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

PhoenixOD
Another one bites the dust..

TBH Ive never trusted Stanton Friedman's judgment, he comes across as being very sincere and i think he has a genuine interest in the subject but i fully believe that he is prepared to call anything ambiguous a UFO / fly saucer just so he can sell books, documentaries and do lectures to fund his hobby.

Agreed. Stanton Freidman used to be THE MAN.
I lost respect years ago when Bob Lazar came onto the scene.
I don't know who to really "listen to" when it comes to UFO's.
Nick Pope has lost all credibility...
Jaime Mauson...fraud.
And all the guys from ANCIENT ALIENS are laughable...except for that one science guy, I don't think he meant to get lumped up with the others.
So...who is our go-to guy (or gal) now when it comes to UFO's?

Orkojoker

Report: "As he was walking his flashlight happened to point in the direction of the UFO. As if reacting to his flashlight, the UFO started speeding rapidly toward him."

Reality: the "UFO reacting" to him was entirely in his imagination. The rocket booster did not react to his flashlight.

Report: the UFO was hovering approximately 300 yards in front of the observer. "Hynek Classification: CE1" (Close Encounter of the First Kind).

Reality: the distance to the re-entering booster was approximately 233 km (145 miles), so this was not a "close encounter." At no time did it stop, or hover.

Report: "stars blocked out" by huge UFO.

Reality: the observers were viewing a long train of debris from the disintegrating rocket booster. It was not a solid object, and thus could not have "blocked out" stars. However, the light from the reentry may have made nearby stars difficult to see.

This guy has it nailed. First, you decide what the witnesses saw. Then you ignore any witness testimony that doesn't fit that explanation. I'm in the process of disembunking the O'Hare Airport sighting myself. Here's what I have so far:

Report: Witnesses saw a metallic, disk-shaped object hovering above the terminal.

Reality: Witnesses saw an airplane taking off. At no time did it hover.

Report: It was disk-shaped.

Reality: It was shaped like an airplane. The disk shape was in the observers' imaginations.

Report: The object took off straight up and left a circular hole in the overcast.

Reality: The airplane rose into the clouds at a leisurely pace. Planes don't leave holes in the clouds, so there wasn't a hole in the clouds. All in the observers' imaginations.

This technique works for just about any sighting of anything. It could even have been a car.

Report: The witnesses looked into the sky and saw the object.

Reality: The witnesses only thought they were looking into the sky, due to their overactive imaginations. They were actually looking into the parking lot, where they saw a car which they immediately assumed was an alien spacecraft.

This is what they're doing. Ignoring testimony and reinventing what was depicted, then voila, you have a perfect debunking.

Unity_99
This is what they're doing. Ignoring testimony and reinventing what was depicted, then voila, you have a perfect debunking.

Mockery is not a logical argument and is an indicator of closed minds.

Look at the 1963 Kiev report and the drawings.

www.jamesoberg.com...

Do you agree that all the drawings are representations from witnesses to the SAME apparition?

Also, what would convince you that this map
files.abovetopsecret.com...
shows the track of the Kosmos-20 rocket body slipping out of orbit?

Do you see the relationship between Kosmos-20 RB and the Kiev reports?

Please respond constructively.

Unity_99
This is what they're doing. Ignoring testimony and reinventing what was depicted, then voila, you have a perfect debunking.

More often than not, I find that the UFO investigators will emphasize certain characteristics of the UFO and ignore others in an attempt to make multi-witness sightings seem more consistent. I've noticed this in numerous multi-witness UFO stories, including the Portage (1966) and Trumbull (1994) cases. The various witnesses describe the object quite differently, and the rationalization is usually that "they were seeing it from different angles," even though that would never be the case.

One argument against the reentry fireball swarm explanation for Yukon is that the Yukon events were occurring over the region over a period of hours or more, while a fireball swarm would cross the sky in only a few minutes.

But if you examine the 1963 Kiev report, traceable to the Kosmos-20 reentry, here's the scatter of reported times across Ukraine:

“in the interval 1830 to 1940, in Kiev mainly1840-1850.. however, a separate observation an hour earlier, and a different one later toward 21:00.” ”
I ‘about 19:00’
6/6 about 18:50
7/7 after 7 pm
9/9 18:44
10/10 19:45 – 20:00
11/11 no clock, duration 5-6 minutes
12/12 ‘about 7 pm’
14/14 ‘about 19’
19&20 “about 19:30”
24&25 18:45, “altitude about 300 meters”
26&27 about 18:00, height 130 meters
30&31 18:00 5-10 minutes, passed 80-100 meters overhead
32 About 21:00
33 18:27
35 18:50
35&36 “ 19:00 or 19:30”, 1.5 to min, 150-200 meters altitude
42&43 about 18:46
60&62 18:45
93 18:44
99 19:15

The eye witness accounts are different than the explanation given. One of the most interesting differences is in height and in variation of direction.

Given as an example was the fireball in Russia, where half drew a fireball, and half drew complicated crafts.
And I can see how both can be true, relating to real ufology, from the opinion of an experiencer, generational, ie family, and lifelong, ie since childhood.

I never like these kind of threads because the logical technical nuts and bolts side to ufology, its not how it works. It works far more "magically" to the human perception.

Now, if ufo's were accompanying that fireball, then it stands to reason some would see them and some would not, because they reveal themselves to whom they wish.

How? Our minds reconstruct or create our reality, they interpret the energies around us and form all the images we see, touch/taste/smell/sound/visual and also depth perception. They take a 2 D hologram of energy waves and erect it into a 3D landscape where everything seems separated. You could call human body a dvd player, and you could say ET has the remote, pause, fast forward, rewind, missing time...insert memory, work the programs that do the decoding, and block recall.

Those who are supposed to see things see them, those who are not, don't. Sometimes they let everyone see, but some will see something they can write off, some will see something they interact with.

Disclosure isn't happening because the US government refuses to disclose, but because ET and the Higher Ups have not disclosed, and if they wanted to it would done asap, fully. But then they'd have to implement a world wide plan for the populations, because everyone would halt the economy. So they'd have to become Big Daddy really fast. And of course it depends what earth is all about, ie. if its a school then questioning reality and life, and seeing past wars, and inequality, and striving to reach a higher grade of consciousness would all be a part of the tests now wouldn't it?

So some will see, but not all. Disclosure is happening awakening is happening, one by one, so far.

Now height is obvious. For example our sightings were very low, mostly. Not all, but the higher ones moved lower and interacted. And were chased on occasion by choppers, plus brought on surveillance.

A height of 50-200 feet, hovering, vanishing and or/reappearing, and in some cases being chased by choppers, rules out a lot of things. It rules out birds, swamp gas, chinese balloons, and re-entry of debris, and also planes, and choppers. And other aspects involved that were more interactive ruled out blackops and the secret space program, along with memories of events that occur.

In this case, there also were reported low altitude sightings and to me unless they are low altitude its very hard to rule out a lot of other things.....

reply to post by Unity_99

How? Our minds reconstruct or create our reality, they interpret the energies around us and form all the images we see, touch/taste/smell/sound/visual and also depth perception. They take a 2 D hologram of energy waves and erect it into a 3D landscape where everything seems separated. You could call human body a dvd player, and you could say ET has the remote, pause, fast forward, rewind, missing time...insert memory, work the programs that do the decoding, and block recall.

one man's hallucination is another's magical ET reality...god speed

reply to post by elevenaugust

So really? that UFO mass "Mothership that was sighted in Yukon was just space junk? yeah i am not buying it.

Agent_USA_Supporter
reply to post by elevenaugust

 

So really? that UFO mass "Mothership that was sighted in Yukon was just space junk? yeah i am not buying it.

Can you suggest an explanation of why such sightings, from the 1963 Kiev report through recent cases in the 1990s including Yukon, have wide-area witnesses reporting seeing large structred objects with multiple lights on them moving across the sky at the same time and direction and speed that documented fiery fragmentation of reentering satellites is also occurring? What if any connection do you see between the provable prosaic visual apparition, and the subsequent eyewitness reports?

This is a serious question. How could it happen UNLESS one was the direct cause of the other?

reply to post by ZetaRediculian


Your opinion doesn't change reality. We had more than one, even up to 5 of us, witnessing crafts. Several members experiencing more. And back in the 90's, while still mostly unaware of this, was feeling too blocked to even research, my brother and a driving partner, picking up a load of produce with the 5 ton or semi, on a well known route, witnessed a fast walker type craft dart behind a cloud at roughly 3 30 pm, and then dart off sharply, a few seconds later. Those few seconds were a leap in time to 5 30 pm roughly, and the truck was 2 hours ahead of schedule.

I've opened the door on what pilots or is a member of the crew that pilots those crafts, and my children have also sighted actual grey ETs. The one I saw was dark dusky rose colored, though it was evening so the exact hue would be hard to describe. And more of a twiggy body. My son who's had missing time while up, witnessed one of our prologned sightings of craft, in which I was being directed and told would have a meeting with them later that night. He said alpha centauri, and I asked why he knew that. He told me he didn't know just felt that strongly. And the sighting I had of the rose colored twiggy grey, then huge dream of family abduction, where they implied to me they didn't do time, but that this day had taken 9 days to complete, and to write it down afterwards. Well I sensed alpha centauri too.

There is a lot more to ufology than what is being discussed in this thread.

THe magic is obvious or should be. To a caveman, our tech would be high magic. Our tech is caveman or anthill technology to ET.

My son called me out for the choppers chasing the craft, his age about 18 at the time, and for those crafts, after sharing that they had shown up on other dates.

Those ones flew directly over the roof at about 150-200 feet altitude.

Unity_99
....There is a lot more to ufology than what is being discussed in this thread... .

Feel free to start your own, but meanwhile do you have any rational answer to the question I posed?

reply to post by Unity_99

Your opinion doesn't change reality.

Your reality doesn't change my opinion.

...more of an observation than opinion. What you experience as real has striking similarities to what others consider hallucination. Hallucinations are real experiences. Perceptions are perceptions even if what is perceived didn't actually take place.

What you described may have occurred exactly as you said it did or it may be a series of misperceptions and misinterpretations exacerbated by the distorted recall of the events forming a memory shaped by personal beliefs and other experiences. Its all very human. That's why its a good idea to write things down and take pictures.

The argument that EVERY single UFO wittiness testimony is no more than "hallucinatory testimony" or that these witnesses are all hallucinating, including multiple witnesses witnessing the same stimuli is nothing short of non scientific nonsense.. Since when do the same people have the same hallucinatory hallucinations.. is there none credible enough in the vast historical UFO reports to be taken as a serious consideration that we have been in the past been subject to various observational agendas from ET intelligence's..

Anyone who has looked at the ludicrous "force fit" debunking explanations offered by the USAF intelligence's particularity in the files of the USAF "Blue Book" cannot fail to see that a very real and unknown reality has been covered up at all and any costs, that is how big this is, that is how the PAB regard the ET origins of the UFO situation.. why the need to offer such nonsensical force fitting explanations in the first place if there is nothing to those reports debunked by such explanations, to me therein lies the answer the force fitting is the answer here...

If we cannot trust the judgments and observations from those in postilions of experience and expertise and whos job it is to form a reliable and professional judgement of unknown stimuli or stimulant that is behaving in such a way to cause the stimuli to be viewed as unknown then we have incompetent and very questionable people in charge with the defense of restricted air spaces of various nations.. Then add to that the 30 odd years of inadequate scientific methods of investigation on the UFO situation one cannot be labelled hallucinatory in nature for rejecting the "hallucinatory" argument relentlessly put forward by those claiming they know better or are in any better credible position than those multiple witnesses who were privy to the actual sighting.. Even science in its present manifestation of understandings does no know all there is to know about what is possible or even real in our universe...anyone claiming they do or that currant science does know ALL there is to know are in my view the ones to be avoided for they are the ones leading science down the garden path...

K-PAX-PROT
The argument that EVERY single UFO wittiness testimony is no more than "hallucinatory testimony" or that these witnesses are all hallucinating, including multiple witnesses witnessing the same stimuli is nothing short of non scientific nonsense..

It's nonsense to assert this is what skeptics claim. Are you advertising your intellectual inability to understand their argument, or have you decided to deliberately misrepresent it, counting on the intellectual shortcomings of your target audience to earn you approval?

Since when do the same people have the same hallucinatory hallucinations.. is there none credible enough in the vast historical UFO reports to be taken as a serious consideration that we have been in the past been subject to various observational agendas from ET intelligence's..

Look at the 1963 Kiev report and offer an explanation for the wide variety of descriptions offered by witnesses. The Russian investigators themselves never knew what had caused it, but look at the posted map of the descent path of the Kosmos-20 rocket body, and offer an explanation why you think there was no connection.

Enough handwaving, please look at the specific evidence around this particular case and similar ones.

AFewGoodWomen

PhoenixOD
Another one bites the dust..

TBH Ive never trusted Stanton Friedman's judgment, he comes across as being very sincere and i think he has a genuine interest in the subject but i fully believe that he is prepared to call anything ambiguous a UFO / fly saucer just so he can sell books, documentaries and do lectures to fund his hobby.

Agreed. Stanton Freidman used to be THE MAN.
I lost respect years ago when Bob Lazar came onto the scene.
I don't know who to really "listen to" when it comes to UFO's.
Nick Pope has lost all credibility...
Jaime Mauson...fraud.
And all the guys from ANCIENT ALIENS are laughable...except for that one science guy, I don't think he meant to get lumped up with the others.
So...who is our go-to guy (or gal) now when it comes to UFO's?

You can't go wrong with Leslie Kean.

JadeStar
You can't go wrong with Leslie Kean.

That's why this thread got bumped. Kean is coming out in support
of the 1996 Yukon 'mother ship' UFO version -- and apparently
denying there is any prosaic explanation for it. This case has
risen to new international prominence as the top case in the
kick-off premier episode of a new Discovery-Canada UFO series.

JimOberg

K-PAX-PROT
The argument that EVERY single UFO wittiness testimony is no more than "hallucinatory testimony" or that these witnesses are all hallucinating, including multiple witnesses witnessing the same stimuli is nothing short of non scientific nonsense..

It's nonsense to assert this is what skeptics claim. Are you advertising your intellectual inability to understand their argument, or have you decided to deliberately misrepresent it, counting on the intellectual shortcomings of your target audience to earn you approval?

Since when do the same people have the same hallucinatory hallucinations.. is there none credible enough in the vast historical UFO reports to be taken as a serious consideration that we have been in the past been subject to various observational agendas from ET intelligence's..

Look at the 1963 Kiev report and offer an explanation for the wide variety of descriptions offered by witnesses. The Russian investigators themselves never knew what had caused it, but look at the posted map of the descent path of the Kosmos-20 rocket body, and offer an explanation why you think there was no connection.

Enough handwaving, please look at the specific evidence around this particular case and similar ones.

One is not hand waving and i find your accusation of it rather unfair.. as you well know my original point was that were is the EVIDENCE to suggest that EVERY single UFO witness testimony ever made is nothing more than hallucinatory in origins.. if as you suggest that sceptics are not implying this then why in every such case of multiple witnesses from credible sources does the ET possibility be rejected.. were is the evidence to support this absurd notion that the possibility of a ET source for those cases deemed unsolvable not from a lack of information contained in such cases but from the sheer level of high strangeness contained in those cases such as flight characteristics.... you cannot use one case to imply that all other cases of multiple witnesses are hallucinatory.. another point i raised in my handwaving was the deliberate force fitting debunking explanations offered in many Blue Books cases and the complete lack of proper scientific methods and protocols of investigation exposed by Dr James E MacDonald.. have you any comment on WHY the USAF needed to offer inadequate force fitting debunking explanations in there Blue Book investigations?? and why inadequate investigation methods were used on a number of cases they investigated??? Again were is the scientific evidence to prove without doubt that two people or more can suffer from the same hallucinatory stimuli ,after all its not the witnesses making these claims is it... seems that we always enter a grey area when the argument of hallucinatory explanations from multiple witnesses cases witnessing the same stimuli is raised.. no doubt in my mind that there have been unknowns witnesses by multiple witnesses that after credible investigations and all other natural avenues have been exhausted could very well have been observational craft from ET intelligence's ..

I don't know where to begin an answer since I cannot understand your argument, as you apparently have not understood mine but are grossly distorting it.

I'm arguing that it looks to me that certain highly bizarre visual apparitions have in the past caused witnesses to perceive scattered lights as lights set onto a large structured object.

I offer the 1963 Kiev case as an example where a well-defined stimulus -- a rocket body breaking up during atmospheric entry into numerous flaming points traveling horizontally in formation from horizon to horizon -- led some witnesses to accurately draw a swarm of fireballs, and other witnesses to interpret the lights as elements of a large structured object. There is no hallucination or other perceptual malfunction involved -- it is normal human visual interpretation to base identification on memories of similar visual stimuli in the viewer's experience base.

The 1963 case -- which I will argue next is a good analogy to the Yukon case in all essential features -- is a very important report to study for lessons it can teach us. What lessons does it suggest to you?

reply to post by elevenaugust


what does my head in is that people saw a craft and not a rocket reentry
BUT somebody WHOM was not there says its not a ufo so lets all just go with that

this place has some dumb sheeple and i am starting to regret ever joining

maryhinge
reply to post by elevenaugust

 

what does my head in is that people saw a craft and not a rocket reentry
BUT somebody WHOM was not there says its not a ufo so lets all just go with that

this place has some dumb sheeple and i am starting to regret ever joining

What is it, Mary, that YOU suggest people around Kiev saw, based on the highly-varied drawings? And how about the Yukon witnesses who reported ONLY a swarm of fireballs and NOT a large structured 'mother ship'?

Where does the documented and verifiable presence of a reentering large artificial satellite, moving in the same direction, at the same time, in the same portion of the sky, in both instances [Kiev 1963 and Yukon 1996] and creating a never-before seen pattern of bright lights moving horizontally in formation, where does THAT fit into what you think they saw?

I suggest that the data is trying to tell us something, and you just don't want to believe it. What do YOU think the data is telling us?

As for people "not being there" telling those who WERE there what they really saw, isn't that what good investigators tell witnesses more than 95% of the time when they mistakenly misinterpret other aerial apparitions? You aren't arguing that every UFO report must be accepted as utterly accurate based on the sincerity of every witness, are you?