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

[marduk]

The marks on his body also show what looks to be a gradient from his lower right to his upper left.

Could that imply he was leaning away from whatever did it? Or it was at an angle?

It is an odd thing to 'stencil' on.

 

[Randall]

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:

It doesn't actually say the radiation was restricted to the area inside the circle. It just says there was a circle about 15 feet in diameter where stuff wasn't growing and that soil samples were found to have been radioactive. So for all we know the place was radioactive to begin with, and nowhere have I seen that the naturally occurring radioactive deposits in the area were taken into account and ruled out in this particular area. Maybe there's a geological analysis someplace of the specific spot, but if there is I've never seen it. Also as I suggested before, the material could have been planted there by grinding down some of the uranium ore that occurs naturally in the area and sprinkling it around. Michalak being an amateur geologist wouldn't have had much trouble figuring that out. I could do it easily myself if I really wanted to.

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.

People have done stranger things, and it seems entirely possible that some sort of household chemicals sprayed onto the skin could do the job. Ammonia or bleach can be very nasty and when combined even more nasty: Mixing household cleaning products can kill you - Linda Magill Group Safety . A school teacher reportedly concocted his own mustard gas in this article: Homemade mustard gas at teacher's home​

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.

If you look at the diagram of the craft and where the grate was said to have been, he literally would have needed to be bent over backwards with his shirt pressed up against it, and even then the marks don't match. The marking on his shirt however looks exactly like it was stenciled on. You can even see the rectangular outline. Back To Images: May 28, 2017 — Chris Rutkowski with J. Randall Murphy

​

People can believe whatever they want to about the case I suppose, but it still makes me too uncomfortable to give it a glowing thumbs up. All aspects that cast doubt taken into consideration and I find myself involuntarily shaking my head. When that happens I know that even though I don't want to disappoint anyone, and I'd like to believe it's a solid case, my instincts and analysis are saying something else. Rutkowski's book however deals a lot with the aftermath on a personal and investigative level, and that alone could still make it worthy of a read. I imagine I'll end-up with a copy myself sooner or later to add to his other books on my shelf.

 

[marduk]

Uh oh.

You're right. He'd have to be laying on the ground for the gradient to make sense.

It also looks like the gradient on his shirt is the opposite - it seems darker on the top than the bottom.

Am I wrong?

 

[Randall]

Uh oh. You're right. He'd have to be laying on the ground for the gradient to make sense. It also looks like the gradient on his shirt is the opposite - it seems darker on the top than the bottom.
Am I wrong?

Nope. You're not wrong. It's all these little things that add-up to the picture just not looking quite right. Maybe Rutkowski is a little too enthusiastic about the case because of its proximity, his personal involvement, and his book promotion. Maybe I might be the same way if we had a similar case here in Calgary that I was pushing a book for? Hmm ... Na ... I wouldn't let it get the better of me. I'm too much of a skeptic for my own good maybe. But I still don't want to get all down on Chris over it. He thinks there's something to it and maybe he's right. I just know what it looks like to me.

 

[Greers Meeting Planner]

I just listened to after the paracast and it left me sick to the pit of my stomach.

Apparently the problem with mufon is that it's mainly white and mainly male. Disgusting, unapologetic racism and sexism.

When did it become ok to label problems with groups based on their ethnicity and skin colour?

In the same show when they had just been lambasting mufon for their gathering of White ethnicity they then celebrated how Jewish groups get together.

So diversity is essential in all groups.... unless your non white in which case it's awesome to have no diversity in your group.

For those trying to promote 'equality' and 'diversity' please remember that if you are racist against white people it's still racist! For those who want equality please remember that having a problem with men is still sexist.

The way this group carried on was like if you eradicate all the white men from mufon the ufo answer is just going to leap out and put itself in a PowerPoint to be read by all the non white men and mixed race women who are left (apparently white women are ok).

I tune into the paracast or at least I did to try and hear the search for the UFO truth, not this sudo political correctness where groups who are white are labeled as problems.

Openly pouring scorn of White men with abandon. Its not ok.

Equality for all. Including whites and males. Shame on you.

 

[Randall]

I just listened to after the paracast and it left me sick to the pit of my stomach.

Apparently the problem with mufon is that it's mainly white and mainly male. Disgusting, unapologetic racism and sexism.

When did it become ok to label problems with groups based on their ethnicity and skin colour?

In the same show when they had just been lambasting mufon for their gathering of White ethnicity they then celebrated how Jewish groups get together.

So diversity is essential in all groups.... unless your non white in which case it's awesome to have no diversity in your group.

For those trying to promote 'equality' and 'diversity' please remember that if you are racist against white people it's still racist! For those who want equality please remember that having a problem with men is still sexist.

The way this group carried on was like if you eradicate all the white men from mufon the ufo answer is just going to leap out and put itself in a PowerPoint to be read by all the non white men and mixed race women who are left (apparently white women are ok).

I tune into the paracast or at least I did to try and hear the search for the UFO truth, not this sudo political correctness where groups who are white are labeled as problems.

Openly pouring scorn of White men with abandon. Its not ok.

Equality for all. Including whites and males. Shame on you.

To be fair, my comments about the problems with MUFON had nothing to do with racism. The problems I've encountered with MUFON have been strictly bureaucratic. That doesn't mean others like Erica Lukes haven't had other kinds of problems, and my comments about Jewish community networking were simply to raise the point that people in general should have the freedom to network with others whom they share similar beliefs with, not to pit any group against another.

 

[marduk]

I just listened to after the paracast and it left me sick to the pit of my stomach.

Apparently the problem with mufon is that it's mainly white and mainly male. Disgusting, unapologetic racism and sexism.

When did it become ok to label problems with groups based on their ethnicity and skin colour?

In the same show when they had just been lambasting mufon for their gathering of White ethnicity they then celebrated how Jewish groups get together.

So diversity is essential in all groups.... unless your non white in which case it's awesome to have no diversity in your group.

For those trying to promote 'equality' and 'diversity' please remember that if you are racist against white people it's still racist! For those who want equality please remember that having a problem with men is still sexist.

The way this group carried on was like if you eradicate all the white men from mufon the ufo answer is just going to leap out and put itself in a PowerPoint to be read by all the non white men and mixed race women who are left (apparently white women are ok).

I tune into the paracast or at least I did to try and hear the search for the UFO truth, not this sudo political correctness where groups who are white are labeled as problems.

Openly pouring scorn of White men with abandon. Its not ok.

Equality for all. Including whites and males. Shame on you.

I love how you try to make diversity racist.

Because something something political correctness.

 

[Burnt State]

this is the MUFON director post we were talking about:


the racism and supremacist views are self evident. i don't recall any specific anti-white commentary being made on that episode at all though there was a good chunk of anti-racist commentary in relation to this above post and that was all good and positive stuff. you have to ask yourself what's negative and evil about speaking out against white supremacist viewpoints? it was all a very positive and uplifting, pro-diversity discussion actually. good progressive stuff actually. after all everyone knows two great truths about diversity - it's the one thing we all have in common and better ideas and productivity come from spaces of diversity. so if anything, that after the paracast episode did a lot to advance healthy hate-free directions for Ufology to turn towards.

 

[Greers Meeting Planner]

There is no consistency. What gene said about the problem with Mufon being mainly white and mainly male, imagine if we had identified a group and instead of White it was said the PROBLEM with this group is 'mainly black' or 'mainly Jewish' would be outrage.

This so called progressive movement is part of the racism problem as it actually promotes this idea that race is important and whips up this fear that white males are 'privileged' and part of some conspiracy of oppression.

This is contributing to the legitimisation of violence by non whites on whites and public voicing of racist sentiment against whites.

If you want to talk about racism that's fine but those comments were obviously racist and just because whites are your target of race hate it doesn't make it not racist.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

So before we do to get too far afield with this nonsense, please don't forget that I'm white and male.

 

[marduk]

There is no consistency. What gene said about the problem with Mufon being mainly white and mainly male, imagine if we had identified a group and instead of White it was said the PROBLEM with this group is 'mainly black' or 'mainly Jewish' would be outrage.

This so called progressive movement is part of the racism problem as it actually promotes this idea that race is important and whips up this fear that white males are 'privileged' and part of some conspiracy of oppression.

This is contributing to the legitimisation of violence by non whites on whites and public voicing of racist sentiment against whites.

If you want to talk about racism that's fine but those comments were obviously racist and just because whites are your target of race hate it doesn't make it not racist.

So racism against racism isn't racist?

You talk in circles pretending to make sense.

 

[Randall]

I haven't watched Dear White People, but it seems to me that simply calling it "Dear White People" implies that important content is directed specifically at white people, which is itself racist. Maybe wrapping it all up in comedy makes it easier to swallow. Comedians get away with saying a lot of things the rest of us would take a heavy round of flak for. Why is that exactly? Humor is a funny thing .

 

[Burnt State]

I haven't watched Dear White People, but it seems to me that simply calling it "Dear White People" implies that important content is directed specifically at white people, which is itself racist. Maybe wrapping it all up in comedy makes it easier to swallow. Comedians get away with saying a lot of things the rest of us would take a heavy round of flak for. Why is that exactly? Humor is a funny thing .

Would a title called "Dear Men" or "Dear Women" be inherently sexist then by that mode of thinking? Or is it that we are so unused to the term White that it actually offends people when it's used? We use other racial definers all the time in our culture. What is it about highlighting the dominant North American race with its accurate moniker that offends people? If anything there is a tone of sardonic kindness in its address that should make people feel the kindness of its intentions as in my dear Black People, or Dear Red People or Dear White People. There is an endearment there is there not?

Anyway, back to that whole UFO/alien contact thing at Falcon Lake....it strikes me that the solo witness cases are difficult to sustain. But one thing we can do is look around the witness a little more in their before and afterness of the case. I'm always suspicious when the witness suddenly claims recurring sightings or are now contactees that were chosen to continue to relay messages from the space brothers. And those who prior to their sighting/claims were involved in no good shenanigans, like the Applewhites, are to be doubted even more...

 

[Randall]

Would a title called "Dear Men" or "Dear Women" be inherently sexist then by that mode of thinking?

That depends on whether or not the content being delivered applies specifically to the objective attributes of women, e.g. women's physiology, rather than making an assumption that simply because they're women they can be assumed to have a particular gender bias. Does the content of the show Dear White People deal only with objective facts about "white people", or is it aimed at the way some of them think about certain issues? If the case is the latter then the only way "Dear White People" would not be racist is if it's being used to identify a certain group that thinks a certain way rather than a race of people. In other words maybe "white people" ≠ caucaisian? Not having seen the show, I don't know the answer there. Do you?

Or is it that we are so unused to the term White that it actually offends people when it's used? We use other racial definers all the time in our culture. What is it about highlighting the dominant North American race with its accurate moniker that offends people? If anything there is a tone of sardonic kindness in its address that should make people feel the kindness of its intentions as in my dear Black People, or Dear Red People or Dear White People. There is an endearment there is there not?

Actually you might cause a riot if you used the title "Dear Black People" because the term "black" is now politically incorrect. I believe the correct term is "African American".

Anyway, back to that whole UFO/alien contact thing at Falcon Lake....it strikes me that the solo witness cases are difficult to sustain. But one thing we can do is look around the witness a little more in their before and afterness of the case. I'm always suspicious when the witness suddenly claims recurring sightings or are now contactees that were chosen to continue to relay messages from the space brothers. And those who prior to their sighting/claims were involved in no good shenanigans, like the Applewhites, are to be doubted even more...

Definitely. To my knowledge, no information imparted by any contactee has been verified to have been beyond the knowledge or wisdom of the day. That doesn't mean some sort of phenomenon isn't taking place. It just means we don't have a way to verify it, and that even if we could, it doesn't have special significance anyway, other than what people want to make of it on a personal level.

That gets into the subtopic of cults and its relationship to ufology. I think it's really important to separate those ideas. Ufology is not a cult or a religion like I hear some people claim. Ufology is a field of interest with many facets and cults are simply a subtopic like festivals or ancient aliens or clouds or meteors. Historically most UFOs have turned out to be airplanes, yet we don't hear these people making the claim that ufology is a plane spotting hobby. The Raëlian Movement is still around and they don't equate themselves with ufology in any way. In fact they go out of their way not to.

Calling ufology a religion seems to be a favorite slam of anti-religious skeptics who like to equate ufology with religion in an effort to relegate ufology entirely to the realm of myth ( when it's not ), and it seems that the purpose for doing so is to devalue ufology by making it appear to be as baseless in terms of belief as religion ( also which it's not ) and that in-turn gives them an excuse for treating ufology in an equally derogatory manner ( which it doesn't deserve ). I don't think that is constructive or fair-minded. It's destructive in that it imparts a false and erosive impression of the field. It's a highly irresponsible way for anyone to be talking about the field and IMO they should stop and rethink their position.

 

[marduk]

Well, to the matter at hand.

I haven't read the book - still working my way through Reframing the Debate - but I have looked at every image I can get my hands on regarding the burns on the shirt and the body.

They don't match. They just don't.

My reasons for this assertion:

1. The gradient of the burns on the shirt goes the opposite way of the marks on the body - the shirt marks are darker on the top and the marks on the body are darker on the bottom.
2. They are also placed higher on the shirt than the body.
3. They are also larger on the body than the shirt.
4. The bottom row which is clearly visible as having a smaller number of dots on the shirt is not visible on the body.
5. Additionally, there is a clear edge around the marks on the shirt - what looks to be edging around a grate - that isn't on the body.

In short, I don't think what caused the marks on the body are what caused the marks on the shirt. I just cannot envision a scenario whereby the two are causally linked.

And yet, he says they are. Which means that he is likely lying.

Which kind of makes the whole case DOA, doesn't it?

Hopefully someone can chime in here and tell me how I'm wrong, because this is one of my favourite cases that I had high hopes for.

 

[Burnt State]

Well, to the matter at hand.

I haven't read the book - still working my way through Reframing the Debate - but I have looked at every image I can get my hands on regarding the burns on the shirt and the body.

They don't match. They just don't.

My reasons for this assertion:

1. The gradient of the burns on the shirt goes the opposite way of the marks on the body - the shirt marks are darker on the top and the marks on the body are darker on the bottom.
2. They are also placed higher on the shirt than the body.
3. They are also larger on the body than the shirt.
4. The bottom row which is clearly visible as having a smaller number of dots on the shirt is not visible on the body.
5. Additionally, there is a clear edge around the marks on the shirt - what looks to be edging around a grate - that isn't on the body.

In short, I don't think what caused the marks on the body are what caused the marks on the shirt. I just cannot envision a scenario whereby the two are causally linked.

And yet, he says they are. Which means that he is likely lying.

Which kind of makes the whole case DOA, doesn't it?

Hopefully someone can chime in here and tell me how I'm wrong, because this is one of my favourite cases that I had high hopes for.

Here's the police report from the first officer to encounter him on the highway right after the incident took place:
http://www.theironskeptic.com/articles/michalak/michalakreport.jpg

Thinking from Rutkowski's perspective and that this case has an enduring history I would think there may be more to the shirt thing than your quick write off of it, as your observations I'm sure would have been taken into consideration by previous investigators.

Some devil's advocate thinking:

Depending on the angle he was leaning, the angle of the vent, and the degree of intensity of the blast and its possible varying rate of emissions one might make some allowances for these discrepancies.

The more curious issue is that whatever caused these marks remained on his body permamently which suggests some kind of anomalous event that did in fact cause unique medical distress.

Perhaps the other question to explore is whether or not the actions by Michalak fit the profile of a man bent on hoaxing a close encounter with a UFO.

But these are good questions to put to Rutkowski. He will answer questions posted to his site I would think.

 

[marduk]

Here's the police report from the first officer to encounter him on the highway right after the incident took place:
http://www.theironskeptic.com/articles/michalak/michalakreport.jpg

Thinking from Rutkowski's perspective and that this case has an enduring history I would think there may be more to the shirt thing than your quick write off of it, as your observations I'm sure would have been taken into consideration by previous investigators.

Isn't that just an 'appeal to authority' logical fallacy?

Some devil's advocate thinking:

Depending on the angle he was leaning, the angle of the vent, and the degree of intensity of the blast and its possible varying rate of emissions one might make some allowances for these discrepancies.

I considered that. The burns on his shirt would make sense for an object as he described it - being angled down and away from him. This would make the top closer to the material of the shirt and the bottom further away if he were standing upright:

However, the burns on his body are the opposite of that - they are lighter on the top and darker on the bottom.

That in itself is very hard to accommodate if the burns on the shirt and the burns on the body are linked.
And it would not account for the lack of body burns for the bottom row, which should contain two dots, but are missing from the body.

Furthermore, if one looks at the shirt carefully, one sees not only edges around the grate, which are absent from his body, but also a weird double image on the shirt which is also absent from the body.
The marks on the shirt begin almost at the armpit, and the marks on the body are more central. Indeed, on the shirt they end just below armpit level, and on the body they end at nearly the waist. How could that be?

Upon closer inspection, the angle is also wrong, unless the shirt is inside out. On his body, they go from his upper left to his lower right. On the shirt, they go from the right to left, but very slightly, almost vertical.

Putting these together with the attributed morphology of the craft means the burns on the shirt and the burns on the body are not linked. Frankly, they came from two different sources.

The more curious issue is that whatever caused these marks remained on his body permamently which suggests some kind of anomalous event that did in fact cause unique medical distress.

Perhaps the other question to explore is whether or not the actions by Michalak fit the profile of a man bent on hoaxing a close encounter with a UFO.

But these are good questions to put to Rutkowski. He will answer questions posted to his site I would think.

All those are good points and all have nothing to do with the visual evidence which in my view is challenging to his account of things.

Again, I want to be wrong here. If someone can show me where I'm off, I'd sincerely love to hear it. I'll post them to his site when I get a second.

 

[marduk]

It also says in a the police report that he wouldn't let the officer see the burns on the body, and appeared to be wood ash.

Sigh.

 

[Burnt State]

It also says in a the police report that he wouldn't let the officer see the burns on the body, and appeared to be wood ash.

Sigh.

I think he said it was wood ash on the back of his head. So was he lying down when that happened? Perhaps from his night of drinking before?

I'm really giving the illogical benefit of the doubt to the greater authority as he's one of the few working Ufologists in operation.

He appears the officer genuinely afraid and concerned he may hurt the officer.

I don't think the two are missing. We see one just above his waistband. The shirt must have been in such a position hanging low on him and the nature of the emissions must have been what they were to produce the effect they did. I just don't see Rutkowski hanging his hat on this case if he's not convinced this is a unique case. The pure silver bar embedded with radiation and radiation levels being so high they were going to close the park suggests sonething very anomalous did take place.

But I understand that your critique stands. Let's get Rutkowski to weigh in on your analysis.

 

[Burnt State]

He does say he was knocked down to the ground during the blast so perhaps if we discount the notion that he was standing upright for the entire duration of the burning you may find your answer their for the discrepancies. He does also get seriously ill in a manner that is not entirely explained including the many strange flareups over the years.