Not that I’m a believer in UFOs, and even the witness believed it to be some type of military experiment rather than ETs, but the fascination here is that it remains totally unexplained. No, this isn’t Roswell, much of which I think turned out to be folklore – it’s the Falcon Lake incident in Manitoba in 1967, which involved an alleged saucer-shaped vehicle, a strange pattern of burns on the body of the man who witnessed it, and a great deal of radioactivity subsequently detected in the area. As for possible explanations, I haven’t got the faintest clue.
Sounds from your description, awfully similar to theCash-Landrum Incidentin 1980, about 30 miles or so east of Houston: UFO, glowing, bunch of heat, claimed radioactivity exposure.
After talking with then Senators Tower and Bentsen, they spoke with the Air Force, at the then Bergstrom Air Force Base, in Austin. Weirdly, instead of blowing them off entirely, denying everything, the Air Force told them they should hire a lawyer and sue in tort. Where the suit was later dismissed, but I’m surprised the Air Force listened to them at all.
Who knows, maybe the nuclear airplanes of the 50s didn’t die with the NB-36H or the TU-95LAL?
Do you perhaps mean the 52nd anniversary?
Well, it was the 50th anniversary when the article was written.
Yikes, I didn’t even realize the article was from 2017, since it popped up on the CBC News front page! Must be a slow news day! 
Anyway, doesn’t matter, the incident itself is old, and still completely unexplained. Both the Canadian military and the USAF were involved in the investigation, AIUI, and even today no theory has been forthcoming.
How did you not realize the story was two years old when you wrote in the OP that the event happened in 1967?
Brain neurons misfiring? 
Arithmetic aside, I thought the incident was fascinating because there’s clearly an explanation, but nobody seems to have a clue what it is. That’s kind of the point here, not whether it was 50 or 52 years ago. There seems to be more tangible evidence than there was for Roswell, not that I’m claiming aliens or anything. Unexplained things are fascinating in their own right.
Not clear how “alcohol consumption” can produce a gridlike pattern of burns on the chest, and all his other symptoms. There’s also stuff like this:
Items were later retrieved from the encounter site, including Stefan’s glove and shirt and some tools, which were subjected to extensive analysis at an RCMP crime lab. No one could determine what caused the burns.
At the landing site was a circle about 15 feet in diameter, devoid of the moss and vegetation growing in other areas of the same rock outcropping. Soil samples, along with samples of clothing, were tested and deemed to be highly radioactive.
So were pieces of metal that were chipped out of cracks in the rock about a year after the incident. The metal had somehow been melted into the cracks.
The attempted explanation seems rather thin, to say the least. How do you create a 15-foot circle devoid of vegetation, metal melted into rock, and high levels of radioactivity just by drinking too much? And if I wanted to keep competing prospectors out of an area, I’d just shut up about it, instead of spreading fanciful tales that were likely to attract UFO nuts from all over. Whatever the explanation, it’s probably not nearly as simple as this skeptic makes it out to be.
This article does a pretty good job of debunking it:
http://www.theironskeptic.com/articles/michalak/michalak.htm
It says an “accident brought on by” alcohol consumption, not that the alcohol itself caused the marks.
Didn’t a fellow Straight Dope member once describe something about how someone had sat on a BBQ grill and burnt a mark on their ass saying rebeW?
It seems more likely to me for this to have been the result of an accident by a drunk man in a forest than aliens, although I remain open-minded.
Thanks for that. It’s always good to see another perspective, and I do find the story stretches credibility, but still, the evidence makes it hard to dismiss entirely and demands an explanation somewhat more in-depth than “he just made it all up”, which the cited article doesn’t really provide. In fact it’s got some inconsistencies of its own. The word “aliens” appears in the debunking at least eight times, yet according to the CBC story, Stefan “never claimed to have seen aliens and still considered it a secret military craft”. He also stuck to the story to his dying day, and it seems difficult to account for all the radiation supposedly detected in the immediate area, if that part is accurate. Also, the part about rubbing charcoal on himself to simulate burns seems contradicted by this part: “He was treated at a hospital for burns to his chest and stomach that later turned into raised sores on a grid-like pattern”.
I have no dog in this race, just citing the difficulties with a full explanation.
I would have a hard time believing that, since most of those letters are not symmetrical in a way that would lend to a properly legible impression.
Maybe because he needed to go to the hospital?
So why not just say he was depressed he didn’t find any silver so he drank too much and had an accident?
DeHavilland Canada was doing some aircraft testing for the US govt. I imagine that a number of companies were doing similar lines of work, but as far as I know, Dehavilland and AVRoe were the only companies that were working on a saucer like airframe for pulling wounded servicemen out of Vietnam battles during the war.
If it were something like the above, then it was not nuclear powered and was using conventional jets in the same manner as the Harrier, the saucer does not sound big enough to carry the reaction mass required for a nuke.
Yes.
Okay, how about “ɿɘdɘW”?
