PDA

View Full Version : ufos on the ground



pepiboy32
2011-Jul-03, 06:07 PM
there are several well known cases in the field of ufology which involve 'landed' ufos.
these are interesting because skeptics cant use the 'misidentification of astronomical bodies' argument.

one such case that has intrigued me for years, is that of stefan micholak.

micholak claimed that he saw 2 cigar shaped objects hovering in the air then one of these objects actually landed. whatever this object was left physical traces at the landing site proving that something had actually landed.

michalak claimed that a 'door' had opened in the side of the craft and he could see inside. after some time, the door closed and the craft began to rotate counter clockwise. at this point, the craft exuded a gaseous substance from a vent that michalak had noticed on the side of the craft. this set his clothes on fire and caused him to jump back. the craft then rose to about 40 feet in the air and subsequently vanished.

michalak soon felt extremely nauseous and confused. he managed to find his way home (taking some 9 hours to do so) and over the next several weeks became very ill.

the burn marks on his abdomen were in the exact shape of the vent that he described on the side of the craft, and curiously, these burn marks re-appeared every 3 months over aperiod of about 14 months. doctors had no explanation for whatever was causing this.


ps. i havent been able to find any debunking of this case at all. i would appreciate it if anyone has any references to this case from any skeptical publications.

captain swoop
2011-Jul-03, 06:14 PM
What were the 'physical traces' that proved the craft landed? who else saw them?

How did he get a burn mark the same shape as the 'vent' when it was some kind of 'gas' that set his clothes on fire, he didn't come into direct contact with the vent?

How close was he that the gas could set him on fire?

Hal37214
2011-Jul-03, 06:14 PM
ps. i havent been able to find any debunking of this case at all. i would appreciate it if anyone has any references to this case from any skeptical publications.

Very first result from a Google search for "Stefan Micholak":

Stefan Michalak's Story: No Aliens Required. (http://www.theironskeptic.com/articles/michalak/michalak.htm)

Swift
2011-Jul-03, 06:19 PM
pepiboy32,

In your other UFO thread (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/116302-pepiboy32-introduces-oscar-santamaria-huertes?p=1907955#post1907955) you were told you need to answer questions that have been put to you. Now, if you wish to deal with the obligations of two threads at the same time, that is your choice. But if you have the time for this thread, you have time for the other one. Your very next post, ANYWHERE on BAUT will be in your other thread, and will start to address the outstanding questions that I've listed in my last post, or you will be infracted and suspended. No more games.

Garrison
2011-Jul-03, 06:24 PM
there are several well known cases in the field of ufology which involve 'landed' ufos.
these are interesting because skeptics cant use the 'misidentification of astronomical bodies' argument.

one such case that has intrigued me for years, is that of stefan micholak.

micholak claimed that he saw 2 cigar shaped objects hovering in the air then one of these objects actually landed. whatever this object was left physical traces at the landing site proving that something had actually landed.

michalak claimed that a 'door' had opened in the side of the craft and he could see inside. after some time, the door closed and the craft began to rotate counter clockwise. at this point, the craft exuded a gaseous substance from a vent that michalak had noticed on the side of the craft. this set his clothes on fire and caused him to jump back. the craft then rose to about 40 feet in the air and subsequently vanished.

michalak soon felt extremely nauseous and confused. he managed to find his way home (taking some 9 hours to do so) and over the next several weeks became very ill.

the burn marks on his abdomen were in the exact shape of the vent that he described on the side of the craft, and curiously, these burn marks re-appeared every 3 months over aperiod of about 14 months. doctors had no explanation for whatever was causing this.


ps. i havent been able to find any debunking of this case at all. i would appreciate it if anyone has any references to this case from any skeptical publications.

Now there is slightly more here than most UFO stories but not much more. I found one picture of the burns here (http://ufocasebook.com/Falconlake.html)but its very poor and nothing about them seems especially extraterrestrial, and if they were terrestrial, well people have done worse things to themselves if they have mental issues or even just to garner attention. As for the rest it's just one mans unsupported testimony, again. And before anyone brings it up no he didn't make any money from his account but he did write a book and the fact that it lost money doesn't mean he had no intention of profiting from his story.

Perikles
2011-Jul-03, 06:26 PM
there are several well known cases in the field of ufology which involve 'landed' ufos. .If it has landed, then it's no longer a UFO, surely. It's a ULO.

Gillianren
2011-Jul-03, 06:45 PM
Pepiboy, consider this a question of any story you're bringing forward. What would it take to seriously convince you that there was a mundane explanation for these events?

Strange
2011-Jul-03, 07:12 PM
one such case that has intrigued me for years, is that of stefan micholak.
...
ps. i havent been able to find any debunking of this case at all. i would appreciate it if anyone has any references to this case from any skeptical publications.

Can I suggest that, in future, you provide some references for cases you want to discuss. The first few sites Googling the name found mainly discussed the contradictions and inadequacies of his story, which rather made me lose interest. He just doesn't seem a very reliable witness.


whatever this object was left physical traces at the landing site proving that something had actually landed.

Specifically, could you provide a reference for this; none of the sites I looked at mentioned any physical traces (apart from a few bits of metal, etc. that SM came up with much later).

Swift
2011-Jul-03, 08:12 PM
Can I suggest that, in future, you provide some references for cases you want to discuss. The first few sites Googling the name found mainly discussed the contradictions and inadequacies of his story, which rather made me lose interest. He just doesn't seem a very reliable witness.

Specifically, could you provide a reference for this; none of the sites I looked at mentioned any physical traces (apart from a few bits of metal, etc. that SM came up with much later).
I'll make that official. Please link to some reference materials for this incident, and any future incidents you wish to discuss. Or at least give a lot more than 'the incident of stefan micholak' - date, location, etc.

Onyx5233
2011-Aug-17, 06:43 AM
Assuming that the reported speed of these U.F.O's are accurate then wouldn't the fuel source be something that would otherwise be terribly reactive or at the very least leave some serious residue?
Landing a U.F.O would leave an even greater mark, one which could be impossible to attribute to natural cause.

slang
2011-Aug-17, 10:32 AM
Assuming that the reported speed of these U.F.O's are accurate then wouldn't the fuel source be something that would otherwise be terribly reactive or at the very least leave some serious residue?
Landing a U.F.O would leave an even greater mark, one which could be impossible to attribute to natural cause.

Who knows? Since we know nothing about any of these claimed craft, there's really nothing we can say about what to expect from their method of propulsion. Your guess is as good as any.

tnjrp
2011-Aug-17, 10:42 AM
For those who missed the memo: although some UFO proponents like to speculate on the methods of propulsion and other technologies involved, the more (ahem) careful ones just go about trying to show that what has transpired cannot be explained by mundane means such as known human technology, hence by sheer logic it must have been caused by agents not mundane (c.f. extraterrestrials).

Other than that, I'm just sitting here waiting for the references myself. Obviously any UFO case with some physical evidence remaining is much more interesting than mere anecdotes.

R.A.F.
2011-Aug-17, 05:12 PM
Assuming that the reported speed of these U.F.O's are accurate...

Why would you make such an assumption??

Garrison
2011-Aug-17, 06:41 PM
Assuming that the reported speed of these U.F.O's are accurate then wouldn't the fuel source be something that would otherwise be terribly reactive or at the very least leave some serious residue?
Landing a U.F.O would leave an even greater mark, one which could be impossible to attribute to natural cause.

Doesn't really follow. We have man made objects that re-enter at very high speeds and decelerate without using any sort of propulsion and land leaving minimal trace. So if any UFO's claimed to be traveling at very high velocities were spacecraft(and thats a huge if) then their velocity might be function of entering the atmosphere rather than any exotic propulsion system.

JayUtah
2011-Aug-17, 07:11 PM
...

these are interesting because skeptics cant use the 'misidentification of astronomical bodies' argument.

But we can still use the "concocted a wild story in order to get attention" argument, which aptly fits here.

Misidentification is not limited to astronomical bodies. Many natural and man-made objects are routinely interpreted as alien spacecraft. Or ghosts, or angels, or swamp monsters, or Bigfoot. The problem with most of the farfetched claims is that they make a specific assertion as to cause (extraterrestrial or interdimensional visitors) and then propose to prove that specific proposition by eliminating some number of other alternatives. No amount of disproof for something else satisfies a burden of proof for an alien-visitor claim.

This is why conscientious researchers and investigators can't take UFO proponents seriously. The far-fetched, extraordinary claim is always held as the default unless some specific prosaic cause is conclusively proven. You don't get to set up your desired conclusion as the null hypothesis.

whatever this object was left physical traces at the landing site proving that something had actually landed.

No. Michalak produced artifacts he claimed he had recovered from the place where he claimed he saw something land. The few objects he permitted others to examine were ordinary in nature. How does that prove his claim?

the craft exuded a gaseous substance from a vent that michalak had noticed on the side of the craft. this set his clothes on fire and caused him to jump back.

Except the investigating officer seemed to think his clothes had merely been made to look like they had been burnt. Further, Michalak can't explain how the burn on his stomach took on the exact shape of the vents in the grille he had claimed to see, while also describing the incendiary material as "gaseous." Gaseous would mean "exhibiting the properties of a gas," and one of the notable properties of a gas is its flow behavior. Nor was he able to explain how the venting had burned him so precisely through his shirt. Nor why it was hot enough to set his clothes on fire and burn his skin, but burned only his glove and left his hand untouched.

michalak soon felt extremely nauseous and confused.

Probably from all the beer he drank.

...over the next several weeks became very ill.

Or rather claimed to be. School kids the world over convincingly feign illness. How is this proof that he saw a UFO land?

the burn marks on his abdomen were in the exact shape of the vent that he described on the side of the craft...

...which is monumentally suspicious, as described above.

...and curiously, these burn marks re-appeared every 3 months over aperiod of about 14 months.

It's pretty easy to burn yourself over and over if that's what you want to do.

doctors had no explanation for whatever was causing this.

In treating burns, doctors assume the patient is aware of what burned him and rely upon the patient's report. If the patient is deceptive or uncooperative, there's not much a doctor can do. The evidence here is more easily explained by a series of self-inflicted burns by someone seeking attention. The claim here wrongly assumes it's difficult to undermine a doctor's expertise.

This case is very unremarkable. There is no physical evidence in this case that does not come through the custody of its claimant and which cannot be fabricated or altered by means easily available to the claimant. There is no aspect of the evidence that addresses the sighting; it is simply attributed to the story. There are considerable internal and external inconsistencies with the story, and a clear pattern of attention-seeking.

Is this really something you consider a "good" UFO story? It's pretty clearly a hoax.

pepiboy32
2011-Aug-22, 11:31 AM
jay - where did you get the idea that he'd consumed lots of beer?

pepiboy32
2011-Aug-22, 11:35 AM
and what about sulphur?

Sardonicone
2011-Aug-22, 11:48 AM
jay - where did you get the idea that he'd consumed lots of beer?

Probably from here:

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


But here are the simple facts relating to the case: Michalak claimed that not only had he not been drinking on the day of the encounter, but he had not drank any alcohol, at all, all weekend. A quick check with the local bartender confirmed that, the night before the encounter, Michalak had come in and had at least 5 bottles of beer. When returning to the site with investigators, they stopped at a bar and he had quite a few “Presbyterians”, a drink made with Rye Whiskey and a 50/50 ginger ale/water.

Strange
2011-Aug-22, 12:13 PM
and what about sulphur?

What about it? As you haven't previously mentioned it - and you haven't provided any references - I'm not sure what to make of it. It is mentioned in the article linked above (1), which makes him sound like a totally unreliable witness anyway. There is no independent evidence of lumps of sulphur or similar being found anywhere nearby (2). And what would be the relevance of sulphur anyway; why would that add any credibility to his story?

(1) You know, the one that says, "the story behind that picture is so bizarre, and so ridiculous, that it’s absolutely stupefying that anyone could have ever taken it seriously".

(2) And I wonder if he really meant sulphur; do most people know what sulphur smells like? People are more likely to have encountered hydrogen sulphide or sulphur dioxide.

pepiboy32
2011-Aug-22, 12:34 PM
my reference to sulphur was deliberately vague.

it is meant to sort out the wheat from the chaff.

anyone who knows about this case will know what i'm refering to... the ironskeptic brigade will be non-the wiser.

i suspected that jay had lazily jumped on the ironskeptic bandwagon... suspicions confirmed.

Strange
2011-Aug-22, 12:43 PM
my reference to sulphur was deliberately vague.

it is meant to sort out the wheat from the chaff.

anyone who knows about this case will know what i'm refering to... the ironskeptic brigade will be non-the wiser.

i suspected that jay had lazily jumped on the ironskeptic bandwagon... suspicions confirmed.

So for those of us who have only been able to find references pointing out how implausible the stories of this drunk guy are, can you tell us where we find The True Story behind all this, which will reveal the True Significance of Sulfur...

pepiboy32
2011-Aug-22, 12:45 PM
Very first result from a Google search for "Stefan Micholak":

Stefan Michalak's Story: No Aliens Required. (http://www.theironskeptic.com/articles/michalak/michalak.htm)

apologies but i thought i'd responded to this post already.

the ironskeptics debunking of this case is nothing short of a disgrace.

i was asking for SERIOUS views on the case.

Strange
2011-Aug-22, 12:51 PM
apologies but i thought i'd responded to this post already.

the ironskeptics debunking of this case is nothing short of a disgrace.

i was asking for SERIOUS views on the case.

So how about providing a reference to an analysis that isn't a disgrace. As I said when this first came up, a quick google brings up nothing but similar accounts of a drunken and/or delusional man. You have provided no reason to take his story seriously.

pepiboy32
2011-Aug-22, 12:58 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eidwk-Jg2aI

the reference to sulphur is found from 6:00 mins.

stan michalak (stefan's son) also blows away jay's accusation of stefan 'feigning' illness.

it also explains that the doctors eventually diagnosed that the burns had been inflicted 'chemically'

Swift
2011-Aug-22, 01:07 PM
my reference to sulphur was deliberately vague.

it is meant to sort out the wheat from the chaff.

anyone who knows about this case will know what i'm refering to... the ironskeptic brigade will be non-the wiser.

i suspected that jay had lazily jumped on the ironskeptic bandwagon... suspicions confirmed.
pepilboy32,

Stop playing games. You may not create some selection criteria on who may or may not participate in this thread. You will drop the veiled insults like "ironskeptic brigade". Your next infraction will result in your permanent banning from BAUT. If you wish to continue to particpate here, you will follow our rules; if not, your stay will be short - your choice.

Strange
2011-Aug-22, 01:37 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eidwk-Jg2aI

the reference to sulphur is found from 6:00 mins.

stan michalak (stefan's son) also blows away jay's accusation of stefan 'feigning' illness.

it also explains that the doctors eventually diagnosed that the burns had been inflicted 'chemically'

I'm afraid I can't watch YouTube videos. Could you summarize who has made the video and why they are more authoritative/credible than other sources. Are there any non-video references you could provide?

pepiboy32
2011-Aug-22, 02:09 PM
the relevant part of the video is of stan michalak's testimony (he was 10 years old at the time of the incident) he claims that for weeks after the incident, there was this, "sulphur,ozone,electric burning motor stink... about him - it's like he's carrying an aura of this smell.... wherever he walked, and he got close to you, you could smell this... baths, showers wouldn't take it out... that lasted for weeks... i remember seeing him in bed... costantly, tired, nauseous, head-achey, not feeling well - losing a lot of weight"

JayUtah
2011-Aug-22, 04:21 PM
...

jay - where did you get the idea that he'd consumed lots of beer?

From the testimony of the bartender who served it to him.

and what about sulphur?

You mean the impossibly vague description his son Stan gives of the odor? He mentions sulfur. He also mentions ozone. Which was it?

my reference to sulphur was deliberately vague.

Game-playing noted. Sulfur wasn't an issue until you had to deal with the well-established debunking of this case.

The son describes the smell as a "sulfur, ozone, electric-motor burning stink." How does this confirm the father's story to have seen something he describes as otherworldly? Why isn't there any medical testimony about the odor?

i suspected that jay had lazily jumped on the ironskeptic bandwagon... suspicions confirmed.

What exactly confirms this suspicion in your mind?

the ironskeptics debunking of this case is nothing short of a disgrace.

How so exactly? If it's factually incorrect or incomplete, or logically unsound, exactly where are the errors? We can expect that as a proponent of this sighting, you would object to that author's conclusion. The question now is whether that objection has any factual basis or whether instead it's just sour grapes.

And no, I don't think you get to turn the tables. You've identified the Micholak case as particularly noteworthy among landed UFO encounters. You don't get to defend that by complaining about debunking sites and thereby shifting the burden of proof.

stan michalak (stefan's son) also blows away jay's accusation of stefan 'feigning' illness.

How so, exactly? He describes his father's self-reported symptoms. How is that confirmation?

it also explains that the doctors eventually diagnosed that the burns had been inflicted 'chemically'

Why do none of these doctors appear on the program to give their testimony? In fact, everything the doctors purportedly say comes to us through the claimant, the claimant's son, and a "UFO researcher." The only discussion of medical opinion is via re-enactment.

Further, the story changes. Stan says his father was "burned by heat." The UFO "researcher" Chris Rutkowski says at one point they were "thermal" burns, and at another point that they were chemical burns. Which is it? The two are very different, both in cause and in symptoms. Further, the proponents here say the cause was never determined. I've already dealt with that and you haven't answered it. Whether the burns were inflicted chemically or thermally, burns themselves do not substantiate the claimant's story for how they came about. It's pure attribution.

In my opinion we aren't getting any actual medical testimony on this program so that the clarity that might be provided by a trained professional can be replaced by the weasel words of UFO proponents trying to make this case seem more mysterious than it really is. There is no medical testimony regarding the persistent odor. There is no medical testimony regarding the patient's alleged lengthy illness. Doctors are mentioned only when it can be said that they don't know what caused Micholak's burns or why they would recur. To me the most plausible answer remains self-infliction.

The video in question is the segment of Unsolved Mysteries that deals with this sighting. I struggle to see how this would be considered an unbiased source. It's a series known for its sensationalism. A number of witnesses are interviewed, but in large measure they simply tell Micholak's story from the hearsay perspective. That is, they are called on to describe what Micholak told them he saw, not what they may have seen or heard themselves to corroborate it. This is one of the ways in which sensationalist programs convey the illusion of broad-based authority.

In fact the program completely ignores any of the skeptical response to this tale. It simply tells Micholak's side of the story with no mention of contrary evidence (e.g., the RCMP report) and no attempt at critical analysis.

Stan Micholak (the son) is the "authority" on what the doctors had said (or failed to say). Could the program not have found the doctors in question? Stan "confirms" that the burns on the abdomen are the exact configuration of the purported exhaust vent -- the one he never saw and the one he was simply told about by his father. That's hearsay. Stan is simply the new front man for his father's tale, and the hand is pretty much tipped when he says he wants the government to come clean about possibly hiding the craft in some secret hangar.

The purported landing site had simple thermal burns and vegetation damage -- easily faked with an ordinary landscape scorcher. Although abnormally radioactive, the source of the radiation was later determined to be natural. It's just as plausible to suggest that Micholak had already measured the radiation levels at the site during his frequent weekend rock-hound outings, and chose it as his place to stage a "landing" suspecting that no one would look hard enough and determine a different cause for his radiation claim.

That's why a year later he had to go back with his own counter and dig up his own "specimens" that were determined to be ordinary silver doped with known radioactive substances easily found on Earth. He had already banked on having a radiation component to his story, but was undermined by the Canadian geological survey. So he had to up the stakes. Even the UFO proponents cited on the program admit the specimens were likely planted, but they don't seem to care that this is very strong evidence of a hoax.

R.A.F.
2011-Aug-22, 04:25 PM
the relevant part of the video is of stan michalak's testimony (he was 10 years old at the time of the incident) he claims...

Personally, I don't really really care what a 10 year old's testimony "is". What I consider the most important question of our times...."are aliens here"?, and you accept the "word" of a 10 year old?

Do you understand why people here might be critical of what a 10 year old child has to say???

R.A.F.
2011-Aug-22, 04:28 PM
I'm afraid I can't watch YouTube videos.

I can, but really don't care to...waste of time...

R.A.F.
2011-Aug-22, 04:33 PM
the ironskeptics debunking of this case is nothing short of a disgrace.

i was asking for SERIOUS views on the case.

What would consider "serious" views?

pepiboy32
2011-Aug-22, 05:14 PM
here is a well balanced over view by chris rutkowski from 1980:

http://theshadowlands.net/falconlake.txt

Garrison
2011-Aug-22, 05:42 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eidwk-Jg2aI

the reference to sulphur is found from 6:00 mins.

stan michalak (stefan's son) also blows away jay's accusation of stefan 'feigning' illness.

it also explains that the doctors eventually diagnosed that the burns had been inflicted 'chemically'

So the ancedotal account of his son many years later is to be given special weight, why exactly? And in what way does burns being caused chemically support any sort of alien hypothesis?

Perikles
2011-Aug-22, 05:45 PM
here is a well balanced over view by chris rutkowski from 1980:

http://theshadowlands.net/falconlake.txtI've just read that link. One comment that stuck out:
Does this prove that an alien craft landed near Falcon Lake?
Unfortunately notNow why the unfortunately not? This clearly suggests the writer actually wants it to be true, but I really can't think why. It is all so inconclusive that the reaction can only be a shoulder shrug.

Garrison
2011-Aug-22, 05:56 PM
Also it occurs to me to ask Pepiboy32 why, when on previous occasions he has been quite vehement about the the reliability of trained personnel(Tehran etc.), does he this time apparently dismiss the view of the RCMP officer out of hand? After all I should imagine the officer has encountered more drunken accidents than any airforce pilot has UFOs.

pepiboy32
2011-Aug-22, 06:18 PM
Also it occurs to me to ask Pepiboy32 why, when on previous occasions he has been quite vehement about the the reliability of trained personnel(Tehran etc.), does he this time apparently dismiss the view of the RCMP officer out of hand? After all I should imagine the officer has encountered more drunken accidents than any airforce pilot has UFOs.

but the officer clearly stated that he could not smell alcohol on michalak - so what do you mean?

it seems that its you who wants it both ways.

pepiboy32
2011-Aug-22, 06:21 PM
I've just read that link. One comment that stuck out: Now why the unfortunately not? This clearly suggests the writer actually wants it to be true, but I really can't think why. It is all so inconclusive that the reaction can only be a shoulder shrug.

i think that (despite what has been infered earlier) this piece proves that stefan michalak was genuinely ill following this incident and not feigning for effect.

Perikles
2011-Aug-22, 06:33 PM
i think that (despite what has been infered earlier) this piece proves that stefan michalak was genuinely ill following this incident and not feigning for effect.(my bold) It proves absolutely nothing. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs, and all you have here is something which could be explained in a mundane fashion.

Garrison
2011-Aug-22, 06:58 PM
but the officer clearly stated that he could not smell alcohol on michalak - so what do you mean?

it seems that its you who wants it both ways.

Actually you seem to be dodging, to quote the ironskeptic piece(my bold):


The officer noted that although he couldn’t smell alcohol on Michalak, he looked rather drunk, with bloodshot eyes. He also refused to answer direct questions coherently.

Also the officers account raises other issues:


Michalak appeared to have, in the words of the police report, “had taken a black substances, possibly wood ashes, and rubbed it on his chest.” At no time did Michalak allow the officer to get close enough to see whether or not he was really burned, and when he was asked questions like “if touching the spaceship was hot enough to melt your glove, why isn’t your hand burned?” he sullenly refused to answer

Again why on this occasion are you so inclined to dismiss the account of this highly trained professional when you have been so keen to accept the word of others in stories such as the Tehran incident?

JayUtah
2011-Aug-22, 07:08 PM
...

but the officer clearly stated that he could not smell alcohol on michalak

He also clearly stated his opinion that Micholak was nevertheless intoxicated. The officer's report would be incomplete if he had not stated his observations about odors on the breath, which is one of several signs that peace officers use to determine likely intoxication.

it seems that its you who wants it both ways.

No, just the one way: the one opined by the RCMP officer and corroborated by the bartender.

JayUtah
2011-Aug-22, 07:14 PM
here is a well balanced over view by chris rutkowski from 1980:

http://theshadowlands.net/falconlake.txt

I've read this entire document and it doesn't alter my conclusion. What specifically in this document do you find especially persuasive, considering the responses I've already given.

Also, please tell me what you've done to determine that Chris Rutkowski is a reasonably unbiased and faithful reporter?

pepiboy32
2011-Aug-22, 07:33 PM
but the officer clearly stated that he could not smell alcohol on michalak

He also clearly stated his opinion that Micholak was nevertheless intoxicated. The officer's report would be incomplete if he had not stated his observations about odors on the breath, which is one of several signs that peace officers use to determine likely intoxication.

it seems that its you who wants it both ways.

No, just the one way: the one opined by the RCMP officer and corroborated by the bartender.

please supply me with your links to the bartender's testimony

JayUtah
2011-Aug-22, 07:36 PM
please supply me with your links to the bartender's testimony

After you answer my questions already on the table.

Tedward
2011-Aug-22, 07:52 PM
With regards detecting peoples intoxication. Not read the linked document but an interesting episode recently on UK TV show. A chap was stopped at the scene of an minor traffic collision and seemed ok. In the UK you are breathalised as a matter of course in a traffic accident. This gentleman was four times over the UK drink drive limit, even the police were surprised, I had a double take as he was not what I would expect for four times the limit.

35 micrograms per 100 mililitres the limit in the UK I think.

Traffic cops for those in the UK, a few eeks ago.

JayUtah
2011-Aug-22, 08:00 PM
Keep in mind this was in the late 1960s when on-site breath analysis was not quite common, especially in rural Canada. Law enforcement instead would have to rely on observable physical signs. Bloodshot eyes and incoherent behavior are two symptoms of alcohol intoxication. Breath odor correlates poorly to blood alcohol concentration, as a matter of medical fact. It is not the metabolites of the alcohol itself that produces the characteristic odor, but rather the metabolites of other substances in the beverage. That naturally varies from beverage to beverage.

pepiboy32
2011-Aug-22, 08:18 PM
if drunkeness is the explanation to this case, then it must go down as the worlds longest hangover - please change the record.

Garrison
2011-Aug-22, 08:40 PM
if drunkeness is the explanation to this case, then it must go down as the worlds longest hangover - please change the record.

Sorry but no. If Michalak was drunk on the day in question it at the very least renders his recollection of events questionable, and at the worst it may have been a 'painkiller' to facilitate a painful hoax, the latter not implausible when added to the RCMP officer's other observations.

And I will ask again why on this occasion why are you rejecting the testimony of the trained professional?

Swift
2011-Aug-23, 01:58 AM
please supply me with your links to the bartender's testimony
Keep in mind that while you may ask for such things (and he may supply them), JayUtah is under no obligation to answer your questions or to supply proof of the mainstream view. The obligations are solely on you.

pepiboy32
2011-Aug-23, 03:22 AM
Keep in mind that while you may ask for such things (and he may supply them), JayUtah is under no obligation to answer your questions or to supply proof of the mainstream view. The obligations are solely on you.

fair enough but, the only information i recall the bartender giving (and this is from memory) was that michalak drank 5 bottles of beer the night before the incident then had a few more drinks (presbyterians i think) when he returned with the investigators. this would not explain him being drunk when the mounty saw him. if jay can link me to the bartender's testimony it could be very useful.

pepiboy32
2011-Aug-23, 03:30 AM
I've read this entire document and it doesn't alter my conclusion. What specifically in this document do you find especially persuasive, considering the responses I've already given.

Also, please tell me what you've done to determine that Chris Rutkowski is a reasonably unbiased and faithful reporter?

i think that the document shows that michalak was genuinely ill following the incident.

as for rutkowski, i only know of him because of this incident - i've seen him interviewed on tv and have no reason to think that he's not genuine.

JayUtah
2011-Aug-23, 03:35 AM
if jay can link me to the bartender's testimony it could be very useful.

And if you could respond to any of the detailed analysis I've provided, it would demonstrate that you're really interested in the serious discussion you say you want. I've responded to everything you've shoved under my nose, and you dismiss it with three-line posts and vague accusations that I'm just parroting other skeptics.

You have the obligation to answer my questions, so please start.

JayUtah
2011-Aug-23, 03:44 AM
...

i think that the document shows that michalak was genuinely ill following the incident.

What part of the document, specifically? To me it shows that Michalak presented to a variety of physicians with a bunch of self-reported symptoms, but was found generally in ordinary good health. Please be specific about your evidence.

...have no reason to think that he's not genuine.

You advertised his summary as well-balanced. That indicates you believe him to be free of bias. What research did you do to confirm that belief?

Here's an excerpt from Rutkowski's conclusions.

In this writer's experience with UFO investigation, he has found that many UFO witnesses see more than one in a lifetime. That is, if a person sees one UFO, he or she will probably see another at a later time in their life. This is the "repeater" phenomenon which is considered to be an indication of insincerity in witnesses by several ufologists. This author is in disagreement with that belief, as the UFO phenomenon suggests a close link with the individual witness' psyche, possibly involving an "awareness threshold." While this may not be empirically proven or testable, theoretical ufology can only draw on apparent relationships, and there exists some evidence to indicate an association between a witness and the "perceived"
UFO.

In this regard, it is interesting to note that Michalak has reported another UFO sighting. It occurred in northwestern Ontario several years ago, while standing near a lake. He said that he observed "the same thing" as he had seen at Falcon Lake, though at a much greater distance from him, flying through the sky.

Are "they" keeping an eye on him? Or is Michalak simply one of those people who is now encouraged to look skyward for unusual
things?

The mystery continues.

Does this sound unbiased to you?

pepiboy32
2011-Aug-23, 04:02 AM
And if you could respond to any of the detailed analysis I've provided, it would demonstrate that you're really interested in the serious discussion you say you want. I've responded to everything you've shoved under my nose, and you dismiss it with three-line posts and vague accusations that I'm just parroting other skeptics.

You have the obligation to answer my questions, so please start.

did you parrot the ironskeptic jay or have you other info about the bartender?

JayUtah
2011-Aug-23, 04:13 AM
did you parrot the ironskeptic jay or have you other info about the bartender?

You know what you have to do in order to discuss the bartender.

pepiboy32
2011-Aug-23, 04:18 AM
You know what you have to do in order to discuss the bartender.

no need to be embarrassed about it jay - you're not the first to be caught with your hand inside the cookie jar and you certainly wont be the last.

now which questions do you want answered (as i've already answered most of them)

Gillianren
2011-Aug-23, 05:07 AM
fair enough but, the only information i recall the bartender giving (and this is from memory) was that michalak drank 5 bottles of beer the night before the incident then had a few more drinks (presbyterians i think) when he returned with the investigators. this would not explain him being drunk when the mounty saw him. if jay can link me to the bartender's testimony it could be very useful.

Shouldn't you have that information already before you state what it says and whether or not it's reliable? Why do you distrust what the Mountie, who was trained in techniques to determine whether a suspect was intoxicated or not, says on the subject?

Paul Beardsley
2011-Aug-23, 05:25 AM
jay - where did you get the idea that he'd consumed lots of beer?

So after Jay does a thorough - as in Game Over - analysis of the shortcomings of the claim, the proponent focuses on one trivial detail without acknowledging any of it.

It's like the Black Knight in The Holy Grail. Once again.

Don J
2011-Aug-23, 05:57 AM
For those interested here the detailed official report declassified by the RCMP

http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/ufo/002029-1301-e.html


resume and collection of documents related to the case

http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/ufo/002029-1300.01-e.html

captain swoop
2011-Aug-23, 10:43 AM
I asked near the start of the thread and Jay mentions it in the recent revival. How was the pattern of an exhaust vent burned into his chest by gas at a distance from the vent?

Paul Beardsley
2011-Aug-23, 11:13 AM
I asked near the start of the thread and Jay mentions it in the recent revival. How was the pattern of an exhaust vent burned into his chest by gas at a distance from the vent?

Presumably it can happen either if you're very close to the vent (as in inches away), or the exhaust comes out at great speed? I'd guess that even in the latter case, you'd still have to be pretty close.

Swift
2011-Aug-23, 02:26 PM
pepiboy32 has been permanently banned. As he will obviously not be answering questions, I'm closing this thread. If anyone has a good reason to reopen it, Report the post, but it better be a very good reason. And if future UFO advocates wish to discuss this incident, start your own thread.