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

reply to post by TeaAndStrumpets


Bravo.
Second line.

Originally posted by TeaAndStrumpets

Here's just one: Had the booster broken up yet at the time of the sightings? The original report says it had not.

According to satobs.org... probably yes.

Going over the eye witness testimony on Jaseks site with Molczans' paper in mind, I must say I am convinced. There is enough correlation between the booster break-up and eye witness testimony overall to outweigh the discrepancies in my opinion.

Originally posted by cripmeister
Going over the eye witness testimony on Jaseks site with Molczans' paper in mind, I must say I am convinced. There is enough correlation between the booster break-up and eye witness testimony overall to outweigh the discrepancies in my opinion.

If there remains any doubt that people can make such a perceptual error, see
www.jamesoberg.com...
a Russian report of a fireball swarm over the Ukraine in 1963.

It turned out to be the reentry of the Kosmos-20 booster.

Some people saw and drew swarms of fireballs.

Some people 'saw' and drew fantastical huge structured vehicles with lights and jets.

They were all watching the SAME phenomenon.

reply to post by JimOberg


I love this case as an example of how unreliable witness testimony is, especially including cases where there are many multiples of witnesses corroborating each other's stories either independently via sympathetic susceptibility to influence through poor interview techniques, or through subconscious sympathetic cooperation through witness contamination brought about by cross pollination of stories due witnesses having direct contact with one another in 'discussing' what they saw.

It's a fine example of how malleable, and susceptible, witness accounts are to contaminating peer influence as well as flights of utter fantasy brought about by recollections seen through the psychological equivalent of beer-goggles.

Does any of the below bother those espousing the rocket re-entry theory? (It should, or you're not being honest.) The Google Earth plot is from H.Zimmer's data.

I could write tons, but am in a hurry for now. More tomorrow or Sunday....

Two objects / events?

And Jim, still waiting for that video on what this re-entry would look like from 300 to 400 km. What kind of angular size could we expect for the "debris swarm?"

Here's what their rocket reentry trajectory data looks like entered into Google Earth. Those markers are the locations of the re-entering rocket, local Fox Lake time....


How does the above trajectory of the decaying / re-entering rocket jibe with some of the below?



The following goes with the map just above.


Two objects / events is an explanation II could perhaps buy. Because people can bee very,very wrong, but... c'mon. There's something seriously deficient about an explanation when it requires MOST of the witnesses to be the statistical outliers we've discussed before.....

Fox1 is reliable to within 1 degree of elevation, so say the skeptics, but apparently he was too dumb to realize that he had to have driven 25 km North in under a minute.....

If there's a way for me to post the Google Earth kmz files, or each data point separately or whatever, could someone let me know how? Won't be 'til tomorrow, but I'm happy to zip 'em up and upload wherever / however I can.

I must say that seeing the data visually, when you can manipulate positions and angles and all, really makes the weaknesses in the rocket re-entry explanation stick out.

The biggest mystery about the Yukon case is how anyone could list it as a Top Ten Case. It wouldn't actually make it into the top three in Canada, let alone world wide.. Shag Harbour 1967, Falcon Lake 1967,Prince George 1969 Harbour Mille 2010 (aren't we still waiting for the prosaic explanation the RCMP said they had for it?)

What you're seeing here is typical of the sort of trash Shaeffer and his cronies peddle, claiming something that is wholly false, that this is considered UFO gold by those proponents of UFOs existing and that they have shot a huge whole in their argument. The truth is,, as usual,, they just come off as being petty minded self important pillocks who are just as economical with the truth time and time again as Greer and Icke are.

The fans of both sides Greer and Schaeffer, who accept their outpourings unquestionably, are the main road block to actual serious investigation as they litter the internet with their wholly biased and often factually totally inaccurate analysis.

This thread belongs in the hoax section as anyone claiming this is "Top Ten UFO case" is a bunko artists of the first order.

Originally posted by FireMoon

What you're seeing here is typical of the sort of trash Shaeffer and his cronies peddle, claiming something that is wholly false, that this is considered UFO gold by those proponents of UFOs existing and that they have shot a huge whole in their argument. The truth is,, as usual,, they just come off as being petty minded self important pillocks who are just as economical with the truth time and time again as Greer and Icke are.

The fans of both sides Greer and Schaeffer, who accept their outpourings unquestionably, are the main road block to actual serious investigation as they litter the internet with their wholly biased and often factually totally inaccurate analysis.

Kaboom! Monumentally well-said. If I had a list of all-time favorite posts on ATS, this would occupy a prominent spot.

I don't think the image I posted earlier actually conveys how quickly this booster rocket was moving across the sky.

It's also over 500km away from even the northern-most Fox Lake witnesses for all but about 75 seconds of its descent here, and is never closer than 400km.

From the various witness locations, look at its change in bearing between just 8:26 and 8:27 PM local time. It looks to be about 70 degrees even for those witnesses way to the south, and 90 degrees for those farther north.

Still, I wouldn't be surprised at all if some groups of witnesses hundreds of kilometers to the north may have seen such a re-entry. But it seems equally clear that a significant percentage of the witnesses are describing something that this rocket re-entry simply cannot come close to explaining.

Is the lesson here (again) just "buyer beware"? Well-articulated arguments constructed of only the most carefully selected bits of evidence are admittedly very tempting, but usually fall once scrutinized.

Originally posted by Druscilla
reply to post by JimOberg

 

I love this case as an example of how unreliable witness testimony is, especially including cases where there are many multiples of witnesses corroborating each other's stories either independently via sympathetic susceptibility to influence through poor interview techniques, or through subconscious sympathetic cooperation through witness contamination brought about by cross pollination of stories due witnesses having direct contact with one another in 'discussing' what they saw.

It's a fine example of how malleable, and susceptible, witness accounts are to contaminating peer influence as well as flights of utter fantasy brought about by recollections seen through the psychological equivalent of beer-goggles.

I agree. It is part of the UFO problem and it must be dealt with. An interesting thing is it wasn't until after the golden age of UFOlogy that we began to really understand these things.

reply to post by cripmeister

I agree. It is part of the UFO problem and it must be dealt with.

I'm not particularly fussed about this incident, but aren't you getting carried away with the rhetoric in here? 'Must be dealt with!?' By Jim?

Especially as the points of Jim and Druscilla you are agreeing with were broad sweeps, unfounded, and even more assertive rhetoric. As much as Jim has his ideas of a sheep-mentality (easily led, startled by landing lights etc) of people reporting UFO sightings, even he isn't omniscient enough to be so conclusive about motivations and psycho-social influences affecting those claimants from 16 years ago. Yep, 16 years ago, different country and he's never met any of them. The certainty to which you're agreeing is as mindless and baseless as the opposing view that every moving light in the sky is a bloody alien spaceship.

Come on Crip, I know you're a skeptical guy, but don't be fooled by noisy opinions dressed up as statements of fact. Even on great condescending form, it's only reasonable to throw in some caveats like 'in my opinion' or 'it's possible.' If you re-read what you quoted, it's scathing rhetoric. It's that style of 'skepticism' that's devalued the real meaning of scepticism just as 'ET will save us' believers have devalued the term 'believer.' The folks in the middle ground have to use inverted commas every time we see those terms!

You sneer at the work of Robert Sheaffer twice by name and each time you misspell the name differently. How can we trust you to get ANYTHING factually correct?

Originally posted by FireMoon
The biggest mystery about the Yukon case is how anyone could list it as a Top Ten Case. It wouldn't actually make it into the top three in Canada, let alone world wide.. Shag Harbour 1967, Falcon Lake 1967,Prince George 1969 Harbour Mille 2010 (aren't we still waiting for the prosaic explanation the RCMP said they had for it?)

What you're seeing here is typical of the sort of trash Shaeffer and his cronies peddle, claiming something that is wholly false, that this is considered UFO gold by those proponents of UFOs existing and that they have shot a huge whole in their argument. The truth is,, as usual,, they just come off as being petty minded self important pillocks who are just as economical with the truth time and time again as Greer and Icke are.

The fans of both sides Greer and Schaeffer, who accept their outpourings unquestionably, are the main road block to actual serious investigation as they litter the internet with their wholly biased and often factually totally inaccurate analysis.

This thread belongs in the hoax section as anyone claiming this is "Top Ten UFO case" is a bunko artists of the first order.

Originally posted by TeaAndStrumpets
...Still, I wouldn't be surprised at all if some groups of witnesses hundreds of kilometers to the north may have seen such a re-entry. But it seems equally clear that a significant percentage of the witnesses are describing something that this rocket re-entry simply cannot come close to explaining.

T&S, you are starting -- and ENDING -- with what you already are sure what a reentry SHOULD look like to witnesses. Not what such spectacles actually HAVE looked like.

Take a look at the 1963 Russian report with all of the different drawings -- some fireball swarms, some HUMONGOUS NEARBY SLOW-MOVING STRUCTURED OBJECTS.

Especially compare the range of drawings by Yukon witnesses as shown at
www.abovetopsecret.com...
with the range of drawings by the Ukrainian witnesses.

How many examples do you need to be persuaded that when faced with this particular visual stimulus, a LOT of witnesses will misperceive it the same way?

reply to post by JimOberg


Because Shaeffer is an intellectual coward who has never once dared to go toe to toe with anyone with any real knowledge rather, confines himself to only ever giving interviews alone to camera and sniping from the sidelines. Anyone who had read my posts knows that I have, at times, criticised Stanton Friedman however, the chances of Shaeffer ever appearing "live" to debate with Friedman are, as far as I know, somewhere between nada and zilch. Same as watching an ex military man and NASA bloke on some documentary the other day. I bet at the start that the one incident we all want to know about wouldn't be included in the show, sadly wasn't disappointed the same old low level trash anyone could dismiss without needing so called "heavyweights" to blather pointlessly on about it all.

The day the likes of Shaeffer and you Jim actually have the bottle to go on a show without having the script checked beforehand and only agreeing to comment on the incidents you cherry pick some us will have a darn sight more respect. Till then the abiding suspicion is, you are all very big on avoidance because you really don;t have any rational answers or explanations for a whole rake of sightings.

And please Jim, keep your patronising replies for someone else. I offered you a clear an open chance to help make a TV show we all would love to see happen and you couldn't even be bothered to acknowledge the offer. You're company man and have been all your life, you tow the company line and like all company people you mysteriously develop selective dyslexia/deafness.blindness, the moment you don't have your own people carefully arranging your public appearances.

Originally posted by FireMoon
.... And please Jim, keep your patronising replies for someone else. I offered you a clear an open chance to help make a TV show we all would love to see happen and you couldn't even be bothered to acknowledge the offer. You're company man and have been all your life, you tow the company line and like all company people you mysteriously develop selective dyslexia/deafness.blindness, the moment you don't have your own people carefully arranging your public appearances.

Dyslexia? I'm not the guy defiantly misspelling Bob Sheaffer's name. And I doubt anything else you think you know about him is any more accurate.

And while you're accusing others of dyslexia, I believe the proper figure of speech is "toe the line". The alternate version of "tow the line" has gradually achieved 'acceptable usage' merely from the tremendous numbers of morons getting it wrong.

As for your resentment of my declining an "offer" of letting me help, for free, a money-making project of yours, your whiny complaint is worth a few laughs all around the thread. Thanks for the amusement.

What I think is the critical theme of this thread is how space events such as reentries can provide us, for the first time ever, with checkable calibration of eyewitness perception in such once-in-a-lifetime cases as fireball swarms..

It's also calibrating the closed-minded intellectually-ghettoized true believers who are 101% certain that since an unwanted prosaic explanation CAN'T be true, it ISN'T, and won't even LOOK over the 1963 Ukrainian fireball swarm drawings to see how weirdly similar they are to the Yukon drawings, and other known booster reentries.

Well it's nice to see you actually resorting to unfounded personal attacks as you obviously don;t have anything to say. You didn't even acknowledge my offer, even to politely decline it so how you happen to know any of the details is frankly outstanding although, as a psychic, I wouldn't quit your day job. For your information, I would have nothing to do with the programme, on the financial side save expenses, I was merely offering to act, as I said at the time, as a facilitator to make something happen many of us think would be of interest. You see, outside of the "reasonable expenses" for the odd radio interview, I have never attempted to make a cent from Ufology.

Now, as you seem to be able to talk for the likes of Shaeffer maybe you'd like to explain why, any of the usual "talking heads" sceptics absence from any of the "Shag Harbour" documentaries as I happen to know they sent out letters before they were made enquiring as to the availability of the likes Shaeffer and to the best of my knowledge, not one single sceptic who normally, can't wait to have a go, even bothered replying.

I repeat, Shaeffer is an intellectual coward who restricts his activities to shooting fish in a barrel using intellectual dishonesty to to make spurious claims and generally avoiding anything that might involve him having to talk about certain incidents unscripted.

Originally posted by Kandinsky

I'm not particularly fussed about this incident, but aren't you getting carried away with the rhetoric in here? 'Must be dealt with!?' By Jim?

By everyone interested in the UFO subject. The flaws of eye-witness testimony is a serious factor, it not only helps shape how one case is perceived but how the entire phenomena is perceived.

The certainty to which you're agreeing is as mindless and baseless as the opposing view that every moving light in the sky is a bloody alien spaceship.

I should have added "to some degree" as Drucillas post is basically a blanket statement, I see that now.

reply to post by JimOberg

Looks like the number one worst debunking I have ever seen, now has a new champion.

Originally posted by TKDRL
Looks like the number one worst debunking I have ever seen, now has a new champion.

Have you looked at the drawings by the 1963 Ukraine witnesses and compared them to the drawings of the Yukon witnesses?

Both cases: a satellite booster reentering and disintegrating in flaming fragments at the same time as the sightings and moving in the same direction as the eyewitness reports. This is a documented fact that anybody can verify -- not a hypothetical imaginary possibility.

Please open your eyes and your mind.

reply to post by JimOberg


I suppose you buy that the phoenix triangle was just some flares too?