Anyone have any theories about this event?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_Lake_Incident

The Falcon Lake Incident occurred on May 20, 1967, when Stephen Michalak claimed that he encountered a unidentified flying object (UFO) near Falcon Lake, Manitoba, Canada. He claimed to have been burned by the craft's exhaust vent, which was covered by an ovular grid.


(Mod note: Post snipped. Please do not copy an entire article into your post.)

My theory is that ole Mr. Michalak had a wee bit too much too drink.

Remove everything that requires taking the subject's word for it. You're left with nothing but a drunken binge and some unusual physical symptoms. While that may remain problematic to explain, I don't see where the stuff about space aliens offers anything better by way of explanation. Alternately calling it a "UFO" and a "spaceship" doesn't grant much faith in the reporting.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

I think more than a Wiki link is required on this one.

It claims unusual radiation etc.

The information is lacking.

__________________
"Hope is not the conviction that something will turn out well but the certainty that something makes sense, regardless of how it turns out." -- Vaclav Havel

Quote:

We just don't know much.

Yet if not for those words, what would science be for? - KaiYeves

I propose an ATM corollary to Godwin's law: an ATM'er will inevitably compare himself to Copernicus (Or Galileo), when the going gets tough. - CodeSlinger

From the Wiki article:
What color is incandescent stainless steel? Is it different than, say, incandescent aluminum? I have seen molten stainless steel which is pretty incandenscent and I can't see the difference between it and regular molten steel. Although I never looked at it through "quartz hunters" glasses (whatever those are).

-v

I believe that it is case 22 in the Condon study:

http://www.ncas.org/condon/text/case22.htm

I have my own opinion and I think the investigator, Dr. Craig (who also talks about it in his book on the subject), was generous in how he wrote about this case:

Events during and subsequent to a field search for the landing site cast strong doubt upon the authenticity of the report.

That pretty much says it all IMHO but I am sure some UFO groups/television programs have managed to turn this into another Betty/Barney Hill type story. I wonder if it will be on UFO hunters this week?

Ah see?
Case Solved.

It was a giant flying Chameleon.

Incidentally, isn't the spelling "Grey" used for a name and "gray" used for a color?

__________________
"Hope is not the conviction that something will turn out well but the certainty that something makes sense, regardless of how it turns out." -- Vaclav Havel

Quote:

We just don't know much.

Yet if not for those words, what would science be for? - KaiYeves

I propose an ATM corollary to Godwin's law: an ATM'er will inevitably compare himself to Copernicus (Or Galileo), when the going gets tough. - CodeSlinger

I think "irridescent" is intended. "Grey" is the Commonwealth spelling of "gray" meaning the color.

The radiation was determined to be an ordinary level of radiation from a naturally occurring isotope. We have the same situation here in Utah. Most of our soil is "radioactive," at a very small level.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

Either can be either. I spell the colour "grey" and have a friend with the last name of "Gray."

__________________
Gillian

"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

"You can't erase icing."

"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

Continuing the off-topic banter, reflected binary code is called Gray code after Frank Gray (an american).

I tried your approach to looking at the article, removing everything that depends on the eyewitness testimony and you're right. You're left with nothing really extraordinary. A rock where moss was missing in a circular configuration and a trace amount of soil radiation. (which was apparently enough to inhibit moss growth) That's it.

That in itself can be strange if you look at it though.
So let's look deeper.

The Condon Report that Astrophotographer linked to gives much more detail than the Wiki link.

In that, it becomes MUCH MORE CLEAR why JayUtah said to not take the witness testimonial word for word.
Because the story changed drastically and radically and there was no reliability to the mans story.

The radiation was studied but not found anomolous to natural conditions.
In addition, it demonstrates fabrication of evidence and planting of evidence took place.

Including the addition of two metal (silver) artifacts recovered a year after the event that were highly unlikely to have been missed the first time and likely planted.

__________________
"Hope is not the conviction that something will turn out well but the certainty that something makes sense, regardless of how it turns out." -- Vaclav Havel

Quote:

We just don't know much.

Yet if not for those words, what would science be for? - KaiYeves

I propose an ATM corollary to Godwin's law: an ATM'er will inevitably compare himself to Copernicus (Or Galileo), when the going gets tough. - CodeSlinger

Well, I'm not simply trying to dismiss the witness.

The circumstantial evidence includes the witness' medical symptoms and the observations at the site. The witness exhibited signs of physical distress for a period of months following a certain date. The observations at the site are remarkable only for an inconsequential level of background radiation and the apparent evidence of the witness' prodigious attempt at inebriation.

The eyewitness evidence is the story told by the witness, which includes the fantastic tale of an encounter with an alien spacecraft.

These are qualitatively different forms of evidence.

The investigator's task is to explain the observations. The site needs no explanation; by subversion of support there is nothing remarkable about it. The witness' physical symptoms are not explained. (The witness' mental state is immaterial to the physical symptoms.) However, the salience of the failure to diagnose the symptoms is in proportion to the diligence and skill of the physician. We don't know if the symptoms remain undiagnosed because they are truly mysterious, because the physician was not experienced enough to recognize them, or because the physician simply didn't consider them important enough (e.g., they were healing on their own) to diagnose further.

The witness offers eyewitness testimony, which we are meant to understand intends to explain the symptoms. However the testimony offers no causation. And the particulars of the testimony offer no toehold for confirmation. We cannot confirm that they occurred, and we cannot confirm that even had they occurred, that they would cause the symptoms we observe. The existence of the symptoms is not proof of the alleged encounter; that would be circular since the encounter is hypothesized to explain the symptoms.

In short, the UFO tale simply factors out of the whole scenario. It intertwines with evidence only because it is begged to.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

apparent evidence of the witness' prodigious attempt at inebriation.
JayUtah, Only You can make getting drunk sound Classy and Pretty.

__________________
"Hope is not the conviction that something will turn out well but the certainty that something makes sense, regardless of how it turns out." -- Vaclav Havel

Quote:

We just don't know much.

Yet if not for those words, what would science be for? - KaiYeves

I propose an ATM corollary to Godwin's law: an ATM'er will inevitably compare himself to Copernicus (Or Galileo), when the going gets tough. - CodeSlinger

JayUtah, Only You can make getting drunk sound Classy and Pretty.

It's the wig.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

Ovular? "Pertaining to a small egg"? I'm not getting a mental image of this grid.

Grant Hutchison

When in doubt, you can always rely on Google Images

It's a Senegal Parrot egg (on 1cm grid).

Which explains that it flew away when touched.

The man was burned by an Iridescent Parrot protecting her nest. With peculiar chameleon-like qualities.

__________________
"Hope is not the conviction that something will turn out well but the certainty that something makes sense, regardless of how it turns out." -- Vaclav Havel

Quote:

We just don't know much.

Yet if not for those words, what would science be for? - KaiYeves

I propose an ATM corollary to Godwin's law: an ATM'er will inevitably compare himself to Copernicus (Or Galileo), when the going gets tough. - CodeSlinger

What he said. When I read the OP, I nearly lost my coffee on that bit!

__________________
"I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance any day." - Douglas Adams

Unfortunately I couldn't find a suitable picture but, this article describes a cooking process which potentially can explain this encounter. A heated grill, glowing aluminum color, and if one fails to open the can, flying objects, possible burns and disorientation.

http://www.barbecuebible.com/feature..._beercan_c.php