debunker/denier and a stage magician? The magician has a beautiful female assistant.

edit on 14-1-2014 by Scdfa because: (no reason given)

This still leaves us with all these other accounts where deorbiting stuff have been mistaken for objects though. The pattern does fit. There was no interaction, it was just a perception of a bunch of bright lights in the sky.

Scdfa
reply to post by JimOberg

 

Thank you, but I'm not confused.

We staert off disagreeing, let's explore further....

It's been established that this rocket booster was only ten meters in length, roughly the size of a truck, and it was over two-hundred kilometers from any of the witnesses. In the wrong direction, I might add, which you conveniently ignore.

The booster was significantly smaller than that, so who do you claim 'established' the larger size -- citation, please.

All of the ground tracks I've seen put the booster within the reported lines of sight, including that famous witness sketch of the lights passing below Ursa Major, compared with rthe computer plot of the booster passing -- uh, right below Ursa Major.

If there is a citation showing a booster ground track in some other portion of the sky, please share it.

Go out and look up at the International Space Station with the naked eye, and tell me what you see. It's a little further away at 250 miles altitude, but it's also far larger; 109 meters by 73 meters. It is bigger than an entire football stadium. Nearly ten times the size of your booster rocket, and yet the ISS is all but invisible to the naked eye. You may see a tiny speck of light, if the sun happens to be glinting off it at just the right angle, but that's it. Seeing features like windows is simply not possible.

You are arguing against a 'straw man' here. look it up.

Furthermore, it's been established that the booster was INTACT until it was far beyond a position in which it could have been seen by any of these witnesses.

Interesting claim. Please cite the expert analysis that demomstrates this. URL please -- this is the third citation I'm asking for, I'm keeping score.

So there goes your theory that the rows of square windows were debris burning after the booster broke up. The facts simply do not conform to your theory. BUSTED indeed.

All it will take is three citations to verifiable analysis, and you will indeed have proved this. Please, show us.

But you know this, and if you worked at NASA, then you know at least the basics of the "UFO" situation. So why devote your time, your energy, and most importantly your impressive intellect in service to a position that is ultimately untrue?

I've written a great deal about 'UFO stories' associated with astronauts and space flight. Can you list for me three specific examples where I make statements that are 'untrue'?

Perhaps it's simply a case of toeing the company line.

Thanks for the chuckle. I'm the guy who went to Congress to blow the whistle on NASA's decaying safety culture, a few years before the Columbia disaster proved me correct -- but helpless. I'm sorry you made your invidious misjudgments of my character in ignorance of such angles.

Anyway, in the future I suggest you work with the witness statements in their entirety, rather than pick only the elements that could be twisted to fit your pet theories and ignoring the majority of what these people have to say about their experience. You ignore important aspects of their testimony regarding not only the object's appearance, but also its flight characteristics; velocity, direction, relative positioning, you even ignore the statements that the object displayed the ability to hover.

The degree to which witnesses can misjudge the position and motion of a light in the dark sky is a worthy subject of argument.

"...After all, witnesses are so incompetent. Except about the stuff that fits my prosaic explanation, that is. On those details, they're completely reliable."

Who's using magical rhetorical gimmicks now, eh?

I

t's smacks of a deliberate attempt at obfuscation. Some might even call it downright underhanded, and I'm surprised you don't get called on it more often. It sure as heck ain't science.

Well, I think my spaceflight-related investigations have contributed significantly to understanding those kinds of stories, considering how much nonsense the original promoters of them labored under. You are welcome to propose other facts or interpretations to any such items, but citations to back them up will be required.

Please give it a try.

reply to post by JimOberg


If you are not embarrassed by your last post, perhaps you should be. Not for me to say, really, we are all on different paths.

Clearly, I struck a nerve, but as I say, I'm surprised you aren't called to task more often.

And, no, thank YOU for the chuckle.

Scdfa
reply to post by JimOberg

 

If you are not embarrassed by your last post, perhaps you should be. Not for me to say, really, we are all on different paths.

Clearly, I struck a nerve, but as I say, I'm surprised you aren't called to task more often.

And, no, thank YOU for the chuckle.

You said you have knowledge of established facts that dispute what is being presented. Please share your sources. I would love for these to be giant alien spaceships.

reply to post by ZetaRediculian


The points to which I referred were established by another poster earlier in this thread. I invite you to review them at your convenience.

As for this particular case being "giant alien ships", I truly cannot say with certainty one way or another, as I was not there.

Are you on the fence about aliens? I'd be curious to hear your thoughts on the topic.

Scdfa
reply to post by ZetaRediculian

 

The points to which I referred were established by another poster earlier in this thread. I invite you to review them at your convenience.

I have been following this thread for some time and haven't come across it. ah well.

As for this particular case being "giant alien ships", I truly cannot say with certainty one way or another, as I was not there.

Are you on the fence about aliens? I'd be curious to hear your thoughts on the topic.

oh? I am certain that I expressed my opinion on one of the several threads that exist here. please review at your convenience.

Scdfa
reply to post by ZetaRediculian

 

The points to which I referred were established by another poster earlier in this thread. I invite you to review them at your convenience.

That didn't take long.

Revealed -- another bluffer with a passion to claim 'facts' for which he refuses to provide any evidence.

reply to post by JimOberg


Revealed -- Another "scholar" who has conveniently ignored all aspects of witness testimony that do not support his unlikely explanation. This pattern of obfuscation is far from scientific, or scholarly. This is the work of a Denier, not a Skeptic.

That didn't take long.

reply to post by Scdfa

Revealed -- Another "scholar" who has conveniently ignored all aspects of witness testimony that do not support his unlikely explanation

I am pretty sure the drawings of space ships by various witnesses counts as testimony. Can you give an example of witness testimony that was ignored? The whole point is not to ignore any of it particularly if it follows a trend.

If I remember, the strongest testimony was given by someone who was beside himself in fear. Who did the interviews? Was it recorded? Are transcripts freely available to scrutinize?

For the most part, all I have seen as far as "witness testimony" has been in the form of interpritation from some ufologist and not directly from the witness. That's pretty useless.

Was there testimony by others who just saw lights in the sky and Not space ships? I didn't come across any of those reports on the UFO web sites.

Why don't we compare which information is ignored and which information is included from both sides? Please start since you made the claim that "all aspects of witness testimony" is being ignored.

Do you have actual examples or do I have read through threads and guess what you read?