Site statistics

34986 facts from 176 countries related to 1184 phenomena have been registered in Archive. 2823 of them were solved, another 10905 are under verification for compliance with one of the 321 versions.

15 facts have been added for last 24 hours.

Share your story

You are in "Archive" section

This section contains descriptions of unexplained facts provided by eyewitnesses or published in the media, as well as the results of their analysis by the group.

UFO. Canada

ID #1606123720
Added Mon, 23/11/2020
Author July N.
Sources
Phenomena
Status
Research

Initial data

Initial information from sources or from an eyewitness
Incident date: 
08.1981 17:00
Location: 
Гамильтон, ON
Canada

UFO enters waters of canadian Harbor

Karl Feindt

In late August 1981, between five and six p.m., three men and two women were driving West from a mountainous area just East of Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, and South of lake Ontario. The weather was clear and Sunny. At one point, about halfway through Hamilton, one of the passengers in the car saw the strange ship through the car window and with an exclamation alerted the others in the car to the sight. 

The ship was a red-orange object in the shape of a domed saucer that appeared solid, with many yellow lights radiating from the base or bottom. When asked about the size, she (a witness to this report) replied that the diameter would be approximately 3-4 car lengths and 3 car heights for the height of the ship (also an approximate assumption). Her final comment on this was: "Not a small ship."

In fact, this is not the case, since I measured two "medium-sized" cars of my family members. They average 15 feet 7 inches (187 cm) long and 4 feet 6 inches (137.1 cm) tall. This would put the UFO in an area from 46 feet 9 inches (14.2 m) to 62 feet 4 inches (18.9 m) in diameter and 13 feet 6 inches (4.1 m) in height. Slightly smaller than the world war II B ‑ 25 Mitchell bomber… Indeed, " not a small ship !!!»

Its speed and altitude could only be expressed as an airplane on approach to an airport. It followed a course roughly parallel to theirs. Because of the winding road, it was first noticed on the right (North), then above them, and then on the left. Its course was approximately North-North-West.

While driving, the radio was turned on and, being close to the object, now became static (electromagnetic effects), which the driver turned off so as not to be distracted. 

Someone in the car at that moment said:

"Follow this UFO." 

Everyone agreed, which they did. Although the road had many turns, it was observed that the ship was moving in a straight line towards Hamilton Harbor. As it approached the Harbor, it seemed to slow down, then leaned down and cautiously entered the water. At the entry point (rough approximation) on the sea map, you can see that the water depth at this point is 7 meters or more (23 feet) and is getting deeper in the direction of lake Ontario, so the UFO had at least 10 feet (3 m) in reserve. Consequently, the 13-foot (3.9 m) vessel could have been covered in water.

A witness reporting the incident claims that the UFO passed them and was some distance away when it entered the Harbor, and does not remember any serious commotion in the water when it entered.

After it entered the water, the group lost sight of the area for a period, due to topography. Curious, the group went to the embankment to see what they could find. On the Hamilton city map, the distance from the "mountain" area to the waterfront is approximately 12 km or 7.45 Statute miles, and they could be reached quickly. They stayed in the area for about seven hours, wondering if a UFO would surface, if any aircraft would try to search the area, and delving into the various possibilities of this event. 

Between 12: 20 and 01: 00, it was observed that two objects partially emerged and remained in this position until the group finally exited. The question arose that the two objects were submarines, and it was removed, as the canadian Navy information States that they do not use the few submarines they have in the Great lakes.

Another possibility associated with the appearance of objects may be the release of the tide and the detection of a stationary underwater object. This part of the observation is the most speculative and should not distract from the observation of the device and its actions.

Another possibility associated with the appearance of objects may be the release of the tide and the detection of a stationary underwater object. This part of the observation is the most speculative and should not distract from the observation of the device and its actions. Another possibility associated with the appearance of objects may be the release of the tide and the detection of a stationary underwater object. This part of the observation is the most speculative and should not distract from the observation of the device and its actions.

Almost 22 years have passed since the discovery. It would be helpful if we had the testimony of at least one other witness, but according to this witness, "I have not spoken to 4 other witnesses in more than 20 years. They were work acquaintances, and I can't even remember their names." This is understandable, since she stated that she "lived in Hamilton for a while."

Since the exact date cannot be determined, it is not possible to get weather data for observation. This would, of course, clarify whether the object was something blown away by the wind. However, even if the wind had a vector in the direction in which the UFO took, the possibility that it was a balloon is still excluded due to the fact that it immediately entered the water, while the balloon, like any other light object, would float with the current. Could it be a balloon with lights ??

Original news

UFO ENTERS WATERS OF CANADIAN HARBOR
By Carl Feindt

In late August of 1981, between five and six pm, three men and two women were driving west from a mountain area slightly east of Hamilton, Ontario, Canada and south of Lake Ontario. The weather was clear and sunny. At a point, roughly half way through Hamilton, one of the occupants in the car saw a strange craft through the window of the car, and by their exclamation, alerted the others in the car to the sight. The craft was a red-orange, domed saucer shaped object, which appeared solid, with many yellow lights radiating from the base or bottom. In answer to the question of size, she (the witness of this report) answered that the diameter would be roughly 3-4 car lengths, and 3 car heights for the height of craft (also a rough guess). Her closing remark on this was “Not a small craft”.

Indeed it wasn’t, as I measured two cars belonging to family members that are of “medium size”. They average out to 15’ 7” in length and 4’ 6” in height. This would put the UFO in the area of 46’ 9” to 62’ 4” in diameter and 13’ 6” in height. Slightly smaller than the B‑25 Mitchell bomber of WW2 … “Not a small craft !!!”

Its speed and altitude could only be expressed as that of an aircraft on approach for a landing near an airport. It was on a course roughly parallel to theirs. Due to the curving road it was first sighted to their right (north) and then over them and then to the left. Its course was roughly north-northwest.

While driving the radio had been on and, while in the vicinity of the object, was now getting static (EM effects), which the driver turned it off to avoid further distraction. Someone in the car at this point had said, “Follow that UFO”. All being in agreement, they did precisely that. Although the road had many curves, the craft was seen to move in a straight line towards Hamilton Harbour. As it approached the Harbour, it appeared to slow down, and then angle itself downward and gently entered the water. At the point of entry (rough approximation), it can be seen on the nautical chart that the water depth at this point is 7 or more meters (23 feet) and gets deeper in the direction of Lake Ontario, so the UFO had at least 10 feet to spare. Therefore a craft of 13 feet in height could be covered by water. There are many cases of UFOs submerging in shallow waters.

The witness reporting this case states that the UFO had passed them and was at a distance away when it entered the Harbour, and does not recall any major disturbance of the water as it went in. After it had entered the water the group lost sight of the area for a period, due to the topography. Overcome with curiosity, the group went to the waterfront to see what they could. From a city map of Hamilton, the distance from the “mountain” area and the waterfront is roughly 12 km or 7.45 Statute miles, and could have been reached quickly. They remained in the area for approximately seven hours, wondering if the UFO would surface, whether any aircraft would attempt a search of the area, and delving into various possibilities of the event. Between 12:20 and 1:00 am, two objects were seen to partially emerge and remained in that position through the point that the group finally left. The question of these two objects being submarines came up and has been done away with, as information from the Canadian Navy states that it does not use the few subs they have in any of the Great Lakes. Another possibility regarding the emerging objects might be the tide going out and revealing some fixed underwater object. This portion of the sighting is the most speculative and should not detract from the sighting of the craft and its actions.

It has been almost 22 years since the sighting. It would have been advantageous if we had the testimony of at least one other witness, but as this witness states “I haven’t been in contact with the 4 other witnesses for over 20 yrs. They were work related acquaintances and I cannot even remember their names.” This is understandable as she stated that she “did live in Hamilton for a short while”.

Since the exact date cannot be determined, it is impossible to get weather data for the sighting. This of course would have clarified whether the object was something being blown along by the wind. However, even if the wind had a vector in the direction the UFO took, the possibility of it being a balloon or light object is still ruled out by the fact that it immediately entered the water, whereas a balloon or light object would have floated for a period. And a balloon with lights??

CONCLUSION

This report was entirely done through e-mails and snail mail between the witness and myself. This format is not very desirable as there is no immediate interchange of ideas, emotions and measurements such as angles and distances. However, the witness now resides far from Hamilton making an onsite investigation economically impractical. The route taken is based more on estimates and map reading, as she was not the driver. The case, as old as it is, is still interesting and I think, illustrates how an event of this kind, can etch itself into the memory banks of our minds, as she remembers the sighting fairly well but could not remember the events prior or after the sighing. The witness was very cooperative and quick to answer all the messages sent to the best of her ability. Where the facts were fuzzy, she stated that, and yet the item of focus, the UFO, was clearly remembered. Based on my experience with water related cases, her surprise at the ease of entry into the water could be expected, but there are many cases of just such an entry. I therefore believe that she had witnessed a UFO event.

Hypotheses

List of versions containing features matching the eyewitness descriptions or material evidence
Not enough information

Investigation

Versions testing, their confirmation or refutation. Additional information, notes during the study of materials
Not enough information

Resume

The most likely explanation. The version, confirmed by the investigation
Not enough information

Log in or register to post comments

Site friends

  • Мир тайн — сайт о таинственном
  • Activite-Paranormale
  • UFOlats
  • Новый Бестиарий
  • The Field Reports
  • UFO Meldpunt Nederland
  • GRUPO DE ESTUDOS DE UFOLOGIA CIENTÍFICA
  • Паранормальная наука, наука об аномалиях
  • Новости уфологии
  • UFO Insights
  • Mundo Ovnis

Attention!

18+

Site contains materials that are not recommended for impressionable people.

You are reporting a typo in the following text:
Simply click the "Send typo report" button to complete the report. You can also include a comment.