Originally posted by Blue Shift
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.
You don't even know WHAT re-entered, so how can you know what can or cannot be blown off? I can see why you'd think it was a satellite re-entering,
even though it wasn't; it's because some terms were used carelessly by those trying to fit an explanation to some sightings. (In fairness to Jim, he
did in other spots specify what this was.) But given that you, Blue Shift, think this was a satellite re-entry, and it wasn't, ask what else you might
be overlooking. Please read that original analysis carefully. Important things might've slipped by.
The "known path of the decaying rocket [was] 200 to 400 km to the north [of the witnesses], depending on the observer's location."
"I estimate that during this [sighting] period the object was no more than about 90 km above the geoid on average."
"Breakup and terminal descent probably occurred soon after the Yukon sightings, somewhat farther to the east." [No breakup by the time of the
sightings... so we have a mostly intact 10 meter rocket booster, with a trail as it re-enters... vs. the angular sizes (in all directions) from the
"The approximate mean and median [witness-reported duration of observation] values of 4.7 min and 4 min, respectively, are 2 to 5 times longer than
the decay was actually observed"...
Elevation angle inconsistencies, uncertainties, adjustments and methodology... given that he did not have the software needed "to accurately propagate
the final minutes of the descent"... which is kinda the point to all of this, isn't it?
Why was something bright enough to light up the ground and cast shadows from 200-400 km away not reported by anyone else from any other direction?
There should be an 800 km diameter (minimum) of similar sightings from that night, shouldn't there?
Why don't more routine launches lead to booster re-entries that can cast shadows from hundreds of kilometers and lead to 'UFO mothership' sightings
(and yet are only witnessed basically from one of the four cardinal directions)"
= significant doubt.
You call such concerns "blowing off" an explanation? I call it irresponsible to accept the sum of THEIR equation without asking some tough questions,
especially given the history / assumptions / apparent motivations of some of the personalities involved.
I have no doubt that someone who already "knows" UFOs can't be real would be entirely convinced by this analysis after reading just the first section
or two. (If not a UFO, then it's gotta be natural... and here you go. Solved.) On the other hand, someone who already knows that SOME UFOs can be
real, based on personal experience in the company of others -- and whose assumptions are therefore springing directly from a superior evidentiary
position than that of the blanket deniers -- is going to have some significant doubts about this.
I could be convinced. Really. Those issues above need to be addressed, however, if they want this sighting to legitimately appear on their list of
edit on 2-5-2012 by TeaAndStrumpets because: (no reason given)