It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


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

page: 5
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in


posted on Jul, 28 2012 @ 10:49 PM

Originally posted by JimOberg
You sneer at the work of Robert Sheaffer twice by name and each time you misspell the name differently. How can we trust you to get ANYTHING factually correct?

Originally posted by FireMoon
The biggest mystery about the Yukon case is how anyone could list it as a Top Ten Case. It wouldn't actually make it into the top three in Canada, let alone world wide.. Shag Harbour 1967, Falcon Lake 1967,Prince George 1969 Harbour Mille 2010 (aren't we still waiting for the prosaic explanation the RCMP said they had for it?)

What you're seeing here is typical of the sort of trash Shaeffer and his cronies peddle, claiming something that is wholly false, that this is considered UFO gold by those proponents of UFOs existing and that they have shot a huge whole in their argument. The truth is,, as usual,, they just come off as being petty minded self important pillocks who are just as economical with the truth time and time again as Greer and Icke are.

The fans of both sides Greer and Schaeffer, who accept their outpourings unquestionably, are the main road block to actual serious investigation as they litter the internet with their wholly biased and often factually totally inaccurate analysis.

This thread belongs in the hoax section as anyone claiming this is "Top Ten UFO case" is a bunko artists of the first order.

Jim, in the entire post you just quoted there is not a single claimed fact, only the member's succinct and apt opinion. That the person who posted this quote neglected to verify the spelling of a surname has absolutely no bearing on the opinion he stated or his intellectual level in general. Why not explain why you differ with this member's stated opinion instead of splashing out with remarks like that? It would be the mature thing to do, and it might actually help us clarify our thoughts on this case.

posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 05:27 AM

Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by JimOberg

I suppose you buy that the phoenix triangle was just some flares too?

please don't dodge the questions under discussion. nobody has ever proposed a satellite reentry as explanation for some other unrelated case. take them one at a time.

if it's relevant, yes, i think oswald killed jfk.

posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 05:32 AM
reply to post by Orkojoker

orko, i think i'm sticking to specific documented facts about the case under discussion and don't need to run off on tangents introduced by arguers who do NOT want to directly address the issue under discussion.

how many other well-documented cases do you think we need, to establish that with night-time fiery space booster reentries creating fireball swarms, witnesses will misperceive and report large, nearby, slow-moving artificial structures?

far from being the outlier exception, it appears to be the standard pattern of the human perceptual process when confronted with this unusual [literally once in a lifetime] visible stimulus.

Do you want more examples?

have you looked through the 1963 report from Ukraine, just look at all the drawings.

posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 07:30 AM
reply to post by JimOberg

I don't disagree with you that human perception can work in just the manner you describe, Jim. I'm curious about your thoughts on the analysis of the re-entry's trajectory posted by Teaandstrumpets. Do you feel this member's argument holds water?

posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 07:44 AM
No you're not Jim you are flailing around having been caught out promoting this case as "Top 10" when it wouldn't even make the top 100 to anyone with a passing interest in the subject.. You your lil friend Bob and the your smug self satisfied bunch of claques on here have been exposed, yet again, for the really rather sad bunch you are.

The title of this thread is fraud and it's exactly the same as the fool who start threads with a subject of "Absolute proof we are being visited" You know the debunkers are in trouble the moment they start resorting to the R word, rational when what they actually mean by rational is "Everyone should conform to my world view".

It's the use of the word rational that exposes how incredibly naive you are in your world view..Life simply isn't rational and neither, to most people's minds, is our creation as it happens to be based on a quantum world where, the more we study it, the more we realise, anything can happen because it can simply happen, You are what Dr Jalil Ali would call one of the "shut up and measure it crowd" who simply don't really want to talk about any science that doesn't conveniently fit into your world view.

Time and time again it comes back to what you demand as proof what you demand the methodology should be, which is in itself a paradox that you simply are either too blinkered to see or just choose to ignore becasue debunkers are motivated by one thing and one thing only, their absolute and unshakable belief they know they are right, no matter the evidence.

I'll tell you what I'm personally sick and tired of, as I'm talking to you and bunch of people who are all about the self and that is this. The asinine childish attitude that, socially, is still the same level of the school-yard bully when it comes to discussing the subject. You and your ilk on here display zero empathy for anyone else's position and then disguise this as "merely feeling exasperated at the way your "science" is corrupted by others. The truth is you can't resist, rather than discussing with manners and decorum, being patronising at best and simply sneering at worst towards those who are struggling to understand. The moment someone calls you and your ilk out about it, you then immediately retreat to the use of the rational word.

The fact is Jim, you and your cohorts are watching science, as a body of thought, disappear over the horizon from your comfort zone as you desperately bale water from a ship that is holed from stem to stern by every new discovery and theory. And please, don't start your usual bleating about proper methodology, as those with a genuine interest in UFOs would love to establish a proper methodology to deal with the subject however, that's really quite hard to do when we have idiots like Shaeffer whose starting position is "I know unequivocally they don;t exist". That's not science, that's dogma, exactly the same dogma Shaeffer rails against when it comes to religion.

That you allow yourself to be associated in any sense, with P Klass shows just how little actual class you have as Klass, was not only a liar rather a very very sad little man who, when the evidence went against him, resorted to desperate unfounded personal attacks on people.

I can measure my cat in every dimension available does that tell me anything about her? No it doesn't, it just tells me, that, given those measurements, she's almost certainly a member of the feline family. Do I understand why she will happily trot down a soaking path across a soaking wet lawn and then, on reaching the back door, hop over a tiny puddle of water? No it doesn't and I doubt i ever will be be able to fathom what her in her lil catty mind is thinking and her motivation for that seemingly, "irrational" behaviour. Maybe I should adopt your model for UFOs for her and strap her down and pour water on her and then dissect her as she's still alive to see what parts of her brain are active when she is confronted with water. Maybe I could be a little less drastic and just stick painful probes into her brain's lobes. Oh hang on, being a sentient creature she might well, understandably object to that. Then again, that doesn't stop your comrades in main stream science does it Jim? No they are only too happy to use other forms of higher life in their experiments and you wonder why, if UFOs do have sentient occupants they steer clear of us, unless it's totally on their terms?

The fact you try to defend science when, time and time again, it has been shown to be anything rather than rational does speak volumes.


posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 07:45 AM

The fact is Jim you and just about every last one of your ilk display classic "control" behavioural symptoms that cripple your critical thinking every bit as much as those who insist they have proof of UFOs often dispaly other behavioural symptoms. You and your cohorts don't really mean rational you actually mean sane, as defined by my prejudices and world view

That is, you and your cohorts whole view of Ufology is actually wholly subjective not objective, because the facts are, the moment you adopt an objective view you would, due to the evidence already available, have to modify you and your cohorts view only you cannot because it would involve what you perceive as damage to your own ego which you seek to define the world as sane by

Meanwhile, those with a genuine interest in UFOs have moved on and accepted, we might never be allowed to measure the phenomenon in the classical manner however the phenomenon simply hasn't gone away so we will carry on, in the light of that knowledge because we want understand as much of this universe as we can, not just the bits that appeal and conform to our own prejudices. To expect UFOs to be rational given the current state of human learning is actually a form of madness given the evidence we actually have. Evidence that you and you cohorts demonstrably spend most of your lives avoiding, as can be proven on this forum, by your habitual avoidance of virtually every thread someone such as Karl12 authors.

It's just as Doctor Who once said.... "How can such a large brain live in such a small mind?"

posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 08:09 AM
Firemoon, you labor under multiple delusions but the one most central to deflating your essay is that somehow I or the skeptical conspiracy arbitrarily made up the selection of the Yukon case as a 'Top Ten' member.

We didn't. We're quoting a TV documentary:

In it, ufological luminaries such as the respected nuclear physicist Stan Friedman explain why THIS case is one of their favorite absolutely unexplainable incidents.

Check it out.

posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 08:18 AM
Keep digging Jim, cos Freidman certainly doesn;t speak on behalf of me and I'd guess about 90% of those with a genuine interest in the subject, he speaks for himself

As I have said time and time again on here, only you weren't reading it because it would be in thread you probably never even bothered to look at . One of the chief problems with this subject is that has become nothing more than gravy train for the likes of You, Shaeffer, Friedman Greer, Icke et al at the expense of the actual subject at hand.

posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 08:21 AM

Originally posted by JimOberg

In it, ufological luminaries such as the respected nuclear physicist Stan Friedman explain why THIS case is one of their favorite absolutely unexplainable incidents.

Stanton Friedman? Ufological luminaries? Please.

posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 08:34 AM
Just one more time for you Jim as you might well know shed loads about rocketry yet have the understanding of a 12 year old about people. Friedman appointed himself as an expert in the same way you appointed yourself as an expert. Friedman has an agenda to prove "UFOs are nut and bolts ships and nothing more" an agenda the vast majority of other researchers do not agree with. That means any list he personally complies speaks for him and no-one else and it only further serves to illustrate how this whole subject has become the personal media playground of a tiny clique of people with agents.

The best thing that could happen to Ufology would be for You Shaeffer, Greer, Friedman and a few others to just shut the hell up for for 5 years and not appear on the radio or the TV for that period.

posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 08:38 AM
Well, maybe we're unexpectedly but happily approaching a consensus here.

I will modify my description of the Yukon case to one "that has been called
one of the top ten cases", and has been endorsed by SOME ufo experts....

[by the way, please identify ANY previous ufo experts who raised even the SLIGHTEST doubt about the case's validity... as you now seem willing to accept such doubt.]

Would you be impressed by another satellite reentry 'giant ufo mothership' mass sighting endorsed by Nick Pope as unexplainable?

Or is he, in your book, another non-luminary?

Originally posted by Orkojoker

Originally posted by JimOberg

In it, ufological luminaries such as the respected nuclear physicist Stan Friedman explain why THIS case is one of their favorite absolutely unexplainable incidents.

Stanton Friedman? Ufological luminaries? Please.

posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 08:39 AM
Space Vehicles Arrive -- But Whose? // 05 November 1999

more details
September 7, 1999 booster reentry fireball seen from Tampa, Florida.

Graffeo: “Booster debris or space junk reentering and burning up in the atmosphere do not have multi-colored signal lights flashing, hover, then go straight up, nor are triangular-shaped, level-flying objects… . The Tampa video appears to be an object that is under intelligent control, not a burning hunk of space junk.” He later added, “Witnesses … said at one point during the sighting the UFO hovered motionless and then ascended rapidly out of view.”

The video just shows parallel-moving lights, which Graffeo insists were all on one large structure: “The characteristic triangular shape is evident even in the conversion copies …You must not simply look at a ‘flat picture’ but perceive the subtle highlights and linear perspective of the object in the video as it moves with the brighter areas. Watch the 2 lights on the left side of the object very carefully. The craft displays distinctive lights, especially at the corners, which reflect off its metallic-looking frame revealing its symmetrical, triangular shape. The upper surface area appears to be a structural matrix of some kind. If you view the video, you will clearly see 2 lights blinking-- alternating red, white, green and amber on the left wing section, and a larger white light pulsate on the front of the object. The craft seems to be moving from left to right.”

Graffeo dismisses the reentry explanation as preposterous: “I'm amazed how such a sighting could be mistaken for a rocket booster re-entering the atmosphere! The craft was observed to be moving very slowly. It tilts and reorients itself. This is not what a falling rocket booster does! The news report is rife with disinformation and confusion. It is truly frightening how this type of craft can flaunt itself in our skies and be explained away and dismissed so easily. This video speaks for itself.”

edit on 29-7-2012 by JimOberg because:

posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 08:46 AM
reply to post by JimOberg

Nick Pope? Yes, definite non-luminary, but I would be interested in another re-entry UFO.

posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 08:51 AM

Funny, can't find the Yukon case anywhere in those and I will bet you if you had asked 2 weeks ago for people's top 10 cases on here Yukon probably wouldn't have featured in anyone's list.

So quit treating this subject as yours and a few compadres personal cash cow and self publicity vehicle.

posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 09:00 AM
Also see this September 1, 1999 Russian comsat booster reentry

MOST witnesses reported a bright fireball or fireball swarm, but SOME saw it differently:

spokane, 22:30 Banks of lights on wedge shape. Very strange.

Vacaville, CA 21:30 The object was considerably larger then a C-5, and was irregular in shape. As it was clear the object did have a surface mass he described it as a triangle or perhaps a 'flying wing. he noticed a trail, or something, coming off of this object he referred to as 'stardust', as the tail of a comet may look

Chico, California 23:00 -- It was a flat shaped object, lights on each end, alternating white and blue. I noticed it because of how fast it appeared to be moving. I stopped to see what it was. In a matter of seconds the object stopped and hovered in front of me

Fairfield, CA 21:13 -- A huge black triangular object was seen slowly traversing across the sky very close at what he estimated to be 900' off the ground. This object was completely silent, massive and solid in its structure, as the star fields behind it became blocked as it moved along in a slow controlled trajectory. It was 2-3 times the size of a C-5 and it emitted an uncanny 'flame', which was iridescent blue in color, stretched out aprox. 200', and had a sparkly transparency to it.

Coos Bay, OR 21:25 -- While I watched, the fireball grew bigger, then faded to a long flat object with what looked like wings projecting from the top and bottom, like it was a very long tube like airplane on its side.

posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 09:09 AM
reply to post by JimOberg

Some of your links are not working properly, Jim. Might want to give them a look.

edit on 29-7-2012 by Orkojoker because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 11:10 AM

Originally posted by TeaAndStrumpets

How does the above trajectory of the decaying / re-entering rocket jibe with some of the below?

As these are eye-witness accounts we have to seriously consider that there probably are observational errors in the data that Jasek collected. If we look at the drawings by the outliers in this case FOX1 and CRM1 it jibes pretty well with the explanation offered by Molczan in my opinion.



Originally posted by FireMoon

This thread belongs in the hoax section as anyone claiming this is "Top Ten UFO case" is a bunko artists of the first order.

Michael Swords of NICAP had this to say about the case in 2009

Not knowing Martin Jasek I can't "stand up in court" on this one, but everything that I've heard says that this is not only a "good" but possibly one of the best cases ever. Reasons for this include the investigative context: one great advantage in living in a sparse population area is that you can create a personal system for "getting in touch" with about anyone who could possibly be involved with a UFO incident. Jasek has apparently been able to do this.


posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 11:15 AM

Originally posted by JimOberg
far from being the outlier exception, it appears to be the standard pattern of the human perceptual process when confronted with this unusual [literally once in a lifetime] visible stimulus.

Now you're just making things up, Jim. The wild witness exaggerations you keep pointing people towards are the exception, not the rule. That's what's been found. See William K. Hartman's Section VI Chapter 2 of the Condon Report -- around p.951 of the NCAS's version -- regarding the ZondIV re-entry, or see Hartman's comments beginning at 15:18 in this clip. (A surprisingly excellent video which Orkojoker brought to the forum's attention just a few weeks back.)

Is there any research you can cite which suggests that these drawings you keep referring people towards are the RULE and not the exception?

Are any of the drawings you reference from witnesses who were 400 or 500 km from the object?

And why have you never answered this very important question: how big would the 'debris swarm' appear to be from those kinds of distances? What angular size (in both directions)? I've now asked you this twice, directly. I suspect there's a reason you don't want to answer that....

And how long would the "spectacular re-entry light show" portion of the rocket's flight have lasted? (Ted Molczan's words.) Every re-entry video I can find LOOKS exactly like a re-entry, and the fireworks last for a minute, maybe 90 seconds.

The above two questions are why I've asked you to point us towards a video of a re-entry, from those same distances, of similar space hardware.

You might also want to take a look at H. Zimmer's data again, and pay particular attention to the azimuth and especially elevation values. In this Yukon terrain, hilly and filled with tress, that re-entering rocket would've not even been visible from some of the other Fox Lake witness locations (pretty precisely known), or visible for only maybe 30 seconds for others. So the re-entry explanation only makes sense if you completely ignore Fox1, 2, 3 and 6, and others. And that's why only Fox4 and Fox5 are considered in these reports, right? Because they're the only ones whose descriptions can possibly be made to fit.

Now, one last time:
1) Can you point anyone to a video which approximates how this breakup would appear from 400 to 500 km?
2) How big would the debris swarm appear to be from locations 400 to 500 km away?
3) How long would the "spectacular re-entry light show" portion of the rocket's flight have lasted?

(It'd also be good to know at what altitude the light show would've begun. I see different numbers, depending on the particulars of the re-entering hardware, but always 72 to 84km. I honestly don't know for this type of booster rocket, and can only trust your expertise on that.)

Jim, I don't want to be combative here, but if you want to appear to be treating this topic honestly, then you should finally address these questions regarding THIS case. If you do not address them -- if instead you just keep pointing people towards unrelated drawings and talking about the general unreliability of witness testimony -- then we'll know for certain that you're being honest about how well this explanation fits in THIS case.

Answer the questions, please. YOU are the one who keeps straying off topic.

posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 11:27 AM
These are fair questions and require a detailed, serious response -- I owe you one. Gimme a day or two, please.

posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 11:30 AM
reply to post by cripmeister

You're looking at the data selectively again. And that was the problem here to begin with.

Honestly, I'm not sure about this case. I read the Yukon witness reports, and some of the inconsistencies there make me wince. It is absolutely a problem. And in other parts it's really hard not to wonder if the witness or researcher are exaggerating a bit for dramatic effect or to seemingly strengthen their case. So I'm not so comfortable with what the 'UFO' team is selling.

At the same time, there are some serious problems with the rocket re-entry explanation. Jim has repeatedly failed to address them, even after repeated direct questioning, and it feels like he may be aware of some of the serious weaknesses with what he's advocating. I suspect many skeptics will hear that and just throw their hands up in the air, asking "well, which explanation is honestly more likely?!?" And I understand that point. But that's no solution. We can't just assume away the existence of the very objects whose reality we're here analyzing. That would be an absurd (and much too frequently observed) misuse of Occam's Razor. And we've got multiple sets of witnesses here who are literally hundreds of kilometers apart.

If you really want to get into some data, cripmeister, take a look at the various witness locations, and use the Zimmer and Molczan numbers to determine what would be visible from where, and when. I think you'll be surprised.....

new topics

top topics

<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in