The public wants answers : a large UFO in Lake Superior 2014

Deduced position, TBC.

As an annual review, our colleagues in’AQU published the investigation of one of their best cases investigated this year. We underline the excellent work, d & rsquo; especially as c & rsquo; is a case in which the Garpan could be responsible in part. Their informative video-d & rsquo; investigation reveals the sincerity of witnesses and highlights many significant details :

N & rsquo; please share !

By happy coincidence, our two teams were able to independently investigate. C & rsquo; is good news, because l & rsquo; importance of this case Triangle Lake Superior can not suffer two professional groups arrive at the & rsquo; extraordinary finding :

A triangular gear 65-100 m, silent, lent, at very low altitude (30-50 m ?), within 100 m distance was actually seen by two direct witnesses 4 May, in the Laurentians.

Taking into account the electromagnetic failures in the evening following the & rsquo; event (and related indices) such an assertion certainly falls d & rsquo; high strangeness. However, l’probability index is reinforced by many elements testimonials, in addition to the against-check (cross-reference) the two sets of data collected by the & rsquo; AQU and Garpan. Finally, the publication of our separate works establish the’Index credibility our investigations.

a) The case of Lake Superior and UFOs Laurentides

If a large, solid UFO is a case where & rsquo; importance ( strangeness dimension) is combined with a high probability index (here, 2 witnesses + indirect witnesses + related indices). Given these parameters, the Garpan concludes that & rsquo; s it & rsquo; is the If the most important and solid UFO s & rsquo; year 2014 Quebec.

With the release of UFO work of groups like the & rsquo; AQU and Garpan, the PUBLIC is able to question the authorities about the presence of these "unidentified spacecraft" ?, which, as in this case, disrupt the lives of witnesses.

The question that the demand PUBLIC n & rsquo; is : "Is that UFOs exist ? ».
The answer to this question is known and available for a long time.

The PUBLIC now ask more specific questions : "Is the black triangles belong to us ? Or do they not belong to us ? »

"Why dozens d & rsquo; observations of black triangles in Quebec since the 1970 n & rsquo; have they not been l & rsquo; object & rsquo; public debate ? »

"Why was he so d & rsquo; UFO sightings in the Laurentians near the & rsquo; Mirabel Airport ? »

The government does respond to legitimate questions of PUBLIC ?

 

b) Visual reconstruction

0. I specify d & rsquo; these first images of Garpan n & rsquo; not yet been approved by the witnesses, and are based solely on the testimony, the location and, secondarily, on reconstructions of our colleagues.

1. The AQU revealed the sketch of the second witness, and presented several reconstructions in the video-d & rsquo; investigation. However, We also opted for such an exercise, in s & rsquo; orienting their results, but trying to achieve "clear view" of the DIMENSION this behemoth witnesses described thick 8-10 meters (!), and & rsquo; length 65-100 m (!), located just above the treetops. If we look at the & rsquo; image below :

you can see a rule indicating 40 meters, and can therefore assess the size of the & rsquo; huge triangular craft (this reconstitution) is d & rsquo; about 80 meters. Thus, this reconstruction is the average length dimensions transmitted by witnesses : « 200-300 more » (= 65-100 m), assuming that & rsquo; craft passed directly over the house. We l & rsquo; have assumed since that is what we had said the witness.

We don & rsquo; have not had the chance & rsquo; investigate site, but we can hope that the AQU possibly publish accurate and calculations taken steps to have a better approximation of the size of this "black triangle". Unless the images in the video have been made based on these said measurements, and that in reality this gear was smaller than the maximum assessment of " 100 meters "made by witnesses ?

2. Watch the beautiful reconstructions of & rsquo; AQU, one wonders, secondly, if the & rsquo; UFO was directly above the house d & rsquo; in front, or farthest behind (thereby increasing the dimension) ? We can know this detail when the & rsquo; AQU will publish a reconstruction of the trajectory of & rsquo; UFO.

3. Last : l & rsquo; craft had it 3 or 4 lights ?

In testimony presented below, the lady speaks of three lights, while in the video, the gentleman said many : "There were three lights, i think [watch video 2:52-3:00]…

 

c) Taking of testimony

Six days after our first contact with the witness, we recorded an interview 13 June 2014, which this is the only passage that we will release. What is interesting in comparison with the & rsquo; the interview 22 by June & rsquo; AQU, c & rsquo; is that here we have two witnesses (the same witness) close in time, and indicating the persistence of his statements.

Registered on 13 June 2014.
Transcription by Monique Trolliet, Guillaume Lamothe et Y.V.

Y.V Investigator. : We can start, you start from the beginning as if you had never told me : What happened ? You said it happened on the first Sunday of May ?

Witness : Yes, I think it was the 4 more [2014], to 20h00-20h15. I went out on my balcony for a smoke, et là, I saw a big ship floating above the house of my neighbor who is in front of home.

It : It looked like what ?

T : It was really great, triangular. It was quite thick and had red lights. It floated above the trees.

It : This was higher than the treetops ?

T : It was at the height of the trees, c[and n]'Was really not up.

It : When you say he had a triangular shape with lights, Can you tell us what type of triangle and where the lights were located ?

T : There were red lights on the front, and there were two others on each side at the end [back] Triangle.

It : When you say that the UFO was red, it was because of these lights then ?

T : Yes.

It : It was not the UFO itself was red?

T : Not, not, there were red lights, but the craft was dark, as dark gray that takes a little on the dark.

It : If we make a proportion, you see the UFO in front of you, there is red, you see a dark color, tell me, 50% the ship was lit red, 50% was in the shadow of his own color?

T : Well i, I would say that the ship was dark and below, it floated like a red veil.

It : The brightness was mainly below the vessel?

T : Yes.

It : When you say "triangular", what does that mean?

T : The was shorter in the front and it was going like a triangle : light was above the neighboring, and the other here.

It : Is it that it was an equilateral triangle or vessel triangular?

T : It was in the shape of triangle with, front, a big red light, and, at each end, red lights.

It : Wholesale, there were three (3) lights?

T : Yes, This is what I saw in. And [red light] front, as she turned the Christmas lights that flash one after the other, it made : touk touk, touk touk…

It : That light at the front consisted of one or more lights which flashed?

T : It was red, but I felt that there was [several] circling around the red light.

It : How to react these lights in the rear, on the other peaks?

T : I, I just saw red lights. It [not] not flashed, there were red lights below.

It : It was still light?

T : Yes.

It : Is it that they were more or less bright bright as the front lights?

T : It was the same color, except that than before flashing. It was really red and it floated like a red cloud.

It : It is sure that when you go to make a drawing, it will be clearer, but I see some questions. You talked about the thickness of the UFO : if you compare the length of the UFO, thickness, that's what proportion?

T : It was longer than thick, but the thickness was significant : my spouse spoke 25-30 feet [8-10 m] thickness.

It : Agree. If we take the height of the UFO, and that puts horizontal : it fits how many times in the length ?

T : I do not know how to say, but someone who came recently, said it could be in the 300 feet [100 m].

It : Ultimately, thickness, it should be 1/10^th of the total length?

T : Yes, 30 feet thick and 300 feet in diameter.

It : It's good for the dimensions. With drawing, it will provide a better understanding. At what time, your spouse he joins you to watch it ?

T : I, I watched about a minute and a half (90 sec.), I panicked a little, then I screamed and called my spouse that he may see as what I saw.

It : You came to pick him up or you remained outside?

T : Not, I shouted.

It : It came after how long and how he reacted?

T : He arrived in a few seconds and when he saw, he remained standing in front. What about me, as I was really scared, I shouted to my children who wondered what was happening when they heard me scream. I have said of their stay in the house, I closed the door [entrance of the house] and they locked themselves in the room. I do not want them to come out.

It : And when you yelled at them that, do you returned to the house ?

T : Not, I just held the door while watching the sky, I do not want them to come out.

It : How long was watching with your spouse?

T : With my partner, we have watched for at least 30 to 40 seconds. I told my husband to go fast look for Kodak [the camera], because I told myself that no [n’]would believe me. By the time he returns and finds the device, me I started to panic because I am not familiar with the use of the device : I got it for Christmas, I do not know to use it ; I'm not very comfortable with technology. I tried to take a picture, I saw him disappear.

It : While you try to take a picture, your spouse-he stayed with you to observe?

T : Yes, he stayed with me.

It : And he, what he said when the UFO disappeared?

T : It, he said like me, the [l’OVNI] disappeared.

It : It does not move, he disappeared on site?

T : We did not review, as long as everything goes with the device [photo], he disappeared, there was nothing more.

It : You did not see him move?

T : Not, it was so big, he was the right of my balcony to my neighbor on the left : it was so big, you could see the tail at the other end. It floated, but not really fast. First, I thought it was a plane or helicopter, but the more I looked, the more I was thinking it could not be that. I asked myself questions, but even my husband told me it could not be a plane.

It : Did you see the UFO stabilize, or it was moving slowly all the time of observation ?

T : I can not tell if he was going to 10 km/h, because it floated quietly.

It : Are you felt, at a given moment, he was not moving at all, and he moved quietly?

T : If he moved, the [not] moving really fast. I was able to see at least a minute and a half to two minutes [90-120 sec.], and, more, My partner saw the one minute [60 sec.]. If he had to move, it would have been seen floating faster, but floated quietly ... I think it moved like a small breath [Wind].

It : Ultimately, When you are confident that you saw at the beginning of the observation, it moved, and towards the end of the observation, it was moving more slowly or not at all?

T : Almost not at all.

It : When he disappeared, you have not seen - for example - to reduce light intensity, or become darker ; he was there, then suddenly, there was no longer ?

T : What amazes me, is that the trees have not been damaged : because at the height where he was, it surprised me that the trees are not broken.

It : When you look at the scenery, UFO was located where there are trees, and the UFO should have hit the trees ?

T : Maybe not hit, but if it was a plane that had happened, tree branches could have been broken.

It : Okay. To continue the event, from the time he disappeared, you have had time to take a picture?

T : Not, I have not had time to take a picture.

It : The UFO disappears, it is important to know what you have done within minutes : How did you feel ? What you said ? And what has happened thereafter?

T : When the ship was there, I heard nothing more. I did not hear noise. After that, I do not remember. I got the fright of my life !

It : What happened when you came into the house ? What you said?

T : I came home and I kept telling myself that I was not crazy : "I have seen it ! ». The children came out of their rooms. I had weak legs.

It : How reacted your spouse while were out of yourself?

T : He was calm ; it, it is the same calm. He was happy, he was trying to reassure me, to c[and n]Was not dangerous, it was not serious.

It : He had seen UFOs, he was impressed with it?

T : He was impressed, but he liked it. He would like to see others.

It : Is he talked to others, with friends or family people?

T : Not, we have not really talked about. I have just talked to a friend, I knew she would not treat me crazy.

It : Yes, it is important to talk to the right people.

T : I did not want to be pointing finger : if there is a bad person, he will tell everybody.

It : Yes, right, so do not tell this to anyone. But during the evening and the following days, tell me what happened ?

T : During the evening, I was very upset, I go on the Internet, because with what I saw, I told myself I was not crazy, I must go and see what it is that it ships. I, I had never seen it. I went on the Internet to midnight, but my internet was not working, nothing worked with us [microwave and breaking down internet was not working]. I went to bed.

(…)

It: Going back to your comment : when you saw the UFO, you say there was no sound. Tell me again, and if this is confirmed by your spouse ?

T : Here, there are frogs because I live near a lake. Back home, there lakes around, there are four or five. I felt, it's like a drum roll in my ear. I could hear as vibrations in my ears.

It : There was no sounds outside?

T : Not, there was no sound. I heard nothing, and I was too engrossed watching what was before me.

It : Does your spouse also noted that there was no sound ?

T : Yes.

It : How he said in his words ?

T : It, he finds it strange that [n’]not even hear the wind. He liked it. There was no noise, we did not hear the frogs, usually mean when we speak in the evening, because the frogs sing a lot in May, et là, could not hear anything. I even told : "It does not even sound that case ! ».

(…)

T : Yes, because right now, I'll be less skeptical. When people talk to me about something I have not seen, I do not know, Instead of judging, I'll tell myself that it is possible. I'm not someone who judges, but now, I'll believe a few more people around me.

It : It is with great pleasure, Dear Madam, getting your testimonial. What I will do, is that I will give you in writing the whole conversation we just had, all that is important. I will send you a copy, if you agree with the way it was transcribed.

(…)

T : Maybe in the future, I will talk less, but for now, this is not my best memory. The time that "I tame" it all, I have less fear, I feel myself safe. Feeling better, but if you had told me, there are two or three weeks… I was in tears on the phone, I was pale, panic.

It : It was perhaps good that you call us in this case.

T : Oh oui, [but] I did not even know where to look. I have so sought, I wrote : "I saw a UFO, I need help, I saw a ship, help. But when I looked for information on the vessels, I saw GARPAN, with a large rectangle in full in the sky.

It : This is precisely the case of St. Jerome which I spoke earlier.

I saw it with bunk drawings, but I did not think it was necessary to call you. I thought it was necessary to call the police, I did not know who to call because I had not received a response to my call. I needed to talk to someone. »