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

Having just read over the witness statements, it seems to me that one has to ignore some pretty large chunks of the witnesses' descriptions in order to attribute this sighting to a rocket re-entry. You'd have to ignore times, also, that were specifically noted by reference to clocks and watches....

No problem though, right? Because when a witness describes an aspect of his or her sighting that could be consistent with the re-entry hypothesis, that witness is credible... at least as to that point, as needed. Got it? Yet when he or she describes an aspect of the sighting (like speed, color, direction, size, time, or duration) which, if accurate, would make the re-entry hypothesis untenable, then that same witness is no longer credible... as to that detail.

Seem ridiculous? No! All that's needed to play by such rules is some type of benchmark with which to judge each piece of a witness's testimony. And thankfully, Mr.'s Oberg, Schaeffer, Ridpath, Moody, et al. have splendidly honed and used such a benchmark over the years. (In truth, as to this tool, the modern debunkers are merely standing on the shoulders of past debunking giants, Mr.'s Klass and Menzel.)

But here is that benchmark we'll use to judge all UFO wittiness statements: we'll simply start with the conclusion -- UFO's cannot possibly be anything un-natural or extraterrestrial -- and proceed from there BACK to an evaluation of the evidence. The benefit of this direction of analysis becomes clear rather quickly: any detail by any witness which, if accepted as true, would suggest that the observed object was in fact un-natural or extraterrestrial, can simply be set aside as necessarily false; conversely, any detail by any witness which could be used to support a prosaic hypothesis may, or can, be true... depending on the other complex circumstances. (It's a very dynamic and malleable standard, you see. Trust me, this standard just works best that way.)


Just for giggles, here are some pieces I quickly pulled from the witness statements:

-- "could see that the UFO had a solid smooth surface. In a few minutes the edge of the object was directly over him. The only detail he remembered while looking at the object's belly was a large white light in the center of this elliptically shaped object."
--"could definitely see that the lights were affixed to a large smooth object" [stadium-sized, at a minimum, having just passed close to directly OVER them]
--"near hover drifting at about a 10 miles an hour speed"
--"vast bright circular object"
--"bright lights were hovering over the highway far ahead of us" [looking North, i.e., perpendicular to the "re-entry" motion....]
--"It was a huge ship with colored lights around its edges."
--"consisted of a high domed top outlined with small diffused white lights"
--"large white beam pointing down from the front (right) of the craft"
--"instantly accelerated away to the southeast at a fantastic speed.... The object appeared to leave a bright streak behind it that faded rapidly.... appeared to perform a few zig-zags in the distance.... made a note of the time and date, it was 8:30 pm." ["looked at watch at end of sighting"]
--"made a mental note of the time; she looked at the car clock; it was 8:23 pm."

I'm sure there's much more in the witness statements to argue against the re-entry hypothesis. (Wouldn't Mr. Oberg have checked a "Top Ten" UFO case against the re-entry hypothesis LONG ago? That is the go-to prosaic explanation, after all....) I found those quotes above pretty quickly. Luckily, however, using the standards of evidence espoused by the above-named skeptics / rationalists, we can simply ignore all of them. Those witness statements and others don't fit nicely into any prosaic explanation, and must therefore be false.

reply to post by TeaAndStrumpets


I'm sure Jim Oberg will be back shortly to respond to your points...or not.

Reminds me of a radio interview I listened to from back in the day featuring Arthur C. Clark, who was perfectly willing to accept the testimony of UFO witnesses as long as the objects were far enough away to possibly be something conventional. Close encounters, on the other hand, he rejected entirely as ridiculous.

Originally posted by TeaAndStrumpets

I'm sure there's much more in the witness statements to argue against the re-entry hypothesis. (Wouldn't Mr. Oberg have checked a "Top Ten" UFO case against the re-entry hypothesis LONG ago? That is the go-to prosaic explanation, after all....) I found those quotes above pretty quickly. Luckily, however, using the standards of evidence espoused by the above-named skeptics / rationalists, we can simply ignore all them. They and others don't fit nicely into any prosaic explanation, and must therefore be false.

When an outsider comes late into an argument and just sees the he-says he-says conflcting contrasts, it's hard to tell who to believe or trust the most -- or the least.

...but there's always been a helpful clue that I've used.

When you see one side in an argument falsifying the statements of his opponent -- beyond mere sarcasm, into full=fledged fraud -- you get a clue about who is honest and who is not. And perhaps, given a choice, who is less worthy of trust.

The arguments for the reentry hypothesis have the following checkable facts:

1. A Russian booster rocket was slipping back into the upper atmosphere along a track that crossed the area of the witnesses at the same time and in the same direction as the UFO reported by the witnesses. This is a fact subject to verification -- does anyone doubt its truth?

2. Satellite reentries are very unlike what people expect them to be, in appearance and motion. They move horizontally, from horizon to horizon, in a matter of minutes, perfectly soundless. They can consist of ,many fiery dots and streaks and flashes as propellant tanks explode [particularly in the case of freshly-launched booster stages, as in this case].

3. The cloud of lights can span a large arc in the sky -- 10 to 20 degrees is not uncommon, and larger spans are on record. These lights move as a constellation, holding relative position -- and are OFTEN reasonably interpreted to be lights on a large object. Examples have been linked -- see www.satobs.org's page on satellite reentries.

4. A common eyewitness report from previous documented entries is that near the bright center of the moving swarm, no background stars are visible. This is reasonably interpreted as an eclipsing mass, but physiologically, will almost always happen when viewing any bright lights in a particular area of the sky merely from dazzle effect.

5. The ground track along which the satellite begins to burn, disintegrates, and eventually slows enough for the fireballs to die out can be hundreds of miles long, even 1000 miles..

6. Rarely this effect can accompany a natural 'grazer' meteor [one that just barely did NOT miss the Earth], but because of the paths of decaying artificial satellites, it has become much more common in the space age.

Originally posted by TeaAndStrumpets
Having just read over the witness statements, it seems to me that one has to ignore some pretty large chunks of the witnesses' descriptions in order to attribute this sighting to a rocket re-entry. You'd have to ignore times, also, that were specifically noted by reference to clocks and watches....

No problem though, right? Because when a witness describes an aspect of his or her sighting that could be consistent with the re-entry hypothesis, that witness is credible... at least as to that point, as needed. Got it? Yet when he or she describes an aspect of the sighting (like speed, color, direction, size, time, or duration) which, if accurate, would make the re-entry hypothesis untenable, then that same witness is no longer credible... as to that detail.

Seem ridiculous? No! All that's needed to play by such rules is some type of benchmark with which to judge each piece of a witness's testimony. And thankfully, Mr.'s Oberg, Schaeffer, Ridpath, Moody, et al. have splendidly honed and used such a benchmark over the years. (In truth, as to this tool, the modern debunkers are merely standing on the shoulders of past debunking giants, Mr.'s Klass and Menzel.)

But here is that benchmark we'll use to judge all UFO wittiness statements: we'll simply start with the conclusion -- UFO's cannot possibly be anything un-natural or extraterrestrial -- and proceed from there BACK to an evaluation of the evidence. The benefit of this direction of analysis becomes clear rather quickly: any detail by any witness which, if accepted as true, would suggest that the observed object was in fact un-natural or extraterrestrial, can simply be set aside as necessarily false; conversely, any detail by any witness which could be used to support a prosaic hypothesis may, or can, be true... depending on the other complex circumstances. (It's a very dynamic and malleable standard, you see. Trust me, this standard just works best that way.)


Just for giggles, here are some pieces I quickly pulled from the witness statements:

-- "could see that the UFO had a solid smooth surface. In a few minutes the edge of the object was directly over him. The only detail he remembered while looking at the object's belly was a large white light in the center of this elliptically shaped object."
--"could definitely see that the lights were affixed to a large smooth object" [stadium-sized, at a minimum, having just passed close to directly OVER them]
--"near hover drifting at about a 10 miles an hour speed"
--"vast bright circular object"
--"bright lights were hovering over the highway far ahead of us" [looking North, i.e., perpendicular to the "re-entry" motion....]
--"It was a huge ship with colored lights around its edges."
--"consisted of a high domed top outlined with small diffused white lights"
--"large white beam pointing down from the front (right) of the craft"
--"instantly accelerated away to the southeast at a fantastic speed.... The object appeared to leave a bright streak behind it that faded rapidly.... appeared to perform a few zig-zags in the distance.... made a note of the time and date, it was 8:30 pm." ["looked at watch at end of sighting"]
--"made a mental note of the time; she looked at the car clock; it was 8:23 pm."

I'm sure there's much more in the witness statements to argue against the re-entry hypothesis. (Wouldn't Mr. Oberg have checked a "Top Ten" UFO case against the re-entry hypothesis LONG ago? That is the go-to prosaic explanation, after all....) I found those quotes above pretty quickly. Luckily, however, using the standards of evidence espoused by the above-named skeptics / rationalists, we can simply ignore all of them. Those witness statements and others don't fit nicely into any prosaic explanation, and must therefore be false.

edit on 30-4-2012 by TeaAndStrumpets because: typo / clarification

reply to post by JimOberg


Dots and streaks, eh? Sounds suspiciously dissimilar to many witness accounts. Would those dots tend to exhibit a rectangular form? Enough so that several observers might describe them as "rows" of "rectangular windows"? I'd be interested to hear your take on the witness quotes noted above at the top of this page. Can those descriptions be readily accounted for by the appearance of a satellite re-entry?

This is actually my first exposure to this case, so I'm obviously not very familiar. Just pointing out some things that have me wondering.

I truly do appreciate having someone on this forum with some actual relevant expertise.

Yet another of these debunker threads of old reported incidents that don't actually debunk anything here on ATS. They're tantamount to 21st century swamp gas explanations.

I will never understand the fascination of some to return to old cases in an attempt to debunk reports that have not and will not ever light a fire that would get this subject taken seriously. Why bother?

Is it just because the History Channel or some other basic cable station brings them up every now and then and gives the debunkers a reason to exist?

Originally posted by JimOberg
When an outsider comes late into an argument... it's hard to tell who to believe or trust the most -- or the least.... When you see one side in an argument falsifying the statements of his opponent -- beyond mere sarcasm, into full=fledged fraud -- you get a clue about who is honest and who is not.

Accusing me of "fraud" Jim? Really? Which of those witness statements did I invent? Everything else I said was opinion, so you must mean those. Which?

So let's see who's honest here. It doesn't seem like you mind if anyone is misled by the info you've provided. First we'll clear up this: you interchange satellite re-entry and booster re-entry in places. (#2) Mr. Molczam, in his analysis, does the same thing. (His conclusion reads: "The reported path of the [UFO] across the sky is consistent with the trajectory of the decay, and its general description is consistent with a SATELLITE re-entry debris trail.")

Fine. But what people need to understand is that we're not dealing with a satellite re-entry. (Not that it would be a tremendously superior explanation....) What's being passed off as a valid explanation for this Yukon "UFO" is simply the booster rocket coming back down to Earth, after lifting its payload (the satellite) and orbiting a few times. The satellite remained in orbit. What re-entered is a 9.4 meter long, 3 meter diameter booster... that hadn't yet broken up! Mr. Molczam says in his analysis, "Breakup and terminal descent probably OCCURRED SOON AFTER the Yukon sightings, somewhat farther to the east"

Any ideas how something less than 10 meters long which hadn't yet broken up could account for the large angular size, in both azimuth and altitude, described by the witnesses?

There would be a trail with an intact booster alone, sure, as with a meteor, but we're still talking a line of lights, basically. That does not at all match what some witnesses described. Mr. Molczam himself says "[The sketch of one witness] looks very much like the one and only decay that I observed, in which the object was still mostly intact and glowed brilliantly, followed by a long plasma trail, looking like a surreal comet."

That does not add to my confidence that this all explains what those people saw that night. Also, given that breakup of the booster hadn't yet occurred, your describing the scenario as a "cloud of lights" (your #3), or a "moving swarm" (your #4) is mis-leading. A mostly linear "swarm"? Do you care to clarify any of that?

Basically, Jim, if you can read those witness descriptions, and without much hesitation say "yep, 'surreal comet with a plasma trail'... that sounds like what the witnesses described," then your objectivity is seriously in question.

I want to be clear: I don't doubt the trajectory data. My doubts spring from the above, related items. There are other important questions also. For instance, satellite launches are pretty routine. Shouldn't there, then, be many more events of the Yukon UFO type, of objects of similar size, speed, color, etc? Why are there not? What was unique about this launch that it might have caused such a spectacular (and spectacularly mis-leading) display? (Again, while the booster was still intact, according to the analysis?)

It simply doesn't add up. It FEELS more like force-fit debunking, actually. Ian Ridpath's involvement and urging definitely do not add to the credibility of the interpretation / analysis. And please, let's NOT pretend there's no interpretation involved here and that it's all hard science. Anyone who thinks that missed parts like this:

--"The duration above 8 deg elevation ranged from 1.4 min at Fox Lake to 2 min at Pelly Crossing. Most eyewitnesses probably saw it for a shorter time; however, the eight (8) who reported the duration, gave values ranging between 30 s and 5 to 10 min. The approximate mean and median values of 4.7 min and 4 min, respectively, are 2 to 5 times longer than the decay was actually observed; however, such after-the-fact estimates are notoriously inaccurate, especially after events as impressive as described. ALLOWING FOR THAT REALITY, I find the prediction and observations to be in reasonable agreement." [i.e., "the witnesses must be mistaken."]

--"Due to my lack of software to accurately propagate the final minutes of the descent, I had to rely on the standard SGP4 orbit propagator. Using it with the TLE from Section 2, put the altitude about 10 km too high over the Yukon. It is important to use a realistic altitude to properly assess whether the decay could have been visible from the location of each sighting. Allowing an unrealistically high value, would have somewhat overestimated the maximum elevation, hence the potential visibility. Therefore, I made a lower altitude version of the TLE by propagating to the time of interest, and adjusting the mean motion to yield a more realistic altitude."

Booster re-entry? Just doesn't match the witness descriptions...

Originally posted by groingrinder
reply to post by Druscilla

 

I will believe multiple witnesses who observed an object before I believe a mathematician who did not. I have personally seen craft traveling in a straight line at about a thousand feet off the ground horizon to horizon spraying green sparks out of the top and orange sparks out of the bottom and later found out meteorologists called it a meteor. An object under it's own power behaves much different than a falling meteor or space junk.

You are entirely entitled to believe in anything you want to believe in.
You may, however, find the following information I posted in another thread, that is also relevant here, to be informative:

One of the problems with UFO investigations on the ground, in the field, in data collections and testimony recording is an unreliability regarding the researcher/investigator onsite. Improper management of information collecting, especially involving interviews with witnesses can often lead to false positives, embroidery, and sympathetic collective collusion derived from co-witness contamination as well as improper interview procedure.

There aren't any university degree plans for UFO Investigator, and often enough field investigators are interested DIY parties who lack the proper training in disciplines key to carrying out proper interview procedure.

The following is a paper in Applied Cognitive Psychology regarding co-witness contamination you may be interested in reading. Combatting Co-witness contamination
(site registration required for full article beyond abstract)

As said, misleading results aren't always necessarily intentional by these investigators, but, more a product of over zealousness combined with little or no training in how to conduct proper eye witness interviews.
Investigators that think they know what they are doing that have no or very little training in information collections, can and will lead witnesses unknowingly where an interview becomes more an exercise in sympathetic collaboration in which the interviewer and subject under interview unwittingly collaborate to flesh out what the witness 'saw'.

Sympathetic compliance through the social susceptibility of witnesses to pick up on cues and subtleties expressed by poor interviewers is not only a problem with eye-witness testimony in the circle of UFO investigations, but, also police investigations where witnesses of crimes are queried, interrogations where someone under interrogation will tell what they think the interrogator wants to hear (it happens), as well as many other scenarios that can fall under the paradigm of learned helplessness and sympathetic collaboration.

More extreme cases can even involve False Memory Syndrome
This is a common pitfall associated with memory regression techniques used in investigating witnesses claiming abduction events.

It's thus vitally important that so called researchers and investigators be properly trained in information collection and interviewing processes to avoid these described.
There's very little to no supervision oversight or accountability in this field of investigation however and this is a grave concern where good solid accounts can be irrevocably trampled by a poor investigator.


This case may very well be such an example of false positives derived from subconscious sympathetic collusion, entirely unintentional, or simply cherry-picked from the 'best' accounts to generalize as what 'all' the accounts said.
There's a number of ways it can go.
Give me 15 people, and if I give each of them 5 minutes to look at something quite ordinary like a carousel, and then asked each in turn to describe said carousel, I'd get 15 different answers of varying extremes and mediums.

In cases where every single witness reports the very exact same identical detail of any event, this is more evidence of co-witness contamination that's destroyed the natural variability common and expected with human observation.

Many good comments deserving of detailed responses -- will take some time, but I owse it, shortly. Thanks!

Originally posted by Druscilla
There's a number of ways it can go.

Give me 15 people, and if I give each of them 5 minutes to look at something quite ordinary like a carousel, and then asked each in turn to describe said carousel, I'd get 15 different answers of varying extremes and mediums.

In cases where every single witness reports the very exact same identical detail of any event, this is more evidence of co-witness contamination that's destroyed the natural variability common and expected with human observation.

Gosh, is it time for me to post the following reminder AGAIN? Guess so.... Let's not stray too far from reasonableness here, okay?

"A frequent objection to serious consideration of UFO reports... is based on the widely discrepant accounts known to be presented by trial-witnesses who have all been present at some incident. To be sure, the same kind of discrepancies emerge in multiple-witness UFO incidents. People differ as to directions, relative times, sizes, etc. But I believe it is not unfair to remark...that a group of witnesses who see a street-corner automobile collision do not come to court and proceed, in turn, to describe the event as a rhinoceros ramming a baby carriage, or as an airplane exploding on impact with a nearby building. There are, it needs to be soberly remembered, quite reasonable bounds upon the variance of witness testimonies.... Thus, when one finds a half-dozen persons all saying that they were a few hundred feet from a domed disk ..., that it took off without a sound, and was gone from sight in five seconds, the almost inevitable variations in descriptions of distances, shape, secondary features, noises, and times cannot be allowed to discount, per se, the basically significant nature of their collective account. I have talked with a few scientists... whose puristic insistence on the miserable observing equipment with which the human species is cursed almost makes me wonder how they dare cross a busy traffic intersection."

-James E. McDonald, Ph.D., Senior Physicist, University of Arizona. 'Statement on Unidentified Flying Objects', from the House Committee on Science and Astronautics' "Symposium on Unidentified Flying Objects", July 29, 1968.

reply to post by TeaAndStrumpets


That's all very well and nice, but in such comparison, witnesses in court aren't being asked to describe something that typically only exists in Science Fiction or Harry Potter Fantasy books.

Such witnesses are also usually interviewed and examined under a strict set of rule sets designed not to cross contaminate or lead witnesses into false embroidery by people effectively trained for conducting interviews and examinations under strict guidelines.

Further, such witnesses are typically under threat of arrest and detainment should they purger themselves, especially in cases involving serious crimes.

Even with these rules and standards in place, there's variation.

Ufology? none of these standards, checks, balances, or oversights exist.
There's no standard of responsibility in force.
If someone gets caught out in a bald lie, then, essentially oh-well. If the liar and fraud has made money off their lies, there's no recourse.
Thus, any chance for variation, embroidery, or poor information collection that can occur, often WILL occur.

If you need an example:
Jaime Maussan as a 'researcher' or 'investigator' is allowed to exist and even thrive in ufology.
Please help yourself to a review of the majority of the cases he 'investigates' as well.

Need I say more?


Please note, I'm not saying wildly imaginative variation occurs in all cases. However, as exampled in the case described in the OP, such can, will, and does indeed occur.
Further, click on the link I provided in a previous post describing co-witness contamination. Get a free membership, and educate yourself.

You may also be interested in reading over or familiarizing yourself with the wiki article on eyewitness memory: Eyewitness Memory

Knowledge is power.

Originally posted by Druscilla

That's all very well and nice, but in such comparison, witnesses in court aren't being asked to describe something that typically only exists in Science Fiction or Harry Potter Fantasy books.

Could you possibly reason more circularly? We're here discussing whether the evidence does or does not support the ET hypothesis for UFO's. Dismissing it all because, as you say, there are no "checks" on it, is absurd. You ignore yourself, and those like you! Fear of public ridicule is a tremendous motivator. Debunkers and that fear itself, I'd argue, are an even GREATER check on one's willingness to make public statements on UFO's, especially in the U.S.

Knowledge is indeed power, as you say. I notice you've not yet formed or at least shared an opinion on the Condon Report? Do you acknowledge the stifling nature of that report on science at least, if not also public discourse? Do you acknowledge the discrepancies between Condon's scientists' data, and Condon's own conclusions? This is not an irrelevant side argument, but goes DIRECTLY to your assertion that there are no checks on peoples' statements regarding UFOs. One might even say that a more powerful check on open and free scientific inquiry could scarcely be imagined.

That you equate UFOs with science fiction and fantasy does not paint a flattering picture. Are you sure that you yourself have availed yourself of that 'knowledge' and 'power' you keep citing. Have you any background or experience at all in mathematical statistics? For the UFO phenomenon to be empty and meaningless fluff, an awful lot of people would have to be awfully wrong and / or deceitful to a degree that would be not just shocking, but actually unprecedented, a phenomenon itself deserving of serious scientific scrutiny. Yet no psychologists and sociologists are even touching THAT possibility. Why? It's almost as if 'UFO' -- the word or the topic -- is taboo or something? Would that qualify as a check on SERIOUS open speech and free discussion, like in the press or in academia? Of course.

reply to post by Druscilla


Would you count Jim in your evaluation? Considering he has a bias towards the subject?
A quote for the younger thread readers.

Another debunker attached to CSICOP also had a NASA affiliation. James E. Oberg worked as a flight controller at NASA's Johnson Space Center in Houston. While portraying himself to ufologists as a "sympathetic skeptic" and professing to be a supporter of UFO research, he dropped the ruse in a private letter to NASA Headquarters, which he implicitly assumed shared his Opinions of "UFOniks" and "UFO nuts" who "for fun and profit have been slandering our space program and lying through their teeth. . . . All of the UFO business you have to do is an essential waste of time. So if I can in any way make things easier or faster, since I know many of the UFO freaks and their weaknesses and biases, please don't hesitate to give me an unofficial call" (Oberg, 1977).

OR another of his shoe horn explanations.

Astronauts James McDivitt and Edward White were orbiting the Earth during the Gemini 4 mission. While the mission passed over Hawaii, and as White was sleeping, McDivitt saw a "weird object" with some sort of "projections" on it "like arms." He photographed the object with a movie camera. Soon after, both men saw two similar objects over the Caribbean. McDivitt later had this to say about what he saw: I noticed an object out the front window of the spacecraft. It appeared to be cylindrical in shape with a high fineness ratio. From one end protruded a long, cylindrical pole with the approximate fineness of a pencil. I had no idea what the size was or what the distance to the object was. I do not feel that there was anything strange or exotic about this particular object. Rather, only that I could not identify it. After McDivitt turned the film over to NASA, the photographs disappeared. James Oberg, a flight controller at the Johnson Space Center who later became well known as a UFO skeptic, stated that McDivitt's eyes were affected by an accidental urine spill inside the capsule and were half-blinded by the sun's glare. These two facts, said Oberg, prevented him from recognizing the Titan II second stage.

Sorry Jim I just thought people should see what side your on.

Originally posted by UKWO1Phot
Sorry Jim I just thought people should see what side your on.

You're not sorry at all... and thanks for the reminder that forty years ago some of us wrote silly things...

...and that we made up for it by serving honorably in positions of national trust, both military and civilian, a fact that Hastings tries to twist into a mark of shame, apparently. With your help. Shame on you.

Since AFAIK you NEVER do this kind of dirt-digging for people you agree with, I guess these whines brand you more negatively than they brands me.

My UFO research stands on its own... too bad most people want to pretend it never occurred, so they can ignore results they can't refute.

Let's see:

In your view, in forty years, is there a single case -- let's make it harder, three cases -- in which my research was correct and the ufo community was in error? Can you name any?

Originally posted by TeaAndStrumpets

Could you possibly reason more circularly? We're here discussing whether the evidence does or does not support the ET hypothesis for UFO's. Dismissing it all because, as you say, there are no "checks" on it, is absurd. You ignore yourself, and those like you! Fear of public ridicule is a tremendous motivator. Debunkers and that fear itself, I'd argue, are an even GREATER check on one's willingness to make public statements on UFO's, especially in the U.S.

I advise you to work on your reading comprehension.
Please direct your attention to this statement in my previous post:

Please note, I'm not saying wildly imaginative variation occurs in all cases. However, as exampled in the case described in the OP, such can, will, and does indeed occur. ...

If, however, you want to be all defensive, blindly raging about with an accusatory hostility at even the barest hint of a tickle of anything that doesn't fit your conception of how the world should be, then, it's your liberty to, well, make whatever impression you want of yourself in public.

I'm merely proposing all factors be taken into account with a full comprehension of where error can, does, and will occur.

I also propose a logical path beginning with reasonable down to earth explanations be pursued, eliminating all reasonable explanations before jumping to any conclusions.
A stance commonly taken in error is "I don't know what it is, so, it must be aliens." In actuality, if someone doesn't know what something is, then, they simply don't know what something is.

Is there a reason you're so defensive? Am I really that scary and threatening?

Originally posted by Druscilla

Originally posted by TeaAndStrumpets

Could you possibly reason more circularly? We're here discussing whether the evidence does or does not support the ET hypothesis for UFO's. Dismissing it all because, as you say, there are no "checks" on it, is absurd. You ignore yourself, and those like you! Fear of public ridicule is a tremendous motivator. Debunkers and that fear itself, I'd argue, are an even GREATER check on one's willingness to make public statements on UFO's, especially in the U.S.

I advise you to work on your reading comprehension.
Please direct your attention to this statement in my previous post:

Please note, I'm not saying wildly imaginative variation occurs in all cases. However, as exampled in the case described in the OP, such can, will, and does indeed occur. ...

If, however, you want to be all defensive, blindly raging about with an accusatory hostility at even the barest hint of a tickle of anything that doesn't fit your conception of how the world should be, then, it's your liberty to, well, make whatever impression you want of yourself in public.

I'm merely proposing all factors be taken into account with a full comprehension of where error can, does, and will occur.

I also propose a logical path beginning with reasonable down to earth explanations be pursued, eliminating all reasonable explanations before jumping to any conclusions.
A stance commonly taken in error is "I don't know what it is, so, it must be aliens." In actuality, if someone doesn't know what something is, then, they simply don't know what something is.

Is there a reason you're so defensive? Am I really that scary and threatening?

I can't believe you can write so much on what is a completely pathetic attempt at debunking this case.

What I see here is the vast difference between people who actually want to figure out what UFOs are, and those who aggressively need to believe that they are visiting aliens from a far off world.

And here, I see a rocket re-entry. But a prosaic explanation will rarely stop a dogmatic believer from decrying all the sinister machinations of the "evil debunkers" as an organized effort to make them look crazy or something.

The truth is, we are just trying to get to the bottom of it. Unfortunately, many UFOers don't WANT to get to the bottom of it. They want you to get to the part about the aliens.

Originally posted by Frith
Is it just because the History Channel or some other basic cable station brings them up every now and then and gives the debunkers a reason to exist?

It's usually not the "debunkers" who see these older cases on TV and reintroduce them into this forum, but rather people using them as possible examples of authentic unexplained UFO cases happening before the Internet and widespread stealth technology, that were unlikely to be hoaxed. The History Channel or wherever is usually non-committal about what the cases actually represent, other than "unidentified."

What often happens, though, is that once the evidence is re-reviewed, new evidence is often introduced that might have a bearing on the case (including previously classified rocket launch or satellite re-entry data), and if there's a photo or video many of us now have a chance to personally give the images a good going-over with our own computers, rather than wait for an "expert" to print something in a book or magazine and tell us what we should be seeing. Then the case suddenly doesn't seem as strong as it did.

That's not the debunker's "fault." If a case has a weak aspect, then it should be explored. This one has sightings that correspond with a known and verifiable satellite re-entry. How should that information be dealt with? Ignored as a spurious coincidence? A UFO mothership and a completely unrelated satellite re-entry appearing by chance in the same patch of sky?

You can blow it off if you want, I guess.

reply to post by UKWO1Phot


As Jim has stated, such things were said, 40 years ago. Take that as you will, put it on a flag and wave it around if you want. It doesn't, however, service the promotion of civilized debate.

It's a given there are 'crazies' on both sides of the aisle in the debate of this phenomenon. I often have those days myself where i will indeed display an unreasonable bias from the skeptical standpoint.

Other times, such as now, I'm endeavoring examination of the topic from a more moderate, yet still skeptical standpoint.
It's an extremely complex phenomenon too. Some elements will indeed involve factors I've described above. What percentage of cases are representative of such is to be debated. Some elements will involve misidentification of entirely normal phenomenon. Anyone that browses ATS can find a mountain of threads where people are getting bug-eyed over Venus, Lenticular cloud formations, obvious lens flare, and the whole run of cliches. Further there's the 'genuine' reports from witnesses that have fallen for a hoax like LED kites, LED balloons, or other objects like skydivers with meteor flares, military flares, Chinese lanterns, and the many others including the growing prevalence of military and police drones.

Denying any of these, especially in reviewing any percentage demographic in just the ATS database alone, is irresponsible.
this isn't to say that all reports follow these, but, it's important when reviewing any new report to make an effort in ruling out all the usual suspects. Once you've ruled out all the usual suspects and you can say with absolute conviction that the conspicuously ambiguous blinking light that acts like an LED balloon is not an LED balloon, then, there you go.

As far as 'crazy' people go, i invite you to attend at least 3 or 4 MUFON meetings in your local area in the near future, as well as the next UFO convention convenient to your attendance.
I've done so, and there's some spooky people that really should seek some professional help that tend to make quite the showing at these meetings and events.
I'm not saying everyone on that side of the aisle is some nut. Such present in such force of numbers however, do tend to make a certain impression, and as we all have our moments, it can sometimes be easy to generalize.

Further, as a skeptic, I'm not interested in debunking claims and cases. Taking a critical look at claims is just part of taking an interest. I'm actually quite very keenly interested in finding something that can pass all the filters as a representative of something that really does stick out as unknown.

reply to post by JimOberg

In your view, in forty years, is there a single case -- let's make it harder, three cases -- in which my research was correct and the ufo community was in error? Can you name any?

If I read that right, you want me to find any evidence that you were correct in any of your analyse over 40 years?

Personally I concentrate on the extremely large UFO events, so with that in mind where should I look for your research?

OR I have an extensive library of old UFO books upto 1980's. What major cases have you done research on?