• 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!

May 28, 2017 — Chris Rutkowski with J. Randall Murphy


Gene Steinberg

Forum Super Hero
Staff member
I've said it before and I'll say it again: Canadian Ufologist Chris Rutkowski is a class act. On this episode, he discusses the book he wrote with Stan Michalak, "When They Appeared — Falcon Lake 1967: The inside story of a close encounter."

You'll notice in the episode that J. Randall Murphy, our guest co-host, is less impressed with the case than Chris.

That also formed the discussion Randall had with Robert Brandstetter on After The Paracast this week.

After The Paracast is a premium feature of The Paracast+, and you can learn how to subscribe here:

Introducing The Paracast+ | The Paracast — The Gold Standard of Paranormal Radio
 
Regarding both shows, I'm in the camp that tends to believe both Walton and Michalak.
Let me ask you this: If some guy stole your checkbook, forged your signature and made an attempt to cash the checks, was then caught and found guilty, and then came to you and said he was abducted by a UFO and wanted to collect the prize money. You'd believe him? That's basically Walton in a nutshell. The Falcon Lake case is claimed to be something super complex and weird but it's just the story of a single civilian witness and some trace evidence that despite claims to the contrary, could have been staged fairly easily. Just because there are a lot of documents on the case doesn't add any weight to the claim. It does however speak to the situation that making the claim created, and I found that more interesting than the claim itself.
 
Let me ask you this: If some guy stole your checkbook, forged your signature and made an attempt to cash the checks, was then caught and found guilty, and then came to you and said he was abducted by a UFO and wanted to collect the prize money. You'd believe him? That's basically Walton in a nutshell. The Falcon Lake case is claimed to be something super complex and weird but it's just the story of a single civilian witness and some trace evidence that despite claims to the contrary, could have been staged fairly easily. Just because there are a lot of documents on the case doesn't add any weight to the claim. It does however speak to the situation that making the claim created, and I found that more interesting than the claim itself.

That's a really good point of view. Sometimes, what comes from an alleged UFO sighting is more interesting that the sighting itself.
 
Great Canadian content on this week's show. I have mentioned it before; I live in what's considered a UFO hotspot in Quebec. I'm planning to do some good sky watching with a friend this summer and report on what we see (if anything). I've been living there since 2008 and I haven't seen anything significant.
 
:rolleyes: And so it begins. I must ask: Why would you go out of your way to sign-up for the forum just say that? If you can give me something constructive, maybe I can work on it.

I didn't just sign up to comment here, I signed up for paracast+ to support the show.
I was provoked to make my 1st comment after listening to this episode.

Whynot just let the guest speak... its obvious you weren't paying attention anyways and just wanted to troll him from the start.
 
Let me ask you this: If some guy stole your checkbook, forged your signature and made an attempt to cash the checks, was then caught and found guilty, and then came to you and said he was abducted by a UFO and wanted to collect the prize money. You'd believe him? That's basically Walton in a nutshell. The Falcon Lake case is claimed to be something super complex and weird but it's just the story of a single civilian witness and some trace evidence that despite claims to the contrary, could have been staged fairly easily. Just because there are a lot of documents on the case doesn't add any weight to the claim. It does however speak to the situation that making the claim created, and I found that more interesting than the claim itself.
um, what?

Can you, you know, support both those positions?

And yes, I've read your criticism of Walton and I struggle with it.
 
REALLY enjoyed the show this week. It might be because this is one of my favorite (or "favourite" for the Canadian crowd) U.F.O. cases, and it is awesome to hear it getting some attention. As for the Randall haters that may be out there, I may not agree with the Usual Suspect's stance all of the time, but he always takes a very level headed, logical, and properly skeptical approach to all of the subjects touched on in the shows and on the forum (while not being irrationally dismissive, it should be added) It is an approach deeply lacking in the exploration of the paranormal, where eveyone just seems to want to believe. So I, for one, find his take on things refreshing, and appropriate for the Paracast.

Regarding Walton, his cashing in on his maybe real, maybe not, experience, does make his case a little more suspicious in comparison to the Falcon Lake case, but were I to have such an experience I can't say that I wouldn't try to sell the hell out of my story too. I would want to tell as many people as possible about the experience, the world, if possible, if for no other reason than to solidify for myself the reality of the incredible experience.

What I find intriguing about the Michalak case it that it has some wonderful commonalities with other sightings in Canada during the sixties, including the Shag harbour case, and even a sighting by one of my family members years before this. They all seem very nuts and bolts, and seem to involve a flying disc-shaped object that may not be functioning properly. Sounds like test aircraft to me, and that the U.S. government would send investigators up to Canada for a single witness sighting of a flying saucer just seems a little telling to me.
 
I didn't just sign up to comment here, I signed up for paracast+ to support the show.
I was provoked to make my 1st comment after listening to this episode.

Whynot just let the guest speak... its obvious you weren't paying attention anyways and just wanted to troll him from the start.

I found the exchanges between Randall and Chris to be pretty cordial. I wish more people could be so civil to each other.
 
I found the exchanges between Randall and Chris to be pretty cordial. I wish more people could be so civil to each other.
I actually don't mind when they get heated, as long as they remain rational and honest.

Some people seem to mistake intellectual honesty with rudeness.

I'm reminded of course of the infamous question which I'm paraphrasing "if you were on the spaceship for hours, where did you go to the bathroom?"
 
um, what? Can you, you know, support both those positions?
For Walton all one has to do is put themselves in the shoes of the business owner. If the admittedly guilty thief who had ripped you off came to you and said he was abducted by a UFO and wanted more money, what would you think? I thought so. Consider my position on Walton substantiated. Or are you really that gullible?

The Falcon Lake case is more of a challenge, but there's no doubt that there was only a lone civilian witness whose word about what happened is all we have to go on. Nothing alien or even terrestrially advanced was found in any of the trace evidence. For that matter we don't even know for sure they found the right spot when they went they went back looking for the scene of the event. As I mentioned on the show, radioactivity isn't that unusual in the area. There are naturally occurring deposits in the area and that particular spot may have just been hotter that others, and what's more, if it was a hoax, Michalak being an amateur geologist may have known it.


There's also nothing bizarre about silver. It was commonly used for tools and you can see antique examples for sale on eBay. Silver is also a byproduct of gold mining and that's been done at Falcon Lake as well. That means that silver and naturally occurring radioactive substances may have been mined together and at some point somebody fashioned something out of silver that contained radioactive impurities. If we assume it was part of the hoax, then we can add that Michalak was also a metal worker. Obviously he had the knowledge and means to melt silver down and sprinkle some radioactive powder from ore he'd collected at the site into it.

A burnt shirt isn't evidence of anything other than his shirt caught fire, maybe when he was making the silver artifact. Or maybe as others have suggested, it was just an accident and his disoriented behavior was partly alcohol and/or heat stroke induced. We just don't know. Nausea along with the variety of other symptoms and ongoing health problems are symptoms of overdoing it, and there are plenty of people who are very good at hiding their addiction, just ask anyone from AA. Then there's the marks left by the grate. Those look stenciled on, not burned in from some distance away.

I think all those factors are plenty enough to substantiate my position, which isn't that the case has been proven to be a hoax; only that as stated on the show, I'm jsut not comfortable with it, and the only reason I give it any credence at all is because Rukowski, who has a decent reputation in the field, seems to think there's more to it than a hoax or something mundane.
 
I didn't just sign up to comment here, I signed up for paracast+ to support the show.
That's great and part of what the Paracast does is try to separate the signal from the noise, meaning we don't simply take every claim we hear at face value. By questioning claims we are better informed than by blindly believing everything we're told.
I was provoked to make my 1st comment after listening to this episode.
Maybe you mean you felt "compelled" rather than "provoked"? In other words, I hope nobody out there where you are goaded you or prodded you into commenting when you really didn't feel like it.
Why not just let the guest speak...
That's what Noory does on his show and it drives people who are a little more discerning nuts because ( and please forgive me here ) there's just so much BS out there that people are trying to sell as fact, that letting them get away with it negatively affects the reputations of the rest of us who take it seriously.
... that obvious you weren't paying attention anyways and just wanted to troll him from the start.
That actually hurts a bit. I thought Chris had lots of time to speak, I gave him a very positive compliment about his work in the field, and I thought we had a pretty good time participating in a constructive and friendly manner. Let me add here, that I have been the victim of cyberbullying on skeptic forums and I don't condone it in any way shape or form. I just want to get at the truth, and there's a certain way that I go about doing that. You're new here so maybe given a little time you'll come to appreciate my approach more than your first impression, and I hope I can earn your respect somehow along the way if I'm given another opportunity :) .
 
Last edited:
For Walton all one has to do is put themselves in the shoes of the business owner. If the admittedly guilty thief who had ripped you off came to you and said he was abducted by a UFO and wanted more money, what would you think? I thought so. Consider my position on Walton substantiated. Or are you really that gullible?

The Falcon Lake case is more of a challenge, but there's no doubt that there was only a lone civilian witness whose word about what happened is all we have to go on. Nothing alien or even terrestrially advanced was found in any of the trace evidence. For that matter we don't even know for sure they found the right spot when they went they went back looking for the scene of the event. As I mentioned on the show, radioactivity isn't that unusual in the area. There are naturally occurring deposits in the area and that particular spot may have just been hotter that others, and what's more, if it was a hoax, Michalak being an amateur geologist may have known it.


There's also nothing bizarre about silver. It was commonly used for tools and you can see antique examples for sale on eBay. Silver is also a byproduct of gold mining and that's been done at Falcon Lake as well. That means that silver and naturally occurring radioactive substances may have been mined together and at some point somebody fashioned something out of silver that contained radioactive impurities. If we assume it was part of the hoax, then we can add that Michalak was also a metal worker. Obviously he had the knowledge and means to melt silver down and sprinkle some radioactive powder from ore he'd collected at the site into it.

A burnt shirt isn't evidence of anything other than his shirt caught fire, maybe when he was making the silver artifact. Or maybe as others have suggested, it was just an accident and his disoriented behavior was partly alcohol and/or heat stroke induced. We just don't know. Nausea along with the variety of other symptoms and ongoing health problems are symptoms of overdoing it, and there are plenty of people who are very good at hiding their addiction, just ask anyone from AA. Then there's the marks left by the grate. Those look stenciled on, not burned in from some distance away.

I think all those factors are plenty enough to substantiate my position, which isn't that the case has been proven to be a hoax; only that as stated on the show, I'm jsut not comfortable with it, and the only reason I give it any credence at all is because Rukowski, who has a decent reputation in the field, seems to think there's more to it than a hoax or something mundane.
All you are really saying here is that any single witness experience really isn't evidence of anything for anyone but the experiencer.

Which I agree with. They all go into my grey basket unless I'm the one experiencing it.

However the interesting facts about the falcon lake experience are: the burns, the radioactivity (sorry natural sources aren't that easy to rub off on a human and be detectable) , and the account.

And I still am compelled and fascinated by Walton.
 
All you are really saying here is that any single witness experience really isn't evidence of anything for anyone but the experiencer.

Which I agree with. They all go into my grey basket unless I'm the one experiencing it.

However the interesting facts about the falcon lake experience are: the burns, the radioactivity (sorry natural sources aren't that easy to rub off on a human and be detectable) , and the account.

And I still am compelled and fascinated by Walton.
Sure that's all fair enough. I actually find it difficult sometimes to be so skeptical because I don't want to come off as being offhandedly dismissive. But to be fair, I apply the same standards to my own accounts. Sure I'm a bit disappointed when people don't believe me, but realistically without more than just my story it's just not reasonable to expect everyone to believe. I can only thank them for being open minded enough to listen, and try to come across as level headed as possible so as to give the impression that I've thought the experience through on some objective level.

If Michalak was telling the honest truth then he certainly knew, and nobody can begrudge him that. I do believe some experiences are completely genuine, I just don't know which ones. I realize that seems contradictory on the surface, but having been a witness myself I'd have to be arrogant beyond words to think that my personal experience is the only real one that's ever happened in the whole history of the world! I also agree that the Michalak and Walton cases both deserve a prominent place in the history of the subject, and Rutkowski remains one of my favorite guests on the show.
 
Last edited:
Sure that's all fair enough. I actually find it difficult sometimes to be so skeptical because I don't want to come off as being offhandedly dismissive. But to be fair, I apply the same standards to my own accounts. Sure I'm a bit disappointed when people don't believe me, but realistically without more than just my story it's just not reasonable to expect everyone to believe. I can only thank them for being open minded enough to listen, and try to come across as level headed as possible so as to give the impression that I've thought the experience through on some objective level.

If Michalak was telling the honest truth then he certainly knew, and nobody can begrudge him that. I do believe some experiences are completely genuine, I just don't know which ones. I realize that seems contradictory on the surface, but having been a witness myself I'd have to be arrogant beyond words to think that my personal experience is the only real one that's ever happened in the whole history of the world! I also agree that the Michalak and Walton cases both deserve a prominent place in the history of the subject, and Rutkowski remains one of my favorite guests on the show.
In my mind, it's a pure epistemological issue. What you know because you experienced it does not mean that I know it. I'm a bit of a empiricist, you have to prove something to me for me to consider it knowledge unless I've experienced it myself.

How would you account for the radioactivity question in this case? Or the burns? I'll admit I haven't finished listening to the episode yet.
 
In my mind, it's a pure epistemological issue. What you know because you experienced it does not mean that I know it. I'm a bit of a empiricist, you have to prove something to me for me to consider it knowledge unless I've experienced it myself.
Exactly.
How would you account for the radioactivity question in this case?
As mentioned earlier, when I first looked into the case I checked the local geology and it turned out that there are natural occurring radioactive deposits in the area, so the specific area in question may have simply had a higher concentration, which would account for it being "higher than the background radiation". Plus if hoaxing was the aim, it would help to know about that facet of the geology, and as it happens, Michalak was an amateur geologist.
Or the burns?
Rutkowski pretty much describes how the marks might have been done, and I'd have to agree that they look stenciled on, as in from something right next to the skin. By the look of the marks, any grid farther than a few millimeters away would normally diffuse any gasses coming through the holes and consequently not left such a well defined pattern.

The marks on his body also don't appear to match the marks on his shirt very well or his drawing of the vent. The position of the bottom row on his body is not centered as indicated in his picture or the marks on his shirt, and the whole pattern on his body is much lower on his torso than on the shirt. To me it looks like he simply took his shirt off, placed a grid with holes over the area and laid out in the sun for a while. However Rukowski said the marks were deemed to have been chemically caused, so maybe it was literally some sort of spray-on irritant. There's plenty available in your local supermarket household cleaners aisle.

Pattern & Location of Marks Do Not Match

stefan-michalak-shirt.jpg
NEP2500394.jpg
 
Last edited:
Exactly.As mentioned earlier, when I first looked into the case I checked the local geology and it turned out that there are natural occurring radioactive deposits in the area, so the specific area in question may have simply had a higher concentration, which would account for it being "higher than the background radiation".
That seems to have been taken into account, and the radioactivity seems to be isolated to the experiencer, stuff he had on him, and a 15 foot radius at the site:

At the landing site was a circle about 15 feet in diameter, devoid of the moss and vegetation growing in other areas of the same rock outcropping. Soil samples, along with samples of clothing, were tested and deemed to be highly radioactive.
Falcon Lake incident is Canada's 'best-documented UFO case,' even 50 years later

Plus if hoaxing was the aim, it would help to know about that facet of the geology, and as it happens, Michalak was an amateur geologist. Rutkowski pretty much describes how the marks might have been done, and I'd have to agree that they look stenciled on, as in from something right next to the skin. By the look of the marks, any grid farther than a few millimeters away would normally diffuse any gasses coming through the holes and consequently not left such a well defined pattern.

What about them scarring and staying on him until he died? Hard for stencils to do that. It's also hard to imagine someone doing that just to make up a UFO story.

The marks on his body also don't appear to match the marks on his shirt very well or his drawing of the vent. The position of the bottom row on his body is not centered as indicated in his picture or the marks on his shirt, and the whole pattern on his body is much lower on his torso than on the shirt. To me it looks like he simply took his shirt off, placed a grid with holes over the area and laid out in the sun for a while. However Rukowski said the marks were deemed to have been chemically caused, so maybe it was literally some sort of spray-on irritant. There's plenty available in your local supermarket household cleaners aisle.

Now that is interesting. The bottom row on his shirt appears to have a smaller number of dots, and on his body these are absent.

It also looks too far down, however if he had been bent over at the time it could account for this. It also looks smaller than on his body, however one could imagine the effect on the skin being larger than the effect on the shirt.

Pattern & Location of Marks Do Not Match

stefan-michalak-shirt.jpg
NEP2500394.jpg
 
Back
Top