Travis Walton Case. Legitimate Encounter.

There is no proof aliens exist or U.F.O.'s for that matter.

Nothing has "proof", only "evidence", and there is ample evidence for alien existance, and UFOs.

Nothing can be fully "proven", only conjectured based on evidence. For one scientist that can prove a table is solid, another can prove it's made up of mostly empty space.

"proof" is as much a fantasy as "perfection"

reply to post by Gazrok


I admit that i personally believe in aliens and alike, but the point is there is no proof.
Even the evidence is lacking.

I don't see what you mean by "ample evidence"?

The main evidence for me are the paintings/carvings/hieroglyphics that are found across the world and throughout the centuries, depicting spacecraft and alien looking beings.



Maybe in my research i've missed some groundbreaking or concrete evidence....

Would you care to share this ample evidence you speak of?



About the table....i think maybe where the table resides is mostly empty space, but the actual table as empty space??

again, enlighten me if i'm mistaken.

[edit on 15/7/08 by blupblup]

reply to post by Gazrok


I would refine your contention that there is 'ample' evidence of aliens and UFOs to say...

There is ample evidence of high strangeness. This includes various military base incursions, sightings of some kind of craft with radar traces, and fairly compelling stories by first hand experiencers.

But, AFAIK, there has never been any evidence of an 'alien' or non-terrestrial being in concert with a flying object, unidentified or not.

Roswell has some evidence of association of alien-looking creatures, but the 'craft' was never seen flying with aliens at the helm.

Even Betty and Barney Hill's story, which was a 'remembered' event doesn't have credible 'aliens' flying a craft, but, instead has a recovered memory of Barney in which he describes seeing beings wearing funny hats.



Which seems a little too anthropomorphic to me.

Equally intriguing is the work done by David Baker, in which he mentions that the features he uncovered seem to be similar to the way a stocking mask distorts human features.



So, though I agree that there is at least one case where a link might be made to aliens piloting a craft, this isn't 'ample evidence'. Indeed, the reaction of the personnel on the nearby Pease AFB and the odd interest of Major Paul W. Henderson, gives the impression that they know a lot more about this 'encounter' than they are admitting. I think some people have suspeced that Barney was targeted by some folks who didn't appreciate his interracial marriage.

Thus, though I'm not in strong disagreement with you, I think we need to be cautious in proposing that there is a lot of evidence that aliens and UFOs are linked or that either exist in reality.

To me, the lack of any colony on Mars speaks volumes about the paucity of sentient space-faring life in the Galaxy. Mars would be 'prime' real estate and I'd expect that if there were any aliens around they'd have terraformed it and established bases. There's not that many planets in the habitable zone that they can afford to overlook one just because they know we can go and have a look.

In addition, there hasn't been one sighting or event that couldn't have been duplicated by current technology, or be explained by witnesses exaggerating or possibly shared hallucination (as in the experiences of apparitions at Lourdes or the sighting of Angels at Mons, and others

Human perception can be very unpredictable and subject to influence by groups and on an individual level by things like brain tumors or temporal lobe epilepsy and sleep apnea/Old Hag experieces.

2 cents.

Checked back to see this evidence but i see there is none...
Badge01 you put it perfectly, and you demonstrate exactly the kind of attitude and thinking that i share.

Checked back to see this evidence but i see there is none...

Yeah, thanks for waiting a few hours. Check the Classic UFO cases stickied thread in this forum, especially the Hill Case, Rendlesham, Roswell, Battle of LA, etc.

I don't see what you mean by "ample evidence"?

Yes, I mean ample.

There are multitudes of sightings by pilots, military personnel, and other respected citizens who are trained observers.

In addition, there are multitudes of photos, videos, etc. that are pre-CGI period, that depict craft exhibiting behaviors that cannot be done by terrestrial vehicles.

Yes, there are cases such as the Hill case, etc. where additional evidence comes into play (the key one of the Hill case being the star map, which identifies stars not known at the time, and even their color, which was only later verified).

Other ample evidence is presented in the government's own treatment of the subject, numerous secret projects to investigate them, a public project to dismiss it, and then subsequent secret investigations after closing Blue Book.

As for showing you what I mean, I've tried to do this in various posts which can be found in the UFO Classic Cases thread. They are quite lengthy, so impractical to duplicate here.... Just check there.

There will be no "proof" until you, personally, get to see and speak to an alien, touch the craft, etc. Until then, all there is is evidence, and yes, if you really look at all that is out there, you'll eventually agree it's "ample". While a lot of what's out there is garbage....there is still a large collection of sightings, witnesses, and photos/vids that continue to hold up under scrutiny, and certainly support that someone outside of this planet is visiting us.

[edit on 16-7-2008 by Gazrok]

reply to post by Gazrok


"Yeah, thanks for waiting a few hours. Check the Classic UFO cases stickied thread in this forum, especially the Hill Case, Rendlesham, Roswell, Battle of LA, etc."

Well with 15 years of research, i guess i must have missed those....oh wait, i didn't.
Well as there have been hundreds, if not thousands of bigfoot footprints, pictures, eye-witness accounts etc....i suppose bigfoot exists too?

The reason all this is still a conspiracy is that this evidence is not damning or concrete.

a U.F.O. is just that....an unidentified flying object, not an alien spacecraft.
I admit, i find alot of it intriguing, and as i said, i personally believe.... but for you to say so boldly that there is ample evidence is inaccurate.

There are cases that haven't been solved, even some that defy explanation, but there are none that offer anything other than more questions than when you first started reading/researching.

I've looked into almost every major case,viewed thousands of photos and videos, been to many places of interest across the globe and still i have never found something that i 100% could say was definitely either an alien or an alien craft.

Many strange craft as you said...but they could be ours.
Just because you don't know about them, does not mean they don't exist.
I'm pretty sure it is not government/military policy to share/release details or footage of every new craft being tested.

the german scientists that worked on ufos from the 30's onwards, could well be responsible for many of the early sightings.
and i'm pretty sure it's not only those pesky nazis that had them.

Obviously it's Inconvenient to post all your "evidence" here, but the point is i've seen it/read it.

any answer on the table??

Thanks, blup.

[edit on 16/7/08 by blupblup]

Originally posted by Gazrok

Yeah, thanks for waiting a few hours. Check the Classic UFO cases stickied thread in this forum, especially the Hill Case, Rendlesham, Roswell, Battle of LA, etc.

OK, first no need to be at odds. Where you say ample evidence of the ET Hypothesis, which means that non-terrestrial sentient beings are piloting craft in our atmosphere, I say 'high strangeness, but no verification of that Hypothesis

Yes, I mean ample.

There are multitudes of sightings by pilots, military personnel, and other respected citizens who are trained observers.

But Gazrok, every single case has a plausible alternate explanation. The first sighting by Kenneth Arnold could have been a flock of birds, though it's not conclusive. The Tremonton video could have been birds.

White line fever can also affect pilots and trained military observers, all of whom have made mistakes. The famous surgeon's photo of Nessie is an example of a respected citizen who turned out to be a hoax. Radar traces, though supportive of something, can also be reflections. Astronaut sightings can turn out to be misidentified orbital debris.

The Battle of L.A. may not have involved a physical craft - it took no action and none of the shell fired was reported to hit anything.

Name me one case where it has been proven that a real non-terrestrial being was sighted piloting a flying vehicle, that was not a 'remembered' event. I've been studying the field since the early 60s and I can not recall one case that verifies the ET Hypothesis.

Carl Sagan had this to say:en.wikipedia.org...

In a 1969 lecture U.S. astrophysicist Carl Sagan said:

"The idea of benign or hostile super beings from other planets visiting the earth [is clearly] an emotional idea. There are two sorts of self-deception here: either accepting the idea of extraterrestrial visitation in the face of very meager evidence because we want it to be true; or rejecting such an idea out of hand, in the absence of sufficient evidence, because we don't want it to be true. Each of these extremes is a serious impediment to the study of UFOs."

In addition, there are multitudes of photos, videos, etc. that are pre-CGI period, that depict craft exhibiting behaviors that cannot be done by terrestrial vehicles.

All of those photos are fuzzy, indistinct, or too distant, and usually represented by a single photograph. All are plausibly, though not definitively, explained by normal atmospheric phenomena, including layered clouds, bolides, meteors, stars. We have no credible close up gun camera photos of a craft with a non-human, non-terrestrial pilot.

Because of this 'fuzzy' evidence, we can not say we have evidence of anything that verifies the ET Hypothesis, but we can say that there is high strangeness in some cases.

Even the Betty and Barny Hill case can be partially explained. The Marjorie Fish map is impressive, but ask yourself, is it plausible that an Alien crew would have a map like this engraved on the side of the wall? It's just too cartoony, too 50s science fiction. A craft like this would have a hologrammatic display, not a 2-D engraving on the bulkhead taken from an Earth-centric point of view.

But, I'll grant you this one case, except for the little men in uniforms spotted by Barney. I have a suspicion this was an engineered event with collusion by Pease AFB personnel. Betty saw creatures, but they were already on the ground. A subtle, but important distinction.

Ask yourself, -could- this sighting and experience been staged by Earth technology at the time? I think it could, though it's pretty highly strange - but not as strange as an ET explanation, after all.

As for showing you what I mean, I've tried to do this in various posts which can be found in the UFO Classic Cases thread. They are quite lengthy, so impractical to duplicate here....

Just check there.

I'm just asking for one case, other than the Hills, which is not a 'remembered' case where actual ET were seen piloting a flying craft. Just one.

There will be no "proof" until you, personally, get to see and speak to an alien, touch the craft, etc. Until then, all there is is evidence, and yes, if you really look at all that is out there, you'll eventually agree it's "ample".

That's not fair. Having a warehouse full of fuzzy photos and witness statements, balanced against the foibles of human perception does not swing the scales to point to any evidence of Earth visitation by non-human entities in flying craft. It ALL falls just a little short of being probative.

Evidence of high strangeness - Check.
Evidence (ample or not) of ET visitation via piloted craft - Inconclusive, and at best premature.

So, while I don't reject the idea, to me going to an 'Alien' explanation is picking an EXTREMELY improbable explanation over a lot of moderately improbable explanations. It's just not scientific, not rational. If there is even a remote possibility of a terrestrial explanation I think it needs to be ranked first and any ET explanation a distant second.

After all, no terrestrial explanation has to overcome vast distances, intense radiation, hard vacuum, and the difficulty of anyone randomly locating us, does it?

Thanks for the opportunity to debate this.

Edit: Spelling


[edit on 16-7-2008 by Badge01]

I did a search on www.whatreallyhappened.com...
for Roswell

October 21, 2007
Who Murdered The First American Secretary Of Defense?
judicial-inc.biz...
Normally I do not link to this site these days, but this version of Forrestal's murder makes a lot more sense than the nonsensical claims that Forrestal was killed because he was "going to reveal the truth" about Roswell. - M. R.

The Forgotten Assassination

James Forrestal was the Secretary of the Navy in World War Two. He opposed the wrecking of Europe so the Communists could walk in and take over. When Zionists assaulted Palestine in a grab for the world's oil, he predicted endless wars. He so infuriated Zionists that they murdered him by throwing him off the 16th floor of Bethesda Hospital.

You see how all the lies make fools of people that talk about Aliens.

Yeah dead fools.

Its all done to cover the free energy scientists in New Mexico after
WWII who are enslaved and if they tell they die.

Forrestal knew what was going on in New Mexico and would not write
about Aliens in his memoirs.

And oil raises its ugly head again as well as hate groups but that IS
NOT the answer. Its the free energy cover, we need oil they say,
they push for oil, oil is all the talk.

But its Tesla's free energy and NOT all the hype.

reply to post by Gazrok


I have a few links to Willam R. Lyne interviews in which they start
out when he first observed the sparky saucers and provides all the
common flight details.

Any one interested I will post some links.

If you read UFO magazines back in the 1950s you remember the
'angel hair' deposits on the ground.

Bill mentions a trail from one observation and now days I'd say
we have them leaving the same toxic trail high in the sky and
coming down as a haze. Yeah, more powerful engines now on the
Tesla Triangle UFOs.

reply to post by TeslaandLyne


Good link on the Forrestal murder. Makes sense. Regardless of whether you think it was Tesla free energy or Baruch and Israel, do you imagine that Truma gave the order?

Why isn't the Zionist-Israeli connection sufficient? I'm aware that the gubmint allegedly confiscated Tesla's patents and discoveries. Maybe it was a combination of both.

Any evidence that Forrestal had a Tesla connection? Or am I missing your point?

TIA.

Before you believe TW, you have to take a look at his shady past, the involvement of Mike Rogers, financial worries, implausibilities in the story, and the suggestibility of a bunch of scared guys in a truck.

They wouldn't know a 'beam of light' from a arc-welder's light or a spotlight, and an explosion rigged by Rogers and Walton timed to throw Walton in the air.

Here's an example of a pneumatic air ram, used by stuntmen.



Couple this with a spotlight beam and a balloon filled with hydrogen, and voila, instant 'beam blast'.

Add some acting by
Rogers 'Look, it's a huge saucer'
Guys in Car: 'Where?' (still partly blinded by the flash-bang)
Rogers: 'Duck, it's right over top of the car'
Guys in Car: "it is? Drive, drive, get us out of here".

Heck the guys in the truck could even be in on it, or just some of them. A big mylar balloon and yeah, they truthfully saw a 'saucer'.

Add to that a convenient drop off in a neighboring town by compliant, yet geographically-challenged 'aliens', and a nice pay off by the Enquirer and everyone's happy.

Over the years, heck TW begins to believe his own story. A type of inverse Stockholm syndrome.

I think I'm going to find the book. I heard the movie was a bit over blown in some scenes. They wanted to put that Hollywood flare to it. My guess is the book is better and more factual. Don't be deceived by Hollywood because they are in the business of deception.

I never said concrete evidence or proof. I said ample evidence.

As for the Hill map, the information I recall has Betty describing an interactive hologram, not an engraved plaque.

As for the LA incident, you don't lob hundreds of shells into the air at nothing, for almost an hour.

It's when the sightings, encounters, etc. are all taken as a whole, and when logic is applied that says if these things defy our terrestrial capability, then they likely didn't originate here, that it all becomes ample evidence.

Many strange craft as you said...but they could be ours.
Just because you don't know about them, does not mean they don't exist.
I'm pretty sure it is not government/military policy to share/release details or footage of every new craft being tested.

If there were craft capable of such dispays back in the 40's, then surely we'd have some more advanced ships in production right now. No, the military doesn't share them, but after a time, they become declassified. Growing up in the Lockheed culture, I kind of know a thing or two about that. I'm well-versed in the craft we've attempted that are saucer-like. However, that's the beauty of old cases. With declassification, we can then look back, and see what they may have been. For example, there were only a few saucer-type craft in development at the time of Arnold's historic sighting, but none in sufficient numbers or locations to be plausible contenders (nor did they have the speed observed by Arnold, a trained pilot). However, my point is that yes, there is ample evidence of craft which perform maneuvers that we cannot do in our craft presently, and/or at the time of the sightings. If we can't terrestrially do it here (and over time declassifications provide no additional answers), then it's source is likely (though not necessarily) extraterrestrial. It's ample, but not concrete.

EDIT: To get more to topic...the Travis Walton case has always bothered me. He certainly had a very plausible motive for his disappearance, and this is certainly highly suspicious. There are other issues too, such as the inconclusive lie detector tests, etc. And the movie takes a LOT of liberties the book does not, and the book takes a lot of liberties, the case does not (for example, Travis in the book relates what his buddies said when he wasn't there...yet doesn't state if it's from asking them later, just speculation, etc. and a host of other such issues of author omniscience).

[edit on 16-7-2008 by Gazrok]

reply to post by cloakndagger


Read his second book as he is older. There are many questions to the case he does not answer and has a "if you don't believe me go to hell" type attitude. The fact is the other witnesses (accept Rogers) did not actually see Mr Walton get taken into the craft shows they are not the best witnesses to be touted. He has written two books and made a movie deal. Travis Walton has made plenty of money on this story of his. I do believe he and his brother (with a little help from one or more of his friends) hoaxed the whole deal after seeing "The UFO Incident" on TV. I don't think he will ever confess, but one of the others helping him probably will in the future (and write a book about that).

Does anyone here have ample evidence that all UFO cases represent Venus, swamp gas, or flocks of birds?

If so I'd like to see it.

I'll say this:

All UFO cases are:

1. Misidentifications;
2. Staged events, or outright hoaxes;
3. Unknown, but terrestrial technology;
4. Natural phenomenon;
5. Errors in human perception (more or less honest);
6. High strangeness events, to include beings from the future, or other undiscovered Earthly creatures;
7. Inconclusive, or combination of 1-5.

There is an extremely unlikely possibility that any known UFO event is actually linked to a real, live, non-human, non-terrestrial agent or being. It may not be zero, but close enough that we should look elsewhere first.

Remember this. Even the most encouraging cases had one fatal flaw. They were one-time events, and there was no sequelae. Betty and Barney never got injured, re-abducted, or met with the little guys again. TW never got abducted again. The Battle of LA never had any followup, crashed remains or a re-occurrence. NONE of the the other compelling cases had any serious followup including the Allagash or Pascagoula Abductions. It's a 'jealous phenomena' and usually a one time event.

Though some experiencers report multiple or recurring events, they're never able to get any tangible proof and are not physically harmed that I'm aware. This is very similar to a subjective event. '___' and temporal lobe epilepsy and other neuro-abnormalities, like sleep apnea and Old Hag offer compelling explanations.

2 cents.






[edit on 16-7-2008 by Badge01]

Second duplicate.

Don't know what happened.

Sorry.


[edit on 16-7-2008 by Badge01]

Duplicators.

Tha-tha-that's all of them.

Apologies. Just noticed it.

Jeeze.


[edit on 16-7-2008 by Badge01]

Originally posted by Gazrok
It's when the sightings, encounters, etc. are all taken as a whole, and when logic is applied that says if these things defy our terrestrial capability, then they likely didn't originate here, that it all becomes ample evidence.

Just a quibble on this point then I'm happy to get back to TW.

You can't take a mass of possibly misidentified sightings and encounters and throw up your hands and say 'they can't all be misidentifications, errors, perceptual distortions'. That's an emotional reaction.

Let's say we have two terrestrial craft. One has a strong light on. A highly decorated policeman sees this. Another craft in another part of the sky turns on its light about 2 seconds after the first one extinguishes theirs.

To the highly credible distinguished veteran who would NOT lie, this looks exactly like a craft performing an impossible maneuver. It flashed across the sky at such a speed that it defies terrestrial explanation. The vet even gets out his slide rule and computes the speed.

Does this make it 'scientfic'? No, because though he didn't lie, he made a mistake.

I'd much prefer a rating system for those handful of cases which are truly highly strange.

1. Probability of duplicating the 'effect', sighing, or technology by terrestrial means;
2. Probability of a mistake of human perception;
3. Probability of a 'staged' event using technology and perception;
4. Probability of an advanced terrestrial technology;
5. When 1-4 fail, probability of a non-human non-terrestrial space faring alien. (Must include visual confirmation).

No case ever reported has even a preponderance of the probability in category 5. Even the Hill case has about a 10% chance of being staged, and another 10% chance of being a shared dream-memory.

Extremely rare events like geo-magnetic flashes, luminous insect swarms, ball lightning have a significantly higher chance of being correct than an explanation involving non-terrestrial non-human entities piloting a craft.

But some people would like to say 'if you can't easily an explanation, then it HAS to be alien'. To me, that's sloppy thinking, and no something upon which I'd bet the farm, and I suspect few others would either, regardless of their predilections and proclivities.

Surely the military can't be so doofus that they'd fire at something that isn't actually a solid object. But that doesn't make it an ALIEN craft, now, does it?

Still, I don't see why you can't answer my question - name one case for which you'd bet the farm and give supporting links or a synopsis. I like a few cases, but I don't know of one which does not include a small doubt.

Originally posted by Badge01
reply to post by TeslaandLyne

 

Good link on the Forrestal murder. Makes sense. Regardless of whether you think it was Tesla free energy or Baruch and Israel, do you imagine that Truma gave the order?

Why isn't the Zionist-Israeli connection sufficient? I'm aware that the gubmint allegedly confiscated Tesla's patents and discoveries. Maybe it was a combination of both.

Any evidence that Forrestal had a Tesla connection? Or am I missing your point?

TIA.

Dulles kept on rejecting Forrestal's defense estimates.
I know Forrestal dissed the Alien cover because I heard his interview.

Its bigger than any Zionist-Israeli connection but I don't discount any
group being in on Illuminati circles were energy and power is
concerned.

Power positions are given out from OIL, so what happened when
atomic (nuclear) energy came along. Nuclear was parceled out
by the funders which were undoubtedly OIL.

The problem is that atomic (electron, ether or the 'dark matter'
electron sensitivity) had already been funded and the potential
well understood.

The secret is out if you noticed all the home grown Hydrogen fuel
from water cars bring touted. Some think gas is already 80% water
mixed in.

We hear of the gravity effects of 'dark matter'. This 'dark matter' (DM)
was 'discovered' through its gravity effects. Well the DM is so elusive
that I hold the the power is due the its electrification among the stars.
Here on earth its Tesla coils at work in your spotted UFOs. or saucer
planes. But that is only one application and free energy devices can be
numerous but the risk of discloser is too great.


They were above Truman. Truman had to take in thousands of
Nazis. Why? Perhaps they gave Truman the two operational A bombs
for Japan. A ten year jump on the US Manhattan Project came up with
some pretty impressive results.

There are even more theories on weapons off shore that US and UK
Intel would confirm to Truman that he had to make a deal. The subs
went down as promised. Sure, so no one ever saw the weapons.
What weapons do you think the subs had? Hint: in atomic bomb
weaponry it was uranium, plutonium, hydrogen and then ....


Truman's signature was forged on Majestic 12 document, every
signature is different and a previous document signature matched.

Yes, I think Tesla Free Energy (TFE) is behind it all from before 1900.
Its just that the big show started in 1945 and the OIL power, whoever
the players, must denounce TFE and tout OIL come what may.


The web page opinion :
"When Zionists assaulted Palestine in a grab for the world's oil, .."
is way off and if the WRH site thinks that solves the Roswell Forestall
connection he has another thing coming.

Forestall not going along with the Alien cover tells me he was aware
of saucer operations in New Mexico but perhaps clueless
of how it came from Tesla and his coils.

So Forestall knowing about Tesla.. no, about Aliens to cover operations
in New Mexico... yes. To me it just sound like it.. or the shoe fits in my
opinion.

ED: someone doubled a post..

[edit on 7/16/2008 by TeslaandLyne]