Falcon Lake case
J. B. Stephen (Buck)
Nice write-up, but I am still a sceptic. We have talked before.
I do not have an agenda here - I am not in the business of
debunking, nor do I think that is what sci.sceptic should
be. I am open minded about UFO's. I have seen a UFO,
but must stress that my encounter was with an *unidentified*
object. I do not know what it was, and I am sure I will never
know. I refuse to speculate.
I have several questions concerning the Falcon Lake case.
1) Why was he wearing welding goggles? Sure they will offer
protection from flying debris, but they are not suitable
for eye protection in the abscence of *very* bright light.
I find this disturbing for two reasons.
a) Welding goggles so restrict vision that it
would be difficult to differentiate types of
rocks - i.e., how did he know where to hit?
He was an amateur geologist - surely he would
have proper eye protection, if it was a concern
to him. It is too easy to get a pair of
goggles that work well.
b) The goggles really bother me. They were a necessary
tool for him to view several of the related phenomena,
but they are totally inappropriate for his needs.
Why did he have them? The answer to this question
is very important.
I do not wish to speculate on why he had them. I can think of
several reasons, but have no reason to suspect any of them.
I do think that it is problematic that the witness had
the goggles. They are unsuitable for his tasks, and he
did complain of burns.
2) About the physical complaints. The initial descriptions
you gave of his "rash" are entirely consistent with multiple
insect bites. (Ever camped in a place like that?)
The followup med info does not mean that this incident was
the cause of his problems.
3) Corroborative testimony. The corroborating testimony is at best
interesting.
Again. I find this to be an interesting report. I am not here to
debunk it, but am troubled by the welding goggles most of all.
Buck.
Joseph Stephen
Dept Math Sci
Northern Illinois University
Brian Zeiler
> Nice write-up, but I am still a sceptic. We have talked before.
Hey, I didn't write that case. I got it on some ftp site a long time
ago. I never knew where it came from; somebody must have excluded that
information when they scanned it. I think it might be from one of CUFOS'
periodicals, but I'm not sure.
> I have several questions concerning the Falcon Lake case.
I haven't read it in a year, so I can't help you. I was organizing some
files and thought I'd post it since it's an interesting case.
> I do think that it is problematic that the witness had
> the goggles. They are unsuitable for his tasks, and he
> did complain of burns.
I don't remember that part.
> 2) About the physical complaints. The initial descriptions
> you gave of his "rash" are entirely consistent with multiple
> insect bites. (Ever camped in a place like that?)
Again, I didn't write that... however, you need to see a picture of his
burns and you'll laugh at the silly insect bite explanation. The burns
are arranged perfectly squarely on his torso, each square equidistant
from the neighboring squares, and with an overall square-shaped
containment to the burns. It looked like an exhaust grid. The fact that
he paid for his treatment at the Mayo Clinic for the square-grid burns
is probably most compelling.
I'll have a look at the goggle thing sometime soon.
> Again. I find this to be an interesting report. I am not here to
> debunk it, but am troubled by the welding goggles most of all.
I would agree it's got some uncertainties in it, and I would not list
this as one of my top ten (or twenty) cases. This is one of those truly
weird cases where every hypothesis has major problems, and I posted it
more because it was very interesting than that it's a 'classic case'.
Mainly, I was impressed with the grid burns and his expense at the Mayo
Clinic. His photo from the hospital is in Good's _Above Top Secret_.
They certainly aren't insect bites! I don't even remember who suggested
that absurd idea. Probably Klass.
--
Brian Zeiler
Lawrence E. McKnight
>J. B. Stephen (Buck) wrote:
>
>> Nice write-up, but I am still a sceptic. We have talked before.
>
>Hey, I didn't write that case. I got it on some ftp site a long time
>ago. I never knew where it came from; somebody must have excluded that
>information when they scanned it. I think it might be from one of CUFOS'
>periodicals, but I'm not sure.
IN orther words, it might be a total fabrication. You don't know where
it came from, so you have NO (zero, nada) evidence that ANY of it is
accurate.
>
>> I have several questions concerning the Falcon Lake case.
>
>I haven't read it in a year, so I can't help you. I was organizing some
>files and thought I'd post it since it's an interesting case.
>
>> I do think that it is problematic that the witness had
>> the goggles. They are unsuitable for his tasks, and he
>> did complain of burns.
>
>I don't remember that part.
Hmm. You post 1500 lines, somebody points out something very fishy, and
you don't even bother to look at your own file?
>
>> 2) About the physical complaints. The initial descriptions
>> you gave of his "rash" are entirely consistent with multiple
>> insect bites. (Ever camped in a place like that?)
>
>Again, I didn't write that... however, you need to see a picture of his
>burns and you'll laugh at the silly insect bite explanation. The burns
>are arranged perfectly squarely on his torso, each square equidistant
>from the neighboring squares, and with an overall square-shaped
>containment to the burns. It looked like an exhaust grid. The fact that
>he paid for his treatment at the Mayo Clinic for the square-grid burns
>is probably most compelling.
But you have no way of knowing that ANY of it was accurate, do you? You
got it somewhere, and it may very well have been a hoax, couldn't it?
>
>I'll have a look at the goggle thing sometime soon.
>
>> Again. I find this to be an interesting report. I am not here to
>> debunk it, but am troubled by the welding goggles most of all.
>
>I would agree it's got some uncertainties in it, and I would not list
>this as one of my top ten (or twenty) cases. This is one of those truly
>weird cases where every hypothesis has major problems, and I posted it
>more because it was very interesting than that it's a 'classic case'.
>Mainly, I was impressed with the grid burns and his expense at the Mayo
>Clinic. His photo from the hospital is in Good's _Above Top Secret_.
>They certainly aren't insect bites! I don't even remember who suggested
>that absurd idea. Probably Klass.
>
>--
>Brian Zeiler
---------------
Larry McKnight
(this space unintentionally left blank.....
Brian Zeiler
> IN orther words, it might be a total fabrication. You don't know where
> it came from, so you have NO (zero, nada) evidence that ANY of it is
> accurate.
Uh, no... this case is documented far and wide. I said I didn't know
where THIS file was from, although I knew it at the time, and I suspect
is from CUFOS. This is not the only source on this case, not by any
means.
> Hmm. You post 1500 lines, somebody points out something very fishy, and
> you don't even bother to look at your own file?
That is correct. I posted it because it was interesting. If you find
"something very fishy", do more research on the case and write your own
article. I didn't post it because it was waterproof. I posted it
because it's a thoroughly documented case, written objectively, and is
very inconclusive.
> But you have no way of knowing that ANY of it was accurate, do you? You
> got it somewhere, and it may very well have been a hoax, couldn't it?
No. This case has been studied extensively by many people and
organizations. This is but one of many research items on the case, and
is very thorough and objective. Since this case is still mentioned
often, I thought I'd post it. You're the one saying I posted it because
I was sure it was proof of aliens, but that's idiotic. I posted it
because it's good research.
--
Brian Zeiler
Chris Rutkowski
>>> Nice write-up, but I am still a sceptic. We have talked before.
>>
>>Hey, I didn't write that case. I got it on some ftp site a long time
>>ago. I never knew where it came from; somebody must have excluded that
>>information when they scanned it. I think it might be from one of CUFOS'
>>periodicals, but I'm not sure.
How about ... *I* wrote it, and it was published in the Journal of UFO
Studies. I made a text-only version available on the net, where it has
been added to various ftp archives.
>IN orther words, it might be a total fabrication. You don't know where
>it came from, so you have NO (zero, nada) evidence that ANY of it is
>accurate.
It *might* be a fabrication, but it's completely accurate. The article
is based on many interviews with the witness and his family,
investigators and literally hundreds of pages of government documents,
all of which are fully cited and noted.
>>> I have several questions concerning the Falcon Lake case.
Like what? I missed your follow-up post with these questions.
>>> I do think that it is problematic that the witness had
>>> the goggles. They are unsuitable for his tasks, and he
>>> did complain of burns.
>Hmm. You post 1500 lines, somebody points out something very fishy, and
>you don't even bother to look at your own file?
What's fishy about this, exactly? He was wearing welding goggles to
protect his eyes from rock chips while prospecting. The burns are a
completely other matter.
>>> 2) About the physical complaints. The initial descriptions
>>> you gave of his "rash" are entirely consistent with multiple
>>> insect bites. (Ever camped in a place like that?)
Maybe if you actually read the report ....
His initial burns were nothing resembling insect bites, and these were
well-documented by medical reports. They were thermal/chemical burns -
some of which were second degree burns.
>>Again, I didn't write that... however, you need to see a picture of his
>>burns and you'll laugh at the silly insect bite explanation. The burns
>>are arranged perfectly squarely on his torso, each square equidistant
>>from the neighboring squares, and with an overall square-shaped
>>containment to the burns. It looked like an exhaust grid. The fact that
>>he paid for his treatment at the Mayo Clinic for the square-grid burns
>>is probably most compelling.
You're mixing up a few things. The insect bites came froma later visit
to the site, in the company of investigators. Geez, why can't people
read things first?
>But you have no way of knowing that ANY of it was accurate, do you? You
>got it somewhere, and it may very well have been a hoax, couldn't it?
Like I said, if you actually read the article, you'd note that it is
fully-substantiated and that all the oficail government, military and
civilian reports are available and quoted at length. The article is
*very* accurate. That's why I produced it.
>>I'll have a look at the goggle thing sometime soon.
Please do.
>>> Again. I find this to be an interesting report. I am not here to
>>> debunk it, but am troubled by the welding goggles most of all.
Still not sure why, but OK.
>>I would agree it's got some uncertainties in it, and I would not list
>>this as one of my top ten (or twenty) cases. This is one of those truly
>>weird cases where every hypothesis has major problems, and I posted it
>>more because it was very interesting than that it's a 'classic case'.
On the contrary, because it was investigated by both AMerican and
Canadian military personnel, various other government agencies, police
and civilian investigators, AND because the documentation of their
investigations and reports are available - AND because it's listed as
"unexplained" in the Condon Report - makes it easily one of the best
cases in North America of all time.
>>Mainly, I was impressed with the grid burns and his expense at the Mayo
>>Clinic. His photo from the hospital is in Good's _Above Top Secret_.
>>They certainly aren't insect bites! I don't even remember who suggested
>>that absurd idea. Probably Klass.
Again, you're mixing up two different things.
Try reading the original report. Better yet, get a copy of the printed
version, which has many photos and diagrams.
Or ask the author of the article. That would be the sensible thing for
a skeptic to do, wouldn't it?
--
Chris Rutkowski - rut...@cc.umanitoba.ca
(and now, also: Chris.R...@UMAlumni.mb.ca)
University of Manitoba - Winnipeg, Canada
John and Susan Hutchins
snip
>What's fishy about this, exactly? He was wearing welding goggles to
>protect his eyes from rock chips while prospecting. The burns are a
>completely other matter.
Excuse me, but all the welding goggles I ever used had extremely
dark lenses to protect the eyes not only from hot slag popping of
the object being welded, but also to filter the bright light that
comes from heating metal. Whacking away at rocks or anything else
while your vision is thus impaired may result in serious injury by
not being able to see what you're doing.
>--
>Chris Rutkowski - rut...@cc.umanitoba.ca
>(and now, also: Chris.R...@UMAlumni.mb.ca)
>University of Manitoba - Winnipeg, Canada
John Hutchins
Jim Rogers
>rut...@cc.umanitoba.ca (Chris Rutkowski) wrote:
...
>>What's fishy about this, exactly? He was wearing welding goggles to
>>protect his eyes from rock chips while prospecting. The burns are a
>>completely other matter.
>
>dark lenses to protect the eyes not only from hot slag popping of
>the object being welded, but also to filter the bright light that
>comes from heating metal. Whacking away at rocks or anything else
>while your vision is thus impaired may result in serious injury by
>not being able to see what you're doing.
Clear safety glass for such goggles is available, although the very
dark filter glass is what you usually see.
Jim
Chris Rutkowski
>rut...@cc.umanitoba.ca (Chris Rutkowski) wrote:
>snip
>>protect his eyes from rock chips while prospecting. The burns are a
>>completely other matter.
>Excuse me, but all the welding goggles I ever used had extremely
>dark lenses to protect the eyes not only from hot slag popping of
>the object being welded, but also to filter the bright light that
>comes from heating metal. Whacking away at rocks or anything else
>while your vision is thus impaired may result in serious injury by
>not being able to see what you're doing.
You've obviously not read the original report, which has photographs of
the goggles. In fact, I seem to recall (I wrote it along time ago) that
I noted the witness flipped down the visor only when he tried looking
at the bright lights. Until then, the goggles were clear, uncolored
glass, used for protecting the eyes from projectiles.
You wouldn't think serious investigators (including military and
police) would have overlooked a minor detail like the witness's vision
being impaired, would you?
The goggles were of an old style (consistent with the witness' social
class, profession and economic status) that had a flip-down darkened
glass visor for welding work.
If that's the only problem you have with the case, it must be rock
solid now.
rud...@garnet.berkeley.edu
>How about ... *I* wrote it, and it was published in the Journal of UFO
>Studies. I made a text-only version available on the net, where it has
>been added to various ftp archives.
Although Chris Rutkowski didn't mention it, he also wrote a series of articles
in "Flying Saucer Review," called "The Falcon Lake Incident," Vol. 27, Nos. 1,2,
and 3, 1981. Timothy Good in "Above Top Secret" acknowledges that he leaned
heavily on this account.
>>IN orther words, it might be a total fabrication. You don't know where
>>it came from, so you have NO (zero, nada) evidence that ANY of it is
>>accurate.
>It *might* be a fabrication, but it's completely accurate. The article
>is based on many interviews with the witness and his family,
>investigators and literally hundreds of pages of government documents,
>all of which are fully cited and noted.
>>But you have no way of knowing that ANY of it was accurate, do you? You
>>got it somewhere, and it may very well have been a hoax, couldn't it?
Timothy Good notes the following investigating agencies:
Canadian Depts. of Health and Social Welfare, National Defense, the National
Research Council, the RCMP, the RCAF, the Canadian Aerial Phenomena Research
Organization, the Whiteshell Nuclear Research Establishment, and the University
of Colorado (the Condon commission). Michalak was also examined by a total of
27 different doctors, including the Mayo Clinic.
So as Mr. Rutkowski says, this case has been very THOROUGHLY investigated.
Dr. Horace Dudley, who headed the Radioisotope Laboratory at the US Naval
Hospital, New York, was of the opinion that Michalak's physical symptoms were
consistent with intense, acute radiation poisoning from X-rays or gamma rays.
People do not hoax radiation poisoning.
>Try reading the original report. Better yet, get a copy of the printed
>version, which has many photos and diagrams.
>Or ask the author of the article. That would be the sensible thing for
>a skeptic to do, wouldn't it?
Mr. Rutkowski's frustration is understandable. The debunkers rarely show any
knowledge at all of the cases they so freely ridicule.