This case, i think, is one of the best unsolved ufo cases, and i would like to hear peoples views, skeptics and believers on this case. This case is a pure example of de-bunkers quietly pushing cases like this to one side, just because they cant explain it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shag_Harbour_incident
Full Version: Shag Harbour incident
Unexplained Mysteries Discussion Forums > Unexplained Mysteries > Extraterrestrial Life & The UFO Phenomenon
QUOTE (morrison1976 @ Nov 3 2007, 10:31 AM) 
This case, i think, is one of the best unsolved ufo cases, and i would like to hear peoples views, skeptics and believers on this case. This case is a pure example of de-bunkers quietly pushing cases like this to one side, just because they cant explain it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shag_Harbour_incident
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shag_Harbour_incident
You know, if in just one of your posts you would leave out your unreasonable opinion about de-bunkers, it would give whatever you say a little more credibility for you don't seem to understand that de-bunkers are necessary. I'm a debunker. Debunkers make you think, take you outside of your closed mind, etc. Not all debunkers debunk for the better but those that do, again I qualify, a different and possibly correct explanation is welcomed.
The Shag Harbour event is seen 2 or 3 times a year in a particular TV documentary that shows only the believers' side. Perhaps the military doesn't want to admit that what took place is beyond their understanding and explanation. Perhaps it's not what the documentary, with its graphics, show. If you can find out for us, facts; evidence, we will all appreciate it.
QUOTE (SkepticalEd @ Nov 3 2007, 09:26 PM)
You know, if in just one of your posts you would leave out your unreasonable opinion about de-bunkers, it would give whatever you say a little more credibility for you don't seem to understand that de-bunkers are necessary. I'm a debunker. Debunkers make you think, take you outside of your closed mind, etc. Not all debunkers debunk for the better but those that do, again I qualify, a different and possibly correct explanation is welcomed.
The Shag Harbour event is seen 2 or 3 times a year in a particular TV documentary that shows only the believers' side. Perhaps the military doesn't want to admit that what took place is beyond their understanding and explanation. Perhaps it's not what the documentary, with its graphics, show. If you can find out for us, facts; evidence, we will all appreciate it.
That's where you're wrong. They interviewed ex navy personal along with guys who actually witnessed the incident but they don't have any credibility right? That's the problem i have with debunkers. Everybody else is wrong but them, They alway write off eye witness accounts because supposedly they don't hold any credibility which is BS to the highest degree. Then they try to say , Oh it was a weather system passing through or it was light reflecting off of the water. Give me a break.
The Shag Harbour event is seen 2 or 3 times a year in a particular TV documentary that shows only the believers' side. Perhaps the military doesn't want to admit that what took place is beyond their understanding and explanation. Perhaps it's not what the documentary, with its graphics, show. If you can find out for us, facts; evidence, we will all appreciate it.
I only heard about that recently. the name amused me briefly.
I have to say that the supposed excuse
sounds rather more alarming than if it actually an alien spacecraft... what on earth is an "atomic furnace" supposed to be, and why would they be carrying them about on leaky barges? Sounds fishy to me.
I have to say that the supposed excuse
QUOTE
On October 13, there was a brief mention of the unexpected arrival of a large barge at Shelburne, supposedly for repair, carrying an "atomic furnace." This would perhaps provide some weak corroboration of the previously mentioned witness story of a barge being brought in for retrieval at Shelburne, with a cover story being given for its presence there.
The story about the barge also appeared on October 12 in the Shelburne Coast Guard, a weekly newspaper. The headline read, "U.S. Barge at Shelburne with Atomic Furnaces." The story claimed that a barge carrying "two huge atomic furnaces" from Philadelphia to Rochester, N.Y., had to put into Shelburne for repairs on October 6 after springing a leak and taking on water.
The story about the barge also appeared on October 12 in the Shelburne Coast Guard, a weekly newspaper. The headline read, "U.S. Barge at Shelburne with Atomic Furnaces." The story claimed that a barge carrying "two huge atomic furnaces" from Philadelphia to Rochester, N.Y., had to put into Shelburne for repairs on October 6 after springing a leak and taking on water.
sounds rather more alarming than if it actually an alien spacecraft... what on earth is an "atomic furnace" supposed to be, and why would they be carrying them about on leaky barges? Sounds fishy to me.
QUOTE
You know, if in just one of your posts you would leave out your unreasonable opinion about de-bunkers, it would give whatever you say a little more credibility for you don't seem to understand that de-bunkers are necessary
It not unreasonable, as i also question some believers for believing everything. Also, i never say all de-bunkers, and i never say all believers. If you take time to read my posts, then you will see this. I am open minded, and i need 100% proof myself before i believe in the ET explanation. I am on the fense, and thats the best place to be, because then you can see the de-bunkers and the believers that bring this subject down.
QUOTE
I'm a debunker. Debunkers make you think, take you outside of your closed mind, etc
How arragont and ignorant that line is. I think for myself! because im not a "de-bunker" does not mean i am closed minded, far from it.
QUOTE
Not all debunkers debunk for the better but those that do, again I qualify, a different and possibly correct explanation is welcomed.
And i have never said that all de-bunkers are not the same. Some do think for themselves!, as some believers do too!
QUOTE
The Shag Harbour event is seen 2 or 3 times a year in a particular TV documentary that shows only the believers' side. Perhaps the military doesn't want to admit that what took place is beyond their understanding and explanation. Perhaps it's not what the documentary, with its graphics, show. If you can find out for us, facts; evidence, we will all appreciate it.
So everyone who has seen a ufo is a believer? That is a load of rubbish! Look into the case mate, and you will see the facts. There are many witneses for this case, including militery people. Witneses, in different areas saw the object, in the sky, and crash into the water. I suggest you actually read about the case.
QUOTE (morrison1976 @ Nov 3 2007, 06:24 PM)
It not unreasonable, as i also question some believers for believing everything. Also, i never say all de-bunkers, and i never say all believers. If you take time to read my posts, then you will see this. I am open minded, and i need 100% proof myself before i believe in the ET explanation. I am on the fense, and thats the best place to be, because then you can see the de-bunkers and the believers that bring this subject down.
How arragont and ignorant that line is. I think for myself! because im not a "de-bunker" does not mean i am closed minded, far from it.
And i have never said that all de-bunkers are not the same. Some do think for themselves!, as some believers do too!
So everyone who has seen a ufo is a believer? That is a load of rubbish! Look into the case mate, and you will see the facts. There are many witneses for this case, including militery people. Witneses, in different areas saw the object, in the sky, and crash into the water. I suggest you actually read about the case.
How arragont and ignorant that line is. I think for myself! because im not a "de-bunker" does not mean i am closed minded, far from it.
And i have never said that all de-bunkers are not the same. Some do think for themselves!, as some believers do too!
So everyone who has seen a ufo is a believer? That is a load of rubbish! Look into the case mate, and you will see the facts. There are many witneses for this case, including militery people. Witneses, in different areas saw the object, in the sky, and crash into the water. I suggest you actually read about the case.
Two problems with your "angry" reply: First problem: I know the distinction between believer and accepter. For your elucidation, once you experience something, the belief or non-belief becomes knowledge therefore you don't believe, you know. I have never been a believer, but I am an accepter as I've had 6 solid sightings one resulting in a video of same.
Second problem: I probably became aware of the Shag Harbour event before you were born.
QUOTE
Two problems with your "angry" reply: First problem: I know the distinction between believer and accepter. For your elucidation, once you experience something, the belief or non-belief becomes knowledge therefore you don't believe, you know. I have never been a believer, but I am an accepter as I've had 6 solid sightings one resulting in a video of same.
And what??
I am interested in ufos. I have not seen a ufo, but i believe and except that they exist, and need further investigation. Also, i know the difference in a believer, and a hardcore believer, same with a de-bunker and a hardcore de-bunker, and there are plenty of them on this forum.
QUOTE
Second problem: I probably became aware of the Shag Harbour event before you were born.
And your point is?
QUOTE (morrison1976 @ Nov 4 2007, 12:31 AM)
This case is a pure example of de-bunkers quietly pushing cases like this to one side, just because they cant explain it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shag_Harbour_incident
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shag_Harbour_incident
I kind of agree with Ed on this one.
Despite the fact I believe Shag Harbour is a good case to compare with other supposed UFO crash sites, it is still 'unsolved'. There is no conclusive evidence either way, UFO or Terrestrial phenomenon.
I shy away from claims of 'ultimate' evidence presented by UFO supporters, not because I am not a supporter in the UFO and UAP phenomenon....more so because the phenomenon itself hasn't yet been clearly defined. I must admit, it is a bit presumptuous to use Shag Harbour as evidence for believers when believers themselves still haven't made up their minds in regards to WHAT the phenomenon is.
Let's not forget that the concept of extra-terrestrials is just ONE theory in a string of MANY.
This is why I agree with Ed here, because the case file itself is very interesting and supported by testimonials from the RCMP; however the claim that de-bunkers use the case to subvert the evidence is silly.....because we as believers (yes me too) still haven't made up our minds on what they are trying to debunk.
I would gues the reason for silence from the likes of Randi and Klass on this incident is fairly easy.
The govenrment documents released on the case say Unidentified Flying Object within their pages and there is, AFAIK, no question of their validity.
Secondly hallucinations, do not leave physical traces, in the form of the yellow foam, on the surface of the water when they vanish into it.
This leaves them with the option of saying either, the whole thing was just one big foul up and that everyone was wrong, or to accuse the witnesses of outright lying. In other words short of mere dismissal, they don't really have any recourse to the usual line of "logic" they prefer.
That is not to say the incident doesn't have some terrestial solution, it just means the usual talking heads don't have a clue and they simply don't like to be filmed on camera admitting that.
That is fair enough, but it does tend to lend creedence to the idea that many of the professional skeptics are more interested in their own reputations than the actual study of the phenomenon under question.
Unlike with Roswell, with Shag Harbour there is no divergence of evidence, with wtnesses often at odds with eachothers testimony. Those witnesses that have spoken out, seem to only add threads to a coherent whole. That in itself is fascinating and makes this case fairly unique.
Another fascinating aspect to the case is that, several of the key wintesses, to this day themselves side with the idea that it might well have been some military project that went wrong. There is no cadre of converts who have taken to becoming evangelists for the believers. Maybe this explains why some fo the more "rabid" believers , themselves, shy away from the case, as the wintesses hold no truck with their seeking to turn everything into an alien incident.
In short , the extremes on both sides have very little evidence to work with they can turn to their own advantage, so just are happy to brush it under the carpet and go back to arguing about Roswell.
What would be interesting, would be if, someone could track down and find out exactly why that Russian sub headed for the area. Did they know what had happened through their spy network? It would suggest, if they were informed, it was something major enough for them to order a sub into NATO waters.
The govenrment documents released on the case say Unidentified Flying Object within their pages and there is, AFAIK, no question of their validity.
Secondly hallucinations, do not leave physical traces, in the form of the yellow foam, on the surface of the water when they vanish into it.
This leaves them with the option of saying either, the whole thing was just one big foul up and that everyone was wrong, or to accuse the witnesses of outright lying. In other words short of mere dismissal, they don't really have any recourse to the usual line of "logic" they prefer.
That is not to say the incident doesn't have some terrestial solution, it just means the usual talking heads don't have a clue and they simply don't like to be filmed on camera admitting that.
That is fair enough, but it does tend to lend creedence to the idea that many of the professional skeptics are more interested in their own reputations than the actual study of the phenomenon under question.
Unlike with Roswell, with Shag Harbour there is no divergence of evidence, with wtnesses often at odds with eachothers testimony. Those witnesses that have spoken out, seem to only add threads to a coherent whole. That in itself is fascinating and makes this case fairly unique.
Another fascinating aspect to the case is that, several of the key wintesses, to this day themselves side with the idea that it might well have been some military project that went wrong. There is no cadre of converts who have taken to becoming evangelists for the believers. Maybe this explains why some fo the more "rabid" believers , themselves, shy away from the case, as the wintesses hold no truck with their seeking to turn everything into an alien incident.
In short , the extremes on both sides have very little evidence to work with they can turn to their own advantage, so just are happy to brush it under the carpet and go back to arguing about Roswell.
What would be interesting, would be if, someone could track down and find out exactly why that Russian sub headed for the area. Did they know what had happened through their spy network? It would suggest, if they were informed, it was something major enough for them to order a sub into NATO waters.
QUOTE (SkepticalEd @ Nov 3 2007, 10:43 PM)
Second problem: I probably became aware of the Shag Harbour event before you were born.
And the relevance of that is... ?
Wait, wait, wait, hold on a sec.
There's actually a place called Shag harbour? *giggle!*
There's actually a place called Shag harbour? *giggle!*
QUOTE (Syntax @ Nov 4 2007, 12:30 AM)
Let's not forget that the concept of extra-terrestrials is just ONE theory in a string of MANY.
I agree absolutely there.. even if it was, say, a classified military aircaft, or even a spaccraft of some kind (one of "ours"), that doesn't make it any less intreresting. It does seem that people who insist that such things can only be alien spacecraft, and if they're not then they're not intrerested, are missing out on a lot of interesting stuff.
QUOTE (Syntax @ Nov 4 2007, 12:30 AM)
...I shy away from claims of 'ultimate' evidence presented by UFO supporters, not because I am not a supporter in the UFO and UAP phenomenon....more so because the phenomenon itself hasn't yet been clearly defined. I must admit, it is a bit presumptuous to use Shag Harbour as evidence for believers when believers themselves still haven't made up their minds in regards to WHAT the phenomenon is.
Let's not forget that the concept of extra-terrestrials is just ONE theory in a string of MANY.
Let's not forget that the concept of extra-terrestrials is just ONE theory in a string of MANY.
And I agree as well. The Shag Harbour case is certainly very compelling, but still not a 'slam dunk' for the ET hypothesis. This case highlights just how fascinating and frustrating investigation into UFOs can be.
They say "seeing is believing"...but if you see something that you simply don't have a clue as to *what* it is...what then do you "believe"?
On the night of 04 October 1967, shortly after 11:00 PM, a UFO some 60 feet in diameter was seen to hover over the water near the tiny fishing village of Shag Harbour, Nova Scotia. The UFO, which displayed four bright lights that flashed in sequence, tilted to a 45-degree angle and descended rapidly towards the water's surface. Upon impact, there was a bright flash and an explosive roar. Concerned witnesses began calling the nearby Barrington Passage RCMP detachment. None of those witnesses mentioned anything about a UFO. Most believed that a large aircraft had ditched into the harbour and that there might be survivors.
Eventually, three RCMP officers arrived at the shore near the impact site. Corporal V. Werbicki and Constable Ron O'Brien, dispatched from the Barrington Passage Detachment, were approaching from east of the site. Constable Ron Pond, who was on highway patrol on Highway #3, was heading towards Shag Harbour from a position west of the impact site, and his position allowed him to view the UFO while it was still in flight. The unusual lighting configuration and flight characteristics tipped Cst. Pond off to the unusual nature of the object long before he heard from Cpl. Werbicki, who received his information through the initial complaints to the detachment.
When all three officers met at the impact site they found that the UFO was still floating on the water about a half-mile from shore. It was glowing a pale yellow and was leaving a trail of dense yellow foam as it drifted in the ebb tide. Neither the Rescue Co-ordination Centre in Halifax nor the nearby NORAD radar facility at Baccaro, Nova Scotia, had any knowledge of missing aircraft, either civilian or military. Cst. Pond reported that the object had "changed" during its descent to the water's surface, i.e., it changed shape, and that it appeared to be "no known object."
Allegedly...
Eventually, three RCMP officers arrived at the shore near the impact site. Corporal V. Werbicki and Constable Ron O'Brien, dispatched from the Barrington Passage Detachment, were approaching from east of the site. Constable Ron Pond, who was on highway patrol on Highway #3, was heading towards Shag Harbour from a position west of the impact site, and his position allowed him to view the UFO while it was still in flight. The unusual lighting configuration and flight characteristics tipped Cst. Pond off to the unusual nature of the object long before he heard from Cpl. Werbicki, who received his information through the initial complaints to the detachment.
When all three officers met at the impact site they found that the UFO was still floating on the water about a half-mile from shore. It was glowing a pale yellow and was leaving a trail of dense yellow foam as it drifted in the ebb tide. Neither the Rescue Co-ordination Centre in Halifax nor the nearby NORAD radar facility at Baccaro, Nova Scotia, had any knowledge of missing aircraft, either civilian or military. Cst. Pond reported that the object had "changed" during its descent to the water's surface, i.e., it changed shape, and that it appeared to be "no known object."
Allegedly...
QUOTE (Mad Manfred @ Nov 4 2007, 01:35 AM)
Wait, wait, wait, hold on a sec.
There's actually a place called Shag harbour? *giggle!*
There's actually a place called Shag harbour? *giggle!*
Yep and near by me there is a place called: W A N K E R'S Corner, Oregon. (I kid you not - Google it
)The Shag Habour Incident (aka Canada's Roswell) and the Kecksburg incident (which took place 2 years prior) are more fascinating to me than the Roswell incident.
Not sure if any one is interested but you can watch "Canada's Roswell" (preview) HERE - In the VIDEO INFO you will find the download links in two parts for the episode.
Here are some photos the actual site of the crash that occurred in October of 1967.
http://i84.photobucket.com/albums/k37/coltlol/P2100031.jpg
http://i84.photobucket.com/albums/k37/coltlol/P2100030.jpg
and here is a pic of the cute little museum that they had set up about a kilometre away from the actual site..
http://i84.photobucket.com/albums/k37/coltlol/P2100026.jpg
Me and my dad traveled there this summer (it was one hell of a long trip... I think it was worth it!), and I snapped a few photographs. There are a few more if you'd like to see... just different areas of the site.
There were reports from nearby military bases, airports, etc.. which indicated that no aircraft were missing or dispatched in that area, which just makes me think that it might have been extraterrestrials. I know this doesn't hold a lot of importance to the thread at hand, but please don't hate me for it. I just thought some of you might be interested to see what it looked like up close..
http://i84.photobucket.com/albums/k37/coltlol/P2100031.jpg
http://i84.photobucket.com/albums/k37/coltlol/P2100030.jpg
and here is a pic of the cute little museum that they had set up about a kilometre away from the actual site..
http://i84.photobucket.com/albums/k37/coltlol/P2100026.jpg
Me and my dad traveled there this summer (it was one hell of a long trip... I think it was worth it!), and I snapped a few photographs. There are a few more if you'd like to see... just different areas of the site.
There were reports from nearby military bases, airports, etc.. which indicated that no aircraft were missing or dispatched in that area, which just makes me think that it might have been extraterrestrials. I know this doesn't hold a lot of importance to the thread at hand, but please don't hate me for it. I just thought some of you might be interested to see what it looked like up close..
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.