Paul Hellyer drops bomb @ hearing on UFO/Aliens in Canada - Deathbed Testimonial

originally posted by: boncho


Is there something he gained by this story? No. Did he become a big giant reality TV star because of a UFO encounter? Nope. While this might be a straw man argument IM presenting, I seriously question what possible reason you think he, or others had for making up encounters back before they were even widely known about.

Boncho, you need to study the event of the Cottingley Fairies. Two harmless girls lead Arthur Conan Doyle into thinking they had credible evidence, using cutting technology for the day, of Fairies? I'm sure it would set your natural lie detector off?

From: en.m.wikipedia.org...

"Frances said: "I never even thought of it as being a fraud – it was just Elsie and I having a bit of fun and I can't understand to this day why they were taken in – they wanted to be taken in.'"

a reply to: neutronflux
True. People sometimes make up stories for reasons other than "fame and fortune". Sometimes the people making up the story don't even consciously know they are making up a story.

a reply to: boncho

Do you think it's a wise decision to believe UFO and alien tales based on stories told by strangers and not question anything? A man whose job partially involves welding provides burn evidence with his story should be questioned just on that fact. That's part of searching for the truth. For all we know, he could have arrived in the area with both his glove and hat already scorched from work with the idea of creating this tale on the same morning he arrived.
If you follow the lead of others and don't research for yourself, you miss out facts. To use your example of Stefan Michalak where you mention radiation burns, if you researched beyond these websites you would have known he had two tests performed where no radiation was found. The items that were tested for radiation has a questionable source as I point out below.

To say there are no inconsistencies or things to question with this incident would be wrong. These are a few:

- Michalak describes the officer refusing to help. On the RCMP report it states he asked him if he needed medical assistance and he declined.

- The burn pattern squarely across his stomach is perfectly aligned, as if he was standing directly in front of an "exhaust," burning an evenly distributed pattern. His drawing indicates the body of the craft wasn't parallel to his body, it was drawn angled down.

- Michalak claimed to be too ill to join the RCMP investigators to the UFO landing site to search for evidence. He drew a map of the area and the investigators searched both on foot and by helicopter. The 300' by 100' stretch of rock drawn on his map was nowhere to be found. They finally talked Michalak into coming with them to investigate which resulted in the same thing, he couldn't find the site himself by helicopter. He then led a ground search that went into the evening that also ended in the landing site not being found.
The investigators received a telephone call from Michalak almost a month later stating that he had visited the area himself one weekend and found the site with help from a friend named Gerald Hart. He went against what investigators had advised and retrieved the evidence himself - Piece of his torn shirt, a measuring tape, and dirt and moss samples they collected.
The above materials was provided by Michalak and Hart and tested for radiation. This was not collected under the supervision of the investigators. That would put into question this radioactive "evidence" and the source.

- In the surrounding area of the UFO landing, there were 7 manned fire towers, one of which was 2 miles away. There was no sighting of either of the two 40 foot glowing red rotating saucers or of the one that landed on the rock for 30 minutes. No smoke was seen from Michalaks shirt and undershirt setting fire to the lichen and moss. Neither of which make sense especially two glowing red 40 foot saucers moving around that would have caught the eye of anyone perched 50+ feet in the air searching for forest fires.

To believe this incident, you have to purposely write-off and ignore these facts.

Stereotypical 60s style, is that the same as the 'stereotypical style' of "airships" in 1800s, or is it all they had to reference it to?

Stereotypical 1960's mindset of futuristic advanced intelligent beings would be using very human specific large computers with flashing colored lights. Clearly influenced and straight out of TV shows and movies of the time:


It's an embarrassing silly suggestion. I think "futuristic" flashing multi-colored computer lights started going out of style in 1977 with Star Wars.

Is there something he gained by this story? No. Did he become a big giant reality TV star because of a UFO encounter? Nope. While this might be a straw man argument IM presenting, I seriously question what possible reason you think he, or others had for making up encounters back before they were even widely known about.

Michalak called a local newspaper on the day of the incident. He flagged down a Canadian Mountie and gave a full story in the police report the same day. He was hardly hiding the fact of what happened. He was interviewed in magazines, TV shows, newspapers. He wrote a booklet about his encounter and became upset that others had made money from the story but he hadn't. So yes, he obviously did think he had something to gain by telling his story. You have no idea if his motivation started out being about money but unfortunately for him, it just didn't take that turn.

a reply to: Ectoplasm8

Do you think it's a wise decision to believe UFO and alien tales based on stories told by strangers and not question anything?

No, can you point out where Ive done that?

A man whose job partially involves welding provides burn evidence with his story should be questioned just on that fact. That's part of searching for the truth. For all we know, he could have arrived in the area with both his glove and hat already scorched from work with the idea of creating this tale on the same morning he arrived.

For all we know its exactly as described. It was actually a later case that made me revisit his and look over all the details again.

You realize he's not the only case with similar burn marks right?

The fact he has gloves and goggles (but no welder) really means nothing when what he is engaged in demands gloves and a mask (or goggles). We live in a disposable society today, where people will buy 'special' gear for everything. At the time it happened, its completely normal for someone to use one set of gear for another activity.

a reply to: boncho

So, your argument now rests on how he happened to be wearing goggles and thick gloves. It's usually for something that will burn you, throws sparks and / or debris, and where you stay dry. Not for a walk in the woods. If I need to get a better view of something in the woods, I ditch the goggles.

a reply to: boncho

By the way. You can get a radiation burn from welding.

"Welding arcs and flames emit intense visible, ultraviolet, and infrared radiation. UV radiation in a welding arc will burn unprotected skin just like UV radiation in sunlight. This is true for direct exposure to UV radiation as well as radiation that is reflected from metal surfaces, walls, and ceilings.". From www.ccohs.ca...

a reply to: boncho

You realize he's not the only case with similar burn marks right?

For a court case you would need actual medical records....by an actual dr and not like a history professor or something.

a reply to: boncho

originally posted by: Ectoplasm8
Do you think it's a wise decision to believe UFO and alien tales based on stories told by strangers and not question anything?

originally posted by: boncho
No, can you point out where Ive done that?

Yes, by this quote:

This is documented by numerous encounters, radiation burns in the Michalek Falcon Lake Incident

Which shows me you did little to no investigation yourself and most likely bought into and relied on what you were t/sold because it fits your belief. How can anyone come to a realistic conclusion if you don't view both sides of an incident? If you want to use ridiculous legal analogies, why not do it here? If you heard a case only from the prosecutors side and relied on them for your information, how could you arrive at an honest decision? Also, when people deliberate a court case, they are questioning everything from both sides focused on that particular case.

For all we know its exactly as described. It was actually a later case that made me revisit his and look over all the details again.

You realize he's not the only case with similar burn marks right?

How is that website relevant to the case we're discussing? You're saying the red dots on that website were created by exhaust gases from a UFO just like Michalak claimed? Do you have evidence of that? All I see are red marks that magically appear while they're asleep. Marks that can be recreated by leaning on that pattern. The investigator says: "She has encountered dozens of non-terrestrial species in her dream walking, and considers herself an advocate for integration." An unbiased view we can take to the bank I guess? You can't point to examples like this because it's one-sided.

The fact he has gloves and goggles (but no welder) really means nothing when what he is engaged in demands gloves and a mask (or goggles). We live in a disposable society today, where people will buy 'special' gear for everything. At the time it happened, its completely normal for someone to use one set of gear for another activity.

It was both lucky and convenient that he was wearing heavy welding gloves so he could touch the craft and show us all how red hot it was and wearing welding goggles so he could see the bright purple light from the craft. Although I don't know how he could see colors since welding goggle lenses are generally green.