UFO Conjecture(s)

Saturday, August 03, 2013

Falcon Lake: A Real UFO Encounter?

Robert McGeachy provided, at UFO Updates, a piece by noted Canadian UFO researcher Chris Rutkowski about the 1967 Falcon Lake UFO incident that many see as a bona fide UFO encounter.

Click HERE for access to UFO Updates and the essay by Mr. Rutkowski.

RR

20 Comments:

  • This has always been one of my favourite cases, because there wass physical evidence of something happening to Michalak that most people agree would have been difficult to fake. That clearly doesn't make it alien - indeed, I think it more likely he encountered some kind of military device, probably American. Regardless, the case drew national attention here in Canada, even becoming the subject of questions and answers in the House of Commons - including efforts to get at the truth by the Manitoba MP Edward Schreyer, who would later go on to be Premier of Manitoba and then Governor-General of Canada.

    PK

    By Blogger Paul Kimball, at Saturday, August 03, 2013  

  • I agree, Paul.

    The "object" seemed bit mundane, or "normal."

    The exhaust also.

    A test craft of some kind, and maybe a U.S. interloper. But why not a Canadian device?

    You Canucks are as advanced as we in the lower half, and sometimes even more secretive.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Sunday, August 04, 2013  

  • My take on this is based on the history of the levels of experimentation that were too reckless to be made public. The release of radioactive materials in urban areas to determine it's effects that could have never been anything but buried. Yet, now it is a fact that is well documented. The use of LSD experiments on unwitting subjects, buried but now known. In that era, nuclear power for everything from railroad engines to spacecraft was at it's peak. Could an experiment with nuclear powered craft be disclosed to the public, and if not they would be consigned to the least likely location. I think our subject came across a buried experimentation with a nuclear powered, experimental aircraft. This caused the bone along with the dog to be buried deeper and again the CIA history of cloaking X craft with UFO mumbo- jumbo comes to mind.

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Sunday, August 04, 2013  

  • Indeed, Bruce...

    There have been so many nefarious "experiments" -- involving an unknown public -- that Falcon Hill may have been one doesn't surprise....but in Canada?

    CIA interlopers, of a dangerous kind.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Sunday, August 04, 2013  

  • Rich
    At the time there was very seriously taken discussion regarding bombing the moon with a nuclear weapon. A lot of reckless anxiety that sought or did receive expression. The Canadians then and now as well as the British etc are comrades in arms of the U.S and then it was the Red Menace. Corroboration between allies was a mandate not a choice and secrecy was paramount as the U.S intelligence network was heavily infiltrated, ie: nuclear secrets..a coincidence when we think of a nuclear powered X craft?
    Maybe a certain desert fiasco that was presumed fail proof due to it's location moved further afield. I say that with a smirk.

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Sunday, August 04, 2013  

  • BTW..This was no pipe dream. Rather than write more verbiage which I am too lazy to do on a Sunday morning, this concise summary is enlightening, which seems to have been a lost factor in a lot of considerations as I eluded to in past comments. Buried in plain sight?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_aircraft

    If I recall correctly there a certain well known UFO expert as well as several less known public figures who had a hand in the development of nuclear X craft but that's entirely coincidental, right?

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Sunday, August 04, 2013  

  • It's a touchy subject north of your border, but the degree to which the American and Canadian defence establishments cooperate would surprise most people, I think... as would the degree to which the United States has played fast and loose with Canadian sovereignty over the years.

    PK

    By Blogger Paul Kimball, at Sunday, August 04, 2013  

  • For example, things you don't hear about south of the border:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/sean-casey/border-security-canada_b_3691387.html

    By Blogger Paul Kimball, at Sunday, August 04, 2013  

  • Paul, my lasts years in the USAF were spent as a program manager working the North Warning Systems program (refurbishment of the DEW Line radar systems). It was a joint US/Canadian venture with the US picking up 60% of the cost and the remaining 40% by the Canadians.

    My immediate supervisors were two Canadian majors, great guys to work for!

    As far as "foot loose" with sovereignty, perhaps we should have had a more equitable 50/50 split on the project.:)

    My years at Malmstrom AFB, MT, we had a NORAD unit headed by a Canadian general officer, quite a few other Canadian military personnel on the base...great people who knew their stuff, yet here they were on US soil.

    Perhaps eye of the beholder? Or simply mutual cooperation with our respective military organizations vs. the political natures of our respective governments.





    By Blogger Tim Hebert, at Sunday, August 04, 2013  

  • I'm not going to clutter up Rich's comments with a debate about the American impact on Canadian sovereignty (that's what my Facebook page is for), other than to say that just as Americans seem to get touchy when anyone in the ROTW (rest of the world) offers advice about how they should run their affairs, Canadians tend to get touchy when Americans say silly things like, "hey, we had a Canadian general at a NORAD unit, so everything must be great, right?"

    By Blogger Paul Kimball, at Sunday, August 04, 2013  

  • Paul, nothing more than an observation on my part...for what ever its worth...silly or not.

    Again, I had much admiration for the Canadians Officers that I worked under.

    By Blogger Tim Hebert, at Sunday, August 04, 2013  

  • And I have great love for America (at least in theory, if not in modern practice) and Americans, so we're all good. :-)

    But to my original point, in my opinion anything that Michalak would have encountered that was human tech would have been made either by Americans or under their auspices. By the late 1960s, the independent R & D component of the Canadian military establishment had largely been gutted in the wake of the Avro Arrow cancellation and subsequent exodus of top Canadian talent to the United States... which is one of those things that gets our dander up, even to this day.

    By Blogger Paul Kimball, at Sunday, August 04, 2013  

  • ...here, I stand on the side of Kimball....

    By Blogger Kurt Peters, at Sunday, August 04, 2013  

  • Sorry. It was nothing but a crude hoax: a contradictory story, manufactured evidence, evasive and suspicious behavior, and nothing the least bit "alien."

    http://www.theironskeptic.com/articles/michalak/michalak.htm

    The "best 'UFO' cases" are so debunkable because they are composed of complete and utter bunk!

    By Blogger zoamchomsky, at Sunday, August 04, 2013  

  • Yes, it's easy to cut and paste:

    http://redstarfilms.blogspot.ca/2005/12/return-of-ed-schreyer-to-canadian.html

    The key section, from the official government response in the House of Commons given by Judy LaMarsh, Canada's Secretary of State in January, 1968, about the Michalak case:

    "The Department of National Defence investigation, which has now been completed, could not explain the sighting."

    But of course, the Iron Skeptic has it all figured out when multiple Canadian government agencies could not.

    By Blogger Paul Kimball, at Sunday, August 04, 2013  

  • I like Zoam Chomsky's chutzpah, but his skepticism is marmoreal, and narrow-minded.

    There are other closed-minded visitors here.

    They entertain, sometimes.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Sunday, August 04, 2013  

  • "But of course, the Iron Skeptic has it all figured out when multiple Canadian government agencies could not."

    Which should surprise no one!

    By Blogger zoamchomsky, at Sunday, August 04, 2013  

  • He would be amusing, Rich, if he wasn't so predictably dull.

    By Blogger Paul Kimball, at Sunday, August 04, 2013  

  • The Iron Skeptic (Chomsky) is delightfully misinformed of the details of the case. Even the title of his web pages shows his unfamiliarity with the incident.

    His web page about it goes on about not needing to invoke aliens in the affair, which is true. But it's true because Michalak himself never said he encountered aliens or spacemen. He believed it was an American secret weapon or craft of some kind.

    (Why did he tell the RCMP officer he had seen "space ships," then? Because he thought they were American secret "spacecraft.")

    As for the "booklet" Michalak was said to write about the case, giving him fame and fortune, the reality is that Michalak didn't want attention, and shunned publicity whenever possible. The booklet was actually ghostwritten by a newspaper employee because Michalak's English was not particularly good. And it made virtually no money; Michalak saw nothing of the sales of the booklet, which was produced only in a small quantity. Shunning publicity and limited distribution? Not really a good way to achieve fame.

    As for not wanting the RCMP officer to get too close, Michalak explained later that he thought he had been "contaminated" by the gas or whatever from the craft. He wanted to protect people from the possible danger, including not letting the officer touch his "contaminated" shirt.

    And note that the RCMP did NOT detect the smell of alcohol on Michalak. Michalak's eyes were bloodshot because by his own admission, he had repeatedly vomited after the departure of the objects, and the gas that hit him in the face and chest was affecting him in other ways too. He was physically ill.

    The discussion about Michalak being drunk although saying he had not been drinking is also misleading. Michalak (whom we know had some trouble expressing himself in English) meant that he had not been drunk when he encountered the craft in the woods on the Saturday afternoon. His family and friends also affirmed he was not one to "get drunk" but did drink socially. So the attempt to discredit Michalak by proving he drank at all was a rather significant red herring.

    The reality is that many, many hours of research has been spent reviewing the case, and many hours of interviews with Michalak and his family.

    Since debunkers point to the Condon Report as the last word on UFOs and a beacon that shows the USAF investigations of UFOs proved that UFOs were nothing to worry about, its conclusion on this case should be accepted: Unexplained.

    Chomsky should read my papers and reports on the Falcon lake case. I'm the true skeptic, since I have been examining all the evidence and data. I haven't concluded he was burned by an alien spaceship, but I have suggested it was a very unusual event that bears more than a cursory scrutiny and offhanded dismissal.

    I must thank him for supporting me.

    By Blogger rutkows, at Friday, August 09, 2013  

  • Among Rutkowski's erroneous claims is "the Condon Report...conclusion on this case should be accepted: Unexplained." When Condon actually concluded:
    "Attempts to establish the reality of the event revealed many inconsistencies and incongruities in the case, a number of which are described in this report. Developments subsequent to the field investigation have not altered the initial conclusion that this case does not offer probative information regarding inconventional craft."

    Exactly what I said: "a contradictory story, manufactured evidence, evasive and suspicious behavior, and nothing the least bit 'alien.'" It was nothing but a crude hoax--an ignorant Polish immigrant's 1967 version of what an encounter with a "spaceship" of unknown origin might consist. It's purely National Inquirer trash that no rational adult--then or now--would consider seriously for even a moment.

    Real skeptics DOUBT claims of the extraordinary; then they make judgements based on real-world evidence and reason. The fundamentals of Stefan Michalak's ridiculous story don't even pass the basic tests of credibility, coherence and continuity--and nothing Rutkowski can claim will change that.

    ufoolery is so very debunkable because it is composed of complete and utter bunk!

    By Blogger zoamchomsky, at Saturday, August 10, 2013  

Post a Comment

<< Home