• NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

Chris Rutkowski and 25 Years of Canadian UFO Reports


Gene Steinberg

Forum Super Hero
Staff member
Long-time UFO investigator Chris Rutkowski has accumulated a huge archive containing some 15,000 UFO cases in Canada. The new survey covers the years 1989 through 2013. When you check the report at his Ufology Reseach site:…

Ufology Research

…you'll notice that the number of sightings increased in 2012 before settling down to a somewhat lower, but still historically high, level in 2013.

The conclusion is measured: "…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."

Says his bio: "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 recorded on Wednesday, Aug. 27.
 
1) Chris, the Ufology Research study received and collected reports from "from official agencies such as the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP), Canadian Forces, Transport Canada and other official bodies." I'd like to hear more about what level of co-operation the Canadian government offers.

2) Reports are only made by a random fraction of UFO sighters. Would it be feasable to organize skywatches in historically active areas to get reports from prepared observers?

3) Do you ever get any wrong numbers- people trying to report other weirdness like Bigfoot?
 
  1. How complete are the reports you receive and to what extent are you able to follow-up on them by contacting witnesses, liaising with the RCAF, Transport Canada, RCMP, any "insider connections"?
  2. The December 11th, 1996 Fox Lake case has been written off by skeptics as the re-entry of soviet space junk . In your opinion does that adequately explain all the facets of the incident? Why? Why not?
  3. Do you have any UFO reports on file other than the Michalak case that involve human or animal injury, illness, or death?
  4. What are your top 5 Canadian UFO sighting reports of all time? Why?
  5. What is your opinion of the Corena Saebels abduction claim? Any other Canadian abduction cases you think are worthy of serious attention?
 
1) as a Canadian investigator what are your thoughts on Oberg's debunking of the classic December 1996 Yukon mother ship sighting? Do you think there's any merit to his claim that witnesses were actually seeing the second stage re-entry of the Cosmos 2335 rocket?

2) the 1967 Falcon Lake Michalak case has always fascinated me because of the detailed story Stefan Michalak tells and the corroborating detailed burn pattern on his clothes and body from a ufo's exhaust port. As someone who has investigated this story just how important do you feel this case is in the annals of Ufology and why?

3) the other great Canadian case has to be Newfoundland's Shag Harbour incident in 1967. What are your thoughts about what happened there and is there any evidence suggesting an underwater retrieval of a strange craft entering the water?

4) In the report you reference the complications that arise of including recent data from CE3 and CE4 incidents. Are any of the cases you allude to particularly compelling and if so please explain what features make them so.
 
1) Chris, the Ufology Research study received and collected reports from "from official agencies such as the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP), Canadian Forces, Transport Canada and other official bodies." I'd like to hear more about what level of co-operation the Canadian government offers.

2) Reports are only made by a random fraction of UFO sighters. Would it be feasable to organize skywatches in historically active areas to get reports from prepared observers?

3) Do you ever get any wrong numbers- people trying to report other weirdness like Bigfoot?
I was really interested in the article in Blue Blurry Lines. What is your explanation for the helicopters. It seems from reading your very good article that they are also UFOs.
 
Flipper, that may be too detailed to get into on the show, but if they want to try, it would be interesting to hear a disscussion of TV UFO infotainment. I weote an article on this, Blue Blurry Lines: Cash-Landrum As Seen on TV: Close Encounters , but to try to sum it up:

Chris was one of several experts featured on the Discovery Canada's program "Close Encounters," and theses show typically find it more economical and expedient to film commentary for several stories at once, then edit them into different episodes. The show covered the Cash-Landrum case, with Chris and Mark Rodeghier providing the commentary, even though neither investigated the case or are experts on it. Both Chris and Mark made a mistake or two in their recaps of the case, and they also speculated a bit, Mark on electromagnetic effects from the UFO stopping the car's engine, and Chris in describing "helicopter-like objects" following the UFO.

What made it to the screen was a hyped up caricature of the case. The real problem was that the program did not thoroughly fact-check the story. Minor errors from the experts were magnified and compounded when the overly dramatic reenactment was based on their description rather than case records. Even so, this show is better than many!

All that's probally too long to fit between breaks, so maybe we should just ask Chris:
What are some of the benefits and negatives of television coverage of UFO cases?
 
Flipper, that may be too detailed to get into on the show, but if they want to try, it would be interesting to hear a disscussion of TV UFO infotainment. I weote an article on this, Blue Blurry Lines: Cash-Landrum As Seen on TV: Close Encounters , but to try to sum it up:

Chris was one of several experts featured on the Discovery Canada's program "Close Encounters," and theses show typically find it more economical and expedient to film commentary for several stories at once, then edit them into different episodes. The show covered the Cash-Landrum case, with Chris and Mark Rodeghier providing the commentary, even though neither investigated the case or are experts on it. Both Chris and Mark made a mistake or two in their recaps of the case, and they also speculated a bit, Mark on electromagnetic effects from the UFO stopping the car's engine, and Chris in describing "helicopter-like objects" following the UFO.

What made it to the screen was a hyped up caricature of the case. The real problem was that the program did not thoroughly fact-check the story. Minor errors from the experts were magnified and compounded when the overly dramatic reenactment was based on their description rather than case records. Even so, this show is better than many!

All that's probally too long to fit between breaks, so maybe we should just ask Chris:
What are some of the benefits and negatives of television coverage of UFO cases?
Your right so I will change my question to: " Are there reports of UFOs changing shape into or from, houses, planes or everyday objects?"
 
Some people choose not to report their sightings, but years later change their mind.
What advice can you give to anyone wanting to report an old sighting?
 
Back
Top