zoser Posted June 10, 2014 #1 Share Posted June 10, 2014 A very good series of close encounters covering mainly the classic cases. Each episode covers two cases and the entire episode is only 22 minutes long. They are available on youtube so no need to post the links. Episode 1 is the case of the huge UFO on the Klondike Road (Fox Lake) Yukon in 1996. Six witnesses saw the craft at fairly close range. Here is another short clip on the case: The other case covers the Malmstrom AFB incident. Well worth watching for people who are not familiar with these classic cases. I will mention the other episodes later in the thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Topp Posted June 10, 2014 #2 Share Posted June 10, 2014 you and youtube, There needs to be a daily cap of you posting youtube videos. 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scowl Posted June 10, 2014 #3 Share Posted June 10, 2014 Well worth watching for people who are not familiar with these classic cases. But for those who are familiar with the cases, don't expect the sensationalist TV show to tell you what really happened. Hint: the first episode is the Yukon UFO. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Purple Octopus Posted June 10, 2014 #4 Share Posted June 10, 2014 This should be posted in the Paranormal Television section. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hermai Posted June 10, 2014 #5 Share Posted June 10, 2014 This was just marathoned all day on the Science Channel. Interesting program. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seeder Posted June 10, 2014 #6 Share Posted June 10, 2014 Interesting program. For whom? 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psyche101 Posted June 11, 2014 #7 Share Posted June 11, 2014 The Yukon incident - a very interesting and an intriguing case indeed, with a good number of credible witnesses. Jim Oberg seems to have demystified it though. LINK 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
papadad Posted June 11, 2014 #8 Share Posted June 11, 2014 For whom? Jim Oberg seems to have demystified it though. LINK Kinda weak,feeble demystifying.While imagination might be blamed somewhat,cant discredit the sighting based on that.Booster re-entry seems doubtful also. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoser Posted June 11, 2014 Author #9 Share Posted June 11, 2014 Episode 2 looks at the Kecksburg incident and the Phoenix Lights. Great series. Can't wait to see the rest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psyche101 Posted June 12, 2014 #10 Share Posted June 12, 2014 (edited) Psyche ol boy! How ya been? Gidday Mate!! Not too bad, up and down, pretty busy, hope things have been well with you too mate. Well, there are a lot of accounts that do not describe a rocket booster re entry- here's one that I copied from the comments in that article: i live in pelly crossing yukon to this day and when i was 10 i remember the event clearly. On that night of the ufo mothership a family member called our home freaking out of what they saw and said its above pelly so i ran to my brothers room and look out the window. What i saw was a circular craft mostly black, the way i knew it was circular in shape was because of the lights around it all moving in sequence colors i seen were blue, red, green and orange. I cant say what size exactly it was but if you hold a dime with ur thumb and index finger and stretch your arm straight up in the sky, thats what it looked like in size from my perspective. Upon gaining knowledge of the craft being sighted on route from fox lake to pelly crossing simutaniously by eyewitnesses says to me that when it arrived in pelly crossing, it must of altered its coarse and when the man said when he noticed the craft he turned towards it and the flashlight pointed at it and then it reacted by zooming up towards him and then flew off i think at that exact time it flew off, is when it came up above pelly moving slowly eastward. Which by the time they got to a phone and called us, what i was witnessing. My mom and dad and brother were all watching it, except for my mom she took a lil glanced and ran to her room and hid under her blankets. As you talk about a rocket booster re-entering earths atmosphere does not cut it and also it was not during the day it was night and furthermore what i and my family witnessed was NO rocket booster. You can attempt to explain its existence and phenomenon with your story that in my opinion is totaly ridiculus but we know that the reality of it is and shall remain what it always was and for a long time to come a mystery! Don't even attempt to debunk my experience with the object by saying i was a child with imagination because it was not my imagination. Like to post traumatic kids around the world this event will stay as sharp in my memory as the night it happened. Can we be sure Stephan Joe - note an anonymous poster - is speaking of the same thing Ridpath, Schaffer, Molczan and Oberg are? He says: and also it was not during the day it was night He seems to a little lost in that which has been explained to him for a start? And Jim specifically looked at that very claim, and put it against the re-entry trajectory, the computer says: The Pelly Crossing witness identified as PEL2, made the especially useful observation that the unidentified object passed below the Big Dipper, and was about its length, as depicted in the following drawing attributed to her: http://www.ufobc.ca/...el2draw1neg.htm My computer-plotted estimate of the decay trajectory from PEL2's location, accurate in elevation to within 1 or 2 deg, is in substantial agreement: http://satobs.org/se...9B_PEL2_dwg.jpg LINK Which I find rather convincing? Data has to trump an individual claimant right? It strikes me that Stephen Joe is insulted by the fact he could be fooled by a mundane item and he is taking that out on Jim via Schaffer? Edited June 12, 2014 by psyche101 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psyche101 Posted June 12, 2014 #11 Share Posted June 12, 2014 Kinda weak,feeble demystifying.While imagination might be blamed somewhat,cant discredit the sighting based on that.Booster re-entry seems doubtful also. I have to say that you are not providing a convincing argument. Certainly nothing like the simulations, math and astronomical coordinates supplied with the conclusion? With all due respect, your response to that link seems rather weak and feeble? You have just offered an "I reckon" haven't you? I have to say any sane person would take the workings of an actual rocket scientist to be more accurate than the personal musings of an anonymous internet poster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psyche101 Posted June 12, 2014 #12 Share Posted June 12, 2014 Episode 2 looks at the Kecksburg incident and the Phoenix Lights. Great series. Can't wait to see the rest. Subjects that you have attempted to debate for endless pages?? You cannot wait to see them yet again? That's weird. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
papadad Posted June 12, 2014 #13 Share Posted June 12, 2014 I have to say that you are not providing a convincing argument. Certainly nothing like the simulations, math and astronomical coordinates supplied with the conclusion? With all due respect, your response to that link seems rather weak and feeble? You have just offered an "I reckon" haven't you? I have to say any sane person would take the workings of an actual rocket scientist to be more accurate than the personal musings of an anonymous internet poster. Problem is witness reports ,actually physically there versus scientists nowhere near coming up with conclusions that it must be something else.I have an open mind about this,but the imagination excuse doesnt work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
papadad Posted June 12, 2014 #14 Share Posted June 12, 2014 I have to say that you are not providing a convincing argument. Certainly nothing like the simulations, math and astronomical coordinates supplied with the conclusion? With all due respect, your response to that link seems rather weak and feeble? You have just offered an "I reckon" haven't you? I have to say any sane person would take the workings of an actual rocket scientist to be more accurate than the personal musings of an anonymous internet poster. I think any sane person would also give a little more credit to fact that maybe whats been reported,just might be somewhat credible,not quickly dismissed.Just saying with respect,that an open mind might not be such a leap for some. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
papadad Posted June 12, 2014 #15 Share Posted June 12, 2014 you and youtube, There needs to be a daily cap of you posting youtube videos. Hard to swallow what alot of you tube tries to feed ya,but none the less-still some interesting ones.Gotta be taken lightly and with lots of grains of salt tho.LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now