Travis Walton Case. Legitimate Encounter.

entire copy-and-paste post (with no attribution link) removed






[edit on 7-2-2008 by SkepticOverlord]

reply to post by Badge01


I know this is an old thread, but I had to respond. I read the books by Travis Walton and did not see the movie. One thing that sticks out is his friends only saw a light and did not see Travis get abducted. All the other posts seem to imply the others actually saw an abduction take place when they immediately drove off when they saw Travis fall down. It is possible the brother set up some kind of bright light to hoax the others. It is also to convenient after the Betty and Barney Hill movie (the creatures do resemble the TV movie, although he added in the blond aliens to make it seem different). I do believe he hoaxed it and made a very nice profit off of it. Two books and a movie deal plus the blood test revealing he must of had food for the five days he was gone. He will always have believers, like Billy Meier and others.

Originally posted by Lord XIII
He passed many lie detector tests.
[edit on 4-2-2008 by Lord XIII]

I heard it was inconclusive as usual with these tests. He passed and failed on a couple of tests.

And it wasn't that great a film. It was far off what the actual story was when it came to him actually being on the ship. I mean what was up with that slime he was covered in and the grotesque looking alien. There was no hybrid blond/alien man there either in the movie.




[edit on 14-7-2008 by Veritas Aequitas]

[edit on 14-7-2008 by Veritas Aequitas]

[edit on 14-7-2008 by Veritas Aequitas]

Polyhraph tests mean nothing, IMHO of course...

How to Cheat a Polygraph Test (Lie Detector)

and likewise I have hear of many people that have failed lie detector tests and they have not lied at all. (A friend of mine failed one, I was present I knew he wasn`t lying).

This does not mean I think that Travis Walton lied, in fact I think he had an experience with aliens, a lot of people mistake what he always said happened with the movie.

Cheerio

Camilo

reply to post by Camilo1


Don't you think that the fact the 'aliens' dropped him only 32 miles outside Snowflake is a dead giveaway of a falsified story?

I mean are we to believe that 'ET' had a malfunctioning GPS, , or couldn't remember where they picked him up?

Why not drop him off in Florida or South America; why Heber, Arizona?

To me it's too convenient and tells me that Heber, the eventual location where his brother-in-law picked him up was near where Travis was hiding out all along.

Would that all aliens were so accommodating, returning their prey to within a few miles of the pickup point.

Originally posted by Badge01
reply to post by Camilo1

 

Don't you think that the fact the 'aliens' dropped him only 32 miles outside Snowflake is a dead giveaway of a falsified story?

I mean are we to believe that 'ET' had a malfunctioning GPS,

, or couldn't remember where they picked him up?

Why not drop him off in Florida or South America; why Heber, Arizona?

To me it's too convenient and tells me that Heber, the eventual location where his brother-in-law picked him up was near where Travis was hiding out all along.

Would that all aliens were so accommodating, returning their prey to within a few miles of the pickup point.

Why not?

They could be accommodating, after all from what I`ve heard from Mr. Walton he never got any more experiences, which means for me that somehow the aliens messed up, they got the wrong guy, or Mr Walton was not what they were looking for (remember that in the original story he was not mistreated, something uncommon in abductions).

They might have said "hell we got the wrong guy, we might as well leave him close to his home".

Originally posted by Camilo1
They could be accommodating, after all from what I`ve heard from Mr. Walton he never got any more experiences, which means for me that somehow the aliens messed up, they got the wrong guy, or Mr Walton was not what they were looking for

That doesn't sound right to me though. He wasn't lured there by the Aliens. It seems he was being too nosy and they zapped him then decided to take him as well. Spontaneous perhaps. How'd they know he was even going to go walking up like that and not just split. Meh, I'm going with the "Hey let's abduct this guy for not fearing us" theory.

Also, I honestly don't know what to think of the case. Not sure if he's legit or not. Just seems weird a bunch of guys would go making up something like that out of the blue. Where he'd go hide out for a couple of days then just reappear. He did make money off his movie rights later on I'm sure but did they plan for that ahead of time or did they have books out and such immediately after his abduction. I've never really looked into it so not sure how to make my mind up about it. I'll just leave it open as a possibility for now.

Originally posted by Camilo1

They might have said "hell we got the wrong guy, we might as well leave him close to his home".

Well if you can't see the irony in such a comment, I'm not sure I can explain it satisfactorily.

But let's start with the fact that he wandered into their 'beam', and it appears just got sucked aboard - they didn't intend to grab him. That means the Aliens were just careless, sucking up a random guy willy-nilly.

Then they "decided" he was the wrong guy, but it took them 6-7 days to realize this. Finally, realizing their 'error' they drop him off somewhere at random, but that just conveniently is near his home (though how they knew where he called home was located isn't clear).

If they're roaming around the stratosphere with little regard for where they're going or who they're sucking up, why bother changing course to dump the 'wrong man' anywhere special? Just throw him out over the nearest body of water or where ever they happen to be at the moment?

Or maybe they decided to hang around Eastern Arizona (as if they had any knowledge of Earth geographical locations) and soak up some local culture? It's hard to imagine even a highly evolved super-intelligent ET being sloppier than a drunken UPS driver.

Now, it makes a lot more sense if you envision TW hanging out in the next town for a week where nobody'd recognize his mug than a goofy ET pickup and delivery snafu. But that's just me, I guess.

reply to post by Badge01

Well if you can't see the irony in such a comment, I'm not sure I can explain it satisfactorily.

I`m sure you will be able to illustrate me.

Not that you haven`t tried...

I understand that it is unlikely that the aliens left him close to where he was, I also understand that there are many things that could be suspicious about his story, and you seem to know a lot about what "seems" wrong to your understanding.

Want to know why I believe this guy?, , I didn`t believe him when I read the book, I believed him when I heard him tell the story, and certain details that he gave, that to me seem key.

But I don`t want to bore you, unlike you I don`t like to "enlighten" others when they are not interested.

reply to post by Camilo1


OK, well, if you can't articulate why you believe his story, then there's little point in going on. I'm not asking to be enlightened, I'm simply interested in the case and in others' reasoning and there take on the matter.

If you want to go over details, I'd be pleased to hear them, but to me, TW comes across in interviews and articles and in videos like a guy who wishes he had a story to tell but only can go as far as the current dogma permits, lest he 'slip up' and give it all away. He and his brother-in-law to be Mike Rogers seemed to spend a lot of time playing it 'close to the vest' and had an ulterior motive for this, part of which was to get out from under a contract penalty.

There's ample evidence that TW's mother was in on the case or at least aware of what was taking place. Here's a revealing comment by Mike Rogers from Wiki:

On the recordings made by Sylvanus, Rogers noted that because of Travis’s disappearance and the subsequent search, he would be unable to complete his contract with the Forest Service, and he hoped the search for his missing friend would mitigate the situation.

Unlike the Betty and Barney Hill story which was a devoid of motive, and opportunity, the TW case sounds like a poor attempt to capitalize on a reward by a magazine looking for publicity and IMO doesn't hold up very well in both detail or in overview. They manipulated the media and the lie detector results

In addition TW makes some rather glaring errors in his book. (see above link. Bold emphasis mine.)

Matheson argues that Walton's book makes a few fundamental errors that severely harm his case. While Travis "proclaims self-righteously" that he intends only to relate events and not "interpret" them, Matheson writes that "the reader will see almost immediately that large sections of the book are nothing more than highly speculative, purely imaginative recreations on his part". (Matheson, 109)

For example, after he is zapped by the blue beam and knocked unconscious, Walton offers precise, novelistic dialogue describing the conversations of his fellow crew workers after they drove away in a panic. Yet Walton never mentions if he is paraphrasing their words based on what they related to him, if he interviewed the others to determine who said what, or if he simply assumed what they said. Matheson argues this represents a "lack of concern for literal accuracy that the reader cannot help but suspect is characteristic of the entire work".

Thanks for your comments.

Walton got too close to the saucer and got knocked out.

He was nursed back to health and returned.

He had to be take to the saucer base infirmary because his buddies
ran off and you don't leave another human unconscious.

No grays inside, the base personal used Hollywood wigs and makeup
while keeping Walton loopy with drugs, perhaps Versaid.

Walton healed up but how that was determined under so much
drugs is a wonder.

Walton was ultimately encouraged to go along with the Illuminati
lies of his adventure.

Originally posted by Nohup
Well, what's to debunk? It's pretty hard to debunk somebody who just has a story and no proof to speak of.

Except in this case, Nohup, it's a group of somebodys telling the same story. I guess you overlooked that fact?

reply to post by tezzajw


The group didn't have anything to tell. They only saw the light, which was possibly a set up by Walton and Rogers (note that Rogers was driving), and then they possibly saw the flash and TW falling and that's it. Rogers acting kept the other boys from getting out of the car. He drove down the road, making claims there was a 'saucer' following him. After that experience, it didn't take much for the other men to 'perceptually fill' their stories and end up believing they 'saw' something they didn't.

After TW had time to hide, Rogers drove back and they searched. But if you don't want to be found, it doesn't matter if others are searching; it's relatively easy to elude searchers in the woods. Rogers was in control the whole time. He was the 'mastermind'.

Later Rogers returned and TW came out of hiding and they drove to Heber where TW hid out. Then Walton called Grant Neff a week later and Neff and Duane went and picked him up. I think they picked Neff on purpose and he got Duane who 'sold' the rest of the story of the pick up and other details.

No need to involve ET.

I think if researchers had gone to Heber and concentrated their efforts there, they'd have found where TW was hiding and broken the case.

2 cents.

Originally posted by Badge01
The group didn't have anything to tell.

But the group did have something to tell. They made their statements.

Originally posted by Badge01
They only saw the light, which was possibly a set up by Walton and Rogers (note that Rogers was driving), and then they possibly saw the flash and TW falling and that's it.

See, they did have something to tell. You contradicted yourself within two sentences. If they didn't have anything to tell, then why did they have something to tell (seeing the lights, flashes, etc)? I'm lost in your paradox.

How do you know that's all they saw or what they possibly saw - were you there to confirm it?

[edit on 15-7-2008 by tezzajw]

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by Badge01
The group didn't have anything to tell.

But the group did have something to tell. They made their statements.

You contradicted yourself within two sentences. If they didn't have anything to tell, then why did they have something to tell (seeing the lights, flashes, etc)? I'm lost in your paradox.

That's called 'taking my quote out of context'. The group didn't have anything 'extraordinary', nothing indicative of an actual alien encounter, to tell. Better? I elaborated on this which is not considered contradicting myself when you read the comments in context.

It was a set up by Rogers and Walton to 'sell' the story, using a gas-filled balloon and an arc light connected to a car battery, is my guess.

I wasn't there, but it fits the facts better than a lurid tale of an improbable craft from another planet.

Originally posted by Badge01
The group didn't have anything 'extraordinary', nothing indicative of an actual alien encounter, to tell.

Yet, they saw lights, which substantiated some aspects of Walton's story.

It was a set up by Rogers and Walton to 'sell' the story, using a gas-filled balloon and an arc light connected to a car battery, is my guess. I wasn't there, but it fits the facts better than a lurid tale of an improbable craft from another planet.

The fact that you weren't there and that you don't really know what happened, means that this is entirely speculative.

Considering that you mentioned it, how improbable are craft from another planet? I'd ask you for your data, but I guess that you would argue that this is just your opinion - again.

Originally posted by tezzajw
Considering that you mentioned it, how improbable are craft from another planet? I'd ask you for your data, but I guess that you would argue that this is just your opinion - again.

Sorry, it's not up to me to prove the likelihood of improbable events.

It's a task for those who insist these events take place, when a more prosaic explanation will do quite well, especially when you look at those involved and can see their motives.

There is not one abduction case that has any "proof".
It's all about interpretation or opinion.
There is no proof aliens exist or U.F.O.'s for that matter.
It is up to the individual to make up their own mind.

So the people saying "this is fake" or "this is less credible than my fav one" show us something more compelling.

There is no proof of any abductions ever.

Originally posted by Badge01
Sorry, it's not up to me to prove the likelihood of improbable events.

Again, you contradict yourself, Badge01.

If you have no proof for how likely an event is, then why do you state that it is improbable?

You're not doing too well in this thread, trying to push your made-up story, to counter a group of people, whom you claim made up their story, all the while contradicting yourself as you go.

No, you were not taken out of context either. You were quoted exactly as you typed your sentences. Perhaps, as a writer, you might like to think about the way your sentences contradict themselves, especially when you deem to have a feel for an event's probability, yet not have any proof to justify it. In this instance, you would be far better to admit that you do not know the probability of a craft visiting Earth, rather than appearing to know it all, without any data.