The case
On Saturday May 20, 1967, Stephen (Stefan) Michalak (51) was prospecting for minerals at Falcon Lake in eastern Manitoba, Canada, 80 miles from his home in Winnipeg. Around noon he saw two glowing red UFOs descend. One hovered for 3 minutes then took off.
The other landed 160 feet away, its color changing to silver. From an open hatch came a blinding violet light. For half an hour he watched it and made a sketch on a piece of brown paper. Then he approached. Hearing human voices from within, he called out in several languages. The voices stopped. Peering inside the hatch with his goggles visor down, he saw “a maze of lights”.
As Michalak stepped back, the hatch closed seamlessly. When he touched the polished steel-like surface, the fingertips on his plastic glove melted. The craft then tilted to the left and he felt a scorching pain on his chest as a flash of heat came out of a small screen or exhaust or “ventilation system” on the side of the craft. His shirt and undershirt caught fire, and by the time he’d torn them off and stamped out the fire, the craft was departing.
Realizing he was badly burned, Michalak stumbled out of the bush to seek help. [Retold from Michalak 1967]
The other landed 160 feet away, its color changing to silver. From an open hatch came a blinding violet light. For half an hour he watched it and made a sketch on a piece of brown paper. Then he approached. Hearing human voices from within, he called out in several languages. The voices stopped. Peering inside the hatch with his goggles visor down, he saw “a maze of lights”.
As Michalak stepped back, the hatch closed seamlessly. When he touched the polished steel-like surface, the fingertips on his plastic glove melted. The craft then tilted to the left and he felt a scorching pain on his chest as a flash of heat came out of a small screen or exhaust or “ventilation system” on the side of the craft. His shirt and undershirt caught fire, and by the time he’d torn them off and stamped out the fire, the craft was departing.
Realizing he was badly burned, Michalak stumbled out of the bush to seek help. [Retold from Michalak 1967]
This UFO case was heavily investigated. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police, Air Force, and other authorities were involved in interviewing Michalak, searching for the site, and analyzing the soil once the site was found. He saw multiple doctors, and was also interviewed by the press and by UFO researchers. There was physical evidence – including the burns on his own body and an apparent illness for weeks afterwards.
There are numerous related documents in the Canadian government’s UFO archives, which can give the impression of a complicated case. However, once we cut through the red herrings - such as the debate over whether he was suffering from radiation sickness (he wasn’t), whether he’d been drinking the night before (not really relevant), and whether the site was radioactive (natural radioactivity levels were detected) - we’re left with a single eyewitness with burns on his body and clothing.
And those burns are a problem.
Rather than go through every piece of evidence and contradiction, I will be focusing on the burns, specifically the pattern of red dots allegedly produced by the screen on the exhaust, which Michalak claimed kept disappearing and reappearing as welts every few months. Suppose the evidence shows he was lying about those burns. What does that mean for the rest of his case, given we otherwise have only his word that he encountered a UFO?
In the following discussion, interesting diversions not directly related to the burns are in colored boxes.
Let's work backwards from a January 1968 newspaper article...
There are numerous related documents in the Canadian government’s UFO archives, which can give the impression of a complicated case. However, once we cut through the red herrings - such as the debate over whether he was suffering from radiation sickness (he wasn’t), whether he’d been drinking the night before (not really relevant), and whether the site was radioactive (natural radioactivity levels were detected) - we’re left with a single eyewitness with burns on his body and clothing.
And those burns are a problem.
Rather than go through every piece of evidence and contradiction, I will be focusing on the burns, specifically the pattern of red dots allegedly produced by the screen on the exhaust, which Michalak claimed kept disappearing and reappearing as welts every few months. Suppose the evidence shows he was lying about those burns. What does that mean for the rest of his case, given we otherwise have only his word that he encountered a UFO?
In the following discussion, interesting diversions not directly related to the burns are in colored boxes.
Let's work backwards from a January 1968 newspaper article...
Burns back?
Article published 8 months after the UFO sighting, Winnipeg Free Press, Jan 17, 1968 (Hodgson 1968)
When you read a report on this case today, you’ll learn that the UFO blasted its exhaust at Michalak, burning a grid pattern into his undershirt and a matching pattern of red dots on his abdomen.
But looking at the original documents, and Michalak’s own words from 1967, a different story emerges. I’ve not yet found any evidence from the contemporaneous accounts that Michalak had grid-like burns on his abdomen before January 1968. Certainly not at the time of the incident in May 1967, nor when a rash flared up in September.
Yet the January 1968 newspaper article above reported a flare-up of “red welts or burns” that was “identical to that of the burns he says he received from a ‘hovering machine’ late last May”. The article was accompanied by a photograph showing the welts on his stomach, just above the navel. This (and pictures from the same series) is the famous photograph that investigators and writers frequently use to illustrate his initial burns in May, but it was taken in January 1968 [Hodgson 1968].
Following is evidence that nobody saw a regular pattern of small circular burns on Michalak’s body after his alleged encounter with a UFO, including himself, and that he fabricated the pattern on his stomach in January. He retroactively inserted it into his story, and researchers have been erroneously reporting it that way ever since.
But looking at the original documents, and Michalak’s own words from 1967, a different story emerges. I’ve not yet found any evidence from the contemporaneous accounts that Michalak had grid-like burns on his abdomen before January 1968. Certainly not at the time of the incident in May 1967, nor when a rash flared up in September.
Yet the January 1968 newspaper article above reported a flare-up of “red welts or burns” that was “identical to that of the burns he says he received from a ‘hovering machine’ late last May”. The article was accompanied by a photograph showing the welts on his stomach, just above the navel. This (and pictures from the same series) is the famous photograph that investigators and writers frequently use to illustrate his initial burns in May, but it was taken in January 1968 [Hodgson 1968].
Following is evidence that nobody saw a regular pattern of small circular burns on Michalak’s body after his alleged encounter with a UFO, including himself, and that he fabricated the pattern on his stomach in January. He retroactively inserted it into his story, and researchers have been erroneously reporting it that way ever since.
UFO blast
Michalak initially described the UFO’s exhaust panel as a “screen”, a series of tiny holes that shot a hot gas or chemical while he was standing very close to the craft (having just touched it) and that burned a matching pattern into his undershirt, setting it and his outer shirt on fire. The outer shirt was almost completely destroyed and he left it at the site (weeks later he allegedly retrieved fragments with a friend). He placed the undershirt into a briefcase and walked out of the bush with it.
Note (below) that the burned dots on his undershirt have a border around them. To explain this, Michalak said the screen on the craft was surrounded by slits, and that both the slits and the holes shot a blast of heat.
Note (below) that the burned dots on his undershirt have a border around them. To explain this, Michalak said the screen on the craft was surrounded by slits, and that both the slits and the holes shot a blast of heat.
Michalak’s burned undershirt; compared to diagram of the craft’s exhaust (reproduced in Rollason, 2017).
When Michalak flagged down highway patrol officer Constable Solotki and told him what had happened, he refused to show the undershirt to the officer. The report from the ER doctor who treated his burns does not mention the undershirt. So there is no evidence the grid pattern existed, or even that the shirt was burned, on Saturday, May 20th. There is no evidence Michalak was wearing that undershirt, or had it in his possession, on that day.
More on the undershirt in a later section.
Despite telling the police he wanted no publicity, Michalak phoned the Winnipeg Tribune that afternoon, and again on Sunday. He was then interviewed at home. [Michalak 1967; Stan Michalak & Rutkowski 2017, chp 3] The reporter Heather Chisvin wrote that Michalak was “suffering from chest burns” and that “He has remnants of an undershirt with a geometrically-patterned burned spot on it” [Chisvin 1967]. Hers were the first eyes on the shirt but she did not mention any matching grid of dots on Michalak’s body.
Chisvin sought a statement about the burns from his ER doctor: “there was nothing unusual about them at all.” A doctor would have noticed if his patient had a grid of burned dots on his skin.
A description of the burns Michalak actually suffered is in the next section.
Chisvin's article, “I was burned by UFO”, was printed on Monday and included Michalak’s full address. The accompanying photo (box below) depicts Michalak wearing a buttoned-up shirt (not PJs, although he was supposedly extremely sick and bedridden), holding up his sketch of the UFO.
In the Montreal Star on Wednesday (May 24, 1967), 19-year-old son Mark Michalak is quoted: "It was when the craft took off that father received burns on his chest. The burns aren't even at random; they resemble a pattern, geometrically burned like a checker board, one square has a number of dots on it while the next one is bare."
At first glance this looks like evidence the pattern was on Michalak's skin, but there are several problems:
More on the undershirt in a later section.
Despite telling the police he wanted no publicity, Michalak phoned the Winnipeg Tribune that afternoon, and again on Sunday. He was then interviewed at home. [Michalak 1967; Stan Michalak & Rutkowski 2017, chp 3] The reporter Heather Chisvin wrote that Michalak was “suffering from chest burns” and that “He has remnants of an undershirt with a geometrically-patterned burned spot on it” [Chisvin 1967]. Hers were the first eyes on the shirt but she did not mention any matching grid of dots on Michalak’s body.
Chisvin sought a statement about the burns from his ER doctor: “there was nothing unusual about them at all.” A doctor would have noticed if his patient had a grid of burned dots on his skin.
A description of the burns Michalak actually suffered is in the next section.
Chisvin's article, “I was burned by UFO”, was printed on Monday and included Michalak’s full address. The accompanying photo (box below) depicts Michalak wearing a buttoned-up shirt (not PJs, although he was supposedly extremely sick and bedridden), holding up his sketch of the UFO.
In the Montreal Star on Wednesday (May 24, 1967), 19-year-old son Mark Michalak is quoted: "It was when the craft took off that father received burns on his chest. The burns aren't even at random; they resemble a pattern, geometrically burned like a checker board, one square has a number of dots on it while the next one is bare."
At first glance this looks like evidence the pattern was on Michalak's skin, but there are several problems:
- The reporter evidently did not see the pattern on Michalak's skin for himself: Mark's remarks are prefaced with: "Mr. Michalak gave this account to his son, Mark, 19" although Mark speaks in third-person. This was probably a telephone interview.
- Mark says the burns are on his father's chest, not near his navel.
- Mark's description matches the undershirt (three indistinct squares on the chest, the central one with dots, the outer two showing parts of the border but no dots) but it does not match either the blotchy uneven burns on Michalak's chest in the 1967 photo, or the regular borderless dots on his stomach in the 1968 photo. [Montreal Star, 1967]
Mark Michalak's description of the burns on his father's chest as "One square has a number of dots in it while the next one is bare" appears to match the undershirt, not the pattern of dots on Michalak's stomach in the famous photo.
|
Memory is fallible
Michalak’s younger son Stan, who was 9 years old, recalls the moment he saw his father for the first time after his fateful trip: “I spotted bandages on his upper chest”, and later, “He showed me the burns on his chest – an angry, red patch of blisters with scorched hair and a pattern of dark red dots as large as coins marching across his abdomen”. There are no other reports of the burns blistering (they were first degree). And the infamous grid pattern in the 1968 photo shows small dots, not coin-sized. Stan appears to be misremembering the 1968 “recurring” rash as what he saw in May 1967. Stan also misremembers the photo accompanying Chisvin's article as: “my father holding his pyjama top open to reveal a pattern of dark dots across his upper chest.” In fact the article's photo (right) did not show his burns at all, let alone a pattern of dots. (And there are no photos of the pattern appearing on his upper chest. The pattern was just above his navel.) [Stan Michalak & Rutkowski, 2017, chp 3] Hence, Stan Michalak's decades-old memories of events are - understandably - not reliable. |
First article about Michalak's sighting, published on Monday, May 22, 1967. Click to enlarge.
|
What's the angle?
Michalak claims he made a detailed sketch of the UFO while it was sitting 160 feet away for at least half an hour. However, when Constable Solotki spoke with him on the highway shortly afterwards and asked him to sketch the UFO, he did so. Why didn’t he instead show Solotki the sketch he’d just made in situ? Did that sketch even exist yet? It was photographed on Sunday, but like the burned undershirt there’s no evidence it existed before then.
The sketch shows two saucers lip-to-lip, each 4 feet tall, with a 2-3-foot dome on top. (Michalak will later tell RCMP investigators the total height was 10 or 11 feet, so this checks out.) The exhaust is drawn in the lower saucer, angled downward. How did Michalak get burns on his chest and (allegedly) his stomach at this odd angle? In order to get in front of the exhaust for that nice even pattern of dots he’d need to be half-crouched and leaning backward.
The hatch is drawn at the same awkward angle as the exhaust, but again Michalak doesn’t say he crouched to look inside. In fact he describes this opening as being “near the top of the craft”, contradicting his drawing. [Michalak, 1967]
The sketch shows two saucers lip-to-lip, each 4 feet tall, with a 2-3-foot dome on top. (Michalak will later tell RCMP investigators the total height was 10 or 11 feet, so this checks out.) The exhaust is drawn in the lower saucer, angled downward. How did Michalak get burns on his chest and (allegedly) his stomach at this odd angle? In order to get in front of the exhaust for that nice even pattern of dots he’d need to be half-crouched and leaning backward.
The hatch is drawn at the same awkward angle as the exhaust, but again Michalak doesn’t say he crouched to look inside. In fact he describes this opening as being “near the top of the craft”, contradicting his drawing. [Michalak, 1967]
Michalak's sketch, showing the hatch and exhaust on the lower bowl of the craft - which is only 4' tall.
|
This recreation for Unsolved Mysteries (1989) shows the actor having to crouch in order to see through the opening in the lower half of the flying saucer.
|
Awry artistry
The hatch location isn't the only odd thing about Michalak's sketch. He said he drew it from life, sitting about 160' away... and it should be noted that he was an artist. [Stan Michalak & Rutkowski 2017, chp 2] The sketch certainly does demonstrate artistic skill.
So why did he get the proportions wrong? He indicates each saucer is 4’ tall (and repeated this in the second recorded interview with the RCMP [Davis 1967a]) but has drawn the lower part much taller – about the height of the 6’ man illustrated below.
The hatch location isn't the only odd thing about Michalak's sketch. He said he drew it from life, sitting about 160' away... and it should be noted that he was an artist. [Stan Michalak & Rutkowski 2017, chp 2] The sketch certainly does demonstrate artistic skill.
So why did he get the proportions wrong? He indicates each saucer is 4’ tall (and repeated this in the second recorded interview with the RCMP [Davis 1967a]) but has drawn the lower part much taller – about the height of the 6’ man illustrated below.
Michalak's original drawing compared to correctly proportioned craft according to his stated dimensions.
|
Even worse, he describes the total dimensions as 35-40 feet wide (diameter) and 10-11 feet tall, but he’s drawn it very squat.
Correctly proportioned at 35 or 40 feet, the craft looks quite different. How can an artist, with his subject matter right in front of him, incorrectly draw the basic proportions of a simple shape? It seems unlikely that he made this sketch from life. Given he never showed it to Solotki a couple of hours later, I suspect it wasn't drawn until he was back home in Winnipeg awaiting the arrival of a reporter. |
Blotchy ouchies
The photo of a grid on Michalak’s stomach comes from January 1968, even though you’ll often see it used to illustrate the burns he suffered in May 1967.
So, how did the people who saw him in the hours and days after the incident describe his injuries?
Constable Solotki
Cst Solotki (RCMP) who spoke with Michalak on the highway soon after the incident reported he was wearing a jacket but no shirt, and that he claimed a UFO exhaust had burned him.
“It appeared to me that Michalak had taken a black substance, possibly wood ashes, and rubbed it on his chest.” [Solotki 1967]
A first-degree burn from a heat source would not, by definintion, blacken (or even blister) the skin. If Solotki saw black on Michalak's chest, it could be a clue that the blotchy burns he suffered were caused by hot ash.
Solotki makes no mention of dots in a grid pattern.
So, how did the people who saw him in the hours and days after the incident describe his injuries?
Constable Solotki
Cst Solotki (RCMP) who spoke with Michalak on the highway soon after the incident reported he was wearing a jacket but no shirt, and that he claimed a UFO exhaust had burned him.
“It appeared to me that Michalak had taken a black substance, possibly wood ashes, and rubbed it on his chest.” [Solotki 1967]
A first-degree burn from a heat source would not, by definintion, blacken (or even blister) the skin. If Solotki saw black on Michalak's chest, it could be a clue that the blotchy burns he suffered were caused by hot ash.
Solotki makes no mention of dots in a grid pattern.
Solotki’s account differs in several ways from Michalak’s booklet, written late in the year and before he’d seen Solotki’s report:
- Michalak claims he saw Solotki walking toward him on the highway. Solotki reports that Michalak excitedly flagged him down.
- Michalak claims Solotki refused to help in any way. Solotki reports that he offered Michalak a drive to Falcon Beach, which was refused.
- Solotki reports that Michalak showed up at the station half an hour later and asked for him by name. Michalak never mentions this visit and emphasizes how nobody would help him, which forced him to call the newspaper.
- Solotki reports that Michalak was carrying a brown leather briefcase, similar to government issue, whereas Michalak’s son reports he always took a green haversack when he went prospecting [Stan Michalak & Rutkowski 2017]. Why did Michalak take a different bag this time? If he also took the haversack, what happened to it?
Military surplus canvas haversack (1961) and US Government leather briefcase type IV (1960s). It seems unlikely the officer would have confused one for the other.
Medical report given by treating physician, May 26, 1967 (excerpted below). Click to enlarge.
Emergency room physician
Michalak’s older son Mark met him at the bus station on Saturday night at 10:15PM and drove him straight to the emergency room. After the treating doctor was interviewed by investigators, this report was made:
“At examination the physician found an area of first degree burns over the upper abdomen, covering an area of 7-8 inches [17-20 cm] and consisting of several round and irregular shaped burns the size of a silver dollar or less.” [Scott 1967]
Tribune reporter Heather Chisvin would speak to the treating doctor within the next two days, who was quoted as saying, about the burns: “nothing unusual about them at all”. [Chisvin 1967]
A grid-like pattern of dots would obviously have been unusual, and a medical professional would have reported it as evidence the patient had burned himself (deliberately or not) on a terrestrial manufactured object with a similar imprint – not that he’d been burned by an airplane exhaust, which was the story Michalak told the ER doctor. Thus we can conclude that Michalak was not sporting a grid of dots on his stomach that night.
On the other hand, the photo of Michalak's burns from May 1967 (shown in the next section) depicts what the doctor described.
Michalak’s older son Mark met him at the bus station on Saturday night at 10:15PM and drove him straight to the emergency room. After the treating doctor was interviewed by investigators, this report was made:
“At examination the physician found an area of first degree burns over the upper abdomen, covering an area of 7-8 inches [17-20 cm] and consisting of several round and irregular shaped burns the size of a silver dollar or less.” [Scott 1967]
Tribune reporter Heather Chisvin would speak to the treating doctor within the next two days, who was quoted as saying, about the burns: “nothing unusual about them at all”. [Chisvin 1967]
A grid-like pattern of dots would obviously have been unusual, and a medical professional would have reported it as evidence the patient had burned himself (deliberately or not) on a terrestrial manufactured object with a similar imprint – not that he’d been burned by an airplane exhaust, which was the story Michalak told the ER doctor. Thus we can conclude that Michalak was not sporting a grid of dots on his stomach that night.
On the other hand, the photo of Michalak's burns from May 1967 (shown in the next section) depicts what the doctor described.
Dr Oatway
On Monday, Michalak was treated by Dr Oatway (the family doctor, although he’d only seen him once before, a year previously). Oatway spoke to RCMP the following day, per Corporal G J Davis’s (RCAF) first report, and did not mention a grid of dots on the patient's skin. [Davis 1967a]
Oatway also prepared a report for APRO in 1968, where he described “numerous reddish, slightly irregular, oval-shaped, slightly raised lesions” on Michalak’s “lower sternal and upper abdominal region… especially to the left of the midline… consistent with a first-degree burn.” [Oatway 1968]
The grid of dots we see in the 1968 photo is not to the left of the midline (if anything, it’s off-center to the right). And the shape and arrangement of the dots in the grid are extremely regular, not irregular. Clearly Oatway is not describing a grid pattern just above the navel. He's describing what we see in the 1967 photo.
RCMP investigators
On Tuesday, Corporal Davis and Constable Zacharias (RCMP) interviewed Michalak, who “showed us the burns on his abdomen and chest and there is a large burn that covers an area approximately 1 foot in diameter… blotchy and with unburned areas inside the burned perimeter area… It resembled an exceptionally severe sunburn in the one spot.” (They also examined the undershirt but do not describe its appearance, only that it smelled of “burned electrical wiring or insulation”.) [Davis 1967a]
They do not describe seeing a regular pattern of dots.
On Monday, Michalak was treated by Dr Oatway (the family doctor, although he’d only seen him once before, a year previously). Oatway spoke to RCMP the following day, per Corporal G J Davis’s (RCAF) first report, and did not mention a grid of dots on the patient's skin. [Davis 1967a]
Oatway also prepared a report for APRO in 1968, where he described “numerous reddish, slightly irregular, oval-shaped, slightly raised lesions” on Michalak’s “lower sternal and upper abdominal region… especially to the left of the midline… consistent with a first-degree burn.” [Oatway 1968]
The grid of dots we see in the 1968 photo is not to the left of the midline (if anything, it’s off-center to the right). And the shape and arrangement of the dots in the grid are extremely regular, not irregular. Clearly Oatway is not describing a grid pattern just above the navel. He's describing what we see in the 1967 photo.
RCMP investigators
On Tuesday, Corporal Davis and Constable Zacharias (RCMP) interviewed Michalak, who “showed us the burns on his abdomen and chest and there is a large burn that covers an area approximately 1 foot in diameter… blotchy and with unburned areas inside the burned perimeter area… It resembled an exceptionally severe sunburn in the one spot.” (They also examined the undershirt but do not describe its appearance, only that it smelled of “burned electrical wiring or insulation”.) [Davis 1967a]
They do not describe seeing a regular pattern of dots.
|
UFO sighting report
A UFO sighting report was made on Tuesday (perhaps on the urging of B. Thompson from APRO who visited that day): “His shirt was burned from the exhaust panels on the outer edge and he required medical treatment for burns on his stomach.” Again, no mention of a grid pattern. (This is the only report that positions the burn on Michalak's stomach - all other reports say chest or upper abdomen.) |
UFO sighting report, May 23, 1967. Click to enlarge.
|
Michalak's descriptions
In his interviews and in his booklet from late-1967 [Michalak 1967], I’ve not found Michalak ever describing a grid of burned dots just above his navel. He only talks about a pattern on his undershirt. His descriptions sound like what is depicted in the photo taken days after the incident:
In his interviews and in his booklet from late-1967 [Michalak 1967], I’ve not found Michalak ever describing a grid of burned dots just above his navel. He only talks about a pattern on his undershirt. His descriptions sound like what is depicted in the photo taken days after the incident:
- “Red marks had appeared where the blast from the craft touched me and burnt my shirt. Some spots were as large as silver dollars”
- “The hot surface of the craft melted my glove and the heat burned my cap and set on fire my shirt, formed a peculiar burnt pattern on my undershirt.” [photo caption p. 19]
- “Large and small pink spots appeared on my chest as a result of burns I received from the heat of the craft.” [photo caption p. 21]
- “A doctor examined the burns on my chest”
- “Remains of the undershirt found at the site of the landing. Note the peculiar checkerboard pattern created by the heat which also burned my chest.”
|
Michalak's statement to McPhillips writing to Defence Minister, Ontario, Nov 10, 1967. Click to enlarge.
|
The photo, May 1967
|
This is the photo of Michalak’s burns suffered on May 20. There is no grid just above his navel. His burns are blotchy, irregular, oval marks on his upper abdomen and chest, as described by his doctors at the time and by Michalak himself in his late-1967 booklet.
This photo bears no resemblance to the Jan 1968 photos. (While the PJs look similar, they are not the same: the striped pattern is different and the buttonholes are vertical, not horizontal.) Michalak is wearing a shirt with a button-down collar underneath his striped top - identical to the shirt in the newspaper picture taken the day after the incident. According to Paul Bissky (RCAF) (below), the photo was taken by Barry Thompson (APRO) who visited on Tuesday (3 days after the incident, although Bissky writes 48 hours). Notably, the photo shows missing hair on his chest and abdomen compared to the 1968 photo which shows his natural hair growth. The burns were first degree, which does not singe hair let alone burn it away. It would seem Michalak shaved his skin - perhaps to show off the burns for the photo, or perhaps to give the impression the burns were severe enough to have burned away the hair. |
|
Bissky, 1967 (July 4). Letter from Canadian Govt files with photo on adjacent page (inset). Click to enlarge.
Michalak reproduces this very same photo and the other one referred to in the letter in his late-1967 booklet, on pp. 19 & 21 and on the cover. His booklet contains no mention of, and no photos of, any grid-like pattern of dots on his body.
Michalak's booklet cover, and the two pages showing a photo of his burns and a photo of his damaged clothing - these photos are referred to in Bissky's report.
Note: There’s a slight chance the photo was instead taken by a LIFE magazine photographer on Jun 4 (two weeks after the incident). S.E. Hunt from the Department of Health and Welfare (who was sent to assess radioactivity at the site) writes in his Sep 13 report that when he visited in late July: “Michalak produced a series of photographs taken by Life Magazine representatives. These included photos of the site and colour photos of the burns on his abdomen and the scorched grid pattern on his undershirt.” [Hunt 1967] Thus either Bissky or Hunt was slightly wrong about the exact date the photos were taken.
Chris Rutkowski told me: "I believe the blotchy photo was from what was called an allergic reaction weeks or months after the incident". [personal communication, Mar 20, 2023)] Michalak [1967] describes an itchy rash appearing on June 10, three weeks after the incident, but it does not match the photo: "I noticed a number of blisters high up on my chest near the throat and a V-shaped rash that ran from the middle of my chest up to my ears." Five months after the incident, he describes another allergic reaction - "a burning sensation around my neck and chest" - and a swelling of his body, and "large red spots in the same place where the burns from the ship had been before". However, the date of September 21 is well after July, when we know the photo already existed. Rutkowski's theory that the photo is from either one of these allergic reactions is not supported.
Whether this color photo showing blotchy irregular burns was taken in May or in Jun 1967, it does not resemble the regular pattern of dots near the navel shown the Jan 1968 photo, despite Michalak claiming it was “identical to that of the burns he says he received from a ‘hovering machine’ late last May” [Hodgson 1968].
If Michalak had a grid-like pattern of dots on his body in 1967, why did no doctors or reporters notice it, and why did he never mention it or put a photograph of it in his booklet?
Chris Rutkowski told me: "I believe the blotchy photo was from what was called an allergic reaction weeks or months after the incident". [personal communication, Mar 20, 2023)] Michalak [1967] describes an itchy rash appearing on June 10, three weeks after the incident, but it does not match the photo: "I noticed a number of blisters high up on my chest near the throat and a V-shaped rash that ran from the middle of my chest up to my ears." Five months after the incident, he describes another allergic reaction - "a burning sensation around my neck and chest" - and a swelling of his body, and "large red spots in the same place where the burns from the ship had been before". However, the date of September 21 is well after July, when we know the photo already existed. Rutkowski's theory that the photo is from either one of these allergic reactions is not supported.
Whether this color photo showing blotchy irregular burns was taken in May or in Jun 1967, it does not resemble the regular pattern of dots near the navel shown the Jan 1968 photo, despite Michalak claiming it was “identical to that of the burns he says he received from a ‘hovering machine’ late last May” [Hodgson 1968].
If Michalak had a grid-like pattern of dots on his body in 1967, why did no doctors or reporters notice it, and why did he never mention it or put a photograph of it in his booklet?
Conclusion
The evidence shows that there was no remarkable pattern of dots on Michalak’s body in 1967 supposedly corresponding to the burned pattern on his undershirt. The first time we hear about this regular dot pattern on his body is Jan 1968, when he retrofits it into the story by claiming he kept getting identical flare-ups of the grid pattern. This conclusion is expanded below.
The grid pattern emerges!
The first mention of a grid pattern of dots, and a photo of it, is the January 25, 1968, article in the Winnipeg Free Press “Burns Back, Says Michalak” (top of this page), where Michalak claims the rash is identical to the burns he suffered in May, and that they have since returned three times:
“The spots show up and grow and grow,” he said. “Finally, they join up.” [Hodgson 1968]
With this statement, Michalak appears to be trying to link the blotchy photo from 8 months earlier with these clean regular dots (even though the article says they are “now fading” already, and have certainly not joined up yet).
Even if we force ourselves to find rows of dots in the May 1967 photo, their angle and location are completely different from the grid pattern in Jan 1968. There is no way these dots could “grow and grow” and re-orientate until they become “identical” to those blotchy burns.
“The spots show up and grow and grow,” he said. “Finally, they join up.” [Hodgson 1968]
With this statement, Michalak appears to be trying to link the blotchy photo from 8 months earlier with these clean regular dots (even though the article says they are “now fading” already, and have certainly not joined up yet).
Even if we force ourselves to find rows of dots in the May 1967 photo, their angle and location are completely different from the grid pattern in Jan 1968. There is no way these dots could “grow and grow” and re-orientate until they become “identical” to those blotchy burns.
1967 original burns (left, University of Manitoba 2019) and 1968 grid of dots (right, Hodgson 1968) which Michalak claims are identical to his 1967 burns.
Importantly, the 1968 article does not indicate Michalak sought medical attention, so we have no information on what caused this rash, only his word that “doctors can’t help him because they don’t know what is wrong with him.” He simply felt dizzy at work and became “bedridden” at home, and decided to call the paper with an update.
Michalak sought treatment at the Mayo Clinic in Winnipeg in mid-1968 (a year after the incident), including physical and psychiatric assessments. The psychiatrist called his UFO encounter an “apparition” and wrote: “his lesions have been diagnosed as obviously factitial” – meaning he deliberately made them himself. [Mayo Clinic 1968]
Rutkowski [1989, Unsolved Mysteries] suggested the dot pattern was a chemical burn (while the burns higher up the torso were thermal). The rash in the 1968 photo does show undisturbed hair on Michalak’s stomach, so it does not seem to be a thermal burn.
But without medical records, the dots in these Jan 1968 photos could have been inked on!
Michalak sought treatment at the Mayo Clinic in Winnipeg in mid-1968 (a year after the incident), including physical and psychiatric assessments. The psychiatrist called his UFO encounter an “apparition” and wrote: “his lesions have been diagnosed as obviously factitial” – meaning he deliberately made them himself. [Mayo Clinic 1968]
Rutkowski [1989, Unsolved Mysteries] suggested the dot pattern was a chemical burn (while the burns higher up the torso were thermal). The rash in the 1968 photo does show undisturbed hair on Michalak’s stomach, so it does not seem to be a thermal burn.
But without medical records, the dots in these Jan 1968 photos could have been inked on!
Another 1968 photo from the same series as the one taken for the Burns Back article.
The undershirt
It is now an established part of the story that the pattern of dots on Michalak’s abdomen was caused by the UFO’s exhaust during his May 1967 encounter.
His son Stan said: “the exact same pattern of holes that was on the grid on the side of the craft in the same order, in the same rows, in the same number, appeared as red spots on his lower abdomen”. [Stan Michalak 1989]
Stan never saw the UFO’s exhaust, so he must mean the red dots on Michalak’s skin matched the burned pattern of dots on his undershirt.
This is a debatable point.
Let’s examine the undershirt. Michalak told the highway cop on Saturday that it was in his briefcase, but refused to produce it. The reporter on Sunday described “remnants of an undershirt with a geometrically-patterned burned spot on it”, and his family doctor as well as the two RCMP officers who interviewed him on Tuesday also saw it.
His son Stan said: “the exact same pattern of holes that was on the grid on the side of the craft in the same order, in the same rows, in the same number, appeared as red spots on his lower abdomen”. [Stan Michalak 1989]
Stan never saw the UFO’s exhaust, so he must mean the red dots on Michalak’s skin matched the burned pattern of dots on his undershirt.
This is a debatable point.
Let’s examine the undershirt. Michalak told the highway cop on Saturday that it was in his briefcase, but refused to produce it. The reporter on Sunday described “remnants of an undershirt with a geometrically-patterned burned spot on it”, and his family doctor as well as the two RCMP officers who interviewed him on Tuesday also saw it.
Michalak's undershirt, which he claims was burned by the exhaust of the craft and caught fire. He ripped it off and carried it out of the site in his briefcase.
The above photo (very similar to the one in Michalak’s late-1967 booklet, see colored box below) shows the neck edging and half the upper chest burned away, and the shoulder straps burned through - although Michalak never reported burns to his shoulders. The shirt is opened out flat, and the left edge appears to have been cut by scissors. This may have happened after he ripped it off and brought it home, of course.
Michalak was facing the craft and "felt a scorching pain around my chest" [Michalak 1967, p.13], so the front of his shirt was impressed with the exhaust burn. But a closer look at the photo reveals this seems to be the back of the shirt. Undershirts generally have lower necklines at the front, higher at the back. When the burned-away neckline is redrawn, it's higher on the side with the burn mark - i.e. the back:
Michalak was facing the craft and "felt a scorching pain around my chest" [Michalak 1967, p.13], so the front of his shirt was impressed with the exhaust burn. But a closer look at the photo reveals this seems to be the back of the shirt. Undershirts generally have lower necklines at the front, higher at the back. When the burned-away neckline is redrawn, it's higher on the side with the burn mark - i.e. the back:
Neckline reconstructed showing the exhaust burn appears to be on the back of the undershirt.
|
Additionally, the grid on the shirt is clearly higher than the corresponding marks on Michalak’s abdomen: the lower border of the shirt's burn is a little below the bottom edge of the armhole, but the rash on Michalak's stomach is just above his navel, nowhere near where his shirt armholes would be.
The fashion of the time does not show undershirts with excessively long (low) armholes, and nor does the burned shirt seem to have excessively large armholes. The vintage undershirts on the right show the neckline ends a few inches above the lower border of the armhole, which matches Michalak's shirt if the burn is on the back. |
1950s undershirts showing the back neckline is higher than the front.
|
1960s underwear (catalogue)
|
|
Mismatched & mislabeled
Looking at the similar photo from Michalak's booklet (low quality photocopy is all I have), which shows the entire length of the shirt, it becomes rather obvious that the burn in the shirt is nowhere near his abdomen where the rash "reappeared" just above his navel in Jan 1968. Oddly, the caption for this photo in Michalak’s booklet begins: “Remains of the undershirt found at the site of the landing.” This is incorrect. Remains of his outer shirt were “found” at the side 6 weeks after the incident. He took his undershirt with him on the day of the incident, showed it off to a reporter the next day, and had it photographed within three days. Why did he rewrite this part of the story for his booklet in late 1967? |
Photo of the undershirt from Michalak's booklet, with the borders of the two "grids" outlined in red (Michalak, 1967)
|
Michalak’s story in 1968 was that his rash had reappeared in the identical location as his May 1967 burn. Even if we accept he did have a grid pattern of dots burned into his skin in May (and there is zero evidence of this), it does not match the shirt.
Dr Oatway did write in his report for APRO in 1968 that he “observed the burnt undershirt which had holes with charred (or blackened) edges corresponding to the site of the burn.” [Oatway 1968] But Oatway was matching the shirt damage to the blotchy first degree burns on Michalak’s upper torso – not to a grid of dots on his lower torso (which Oatway never reported seeing).
Michalak’s grid burn on his skin also has no hint of the “border” seen around the dots on the shirt, which he described as slits through which heat also came out to burn the shirt. Meanwhile, the undershirt has the start of a second “screen” or grid to the left (as shown in second photo on this page), which is entirely under his arm, yet it’s aligned with the first with no regard for the 3-dimensional shape of a human body.
My conclusion is that the marks on Michalak’s body in 1968 were not made by the same thing that burned his shirt. And that the grid on the shirt was made while it was flattened, not while worn.
So, what burned the shirt? I suppose we'll never know.
Dr Oatway did write in his report for APRO in 1968 that he “observed the burnt undershirt which had holes with charred (or blackened) edges corresponding to the site of the burn.” [Oatway 1968] But Oatway was matching the shirt damage to the blotchy first degree burns on Michalak’s upper torso – not to a grid of dots on his lower torso (which Oatway never reported seeing).
Michalak’s grid burn on his skin also has no hint of the “border” seen around the dots on the shirt, which he described as slits through which heat also came out to burn the shirt. Meanwhile, the undershirt has the start of a second “screen” or grid to the left (as shown in second photo on this page), which is entirely under his arm, yet it’s aligned with the first with no regard for the 3-dimensional shape of a human body.
My conclusion is that the marks on Michalak’s body in 1968 were not made by the same thing that burned his shirt. And that the grid on the shirt was made while it was flattened, not while worn.
So, what burned the shirt? I suppose we'll never know.
What really happened at Falcon Lake?
This analysis has provided evidence that the grid pattern of dots appeared on Michalak’s skin for the first time around Jan 1968, but that he retro-fitted the rash of dots into his May 1967 sighting, in a poor attempt to match the pattern burned into his undershirt allegedly by a UFO.
Some speculation based on the evidence:
Beyond all this speculation, what does seem clear is that Michalak’s retro-fitting of his “recurring” rash of grid-like dots was an act of deception. There was nothing unusual about his initial first-degree burns, there is no medical information about the grid of dots 8 months later, and whatever lesions he had a few months after that were self-inflicted according to his psychiatrist at the Mayo Clinic.
The other evidence for this case is unconvincing or turned out to be red herrings: no radiation poisoning, no unusual radioactivity at the site, and other features at the site such as silver rods, dead leaves and cleared rock could easily be manmade or planted. As such, the unusual grid of dots allegedly caused by the craft's exhaust was all this case had going for it. Those dots did not appear until 8 months later and don't match up with the burn on his undershirt.
If Michalak was truly burned by a UFO, there was no need for him to deceive.
Some speculation based on the evidence:
- The burns on Michalak’s chest may have come from hot ash, either the result of an accident that he quickly spun into a UFO sighting, or as part of a premeditated hoax.
- He refused help from the police and, despite saying he didn’t want publicity, instead called the newspaper to tell his story - which printed his address. The family was then inundated with an "endless stream of reporters, well-wishers, flim-flam artists, odd folks, interested parties, government agency representatives, the authorities, investigators of all types and just simple nutcases who washed up on our doorstep like a never-ending tsunami." [Stan Michalak & Rutkowski 2017, chp 5]
- Both the sketch of the UFO and the burned undershirt may have been created after he got home to Winnipeg, for his interview with the reporter on Sunday. Additional evidence that the sketch of the craft was not made at the site is the label "fast closing exit". The exit hatch only closed after he finished the sketch and approached the craft, making this label anachronistic. [James Easton drew my attention to this on Facebook.]
- The blotchy irregular first degree burns to his chest and upper abdomen were not serious. His sickness may have been entirely faked: essentially, he did not eat much, lost weight, and reported nausea. And none of the doctors, reporters, or officers of the law or military commented on the terrible smell he claimed to be oozing. He may have been simulating symptoms that he associated with radiation poisoning, but this backfired because abnormal radiation was not found at the site.
- Once the police and military got involved, it became impossible for him to back down because he might be on the hook for the expenses incurred.
- Once his family began suffering, he may have felt unable to back down because he couldn’t admit he’d put them through all that for a hoax. (His older son had to battle the press, his younger son was bullied, and there were repeated arguments with his wife.) [Stan Michalak & Rutkowski 2017, chps 3, 4, 8, 10]
- It’s possible he failed to “find” the site for the authorities on multiple attempts because there was no site and his map was a generic sketch to keep them happy.
- If there was a site, perhaps he wasn’t ready for anyone to find it until he’d planted evidence, created a “landing circle”, or killed off the surrounding leaves with poison. (Perhaps he collaborated with the colorful Mr Hart, the man with whom he eventually did locate the site, and who owned a cabin at Falcon Lake – they may have become acquainted during Michalak’s previous visits to the area. What their ultimate goal was is anyone’s guess, and perhaps things didn’t go according to plan anyway.)
- After publishing his 40-page booklet in late 1967 (some time after September), the fuss died down and he may have pretended the burns come back in order to revitalize the story the following year. Maybe his previous allergy attacks gave him the idea.
Beyond all this speculation, what does seem clear is that Michalak’s retro-fitting of his “recurring” rash of grid-like dots was an act of deception. There was nothing unusual about his initial first-degree burns, there is no medical information about the grid of dots 8 months later, and whatever lesions he had a few months after that were self-inflicted according to his psychiatrist at the Mayo Clinic.
The other evidence for this case is unconvincing or turned out to be red herrings: no radiation poisoning, no unusual radioactivity at the site, and other features at the site such as silver rods, dead leaves and cleared rock could easily be manmade or planted. As such, the unusual grid of dots allegedly caused by the craft's exhaust was all this case had going for it. Those dots did not appear until 8 months later and don't match up with the burn on his undershirt.
If Michalak was truly burned by a UFO, there was no need for him to deceive.
Sources
NOTE: Reports and correspondence from the Canadian Government UFO files is indicated with [Archive.org] where the PDFs can be downloaded. The documents relating to Michalak's case are PDFs #17 and #18.
> Download here.
Bissky, P (Jul 4, 1967). Letter to Chief of Defence Staff, Canadian Forces HQ, Ottawa. [Archive.org]
Chisvin, H (May 22, 1967). I was burned by UFO. Winnipeg Tribune.
Davis, G J (May 26, 1967). Stefan Michalak – Report of Unidentified Flying Object, Falcon Beach, Man. Royal Canadian Mounted Police [also on Archive.org]
Davis, G J (Jun 26, 1967). Stefan Michalak – Report of Unidentified Flying Object, Falcon Beach, Man. Royal Canadian Mounted Police [also on Archive.org]
Montreal Star (May 24, 1967). Interloper's Heat Ray Jolts 'Too Nosy' Saucer Spotter.
Hodgson, D. (Jan 17, 1968). Burns Back Says Michalak. Winnipeg Free Press.
Hunt, S. (Sep 13, 1967). Determination of Possible Radiation Hazards to the General Public from the Alleged Landing Site of an Unidentified Flying Object near Falcon Lake, Manitoba, in letter to A. K. DasGupta. [Archive.org]
Mayo Clinic. (Aug 6, 1968). Psychiatric Report on Mr. Stephen Michallack [sic]. In Stan Michalak & Rutkowski 2017.
McPhillips, L. (Nov 10, 1967). Winnipeg City Policeman and UFO enthusiast. Letter of UFO sightings sent to Defence Minister Leo Cadieux. [Archive.org]
Michalak, Stan & Rutkowski, Chris (2017). When They Appeared: Falcon Lake 1967: The inside story of a close encounter. August Night Books.
Michalack, Stephen (1967). My Encounter with the UFO (reproduced in Stan Michalak & Rutkowski, 2017)
Oatway, R D (Mar 22, 1968). Letter to Dr. Horace Dudley. [Archive.org]
Michalak, Stan (1989). Unsolved Mysteries (TV show).
Rutkowski, C. (1989). Unsolved Mysteries (TV show).
Rollason, K (May 18, 2017). Close encounter of the Manitoba kind. Winnipeg Free Press.
Scott, D J (May 26, 1967). Deputy Base Surgeon of CFB Winnipeg. Memorandum to Squadron Leader P. Bissky, RCMP. [Archive.org]
Solotki, G A (Jun 16, 1967). Royal Canadian Mounted Police Report, D Division, Falcon Police Highway Patrol. Stefan Michalak: Report of Unidentified Flying Object, Falcon Beach, Manitoba – 20 MAY 67. [Archive.org]
University of Manitoba (Oct 31, 2019). The Falcon Lake UFO Files. Archives and Special Collections.
> Download here.
Bissky, P (Jul 4, 1967). Letter to Chief of Defence Staff, Canadian Forces HQ, Ottawa. [Archive.org]
Chisvin, H (May 22, 1967). I was burned by UFO. Winnipeg Tribune.
Davis, G J (May 26, 1967). Stefan Michalak – Report of Unidentified Flying Object, Falcon Beach, Man. Royal Canadian Mounted Police [also on Archive.org]
Davis, G J (Jun 26, 1967). Stefan Michalak – Report of Unidentified Flying Object, Falcon Beach, Man. Royal Canadian Mounted Police [also on Archive.org]
Montreal Star (May 24, 1967). Interloper's Heat Ray Jolts 'Too Nosy' Saucer Spotter.
Hodgson, D. (Jan 17, 1968). Burns Back Says Michalak. Winnipeg Free Press.
Hunt, S. (Sep 13, 1967). Determination of Possible Radiation Hazards to the General Public from the Alleged Landing Site of an Unidentified Flying Object near Falcon Lake, Manitoba, in letter to A. K. DasGupta. [Archive.org]
Mayo Clinic. (Aug 6, 1968). Psychiatric Report on Mr. Stephen Michallack [sic]. In Stan Michalak & Rutkowski 2017.
McPhillips, L. (Nov 10, 1967). Winnipeg City Policeman and UFO enthusiast. Letter of UFO sightings sent to Defence Minister Leo Cadieux. [Archive.org]
Michalak, Stan & Rutkowski, Chris (2017). When They Appeared: Falcon Lake 1967: The inside story of a close encounter. August Night Books.
Michalack, Stephen (1967). My Encounter with the UFO (reproduced in Stan Michalak & Rutkowski, 2017)
Oatway, R D (Mar 22, 1968). Letter to Dr. Horace Dudley. [Archive.org]
Michalak, Stan (1989). Unsolved Mysteries (TV show).
Rutkowski, C. (1989). Unsolved Mysteries (TV show).
Rollason, K (May 18, 2017). Close encounter of the Manitoba kind. Winnipeg Free Press.
Scott, D J (May 26, 1967). Deputy Base Surgeon of CFB Winnipeg. Memorandum to Squadron Leader P. Bissky, RCMP. [Archive.org]
Solotki, G A (Jun 16, 1967). Royal Canadian Mounted Police Report, D Division, Falcon Police Highway Patrol. Stefan Michalak: Report of Unidentified Flying Object, Falcon Beach, Manitoba – 20 MAY 67. [Archive.org]
University of Manitoba (Oct 31, 2019). The Falcon Lake UFO Files. Archives and Special Collections.
(c) Charlie Wiser 2022
