ANOMALY
ARCHIVE / 001
← ENCOUNTERS DIRECTORY
E-009602LANDMARK CASE · HIGH CORROBORATIONDATE PRECISION: exactRECORD COMPLETENESS: 100%

Canadian Air International Weather-Radar Target

May 16, 1987Toronto–Winnipeg air route, Ontario / Manitoba, Canada

Captain Rick Olsen and his first officer reportedly observed an unidentified target on the aircraft weather radar while cruising from Toronto to Winnipeg. Hall gives an inferred apparent speed near 5,400 mph; there was no visual sighting.

// LINKED CLASSIFICATIONS:Scientific & Observational Types(P-000101)→
Claims are displayed with the source wording, locator, relationship and verification state. Competing claims remain separate rather than being averaged into a single answer.
SOURCE COMPARISON

Encounter · Hall Volume II Encounter Claim

HOW TO READ THIS →
CLAIM-953014reported
“Hall reports Captain Rick Olsen and the first officer of a Canadian Air International flight at 31,000 feet observing a weather-radar target about fifty miles away at approximately their altitude/course for about four minutes; the geometry yielded an apparent speed estimate near 5,400 mph.”
The UFO Evidence, Volume II: A Thirty-Year Report
SRC-009500 · Canadian Air International weather-radar case summary; uploaded PDF pp. 261-261
SUPPORTS
SOURCE COMPARISON

Encounter · Hall Volume II Source Caveat

HOW TO READ THIS →
CLAIM-953015reported
“No visual object was reported in the Canadian Air case, and Hall’s high speed figure is an inference from the reported radar presentation and duration rather than an independently reconstructed trajectory.”
The UFO Evidence, Volume II: A Thirty-Year Report
SRC-009500 · Canadian Air weather-radar evidence caveat; uploaded PDF pp. 261-261
CONTEXTUALIZES
SOURCE COMPARISON

Hall Volume II Radar-Track Evidence Framework · Hall Volume II Source Framework

HOW TO READ THIS →
CLAIM-953001reported
“Hall says the 1964 report listed 81 radar UFO cases through 1962 and that at least 34 additional radar cases had accumulated since 1964, but that complete technical data often were unavailable and there was no systematic unclassified scientific collection program.”
The UFO Evidence, Volume II: A Thirty-Year Report
SRC-009500 · Radar evidence framing and methodological limitations; uploaded PDF pp. 256-261 · PRIMARY SOURCE
SUPPORTS
SOURCE COMPARISON

Hall Volume II Radar-Track Evidence Framework · Hall Volume II Interpretation

HOW TO READ THIS →
CLAIM-953002reported
“Hall concludes that accumulated radar reports suggest unexplained aerial phenomena worthy of rigorous study, while repeatedly noting the inadequacy of available technical documentation.”
The UFO Evidence, Volume II: A Thirty-Year Report
SRC-009500 · Hall interpretation of post-1964 radar evidence; uploaded PDF pp. 256-261 · PRIMARY SOURCE
SUPPORTS
SOURCE COMPARISON

Hall Volume II Radar-Track Evidence Framework · Hall Volume II Evidence Claim

HOW TO READ THIS →
CLAIM-953003reported
“Table 1 begins a post-1964 radar-case index including Flying Tiger over the Pacific, Wynnewood, Wichita, Michigan–Minnesota, Edwards AFB, Skowhegan, Dexter/Selfridge, Columbus and Atlanta.”
The UFO Evidence, Volume II: A Thirty-Year Report
SRC-009500 · Table 1 radar cases — first page; uploaded PDF pp. 257-257
SUPPORTS
CLAIM-953004reported
“Table 1 continues with Atlantic City, White Sands, Minot, Alberta, Bismarck, McAlester, Turin, Milan, Tequesquitengo, Falconbridge and Port Austin radar cases.”
The UFO Evidence, Volume II: A Thirty-Year Report
SRC-009500 · Table 1 radar cases — second page; uploaded PDF pp. 258-258
SUPPORTS
CLAIM-953005reported
“Table 1 continues with Tehran, Bogota, Omaha, Oxnard–Los Angeles, Colorado/South Dakota, Ocala, New Zealand, Hailey and Dover radar cases.”
The UFO Evidence, Volume II: A Thirty-Year Report
SRC-009500 · Table 1 radar cases — third page; uploaded PDF pp. 259-259
SUPPORTS
CLAIM-953006reported
“Table 1 concludes with Burlington, Perth, Hessdalen, Brazil, JAL 1628, Toronto–Winnipeg, Pereslavl, Wavre, Skibo and Concepcion radar cases.”
The UFO Evidence, Volume II: A Thirty-Year Report
SRC-009500 · Table 1 radar cases — fourth page; uploaded PDF pp. 260-260
SUPPORTS
Multiple claim rows are intentionally retained when sources disagree. ANOMALY does not silently reconcile competing values.