It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
The documentary film Best Evidence: Top 10 UFO Sightings lists this "multiple witness sighting in the Yukon" as number eight of the top ten UFO cases of all time. In that film the celebrated "Flying Saucer Physicist" Stanton Friedman says of this case:
"The Yukon case IS emblematic of what a good case should be. I mean, sure, we'd like to have a piece of the craft, we'd like to have the crewmember introduced for dinner. BUT multiple independent witnesses lasting a long time, describing something that's WAY outside the norm, -- there's no way you can make it into a 747, for example [chuckle]. And big, but this was much much bigger than a 747. "
Molczan is probably the world's top civilian expert on observing earth satellites and calculating satellite orbits. Molczan looked into the matter carefully, and came up with an exact match: "the observed phenomena were due to the re-entry of the 2nd stage of the rocket that placed Cosmos 2335 into orbit earlier the same day." Should anyone doubt this, Molczan provides details of the mathematical calculations that support this conclusion.
Jim Oberg relayed to me a query from British journalist Ian Ridpath, about a UFO sighting in Yukon, on 1996 Dec 12 UTC (evening of Dec 11 PST), described in this 2000 Feb report by Martin Jasek: www.ufobc.ca... Jim wondered whether the reported phenomena could have been related to a satellite launch or decay, so I had a look.
Originally posted by UKWO1Phot
1 MAJOR problem.
According to Jim Oberg.
"Reentries usually cross the sky within a few minutes, max about 3 -- if seen closer to the horizon, a lot shorter."
Now go back and read the witness statements..
Experienced sky watchers on SeeSat-L may find it difficult to believe that anyone could misidentify a re-entry as a spaceship, but human perception is notoriously fallible, and no one is immune. Much depends on the circumstances and personal experience.
Driving through the wilderness under a pitch black sky, and suddenly faced with a slowly moving formation of brilliant lights can be awe-inspiring and even terrifying. The human mind races to make sense of the unfamiliar, drawing on experience that may be inadequate. Depth perception can play tricks, such that something 200 km away, 100 km long, and moving at 7 km/s, seems to be just 200 m away, 100 m long, and moving 7 km/h - the angular velocity is roughly the same.
Taking these considerations into account, the eyewitnesses did a pretty good job, and need not be embarrassed for having perceived more than was there.
Originally posted by UKWO1Phot
1 Hours is NOT 3 minutes however you you twist it
• 7:00 PM - UFO witnessed by 3 Carmack witnesses. Moving initially NNW then changing to NNE.
• 7:45 to 8:15- UFO witnessed in Fox Lake.
• 8:23 PM- UFO in Fox Late witnessed by multiple witnesses moving NNW.
• 8:30 PM- Sighting by two witnesses stopped in the road at Fox Lake, object moving west to east.
• 8:30 PM- UFO seen in Pelly by many witnessed moving in various directions.
• 8:50 PM- UFO seen by witness in Pelly moving various directions.
• *Evening- UFO seen by family in Carmack going NNW.
• *Evening- “FOX6” also saw the UFO, the exact time is unknown.
*Exact time unknown -There are reports from other towns and other witnesses that still need to be substantiated if possible.
- Total time of sighting appears to be from 7:00-10:00 PM.
Originally posted by Kandinsky
As an idle afterthought, I wonder why subsequent Cosmos re-entries weren't also misperceived in such a grand way?
Date = 5 November 1990. Time = About 18:00 Zulu and UK time, 19.00 dutch local time.
You probably know better than me (or can easily find out), but I note that the documents refer to a re-entry of a Gorizon/Proton rocket body (or, according to another letter, the Russian Gorizont 21 communications satellite) in the atmosphere cross northern France and Germany around 6 to 6.30pm [GMT] on the evening of 5 November 1990, i.e. the same date and time.
The former explanation was reportedly confirmed by the French Service for the Investigation of Re-Entry Phenomena (reported in the Glasgow Herald, 7 November 1990).
NB : One of the witnesses has denied that the sighting was caused by the re-entry.
How good are pilots' "UFO reports"? There is some dispute over whether the features they describe are imaginative interpretations of raw visual stimuli (based on their own aviation experience) or are sound renditions of raw perceptions.
Experienced UFO investigators realize that pilots, who instinctively and quite properly interpret visual phenomena in the most hazardous terms, are not dispassionate observers. Allen Hynek wrote: "Surprisingly, commercial and military pilots appear to make relatively poor witnesses..." The quote is from "The Hynek UFO Report", page 261 (Barnes and Noble reprint). (271 in original Dell, Dec 1977) He found that the best class of witnesses had a 50% misperception rate, but that pilots had a much higher rate: 88% for military pilots, 89% for commercial pilots. the worst of all categories listed. Pilots could be counted on to perceive familiar objects -- aircraft and ground structures -- very well, Hynek continued, but added a caveat: "Thus it might surprise us that a pilot had trouble identifying other aircraft, but it should come as no surprise that the majority of pilot misidentifications were of astronomical objects." Dell page 271
Here are two "test cases" that are illustrative: the November 5, 1990 re-entry of the Gorizont/Proton rocket body across northern France and Germany, and the January 28, 1994 launch of Progress TM-21 from Kazakhstan. Both events were observed by airline crews. Arguably, in both cases, the pilots over-interpreted their perceptions and subconsciously introduced "deductions" and "conclusions" to shape their remembered perceptions.
The resulting perceptions look like many other 'classic UFO encounters" reported by pilots, encounters that superficially have a high credibility because of the technical expertise of the witnesses. But both of these man-made events provide a rare opportunity to calibrate pilots' perceptions to what we know was actually being observed, and to raise a caution flag about accepting similar perceptions as gospel.
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.
Originally posted by DeadSeraph
reply to post by elevenaugust
This is ridiculous. Laughable, even. I've read up on this case extensively and there is absolutely no way EVERY witness saw a re-entry. Say what you will about eyewitness testimony, but if we are taking it for granted that witnesses are telling the truth about what they saw, then it's quite the stretch to go from a gigantic ship with search lights and windows (yes, witnesses reported the object seemed to be scanning the ground with lights) which was reportedly larger than a 747 and was seen to hover completely stationary over a lake, to the re-entry of a satellite.
I'd suggest this case is a long way from being "busted".