Tuesday, August 26, 2014
Re-entries of rocket boosters... and UFOs
Recently, a list of rocket booster and satellite re-entries was generated by a very diligent space fan, Ted Molczan. He had previously identified the "Giant Yukon UFO" as the re-entry of some space junk that had occurred about the same time as the observations of that infamous UFO. I and others have expressed our reservations that all of the 30+ observations were a re-entering spacecraft, but many skeptics are completely convinced.
But Molczan took it upon himself to go one better. He generated a list of re-entries that would have been visible to the naked eye, under the assumption that these re-entries would explain many UFO reports. It's a fascinating list, and an excellent body of work that must have taken him quite a while. I recommend that UFO buffs take a good look at it:
Since we recently completed the 25-year study of UFO reports in Canada, I realized this would make an interesting comparison with known observational data. Specifically, do the re-entries listed by Molczan during the last 25 years correspond to UFOs reported in Canada during that time?
And the answer is: yes.
Yes, there were 14 calculated re-entries on the list that would have been visible in Canada. There were 53 UFO reports that matched these re-entries. However, nearly all of these cases were already considered to have explanations or probable explanations by the UFO investigators themselves. And most were considered to have been bolides or re-entries, anyway.
But Molczan's work shows that UFO investigators are on the right track when it comes to trying to identify UFOs reported to them.
How many more UFO sightings can be matched to known spacecraft re-entries?
Here's my analyses of the list of re-entries:
A Comparison of UFO Sighting Reports Between 1989 and
2013
with the list of
Visually Observed Natural Re-Entries of Earth
Satellites
compiled by Ted Molczan (2014)
http://www.satobs.org/reentry/Visually_Observed_Natural_Re-entries_latest_draft.pdf
One of the common
explanations for reported UFOs is that of misidentified satellite or rocket
booster re-entries. UFO investigators often check UFO sighting reports against
lists of satellite observations as a matter of course. Skeptics have suggested
that many “unexplained” UFO reports are unrecognized spacecraft re-entries,
including some of the more well-known and heralded unexplained UFO cases.
Recently, a list of visually observed re-entries was
generated by an expert on such things in the course of an explanation for one
particular reported unexplained UFO case: the giant “mothership” seen by dozens
of witnesses in the Yukon Territory on December 11, 1996. The case has been the
subject of intense investigation and considerable debate, but UFO proponents
insisting the observed object was mysterious, but skeptics are adamant it was
simply a re-entry of a rocket booster.
The list is quite interesting because it allows a
comparison of known re-entry data with UFO data from the 25-year period of
study of the Canadian UFO Survey. Out of 14 re-entries on the list noted as
being observable in Canada during the past 25 years, four did not generate any UFO
reports at all. There were 53 UFO reports that matched times of re-entries, all
but three of which were either explained, had insufficient info or were thought
to have possible explanations (and noted by the UFO reporting organizations as
bolides or re-entries).
In
other words, ufologists were able either to identify the re-entries as what
they were or did not consider them UFOs in 50 out of 53 reports. This can be
interpreted to show that UFO investigators are generally able to differentiate
misidentified UFOs in at least 94 per cent of cases known to be spacecraft
re-entries. Ardent skeptics may not be the only ones capable of explaining UFO
sightings.
The
one other case that is of some debate is Case 4, where a “Giant UFO” was
described by dozens of witnesses located post hoc by a UFO investigator after
some months had passed. The case was therefore not included in the Canadian UFO
Survey for that year. Forensic historical UFO research has shown that these
sightings may be related to the re-entry event that night, although witnesses
of the UFOs that night described objects with structure and discrete form, lasting
a significant length of time. In fact, two witnesses described large circular
objects passing directly overhead, and two witnesses separated by only a few
miles described radically different angular views of the apparently same
object, something impossible if the observed object was actually a spacecraft
re-entry almost 150 miles up in the atmosphere. (Unless, of course, the
witnesses were lying or badly mistaken.)
Also,
one only has to look at the descriptions of other misidentified re-entries in
the list to see that witnesses in most cases used terms such as “fireball,” and
“ball of light trailing sparks,” “tail on fire,” “comet-like,” “airplane on
fire” and so forth. The Yukon case involved multiple independent witnesses who
described large objects with a shape and form, not just strings of lights that
could be a fragmenting re-entry.
Also,
debunkers note that UFO investigators investigate UFO cases in a linear
progression of steps, with “Step One: Assume the testimony is reliable.” They
note that eyewitness testimony is in fact usually unreliable, so that judging
the worthiness of a UFO report on witness testimony is inappropriate. However,
as we have seen in this brief study, witness testimony was considerably reliable
in explaining known fireball cases reported as UFOs, investigated and
classified by UFO investigators themselves.
In
summary, the excellent work by Molczan in compiling a list of spacecraft
re-entries that might explain some UFO cases is admirable. However, UFO
investigators without the list were generally able to assess the validity of
UFO reports shown later to match the re-entries. The one standout case was that
of the Yukon case of 1996, which is still debated among ufologists and
debunkers.
It
is recommended that all ufologists familiarize or reacquaint themselves with
the appearance of terrestrial spacecraft re-entries, and ensure the possibility
of such an event is considered when evaluating UFO reports.
Case 1:
1989 Nov 16 03:07UT
1985-050A 15833 Russia Cosmos
1662
Visible from southern
Manitoba
1989 11 15 1900 Chibougamau PQ NL fireball NRC I N89/75: 15 diff. reports of lights moving
in sky, "fireworks"
1989 11 15 1900 Val D'Or PQ NL fireball NRC I N89/75: light moving, like
"fireworks"
1989 11 15 2105 Winnipeg MB ND fireball UFOROM P ball of
light trailing "welding sparks", seen ove wide area
1989 11 15 2100 Oakville MB ND fireball NRC P N89/76: long "tail on fire"
moving slowly
There were four reports
filed that seem to coincide with the date of this event. Only two were from
Manitoba, and both were described as fireballs or bolides with long tails,
fragmenting as they flew. One was reported to the National Research Council,
while the other was reported to Ufology Research directly. Curiously, the other
two possible matches were from Quebec, two hours earlier than the re-entry, but
were also described in terms of a fragmenting fireball. In fact, the NRC report
notes that it received 15 reports of observations – many more than Manitoba.
Given this coincidence, it is possible the re-entry calculations were in error
with regards the extent of observable locations. Two of the reports were
classified as “Insufficient Information,” likely because the NRC file was
incomplete, and two were classified as “Probable Explanation.”
Case 2
1990 Aug 24 02:41UT
1990-075B 20766 Russia
Cosmos 2096
Colorado, Nebraska,
Wyoming, South Dakota, North Dakota, Minnesota
1990 8 23 2140 Portage
la Prairie MB nl 300 multi 2 ps 5 8 UFOROM u pilots
saw lights on parallel course; no a/c in area
One UFO report was found
matching the re-entry perfectly. It was classified as Unknown because the
witness was a reliable observer. However, the witness only reported “lights,”
so no structured object was described.
Case 3:
1996 Apr 14 07:05UT
1996-021C 23844 Russia
Astra
Arizona, Minnesota,
Wisconsin, Michigan NUFORC, SeeSat-L
1996 4 14 0300 Nouvelle PQ NL yellow cigar SOS
OVNI U object w/4 large lights; 'big as a trailer'
1996 4 14 0311 Port-Melnier PQ NL SOS
OVNI I pilot reported object flying E-W; Transport Canada log
1996 4 14 0312 Caplan PQ NL
yellow ps SOS
OVNI P "airplane in flames"
1996 4 14 0315 Caplan PQ C1 round SOS OVNI I obj. stopped over road; then took
off; within 100 feet
These four reports appear congruent
with the re-entry event. Two had insufficient information, and one was listed
as “Probable Explanation” because of the description “airplane in flames” which
is a common description of a fireball. The report listed as “Unknown” is
curious because it has descriptors unlike a re-entry. The sighting at 0315
hours local was noted as a “Close Encounter,” yet in time and location matches
the re-entry.
Case 4:
1996 Aug 20 00:47UT
1996-010D 23797 Russia
Raduga 33r2
New Brunswick: St. John -
glowing near perigee, day prior to fall from orbit.
No sightings reported
during this time period.
Although the Molczan list
suggested this re-entry would be observable over the Maritime provinces, no UFO
sightings were reported.
Case 5:
1996 Dec 12 04:27UT
1996-069B 24671 Russia
Cosmos 2335
Alaska: Anchorage, pilots
all over the state; Yukon: Fox Lake, Carmacks, Pelly Crossing, Mayo
No sightings reported
during this time period*
Similar to Case 2,
although the Molczak list notes widespread observations. No one reported seeing
any UFOs at the time, even though there was at least one news report about the
event. However, this case is the noted “Giant UFO in the Yukon” for which there
have been found numerous witnesses long after the fact; this sighting was
therefore not included in the 1996 Canadian UFO Survey.
Case 6:
1997 Nov 15 05:09UT
1997-070C 25047 Russia
Kupon
British Columbia, Oregon
and Washington
1997 11 14 2109 Deep
Cove BC NL fireball UFOBC E tracks
of glowing green/white objs. moving W-E; Russian booster re-entry
There was only one report
of a UFO, at it exactly matches this re-entry. It was easily identified as such
and classified as “Explained.”
Case 7:
1998 Jan 06 13:43UT
1997-048C 24927 China
Iridium
Arctic Canada: Nunavut:
74.43 N, 94.4 W; Coral Harbour; Grise Fiord
No UFO reports received
during this time period.
Case 8:
2001 Aug 12 03:42UT
2001-030B 26868 Russia
Molniya 3K-11
Quebec: Drumondville; Nova
Scotia: Halifax
2001 08 11 2300 NS NL ps
3 5 Internet P
3
bright lights in triangle, changing positions; bolide?
2001 08 11 2200 NS NL
ps
3 9 MUFON P
4
independent reports of triangles and pairs of lights; rocket?
2001 08 11 Ottawa ON NL ps
3 5 Internet I
overhead
blinker craft' w/peculiar lights, no sound, video taken
2001 08 11 2230 Chicoutimi PQ NL 60
orange fireball 3 4 SOSOVNI E fireball
w/long white tail [Russian rocket booster reentry]
2001 08 11 2230 La
Baie PQ NL 60
orange fireball 3 4 SOSOVNI E fireball w/long white tail [Russian
rocket booster reentry]
2001 08
12 0045 Halifax NS NL fireball 3 7
NUFORC E bright obj. w/3 "jets of
flame" moving N-S; Russian rocket?
2001 08
12 0035 Halifax NS NL white fireball 3 5 NUFORC P obj. w/tail "like a Navy
flare"
2001 08 12
0015 Edmonton AB NL irregular 3 5 AUFOSG P 3 dim parallel streaks like shooting
stars, seen briefly
This is an interesting
event, since there are eight possible matches with this re-entry. Seven reports
came from eastern Canada and the Maritimes, but only four are good matches with
the re-entry, and two are possible matches. The report from Edmonton is
unlikely to have been related. Several witnesses accurately described fireballs
with long tails. All of these UFO reports were classified as “Explained” or
“Probably Explained.”
Case 9:
2001 Sep 06 10:50UT
1975-076B 8128 Russia
Cosmos 756
Along the U.S. northeast
coast. SeeSat-L, NUFORC
No UFO reports received.
Case 10:
2002 Feb 01 05:27UT
1997-051D 24947 USA
Iridium 27
Yukon: Whitehorse, Lake
Laberge SeeSat-L, UFO*BC, Whitehorse Star
2002 1 31 1610 Whitehorse YK dd irregular UFOBC I metallic obj. low on horizon moving S
2002 1 31 2110 Whitehorse YK nl fireball UFOBC P
many
witnesses observed a "meteor" with a long tail
2002 1 31 2120 Whitehorse YK nl blue ps UFOROM I
obj.
w/6 or 7 smaller lights following, moving NW
2002 1 31 0300 Burns
Lake BC nl HBCCUFO I witness
awakened by light shining in window
The two reports around
2100 hours on January 31 could match this re-entry. One was suspected to be a
re-entry, while the other did not have sufficient information for evaluation at
the time.
Case 11:
2002 Nov 28 14:13UT
2002-053B 27558
Russia Astra
BC SeeSat-L, NUFORC
2002 11 28 620 Pender
Island BC NL white irregular NUFORC E satellite making "messy
re-entry"; trail of objs going N-S in E
One report received during
this period, explained by investigators as an early morning satellite re-entry.
Case 12:
2004 May 06 06:17UT
1996-010A 23794 Russia
Raduga 33
Ontario: Toronto; Ohio:
Massillon; Pennsylvania: Erie SeeSat-L
2004 5 5 2351 Fort
McMurray AB NL
fireball MIAC E very bright fireball
2004 5 5 2205 Vancouver BC NL
ps NUFORC P flashing
lights in W, low on horizon, descending
2004 5 6 2320 Gravenhurst ON ND
triangle NUFORC P arrow-shaped
obj. flying high in sky, W-N
None of these reports
received that night seem congruent with the re-entry listed. However, MIAC
recorded a bright fireball a few hours earlier; perhaps this was a fragment?
None of these UFO reports were classified as Unknowns.
Case 13:
2004 Jun 27 02:54UT
1992-088E 22273
Russia 1992-088E
Ontario SeeSat-L, NUFORC, MUFON
2004 6 26 2050 Brampton ON nl orange 1 fireball 3 6 HBCCUFO p 3 consecutive
objs. with trails, very fast
2004 6 26 1100 Toronto ON dd 120 1 ps 3 5 NUFORC p 2
starlike objs. moving back and forth "inconspicuously"
2004 6 26 2000 Toronto ON nl 120 1 ps 3 5 NUFORC p 2 starlike objs. in W., moving around,
increased, decreased, went E
2004 6 26 2300 Toronto ON nl orange 1 fireball 3 6 HBCCUFO p fragmenting
fireball seen by experienced observer
2004 6 26 2245 Hamilton ON nl 15 white 1 fireball 3 6 HBCCUFO p 3 objs.
moving together, leaving trail, going NE
2004 6 26 2245 Markham ON nl 1 fireball 3 6 HBCCUFO p comet-like
obj. going W-E, long tail
2004 6 26 2230 Guelph ON nl 30 1 fireball 3 7 MIAC e re-entry of Cosmos 2224, fragmenting,
long tail
2004 6 26 2300 Windsor ON nl 30 white 2 fireball 3 6 NUFORC p 5 objs.
traveling together, going E, bright tail
2004 6 26 2250 Goderich ON nl 120 orange 2 fireball 3 5 Internet p 3
comet-like lights trailing debris heading E
2004 6 26 2145 Port
Elgin ON nl 25 red 10 fireball 3 5 Internet p 3
comet-like objs. w/tails going SE to E
2004 6 26 2300 Toronto ON nl 60 orange 6 fireball 3 5 Internet p slow-moving
obj. like it was burning up
2004 6 26 2252 Toronto ON nl 30 orange 1 fireball 3 5 Internet p 3 cometlike
objs. w/tails flying horizontally over downtown Toronto
2004 6 26 2252 Toronto ON nl 30 orange 5 fireball 3 5 Internet p 4 bright
objs. going from W to NE, tails like comets
2004 6 26 2300 Bradford ON nl 120 orange 3 fireball 3 6 Internet p 3 comet-like
objs. "streaming" in sky going SE
2004 6 26 2252 Toronto ON nl 2 gold 1 fireball 3 4 HBCCUFO p golden ball
of light going quickly W-E
2004 6 26 2200 Acton ON nl 60 1 fireball 3 5 NUFORC p 3 bright objs. heading W-E
2004 6 26 2250 Toronto ON nl 60 white 1 fireball 3 5 NUFORC p 3
comet-like objs. with long tails flying horizontally
2004 6 26 2300 Toronto ON nl orange 4 fireball 3 6 HBCCUFO p 3 comet-like
objs. "streaming" across sky to SE
2004 6 26 2255 Harwood ON nl 20 1 fireball 3 6 MIAC e slow, fragmenting bolide, re-entry of
Cosmos 2224
2004 6 26 2300 Toronto ON nl 15 orange fireball 3 7 MIAC e fireball 20 deg. above horiz., going
SW-SE, sparks, trail
2004 6 26 2253 Janetville ON nl 20 1 fireball 3 6 MIAC e slow-moving fireball, fragmenting,
trail, re-entry of Cosmos 2224
2004 6 26 2240 Windsor ON nl 30 red 3 ps 4 6 HBCCUFO u 3 small
lights going W, seen 5 mins. after bright fireball
This was obviously a
well-witnessed re-entry event. There were 22 reports from that area on that
date, with 19 apparently related. The DD report at 1100 is clearly unrelated,
for example. It is interesting to see that the time of observation varied
considerably, from 2145 to 2300 CT. Most reported times do generally agree with
the actual time of re-entry. Also, in all but one case, the report was
recognized as a fireball and/or re-entry and given a classification of
“Explained.” The single exception was the report from Windsor in which
witnesses reported seeing a fireball, but then also saw 3 small objects after
the original event, leading to an “Unexplained” evaluation of the report.
Case 14:
2008 Mar 13 07:27UT
1992-050D 22071 Russia
Molniya 1-84
British Columbia: Prince
George "Fireball over central B.C. was Russian space junk", Canwest
News Service, Mar 13, 2008
2008 3 13 0023 Prince
George BC ND fireball
HBCCUFO E trail
of fire leaving sparks
2008 3 13 0025 Green
Lake BC ND fireball HBCCUFO P fireball
w/long tail, going W-E
2008 3 13 0028 Armstrong BC ND fireball NUFORC I oval
light moved through sky, glowed thru trees
2008 3 13 0030 Kamloops BC ND fireball HBCCUFO E bright
streak going W-E; rocket re-entry
2008 3 13 2350 Kelowna BC ND oval MUFON I obj.
moved slowly across sky, tail grew, shrank
These five British
Columbia UFO reports match the re-entry and were easily identified or suspected
to be fireballs or re-entries.
Labels: UFO satellite meteor fireball bolide spacecraft IFO explanation
Sunday, August 24, 2014
Peggy's Cove buzzed by UFO on August 21, 2014
Only, it wasn't a UFO over Peggy's Cove, it was...
http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/no-ufo-mystery-of-bright-light-at-peggy-s-cove-solved-1.1972977
What this tells us, as we noted in our annual Canadian UFO Surveys and also the more recent 25-year study on UFOs in Canada, is that people continue to report seeing objects that are physically in the sky and are not hoaxes or hallucinations. They are real objects, and many can be explained. But a small percentage are left without a simple explanation.
This isn't one of them.
Thursday, August 14, 2014
25 Years of Canadian UFO Reports
Ufology Research has released the results of its 25-year-long study of Canadian UFO reports.
Most ufologists and Forteans know that Ufology Research, formerly UFOROM (Ufology Research of Manitoba), has been collecting and reviewing Canadian reports since 1989, publishing the results as the annual Canadian UFO Survey. When the 2013 edition was published in 2014, it marked 25 years of the annual analyses of UFO report data.
It seemed reasonable, then, to group all 25 years of data together and examine the data for trends and changes with time over a quarter of a century. When the final tally was produced, there were almost 15,000 UFO reports received as data since 1989. Coincidentally, this almost exactly matches the total number of UFO reports collected and analysed by the United States Air Force Project Blue Book during its official run of less than 20 years from 1952 to 1970.
The Ufology Research study is titled "UFOs Over Canada: 25 Years of UFO Reports." It is available from the Canadian UFO Survey web page here. In addition to the text document, the entire 25-year report database is also viewable.
The 25-year study should not need much explanation to those familiar with the annual Canadian UFO Survey. However, an outside reviewer has suggested I make a few points to clarify the process of collecting and analyzing the data.
First, in addition to UFO reports being received as data
from UFO organizations and investigators, cases were also received and
collected from official agencies such as the Royal Canadian Mounted Police
(RCMP), Canadian Forces, Transport Canada and other official bodies. This is
very unlike the American experience, where official agencies have not, in
general, made UFO reports easily available. (UFO reports were also received for
this study directly from witnesses, of course.)
Second, a word about hoaxes. In short, while hoaxes cannot
be ruled out, the number of hoax reports that have ended up in the database is
quite low. In fact, in most cases where a hoax was suspected or discovered,
this has been noted in the data. One reason why hoaxes are minimal with respect
to the larger body of data is because a very large percentage of reports could
be explained or thought to have possible explanations. In other words, these
reports were not hoaxes but honest mistakes, and there were real objects in the
sky to misidentify.
Third, although we believe we have captured a rather
complete set of sighting report data for this study, the database may not
include all Canadian UFO sightings during the past 25 years. It is known from
other studies that only a fraction of all UFO sightings are ever reported―this
percentage is thought to be around 10 per cent. Our study reflects only those
sightings which were actually reported to UFO groups or official agencies.
Also, which we were able to obtain many reports from official agencies, it is
very possible that an unknown percentage of cases are never officially
released, although the Canadian government has been very transparent in this
regard, with thousands of UFO-related documents always being available to the
public either at the National Archives in Ottawa or online.
Next, our study shows that people are reporting sightings of
unusual objects, some of which have no simple explanation. This result has no overt
bearing on the question of extraterrestrials visiting Earth. The interpretation
that some of the unexplained cases may represent alien visitation is left to
the reader to speculate. What can be said is that UFO witnesses have, in
general, not been hallucinating or making up tall tales; UFO witnesses are
indeed seeing unusual objects in the sky for which they have no explanations.
Also, while the level of good investigation of UFO sightings
has been regrettably low, some UFO groups such as MUFON have made excellent
strides in educating lay investigators and encouraging proper UFO
investigation.
Finally, this study was only made possible through the
dedication of a handful of individuals who have taken the time to express
curiosity about what has been reported by Canadians as UFOs during the past 25
years. Data collection is very time-consuming, and moreso thorough case
investigation, which is done only rarely in the present-day field of ufology.
If every one of the nearly 15,000 cases studied were completely investigated,
what would the results have been?
Regardless of one’s belief in the “reality” of UFOs (however
that may be construed), studies such as ours affirm that there is a persistent
phenomenon that deserves further scientific study. If UFOs are not “real,” then
why are tens of thousands of Canadians (and others worldwide) seeing unusual
objects in the sky? Is there a need for better education of the masses? If
there is a residual percentage of truly unexplained cases, what do these
represent? Alien visitation? Clandestine military exercises? A hitherto
unrecognized natural atmospheric phenomenon?
Our study 25 Years of Canadian UFO Reports is presented for your consideration.
