Travis Walton (Moment Of Truth) Proof, Hes A Liar!!

reply to post by Arbitrageur
if ats does interview or did, i think that the grey area should be removed.

Travis Walton's the real deal. Now it's kinda lookin from the inside out. What's false in the EBE area? Scientisits (non-US Gov Funded) study his case to this day. Why?
To learn more about the abductors, as with Rivera (PR).

Decoy

Originally posted by Immortalgemini527
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

if ats does interview or did, i think that the grey area should be removed.

ATS did the interview, I heard it.

I sort of understand your point, however what separates the Travis Walton case from many of the gray area cases, is the fact that the other 6 witnesses on the crew all passed lie detector tests. Travis says Jeff Wells, who wrote a skeptical article about the incident, isn't being completely truthful, but even Jeff Wells admits the other 6 witnesses all passed lie detector tests, so that fact is apparently undisputed by either side of the debate. Unfortunately none of the other 6 witnesses saw Travis board the craft (right?), so they can't back up that part of the story, but they are apparently telling the truth about the parts of the story they CAN back up.

Now, how many other stories in the gray area have 6 other witnesses who all passed lie detector tests? Some don't have ANY other witnesses or any independent evidence, and it's for those cases the gray area is needed.

Originally posted by flightsuit
I wasn't referring to control surfaces on the outside of the craft. I meant control surfaces that your hand would touch while you were controlling it, such as a joystick or a tiller or whatever.

I suggest you get a basic lesson in flight control systems!

A joystick/yoke isn't termed a 'control surface'!

Control Surfaces

Ailerons, Elevator, Rudder, Elevons, Spoilers, Flaps, Slats, Air brakes, and Trim controls.

Flight Control System

Control column or a Control yoke, Rudder pedals, Throttle controls (In the case of choppers flight controls include Cyclic, Collective, Anti-torque pedals, and Throttle).

So now do you see the difference between Control SURFACE and Control SYSTEM? The system controls the surfaces.

Oh anyway, back on topic - Travis Walton's so called 'abduction' by alien beings. Carry on.....

Wow, OrionHunterX, are you really being so petty as to presume to set yourself up as an authority who's going to school poor, stupid me on proper aviation terminology? I am well aware of what the term "control surface" means in an aviation context. I just happened to have misspoke and used the term incorrectly one time. Why are you focusing on this? Why are you making such a federal case out of it?

Drop it and move on, already. I'm sure there are many grammatical errors in my other posts that you've not yet addressed, and I think I'm speaking for everybody here when I say that we are eager to see you get to them.

reply to post by flightsuit

Ok...Ok! Relax! Peace! To err is human!

Didn't mean to rub it in!

Now where the dickens were we? Oh yes, Travis Walton and his alien abduction! Carry on....

Originally posted by flightsuit
Wow, OrionHunterX, are you really being so petty as to presume to set yourself up as an authority who's going to school poor, stupid me on proper aviation terminology? I am well aware of what the term "control surface" means in an aviation context. I just happened to have misspoke and used the term incorrectly one time. Why are you focusing on this? Why are you making such a federal case out of it?

Drop it and move on, already. I'm sure there are many grammatical errors in my other posts that you've not yet addressed, and I think I'm speaking for everybody here when I say that we are eager to see you get to them.

Because thats what people like orionhunter do. Its an intelligence complex thing

reply to post by Mr_skepticc


Polygraphs have been proven to be bull#. Even Penn and Teller have ripped these apart.

reply to post by RyannVonDoom
Travis Walton displayed some knowledge of polygraphs during the ATS interview, by correcting someone who suggested that polygraphs couldn't be used in court. Walton correctly stated that the admissibility varied by state.
www.washingtonpost.com...

"There will always be critics of the polygraph," said Gordon L. Vaughan, counsel for the American Polygraph Association. "But I think the opinions suggest that there is an ongoing debate about the reliability of the polygraph." Thomas wrote that most states ban polygraph evidence, and Vaughan said that breaks down into 29 states with outright bans, 16 states that allow some test results if both the prosecution and defense agree to it. One state, New Mexico, makes them generally admissible.

But the extensive use by the military seems problematic if they are really that unreliable:

Justice John Paul Stevens, who was the lone dissenter, emphasized the value of the tests to a defendant and noted that the military gives "hundreds of thousands of such tests and routinely uses their results for a wide variety of official decisions."

Stevens called the government's position inconsistent. While it routinely uses the test and says it is an "effective investigatory tool," the Justice Department said it was not reliable enough to be used in court and, unlike other scientific evidence, could mislead a jury by purporting to show the "truth."

The US can't seem to make up its collective mind about polygraph results.

One possibility is that as techniques improve, we may someday have a more reliable lie detector test, but it's not there yet.

reply to post by Arbitrageur

DOES ANY ONE NO WHERE I CAN TAKE A LIE DETECTOR TEST LIVE.
And until they test all those other men live ,to me i dont believe them either,and for one thing lights have and never had nothing to do with abductions.

Originally posted by RyannVonDoom
reply to post by Mr_skepticc

 

Polygraphs have been proven to be bull#. Even Penn and Teller have ripped these apart.

Shhh! Walton supporters may read your comments and jump on your butt for being a heretic!

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
reply to post by RyannVonDoom
snip
One possibility is that as techniques improve, we may someday have a more reliable lie detector test, but it's not there yet.

I can't wait for that day for I know that if a 100% reliable test is administered to Travis Walton he will surely fail it. Again!

The Shrike, you seem to be very emotionally invested in Travis Walton. So much so that you've lost your ability or willingness to be objective.

Originally posted by The Shrike

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
reply to post by RyannVonDoom
snip
One possibility is that as techniques improve, we may someday have a more reliable lie detector test, but it's not there yet.

I can't wait for that day for I know that if a 100% reliable test is administered to Travis Walton he will surely fail it. Again!

You see, people like you should not investigate. Your belief system just gets in your way. It gets to the point where you don't want him to be right. You want to be right! you want to be right so much that your arragonce will tell you that you are right. So, no matter what he says, it does not matter

De-bunkers and hardcore believers are so annoying in this field

Originally posted by Jay-morris

So, no matter what he says, it does not matter

While I do obviously agree with you that The Shrike is way too biased and emotionally attached to a certain outcome to be able to investigate or debunk the Walton case with any kind of objectivity, to be fair, one major point that skeptics, legitimate and otherwise, have been trying to make, is that, in fact, nothing that anybody says matters. If a scientist makes a claim about the properties of a new drug, for example, nothing he says matters, even if he's taken the new medicine himself. The only thing that matters is whether his claims can be verified by independent observation or repeatable experiments.

If you asked me whether Walton was telling the truth, I would say that my strong hunch is that he is, in fact, telling the truth. I can't demand that any skeptic to share my hunch, however.

My god, one of the great UFO lore guys comes on here on his own time and some people treat him with zero respect and talk to him like they have known him all his life and feel they have the right to TRY and belittle the man.

Thankfully Mr Walton has not been misled into stupid skeptic wars and has handled himself with great decorum.

Those wishing to attack for the sake of attacking should be disgusted with themselves and acted upon by a moderator. A healthy debate is one thing but basically putting two fingers in your ears and screaming liar liar can't hear you is childish, ignorant and clearly shows a nil sense of this often used term 'critical thinking'.

These same people clearly do not understand what that term actually means.

On a civil note I'd like to thank you for coming here and chatting with us Travis (If I may), I await the interview and I only have one question if I may.

How much of the movie is just fiction or enhanced for theatrical impact?

I've not read the book but I seriously will have a read, this case has been one of those that really has a feel to it.

Thanks from a cold old UK.....

reply to post by Travis Walton


Travis! I am glad you finally joined ATS. Gives you a chance to share your side of the story.

I'm just posting a completely random thought here that came up when looking through this thread

Wouldn't it be great if someone who is abducted by a UFO has an ordinary cellphone at hand, which could be dropped / forgotten on board of said UFO. Now when the abductee in question gets home, he can track his or her phone's GPS signal to track the current location of the craft (hopefully somewhere around earth )

[/end of random thought]

This of course relates to the growing need of evidence in recent sightings / experiences. We can simply not accept random claims without proper evidence; platforms that are able to provide this evidence are available to most people at all times.

Originally posted by TWILITE22
Just another way the msm controls the information,one of these days the truth will come out.there was one time in our history where a mans word was good enough,grant it i'm not nieve I've raised three children and could tell when they were lying a mile away.I believe the internet has made matters even worse it has become more of a way of telling lies than getting the truth out.Can someone tell me is it in our nature to lie all the time?? [/quote


Such a non-sequitor. Some of you talk as if you think the heads of all the tv networks meet somewhere behind closed doors and decide together what to air and what not to air. It isnt so. being a media network is a business, one in which you compete against your rivals for viewship.

Labeling all channels together as "the main stream media" as if they were some giant conglomerate who existed for no other reason then to keep state secrets is nonsensical. They are competing against each other for viewership.

Originally posted by Travis Walton
Travis Walton here. Thanks to all who see through this show's deception. The Moment of Truth uses a completely discredited polygraph method. Michael Martin, a court certified polygraph expert, created a site THE TRUTH ABOUT THE MOMENT OF TRUTH (polytest.org/momenttruth.org) years before my show when the series first aired, saying, "...the polygraph aspect of the show has no validity whatsoever." "FOX TV has intentionally blocked us from publishing this information on their internet forum..." "This test format will NOT determine truth or deception...In other words, they could simply flip a coin and achieve similar accuracy levels."

The MOT used deceptive editing to mislead viewers. Notice the identical "reaction shot" from my family is used more than once. These shots are also out of their actual context. When the "not true" verdict was heard the audience began booing. Host Mark Walberg turned to the crowd and asked, "How many still believe he's telling the truth?" and the audience erupted into cheering loud and long. He then asked how many think he lied? and there were a few scattered calls from the back. THEY CUT THIS OUT, as well as other positive things. Two years ago I emailed one MOT producer about that saying, ".. they could edit that out, but that would be deceptive, wouldn't it?" Also they taped a fake opening sequence using an actor instead of the examiner, with my arm with sensors attached resting comfortably on a table, as per proper procedure. Later their actual "test" required me to hold my arm absolutely still balancing on only a narrow one inch wide steel chair arm for the entire 50+ questions, an excruciatingly long time. Their test subjects would naturally register random reactions to this stress. Modern accepted procedure sets a maximum of three or four questions. Many other violations of correct procedure.

Their test, like the McCarthy "failed" test, used a method rejected decades ago and found by the U.S. GAO (Government Accounting Office) to yield up to 80% false positives -- truthful persons judged as lying. This method is actually so illegal in some states that its use could result in a revoked license to practice. MOT further degraded this method to doing only one run through the questions! Three or four runs are required in accepted methods for comparison to spot random fluctuations unrelated to deception. The American Polygraph Association's STANDARDS AND PRINCIPLES OF PRACTICE specifically prohibits single chart tests. MOT's man committed most of the list of 13 "activities of UNETHICAL EXAMINERS" on the American Association of Police Polygraph Examiners website.

I asked polygraph experts at Backster School of Lie Detection for an opinion. Techniques in wide use today are named after world renowned polygraph expert Cleve Backster, who has twice testified before the U.S. Congress and has conducted hundreds of training courses and advanced seminars to law enforcement up to the federal level:U.S. Army Counterintelligence Corps, CIA, Fort Gordon, DOD, Canadian Police and FBI. Answer: "...Moment of Truth uses a technique in polygraph that was discarded years ago."

AZ State Police polygraph examiner,Cy Gilson, who tested the entire woods crew, said "...there can be NO validity to the test results in such a procedure. The pseudo examiner is a whore and the show's producers is the pimp."

Dr David Raskin has authored hundreds of papers on polygraphy as well as the preeminent textbooks on polygraph. As a court recognized expert he has testified in cases such as the Howard Hughes will, Jeffrey (Fatal Vision) McDonald, serial killer Ted Bundy, the DeLorean affair and the McMartin preschool case. Raskin has testified before British Parliament, the Israeli Kineset, and four times before the Judiiary Committee of the U.S. Senate with regard to Watergate and Iran/Contra. Dr. David Raskin said, "...I have always thought those TV programs are a disgrace. They trick people into participating and then use unprofessional and inaccurate methods merely for the purpose of entertaining their audiences. Any polygraph examiner who participates in such charades should not be allowed to practice. I have been asked to be the principal in such shows and have always refused. It is unfortunate that they lured you into being abused by them. I agree with the criticisms of Mr Martin."

By the way, this person claiming to be the county sheriff's nephew is NOT. Marlin Gillespie was the Sheriff, NOT Sanford Flake who left office after state officials investigated him. "Nephew" claimed the crew told diners that night at the Red Robin what happened. Red Robin didn't first open until '93 --in PA! He's a fraud. I'll publish more complete proof elsewhere.

In my book FIRE IN THE SKY I take each and every charge the debunkers made and, according to observers, totally "demolish" them, by pointing readers to experts, independent sources and verifiable records. This includes the other attackers cited on this forum, like William Spaulding of GSW, but especially Philip Klass, who I prove actually lied in numerous instances. If anyone would like to communicate personally without hiding behind anonymous fake names or addresses, my email address is *snip*

 

MOD EDIT:
Please do not post personal contact information here.

edit on September 23rd 2010 by greeneyedleo because: (no reason given)

Travis, Im sorry but you are a liar and a conman. You couldnt finish a logging contract, and your UFO story was the way out.

*If you are really TW, which I doubt.