Originally posted by dhardeman
Pseudo burns (FLAME BURNS NON THE LESS) on the shirt would NOT come from a microwave source- if they had his internal organs would've boiled at the
wattage necessary to burn a cotton shirt (which it obviously is- polyesters would've melted). If they WERE flame burns on his chest, what explains
the lack of protrusion to the skin through the shirt? Those are light toasty burns- no where near enough to really get you a good 2nd degree burn
which is what the burns in the picture look like on him to me.
You make a lot of valid points. This part however I think needs a bit of further explanation. If you are assuming microwaves set to the frequency of
water, as is found in a modern kitchen microwave appliance, than indeed your paragraph description is accurate.
However microwaves can be tuned to heat things other than water, and the 'wattage' required to burn through any substance is necessarily determined
by which component of the substance is being heated.
The water method, like in our kitchen microwave units, vibrates the water within the food, and food heats up as a result of this internal friction.
If you tuned your microwave at a different frequency though, you could theoretically heat your food using a different component (not water). I hope
that makes sense.
For an example, in certain strains of algae there is a high lipid content (oils), you can tune a microwave emmitter to the lipid as opposed to the
water, and use the microwave bombardment of the algae to seperate the oils.
So really, it all depends on the attunement of the microwave frequency, as to what will burn and what wont. If the microwaves are tuned to heat up a
component not found in humans, he wouldn't have heated up at all. His body wouldn't even have known there was a microwave blast in reality. But
his shirt might still have been heated, and the burns in that material might well have burned the surface of his chest.
This of course is just a theory, but I think it's important to be able to determine what is and is not possible. And since you're taking such a
close look at the individual aspects of this case (THANKS!

) I just thought I'd join in.
You may well be right about the gas theory, regarding the accuracy of the streams. I have seen many examples where a gas will remain in a stream
though (spiraling in a vortex form) after passing through some sort of tube (like a thruster or directional vent). I've mostly observed this on
larger scales, like contrails from Airplanes (that don't immediately dissapate, they keep their stream 'line' for some time) or on the exhaust
pipes from Mack Trucks, where the stream eventually dissapates, but there is a clear exit in stream form, and the vortex dispersion pattern is
observed.
Also, observing a cigarette smoker, you will see that a fine stream (in vortex form) can easily be produced simply by adjusting pressure (the diaphram
against the lungs) and aiming the gas through a directional vent (your throat and mouth).
The same would hold true for a docking port, adjusting pressure to force air (or any gas) through a ventilation tube. Don't get me wrong here, I
wasn't postulating that he was burned by the ships engines on takeoff, I was speculating that he was burned by an exhaust vent when the hatch was
closed.
Originally posted by dhardeman
...- he would've had to have been pressed TIGHT up against the 'vent' for such a detailed pattern- with bonus border (edge of metal plate or
whatever had the holes in it)
he was reported to have been directly next to the craft's hatchway when the gridlike door closed, and the burns immediately followed.
But you raise a good point here. I went back and took a look at the shirt again, and it does appear that there is some sort of outer frame around the
grid pattern. That does strike me as odd.
Originally posted by dhardeman
Why would his hat catch on fire from an 'exhaust blast' but still have every hair on his face and head and no facial burns?
This could be explained by the microwave frequency possibility, but you're right, it's an interesting discrepancy.
Originally posted by dhardeman
Get over the fanciful story and lure of mystique by another shame artist intent on getting his mug in the paper.
Here I'm not so sure. It's a long way from Winipeg to Falcon Beach. And from the Satellite Imagery:
maps.google.com...,+MB,+Canada&ie=UTF8&ll=49.698949,-95.354805&spn=0.101926,0.344696&t=h&z=12
it doesn't really look like there is much there even today. In the 60's I'm not sure there would have been much of a town around there at all.
It just seems to me that stranding oneself at over 100 kilometers away from your home without any survival equipment or transportation and not even
wearing a shirt for a Hoax doesn't really make much sense.
The police report states he was found about a half a mile west of Falcon Beach, and that he was on his way (walking without his shirt on) towards
Falcon Beach looking for medical assistance.
Apparrently he was then taken to the hospital, where the photo of the chest burns was taken. This photo, and the apparrent examination at the
hospital, would tend to discount the one disparaging remark made by the Police Officer in his report (that he thought the 'burns' on the victim's
chest were some sort of ashes rubbed on the chest, a contention he admits to forming as a result of the victim not allowing him close enough for a
thorough inspection). Apparrently he was eventually thoroughly inspected at a hospital, and the burns were identified as such.
GunsInWar, I don't suppose you've been able to locate anything on the Hospital's record of the man's injuries?
That might go a long way in answering many of the questions of this case.
-WFA