Greetings. Over a month ago I was watching Discovery Science out of boredom, and as usual, one of their "UFOs are real" type of "documentaries" came around. This one was kind of interesting in the sense that I have never heard anything about this particular "event" nor could I find any info on it in the usual sources (CSICOP and Klass Files). I thought it kind of odd to say the least, but oh well.

What this "new roswell" was that in 1967, some sort of object fell into the water around the area of Shag Harbour.

The show talked about the event, which was some round disk like object falling from the sky into the water. Then there was some witness talking about how he was a radar operator, and yeah, he saw it zig-zag down through the atmosphere. Then they claimed that divers that saw this object said it was "not from this world" and the Canadian/US military had a small "fight" over what it was, etc.

However, any slight credibility this might have had plummited when Stanton Friedman, nuclear physicist (heh), started talking about the MJ12 documents right after. They also displayed some photo of the UFO object that they mentioned right after that is not the UFO at all, but something else that may be related. :roll:

In any case, does anyone know anything about this event? It seems that in '67 the space program was coming along pretty nicely, and it maybe something related to this (that would solve the "not from this world" description).

Welcome to the board.

I heard that the Shag Harbour "UFO" was a fire-balloon. The USO, if that part of the story is even true, could have been a Canadian version of those North Sea "mystery sub" incidents that was a Cold War staple.

I think many authors, seeing the coin that Roswell raked in are just trying to feed off that concept. Kecksberg, not far from where I live, is supposed to be "another Roswell" due to a supposed crash and military scoop of an object in '65. Kecksberg never really took off and people around these parts laugh about the "dead alien" stories

I posted the following over on Ed Mitchell's board. (I guess it's alright to "steal" from myself. )

As you can see, I'm not overly impressed with this "sighting".

BTW...WELCOME to the board!!

According to the lore, the "thing" that crashed into Shag Harbour left of it's own power underwater and "got away" after a few days. An argument can be made that there was a behind the scenes Cold War drama involving the recovery of a fallen Soviet or US device and the "thing" that made it back out into open seas was an American or Soviet sub. If something like that happened, and it's more credible than ET with engine trouble IMO, we'll never hear the whole story. So outside of skeptical and non-skeptical speculation we'll never really know. UFO promoters make the mistake of spinning anecdotal recall of the surviving witnesses to suit their version and once again we are treated to a common tack employed by UFO promoters .. a tantalizing glimpse into government/military cover-ups they could only uncover, but when called upon to provide hard evidence: uh, they can't. Why? Uh, that part is still being "covered-up." This "missing link" syndrome is a common thread in the fabric of all such ufological lore. (See Roswell, Kecksburg)

Thanks, I did not know that.

The last "UFO book" I read was about Shag Harbour and the author (I forget his name) tried to come across as objective, but made a lot of unsupported assumptions.

I read about the fire-balloon "explanation" on the net and think those pranks (I made a couple myself as a kid*) never get the credit they deserve when it comes to some UFO sightings.

* I strongly urge anyone reading this not to dabble with fire-balloons as I almost set a neighbor's house on fire.