Yukon UFO "Mothership" Incident: December 11th, 1996

page: 5
125
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 02:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheMythLives
reply to post by TruthxIsxInxThexMist
 


I doubt it was a weather ballon or blimp or anything, you would need to consider a whole lot for this damn thing to fly..lol.. If its as massive as it says it was, then I find it hard to believe it was any of those things seriously, also lights wouldn't be activated on them. Especially lights that BIG. Again, I am a skeptic of ALiens, but this is one of the better cases to support the theory


I agree that it is a great case after reading it all and watching the video but again i say why couldn't searchlights be on the bottom of an Airship? Of course they could.... those lights are like the ones used at Film Studios.... i've seen them..... true they are big but so is an airship and weight wouldn't pull an airship down....




posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 02:39 PM
link   
reply to post by TruthxIsxInxThexMist
 





weight wouldn't pull an airship down


Then how does it descend? It gets heavier for the descent, thats how it lands. So yes, enough weight would make it collapse and you wouldn't put lights under and airship, because then it wouldn't be able to land. Lights would be placed inside and on the outterskirts, signal lights as well, but no search lights or hollywood lights. Thats just not on Blimps and weather ballons. It is on some helicopters however, especially in Los Angeles.



posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 02:49 PM
link   
Need more info on this one.It seem's too good too be true.And why has it took so long too become piblic(ish).I'm thinking it's a military blimp,(I think there called mega-lifters).But why all the light''s.Cheers for the post though.



posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 03:01 PM
link   
reply to post by TheMythLives
 


These are huge things we are chatting about.....












From the above images i'm sure it is possible to attach searchbeams to the bottome of one or for people in the carriage part to twist and turn them at will..... there is also plenty of room for other lights.....

The first airship flew back in 1785 so you could imagine today what type of airship is out there..... can be steered and propelled through the air using rudders and propellers or other thrust. Unlike other aerodynamic aircraft such as fixed-wing aircraft and helicopters, which produce lift by moving a wing, or airfoil, through the air, aerostatic aircraft, such as airships and hot air balloons, stay aloft by filling a large cavity, such as a balloon, with a lifting gas





[edit on 2-8-2009 by TruthxIsxInxThexMist]



posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 03:11 PM
link   
reply to post by TruthxIsxInxThexMist
 


I'm not saying its on possible for light to be on them, but they are not on the bottom and all those pictures you showed proved that. The lights were all on the side gliders. Also, if lights were used that Blimp or airship better have a VERY thick covering (or it better have), because if its not thick those lights would have burnt that material up very fast. The gas inside whatever is or was used would probably be expanding or compressing, and both are not good. The weight and the size of those lights that you are trying to say could work on them would easily reach temperatures above 300 degrees within a few minutes. The sheer magnitude of the lights on that material would most likey have catastropic affects. And thats not even talking about the gas used inside.

Yes those blimps are huge, but a person or ship cannot defy gravity or physics or chemistry.

[edit on Aug 2nd 2009 by TheMythLives]



posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 03:35 PM
link   
reply to post by TheMythLives
 


You are right about the temperature thing.... those lights can get very hot but maybe since 1785 they use material which doesn't burn easily or heat up easily.... we are now in 2009 and we have material which doesn't burn or heat up when next to flame or heat .... like aluminium for example..... you can put aluminium foil inside an oven at full heat all day and it wouldn't burn....



posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 03:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by fulinjho
Need more info on this one.It seem's too good too be true.And why has it took so long too become piblic(ish).I'm thinking it's a military blimp,(I think there called mega-lifters).But why all the light''s.Cheers for the post though.


So where have they been hiding these things since 1996? Even if its an underground hangar, the entrance would have to be half a mile wide to accomodate the "mega-lifter".

It is an interesting question why the hull was covered by lights - other than the possibility this was just to attract attention.

The incident has been posted on ATS before and has been covered in multiple UFO documentaries. I would propose two reasons why it has not been covered more:
1) It took place outside the US which immediately makes it a "non-event" to the "modern world" dominated by big media
2) Most UFOlogists are from the US and are very US focussed in everything. In fact, I think that is a fair characterization on US inhabitants in general. Most Americans probably have no idea where the Yukon is.

No offence to the Yanks, but from my experience, most Americans have extremely poor knowledge of geography and have little to no interest on anything that happens outside the US.



posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 03:42 PM
link   
reply to post by TruthxIsxInxThexMist
 


But that doesn't mean the gas inside won't burn. Just because the outter shell doesn't that does not mean that the gas behind will not. To me It just doesn't match a blimp or airship at all. It sounds improbable.



posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 03:52 PM
link   
reply to post by TheMythLives
 


Improbable but not impossible.....



posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 03:52 PM
link   
reply to post by bluestreak53
 



This case has only been mentioned on ATS before, never covered individually to my knowledge.



posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 03:57 PM
link   
reply to post by TruthxIsxInxThexMist
 


Yea, thats why I said improbable



posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 04:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by jkrog08
reply to post by bluestreak53
 

This case has only been mentioned on ATS before, never covered individually to my knowledge.


It has never before been given the excellent briefing which you provided. A very excellent summary, by the way.

It was referred to this previous thread:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

I thought it had been the topic of a previous thread, but I can't find it so I was probably thinking of another incident.



posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 05:19 PM
link   
reply to post by bluestreak53
 


Thank you for the compliment, but I only researched and re-worded the EXCELLENT field work of Mr. Jasek.
I always feel that in-depth commentary and research is needed if ufology is to be taken seriously.

[edit on 8/2/2009 by jkrog08]



posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 06:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by jkrog08
reply to post by bluestreak53
 


Thank you for the compliment, but I only researched and re-worded the EXCELLENT field work of Mr. Jesik.
I always feel that in-depth commentary and research is needed if ufology is to be taken seriously.


Martin Jasek is very thorough in his investigations. I'll be certain to forward your accolades to him when I see him in a week or so. You can always contact him by email which can be located on the main ufobc website.



posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 07:40 PM
link   
Heres the problem with threads like this.
So well put together, I got nothing to add! Apparently, only a couple of others did, and thanks go to them as well.
You said it all, I never heard of this before, and you covered it like a pro.
S&F, Great job.



posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 08:37 PM
link   
A very interesting and well presented OP. Well done.
At the end once again we are left with a very intriguing, fascinating case study with multiple credible witnesses.
But no evidence. No pictures, video or other physical artifacts.
Without evidence this incident remains just another, well, incident.
So close yet so far! Well done again.



posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 08:40 PM
link   
I just want to once again say a BIG THANK YOU to EVERYONE for all of your nice words.


I am glad I could bring this great, but not well known case to everyone on this great boards attention.



posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 10:59 PM
link   
reply to post by jkrog08
 

starred and flagged!

another great UFO presentation from you, i always enjoy them, and again i never knew about this one until now.




posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 02:57 AM
link   
I live in the Yukon and I have never even heard of this. Great find!



posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 03:29 AM
link   
OK..... I've read it all.

A star & a flag & a digg for you jkrog08!


It's a hard one to argue "against" based on the info posted you have so excellently provided.

jkrog08.....have you been able to locate any arguments "against"?

Even the JAL1628 case had some "grey areas" (pun intended) that left a few question marks hovering over the case (sorry - last pun).

God knows what the Yukon object was if the witnesses are to be believed.

It's the sort of case that keeps you going with this whole UFO thing.





new topics
top topics
 
125
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join