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

Just saw a recap of this on "Close Encounters". If you believe recreation of events, the object hovered over this one guy for several minutes while a friend looks on.

didnt seem like a booster falling back to earth...

originally posted by: 111DPKING111
Just saw a recap of this on "Close Encounters". If you believe recreation of events, the object hovered over this one guy for several minutes while a friend looks on.

didnt seem like a booster falling back to earth...

I have come to the conclusion that this witness and one other witness may have embellished their accounts to make them seem more dramatic - for the sake of telling a good story.

My reasoning is that most of the witness observations seem to be consistent with a re-entry of a rocket that is breaking up. All of the witnesses travelling on the highway were headed north, which may imply they were all looking at the same event in the northern sky. Most of the witnesses just described "lights in the sky" of varying brightness and color. If the vehicle re-entry was visible from these locations, it does seem to make logical sense that this is what the witnesses saw.

All that said, I wasn't there, so I suppose its possible that by some remarkable coincidence, a giant spaceship overflew the Yukon about the same time that an ordinary rocket burned up on re-entry. Its possible, but doesn't seem too likely in my opinion.

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
reply to post by Scdfa

 

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.

If you took the time to actually read through the original UFOBC report, posted on their website, you would discover that most (ie. almost all) of the witnesses reported seeing lights in the sky and did not describe any surface detail from any "spaceship". Two witnesses drew "craft-like" drawings, although there is no description of the "object's" surface, even though one witness claimed he was directly beneath the "object".

There are a few details that do seem a bit suggesting of an "underlying structure". Some witnesses reported a "dome" suggested by a curve of small lights above the more prominent row of brighter lights.

And there are a a number of witnesses who state they saw "searchlights" from the ends (or middle) of the object - although its unclear if they actually saw any areas of the ground illuminated by these searchlights (so maybe they were just lights that were varying in intensity?)

One inconsistency with witness accounts from those who reported seeing "row of rectangular lights" is some witnesses reported one row, and some reported two rows. Maybe the lights were actually a long jagged row that could be interpreted either way?

From what I read from the witness reports, most of the witnesses simply reported seeing a cluster of lights, somewhat stretched out, spanning an arc of the sky, moving from west to east before fading out or disappearing. It seems there were some larger orange or amber lights (maybe flashing) and some smaller white lights.

If the investigator had presented data to show that the witnesses could not see the falling rocket reentry from the witness locations, I would be more tempted to believe the sightings remain unsolved.

a reply to: bluestreak53

I'm not too familiar with this case, but surely if it wasn't the re-entry, then at least some of the witnesses out there watching the sky that night would also have noticed the re-entry, in addition to the "UFO"? (E.g. related the timings to that sighting: "The UFO appeared X minutes before/after I saw this other meteor-shower-type event".)

After all, a rocket re-entry is pretty noticeable, and not something you see every night! And clearly they were looking in the right direction at the right time to have seen it.

So did any of the witnesses mention the re-entry as well? If not, then surely the supposed craft could only have been the re-entry. If it wasn't, then they would have seen two events that night.

a reply to: Rob48

No witnesses reported seeing the reentry (suggesting none realized it might be a rocket re-entry they were watching). One witness initially thought he was observing a plane that was crashing "his second thought was that it was a 747 Jumbo Jet coming down but that didn't make sense either."

a reply to: bluestreak53

Sorry if I wasn't completely clear. I wouldn't expect them to know about the rocket re-entry or describe it as such, of course. The telling thing is surely the NUMBER of unusual events they saw that night: i.e. one.

What I am saying is that if the craft was not the same event as the re-entry, then there must have been TWO unrelated and spectacular sights in the sky that night.

Leaving aside any implications regarding the probability of that, my point is that at least some of the witnesses would surely have noticed BOTH events, regardless of what they thought they were.

If, as you say, none did, that strongly suggests that there was in fact only ONE spectacular sight in the sky that night, i.e, the re-entry. What a surprise!


Or, in more simple terms, if none of these reports was the re-entry, but there were several people watching the sky in the area, then why the hell did nobody spot the big fireball show before or after the aliens flew over?

Rob48's points are spot on.

The degree of over-interpretation by some of the witnesses is still extraordinary, and if this were the ONLY case where observers of a fireball swarm ALSO reported a giant craft instead, the precise perceptual processes that caused that would be dubious.

But studies by Ted Molczan and others have identified MANY identical cases over the past fifty years involving unusually large satellites -- hence, many pieces -- where witnesses all around the world reported strikingly similar images of a large mounted-with-lights structure blocking out stars moving silently in level flight -- often with searchlights stabbing out in random directions -- on occasion with humanoid occupants visible through portholes, or even EMI interference.

It's the best dang 'control experiment' you could ever want to calibrate the degree of imaginativeness of some witnesses.

Properly appreciated, this new data may have a fundamental bearing on the nature of a LOT of what passes for 'the UFO experience.'

a reply to: JimOberg

It is a genuinely fascinating subject, the psychology of UFO sightings. Unfortunately it's such a charged subject that it's difficult to be taken seriously when investigating it. A lot of serious scientists dismiss it as too cranky even to look into, while the witnesses themselves are unlikely to co-operate because they think their integrity is being attacked — when in many (most?) cases they are probably genuine in what they thought they saw and not being deliberately deceptive at all.

a reply to: Rob48

Yes. I agree. That is my point. Unless the witnesses could not actually see the re-entering rocket from the locations they observed the lights, then this would suggest they were actually witnessing the re-entry (and simply didn't realize that was what they had observed).

a reply to: bluestreak53
Yes, I see now we were arguing the same point! Just wanted to be clear


Just waiting for someone to chip in with "But of course they didn't notice the re-entry — they were too busy watching the UFO"

originally posted by: JimOberg
.... But studies by Ted Molczan and others have identified MANY identical cases over the past fifty years involving unusually large satellites -- hence, many pieces -- where witnesses all around the world reported strikingly similar images of a large mounted-with-lights structure blocking out stars moving silently in level flight -- often with searchlights stabbing out in random directions -- on occasion with humanoid occupants visible through portholes, or even EMI interference.

It's the best dang 'control experiment' you could ever want to calibrate the degree of imaginativeness of some witnesses.

Properly appreciated, this new data may have a fundamental bearing on the nature of a LOT of what passes for 'the UFO experience.'

Jim... I don't get it. You keep disregarding the Condon Report findings by William Hartmann in Section 6. And you continue to act as if there's no data on (and thus there persists a desperate need for 'control experiments' regarding) the proportion of witnesses who will erroneously insert windows, exhaust, search lights, etc., onto conventional yet infrequently observed sky phenomena.

Why do you do this?

Are you uncomfortable with the fact that Hartmann's data indicates that only a small percentage of UFO witnesses actually DO insert those kinds of UFO 'craft' features onto conventional phenomena?

I hope this post doesn't sound too confrontational, but I'll admit to some frustration here. Sometimes the motivations behind what you write, or (more often) fail to write, is very hard to understand... unless one begins to question your motives and objectivity.

Once again, good data regarding the prevalence of witness misinterpretation exists. I hope all readers will make themselves more familiar with it. Those people considered to be experts should definitely already be more familiar with that data and be perfectly willing to incorporate it into their analyses and public statements.

a reply to: TeaAndStrumpets

What is your view on why none of the witnesses apparently noticed the re-entry, in addition to the UFO? The re-entry happened at around the same time, and in the same place, as they were when they were observing the UFO. Why didn't they notice it? If I was outside on a dark night, in a position to observe a UFO in the sky, then I think I would notice if a rocket re-entered the atmosphere creating a big fireball shower!

Again, I would submit that the reason is that there weren't two notable events happening that night, there was only one. The re-entry.

originally posted by: TeaAndStrumpets

....
Jim... I don't get it. You keep disregarding the Condon Report findings by William Hartmann in Section 6. And you continue to act as if there's no data on (and thus there persists a desperate need for 'control experiments' regarding) the proportion of witnesses who will erroneously insert windows, exhaust, search lights, etc., onto conventional yet infrequently observed sky phenomena.

Why do you do this?.....

By no means. See Molczan's overview and links to my case-by-case discussions, including Condon on the Proton fireball swarm. www.satobs.org...

There's a difference in the distribution because there's a difference in where reports are sent based on what witnesses interpret them as.

Still, the break is about half and half, even in the Yukon case.

Update -- Richard Dolan has sounded off about this case, links below. Is there any way I can see the text of this recent Dolan report on a major case that I've renewed my interest in?
Richard dolan [RDM] The Spectacular Yukon UFO (Answer Forum)
By Richard Dolan| August 8, 2020 [13 comments]
richarddolanmembers.com...