Ask Chris Rutkowski! A New Look at the Falcon Lake UFO

[Gene Steinberg]

One of our favorite UFO researchers, Canada's Chris Rutkowski, returns to The Paracast to talk about a new book about a classic UFO encounter that he wrote with Stan Michalak, "When They Appeared — Falcon Lake 1967: The inside story of a close encounter." Just what really opened?

“Chris Rutkowski, BSc, MEd, is a Canadian science writer and educator, with a background in astronomy but with a passion for teaching science concepts to children and adults. Since the mid-1970s, he also has been studying reports of UFOs and writing about his investigations and research.”

This episode will be regarded Thursday, May 25th from 3:00 PM until 5:00 PM Pacific time.

 

[Ron Away]

Along with Falcon Lake and Shag harbour 1967 was exceptionally busy regarding UFO reports.Was there a prosaic reason that has emerged for this ie cold war tensions or something similar?.
Thanks in advance.

 

[marduk]

Oh, I'm going to read this one for sure.

Chris, can you talk about your experience in openness from the Canadian government and military as it contrasts with the American policy of blanket denial?

Outside looking in, it seems like Canada's official response seems to be "that's weird, here's the data, don't know what to make of it," and the American response seems to be "nothing to see here, move along."

 

[marduk]

Heads up: the book isn't out for a week or two.

 

[Burnt State]

Other notable links:

Stan Michalak & Chris Rutkowski -- Book Launch - McNally Robinson Booksellers

Ufology Research: The Falcon Lake Case - In Brief

This case is one that has long fascinated ever since I was a kid and saw the image of that burn mark pattern on his torso. It's one of those ones that screams "aliens", for his details sounds like someone fully awake encountering nuts and bolts technology from somewhere else.

Questions:

What do you make of the lack of corroborating witnesses for this incident?

Jerome Clark has said things similar to the effect that if an alien ship landed on this planet and made contact with us then it's the type of thing that could not be hidden from the annals of human history - it's way too big an event. What do you make of this case and other similar compelling cases that we still do not have a definitive example of alien contact? What does this tell you about the nature of the phenomenon?

What did Michalak ultimately believe about what had happened to him and did he have other incidents of a paranormal nature in his life following this?

 

[Gene Steinberg]

Thanks. The show is "in the can." Lots of great content there, and I think Chris addressed the issues of the case. We had less focus on the possible alien aspects.

 

[Randall]

Other notable links:

Stan Michalak & Chris Rutkowski -- Book Launch - McNally Robinson Booksellers

Ufology Research: The Falcon Lake Case - In Brief

This case is one that has long fascinated ever since I was a kid and saw the image of that burn mark pattern on his torso. It's one of those ones that screams "aliens", for his details sounds like someone fully awake encountering nuts and bolts technology from somewhere else.

Questions:

What do you make of the lack of corroborating witnesses for this incident?

Jerome Clark has said things similar to the effect that if an alien ship landed on this planet and made contact with us then it's the type of thing that could not be hidden from the annals of human history - it's way too big an event. What do you make of this case and other similar compelling cases that we still do not have a definitive example of alien contact? What does this tell you about the nature of the phenomenon?

What did Michalak ultimately believe about what had happened to him and did he have other incidents of a paranormal nature in his life following this?

Sorry I missed your question. This was another last minute thing for me again and I was getting over a migraine and running on a sleep deficit. Hopefully Chris R. will join the conversation and answer. In the meantime, I'm still not comfortable with the case. Something about it just doesn't sit right with me. I'll probably have more to say about that on the ATP episode. Here's one skeptic's view:

The Iron Skeptic - Stefan Michalak's Ridiculous Story

That being said, Chris R. made a very interesting observation about the way the case was investigated by the officials. He is also much closer to it personally than nearly anyone else outside the family of the experiencer, and that has given him a lot of time to reflect on subtle facets of it. He seems convinced that some sort of craft was actually observed, and one of the things I've always liked about Rutkowski is that he's come across ( at least to me ) as one of the the most level headed ufologists in the field. So if he's convinced that something strange happened, then I'm more inclined to take it seriously.

 

[marduk]

Sorry I missed your question. This was another last minute thing for me again and I was getting over a migraine and running on a sleep deficit. Hopefully Chris R. will join the conversation and answer. In the meantime, I'm still not comfortable with the case. Something about it just doesn't sit right with me. I'll probably have more to say about that on the ATP episode. Here's one skeptic's view:

The Iron Skeptic - Stefan Michalak's Ridiculous Story

That being said, Chris R. made a very interesting observation about the way the case was investigated by the officials. He is also much closer to it personally than nearly anyone else outside the family of the experiencer, and that has given him a lot of time to reflect on subtle facets of it. He seems convinced that some sort of craft was actually observed, and one of the things I've always liked about Rutkowski is that he's come across ( at least to me ) as one of the the most level headed ufologists in the field. So if he's convinced that something strange happened, then I'm more inclined to take it seriously.

This is one of the stupidest skeptical analysis I've ever read.

If you don't want to waste your time, it distils down to this:

He didn't show the cop his burns, and the radioactivity measured on him came from somebody's watch or something.

Add some comments about beer and whiskey somehow leading to hallucinations and the witness being sullen and none of it means aliens...

I'm not saying it's aliens or his story is true. But I am saying that this is a terrible analysis of the events.

 

[Randall]

This is one of the stupidest skeptical analysis I've ever read.

If you don't want to waste your time, it distils down to this:

He didn't show the cop his burns, and the radioactivity measured on him came from somebody's watch or something.

Add some comments about beer and whiskey somehow leading to hallucinations and the witness being sullen and none of it means aliens...

I'm not saying it's aliens or his story is true. But I am saying that this is a terrible analysis of the events.

It's weak for sure, but at the same time, it's still worth considering the various points and counterpoints. I imagine it will get brought-up again on the ATP taping later this afternoon, so if there's anything you'd like to add or ask for that then post it up and I'll watch the thread while we're recording.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

Randall and Burnt State will both talk about this case on this week's After The Paracast.

To hear it, you gotta join up.

Check Introducing The Paracast+ | The Paracast — The Gold Standard of Paranormal Radio

 

[Burnt State]

That being said, Chris R. made a very interesting observation about the way the case was investigated by the officials. He is also much closer to it personally than nearly anyone else outside the family of the experiencer, and that has given him a lot of time to reflect on subtle facets of it. He seems convinced that some sort of craft was actually observed, and one of the things I've always liked about Rutkowski is that he's come across ( at least to me ) as one of the the most level headed ufologists in the field. So if he's convinced that something strange happened, then I'm more inclined to take it seriously.

Agreed on the value of Rutkowski...the field needs many more like him. He is dedicated, pragmatic, funny, consistent, completes actual research that is meaningful and everything I've read of his work is both insightful and solid. He's the closest thing I know to what a real "Ufoligist" should be like. Consequently, he doesnt get the attention he deserves. One could say much of the same of Bishop.

But when you don't focus on being a populist or advocating the consumer angle of Ufology you don't really get promoted properly.

 

[Randall]

Agreed on the value of Rutkowski...the field needs many more like him. He is dedicated, pragmatic, funny, consistent, completes actual research that is meaningful and everything I've read of his work is both insightful and solid. He's the closest thing I know to what a real "Ufoligist" should be like. Consequently, he doesnt get the attention he deserves. One could say much of the same of Bishop.

One could say the same about Bishop, but he and I mix like oil and water.

But when you don't focus on being a populist or advocating the consumer angle of Ufology you don't really get promoted properly.

Well we've certainly seen how that works with the Ancient Aliens angle. Look how Tsoukalos milked that into a full time career ... LOL.

The main problem I've found with ufology is that everybody is more interested in holding onto their own personal 2½ square foot piece of turf regardless of whatever objective evidence or reasoning there might be for thinking or doing things differently than they do. I also freely admit that my dedication to the way I approach ufology is at cross purposes with much of what I see going on in the field. I'm also the kind of person who needs a better reason than going along with the crowd before I'll change my views, and people don't tend to like it when they have it pointed out to them that their reasoning doesn't measure up.

So at least I'm hanging onto my 2½ square foot piece of turf for reasons that have some substance as well as belief. Yup. I said "belief". I get the skeptic's point about blind faith and so on, but I'm also getting a bit sick of belief being treated like a dirty word. It's not. I don't just "want to believe". I completely unashamedly admit that I do believe. I have no doubt whatsoever that there are other witnesses out there who also know alien visitation is real. They know who they are. They know it inside because of their own personal experience and intelligence, and no skeptic or debunker can change that by simply making up some alternative story that fits their own skeptical bias.