Satellite Reentry Fireball Swarms -- Widely Misperceived by Startled Witnesses

Human perceptual processes react to sudden unusual visual stimuli by pulling up past experiences and filling in the gaps -- it's a survival-positive trait that allows crucial fast-reaction in events of lethal hazard or food opportunities, over a million generations of our ancestors. The reality of this trait’s importance to the UFO puzzle is persuasively demonstrated in opportunistic double-blind experiments when known stimuli [for example, a swarm of fireballs resulting from a satellite reentry] will often result in similar interpretations [a large structured object with lights mounted on it] in startled witnesses across the world, over the decades, with all ranges of cultures and professions and ages.

And once again, over Hawaii, last October 24, about 10 PM local. Here's my new report on the familiar pattern of satellite reentries creating fireball swarms that trigger 'UFO mothership' perceptions =

www.satobs.org...

a reply to: JimOberg

I have fallen victim to this before and I think I even made a thread here about it. Having just woken up and walked out for the first smoke of the day I witnessed a launch at the perfect time for such spectacle. It was still dark out, but at the altitude of that rocket the sun was beaming, and let me tell you those vapors and such were a hell of a show in a dark sky!

That thing looks like it could be dangerous if it were to hit someone or someone's house. It definitely has intact parts left, a one ounce nut traveling at that speed would kill someone. This is something that should not be ignored, we need to lessen all the junk in orbit. I would bet that if someone got hit by space junk, the event would be covered up to protect big businesses and governments that put junk into space. There is so much junk up there now that could come down, I think your chance of getting hit by some space debris will be like one in a thousand chance of getting hit in your lifetime in ten years or so. Of course the satelite companies will say that it was a piece of meteor that hit you, because it is all melted.

originally posted by: rickymouse
That thing looks like it could be dangerous if it were to hit someone or someone's house. It definitely has intact parts left, a one ounce nut traveling at that speed would kill someone. ....

One-ounce fragments are slowed to 'terminal velocity' [fastball pitch speed, maybe] well before reaching the ground. Bigger pieces can [and have] crashed through house roofs. But exactly where along a tens of thousands of miles long track the impact will occur is physically impossible to predict because the final moments of drag are impossible to calculate since the object will be tumbling randomly, sharp end or broad side "into the wind" back and forth.

originally posted by: rickymouse
... Of course the satelite companies will say that it was a piece of meteor that hit you, because it is all melted.

It may be scorched and distorted and locally stove-in, but such pieces slow so fast they drop below melting temps pretty quickly. Even serial numbers can be read. See eclipsetours.com...

a reply to: JimOberg
Before I opened your pdf I thought it might be 10 pages with 5 pages about the incident over Hawaii and maybe 5 pages of comments. I never expected to find the huge amount of excellent work you put into the over 200 pages pdf!

A lot of those 200+ pages are comments, and they were fascinating to read. I like the way you highlighted some key points needing attention in red. The absolute refusal by some people to accept the "scientist's explanation" was astonishing, Dunning and Kruger could do more research on those folks.

I was amazed by the variety in comments and how many people thought the re-entering debris was "maneuvering". If someone was trying to read these witness descriptions and determine what the UFO was without knowing, I think there would be a tendency to rule out space junk because space junk doesn't "maneuver", in fact some comments said that's why they thought it wasn't space junk. I didn't see any "maneuvering" in the videos, so I'm not sure how that illusion occurred.

Some other comments thought it wasn't space junk because some lights were blinking. I did see blinking lights in the video. One comment suggested the lights only appeared to blink because they were passing behind clouds that blocked their view. While at first that sounds like a plausible possibility which may in fact have occurred with other space junk burning up in the atmosphere, I didn't think that seemed the likely cause of the blinking in this case because if they were all passing behind the clouds, they should have all been blinking. I'm not sure exactly what caused the apparent blinking, did you have any thoughts on that? I was wondering about some tumbling motion of the debris where it might get brighter when a longer surface generates more plasma as it tumbles. That would be slightly analogous to the "blinking" space dandruff where tumbling particles with irregular shapes reflect more light from the longer surfaces as they tumble, though obviously the atmospheric entry is not a reflection phenomenon.

I didn't really see a triangle in the videos, so when people saw a triangle, I thought maybe they were seeing what they wanted to see, like these comments around pp99-100 of your pdf:


Funny aside, when I went to that channel to check out the video with the alleged "triangle", literally the first thing I got was an ad for a "tin foil hat", seriously. It looks like a beanie but it alleges to block electromagnetic radiation like a tinfoil hat, which I found rather amusing, perhaps speaking to the credulity of the regular audience who supports that channel.

What does the "tbs" mean in the lower right of that image screenshot?

I noticed you also mentioned the previous cases of mothership sightings like Yukon and Kiev, yet I still find people who will take an eyewitness estimates to the distance of a UFO at face value. More people really need to get up to speed on this research to learn what it documents is true that there seems to be little correlation between the distance estimates of witnesses, and the actual distance to the UFO. I think this seems to be some of the most important research, yet seemingly the least known, so I appreciate you posting it to try to make it more available. However I'm not seeing a lot of response to this thread; sometimes I get the impression a lot of people would rather watch a James Fox documentary interviewing witnesses where he treats their estimates of distance to the UFO as credible, which this research clearly shows is far from reliable.

Dec 7 == My updated analysis of the UFO sightings from the Hawaiian Islands that resulted from the re-entry of 08055B / 33415, expanded to add two witness drawings, a number of new witness descriptions, and additional information on historical precedents of the same type of event:

www.satobs.org...

a reply to: JimOberg
Thanks for the update.
Same question as my last post except you added pages so now it's on page 123:

What does "-tbs" mean?

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
a reply to: JimOberg
Thanks for the update.
Same question as my last post except you added pages so now it's on page 123:

What does "-tbs" mean?

note to author, 'to be supplied', obviously overlooked!!

Everybody happy with the conclusions, I presume?

SHORT version of the report, for an oral presentation next week.

jamesoberg.com...