Multiple witness UFO cases: the hoaxes?

reply to post by CardDown


Ah- wasnt aware they had posed as witnesses as well (brings them even lower in my estimation!)- but you are right, that is a multiple witness 'hoax', as there was 2 of them!

I would call into question the newspaper article of the 1966 hoax, as the author, a Ralph McGill, makes many claims without any proof- for instance, he claims that these balloons and their aluminium reflector released by 'Cal Tech students', made the object appear 300ft in length on radar- quite a claim , but he doesnt say which radar or when, although he does use this as a reason to not 'trust radar anymore about UFO's'. He also makes some big claims about what witnesses 'reported', although again, doesnt give any details at all.

In the area of UFO sightings, I think it is as important for the de-bunkers to qualify their evidence as much as the believers......

reply to post by Thunda

I agree that the story I linked on the Cal-Tech hoax is heavily biased, but it is just one of many. I chose it because it presented the best summary of the events. Here's another story, and you'll see more coverage of it linked on the left of the page there.
Cal-Tech 1966 UFO Hoax

It happened during a period when many other UFO reports were being made nationwide. All they proved was that when some people see lights in the sky, they get excited, jump to conclusions and report what they've seen inaccurately. In a way, this hoax failed, as there were no extreme claims such as landings, physical traces or alien encounters.

There have been many hoaxes where multiple witnesses all tried to collaborate the same story.

One of my favorite, is the "Dr. Reed" case. He wasn't even a Doctor, and his name wasn't even Reed ;-). Yet, not only did the witnesses claim to have gone to school with him but, they claimed to take DNA samples of the "alien" he captured and see the spaceship as well. Well, one of he witnesses who took DNA samples turned out to be an employee of a gas station that worked with one of the other alleged "scientists" who supported Dr. Reed's claims.

Dr. Reed was actually Johnathan Rutter. His entire story has been dissected and torn apart and every witness lied point blank.

www.ufowatchdog.com...

Yes....people lie....even when it's something as outrageous as witnessing aliens.

Originally posted by Unidentified_Objective
There have been many hoaxes where multiple witnesses all tried to collaborate the same story.
... my favorite, is the "Dr. Reed" case.

Thanks for that, I'd heard about the Reed story, but was not aware that several people were recruited to support it.

That reminds me, one of the very first flying saucer stories was a partnership hoax, the 1947 Maury Island case. Here's Kevin Randle's summary of it: kevinrandle.blogspot.com...

reply to post by CardDown


Well, I dont want to be pedantic, but I thought you were looking for 'Multiple witness UFO cases: the hoaxes'.

Whilst the Dr Reed case is filled with liars and deception, there was only one UFO alleged to have been sighted in the whole sordid mess of a case- the small, black triangle that 'Reed' filmed in his original footage (thought to be black material stretched over a wire frame). And whilst there were many people who came forward afterwards to corroborate various potrions of the story, none claimed to have seen the UFO.

So yes, many liars in the case, but not 'multiple witnesses of a UFO'.

Rather vitriolic de-bunking website you linked there, Unidentified_Objective. Royce Myers, III seems to be very angry about the whole thing!

reply to post by CardDown


Ah- thats more like it- we have a winner! The 1947 Maury Island case- as the link says, Captain Ed Ruppelt called Maury Island the "dirtiest hoax in UFO history".

I had forgotten about this- a very tangled web indeed, and fascinating even if it is a hoax for its complexity.....

reply to post by Thunda

Looking back at the Project Blue Book report on the Maury Island case, it seems that publisher Ray Palmer had a more active role in this hoax than history indicates.

www.bluebookarchive.org...
www.bluebookarchive.org...

Another interesting thing is this that hoax began in early June 1947, and would have preceded the famous Kenneth Arnold sighting. We can't know if it that point they were calling their rocks part of "flying saucers". They may have adjusted their story to include that element at Palmer's suggestion.

reply to post by CardDown


Yes, I think you are right about Ray Palmer. Facinating link and story, non the less.

I believe George Adamski had at least one secondary "witness" who claimed to have seen the scout ship. Some little old lady from what I remember (though she may not have been old at the time of the "sighting").

Steven Greer and CSETI members claimed to have seen a huge craft hover a few feet above them while out in some desert. Unfortunately, moments before it appeared, all the cameras failed. Luckily all the cameras began functioning once the craft had left so Greer and crew were able to film their reactions to the momentous event.

The Travis Walton case? Possibly an example of three hoax perpetrators and multiple innocent participants confirming the story.

The family involved with the Janos People incident.

reply to post by torsion


Thanks for your information on the Janos People, but I'm having trouble finding reports calling it a hoax. Most places where it is described, it is said to be an unbelievable story- not in a good way. Jenny Randles met the family and found them to be credible. Her complaint seems to be about the way it was investigated and packaged into a silly book:

The case is most interesting for the way an academic professor and a
psychiatrist -wrecked it. I had the misfortune of putting them onto the
case, thinking the team would conduct a genuine enquiry. Sadly, the professor
became so taken in by the saga, that emerged under hypnosis that his
subsequent book (The Janos People, Spearman, 1980) reads like a fairy tale.
There is substance behind the case, although seeing it is not easy. When
'Frank Johnson, the professor, ended his book by suggesting to the
inhabitants of New Zealand that they ship their people off one island and
leave the other free for the aliens from Janos to "come and live in peace" he
lost most if not all of his credibility. Nevertheless the story is very
illuminating about how hypnosis can taint an investigation and having
spoken to the family before Frank Johnson and his hypnotist got involved
and later, when the professor left the country in despair that people laughed
at his book, I can see some of the lessons the case teaches.
ABDUCTIONS: A BRITISH SURVEY by Jenny Randies
MUFON Journal Feb. 1988 pg. 11-13

If anyone has further information about the "Janos" family's claims, I'd be glad to see it.

reply to post by CardDown


Had a quick look but I couldn't see any mention of the UMMO affair:

The “UMMO Affaire”, as it would become known for posterity, reached far beyond Spain as serious researchers in other European countries became recipients of the intriguing correspondence. Aimé Michel and René Fouéré received UMMO microfilms and photographs of a spacecraft identical to the one supposedly seen over San José de Valderas, thus bringing UMMO's existence to the notice of French investigators.

UMMO: Harmless Prank or Hoax of the Century

Cheers.

reply to post by karl 12
I'd read Vallee's book, and his description of UMMO left me confused. I didn't accept his theory about it being orchestrated by an intelligence agency. The most puzzling thing about UMMO was the international scope of their operations. That, along with the materials and methods used in faking the trace evidence suggests financial support far greater than the typical saucer believers or pranksters. Thanks for linking that article- I hope there is some more on it somewhere.

UMMO leads into an area I'm reluctant to tread, the UFO cults. There, the element of religion clouds the issue, and things get messy trying out to sort out hoaxes from religious ceremonies.

reply to post by torsion


Last time I heard, the Travis Walton case was anything but a hoax. Have you come across some new evidence?

Originally posted by Thunda
Last time I heard, the Travis Walton case was anything but a hoax. Have you come across some new evidence?

The Travis Walton case was suspected of being a hoax from the beginning, but I'm going to stay out of that debate. Instead, I'd like to focus on the problems created by the UFOlogists (and reporters) who descended on the scene and polluted the case. Their involvement in Walton's polygraph testing cast doubts about the credibility of the whole episode.

The problem with UFO writers is that they need UFO cases, and there are many examples of them overselling the events in order to make a better story. The case itself may be genuine, but the investigation and reporting of it can be phony.

reply to post by CardDown


Hm- yes- you definitley have a point there. I have read much on the Walton case, but I still find it hard to believe that the whole logging crew would have been party to a hoax to this day. They were all almost charged with murder whilst Travis was missing, and I think one of them would have said "enough- ok, we have got him hold up in a cabin somewhere" rather than face charges. And Im pretty sure one of them would have, by now, sold there story of a hoax to a newspaper or some such.

Travis Walton too, I find, seems a most credible witness. He tells his story most matter of factly, and often points out that the whole experience had a very negative effect on his life. I saw him on a recent episode of "Chasing UFO's" (yes- I know- awful program), and they actually talked him into going back to the sight of the encounter. He seemed very uncomfortable once at the site, and insisted on leaving before dark. The mountain rescue team that accompanied the film crew to the site also said that there were many sightings of objects over the whole area to this day.

However, if the logging crew did indeed take part in an elaborate hoax, this would indeed fill the criteria of your search.

Originally posted by CardDown
reply to post by torsion

 

Thanks for your information on the Janos People, but I'm having trouble finding reports calling it a hoax.

The Janos case I consider a hoax because of its outlandish nature. It really made no sense and was chock full of science fiction motifs. The “abductees” are able to recall verbatim every word spoken by the Janos people. The destruction of their world was all conveniently filmed and played back to this nondescript family. The planet was rendered inhabitable due to the detonation of all the nuclear power plants – the explosion of one setting off the next! Of course nuclear power plants are not nuclear bombs but some lay people don't realise this when they begin to make up dramatic stories. Cultural influences such as Close Encounters of the Third Kind, The UFO Incident and other films like This Island Earth I suspect are more likely the origins of the tall tale. If the entire population of the planet Janos was coming here in 1979, where are they now? If the story was true in any form it would have been a monumental, historic, life-changing event that everyone alive today would be aware of. However, the silly story is long forgotten and the family who claimed it happened are probably embarrassed about the whole affair today.

Originally posted by Thunda
reply to post by CardDown

 

I have read much on the Walton case, but I still find it hard to believe that the whole logging crew would have been party to a hoax to this day...

The Walton incident may have been hoaxed by only two of the crew, Walton and Rogers, plus a third party (Duane Walton?) who has set up a rig and light show. The suspicious event is when Walton leaves the truck alone, gets “struck down” by a light and then Rogers takes off instead of helping his best friend. Was this to remove from the scene the members of the logging crew who weren’t privy to the set-up? Rogers is also the only one to claim to have seen the “saucer” fly away. Enough time is given for Walton and accomplice to clear the scene and get into hiding before Rogers decides to drive back for the “search”. Why do it? Well, being a UFO abductee celebrity can ensure a life-long source of income. Travis Walton events.

This does not qualify as a hoax, but, it does qualify as a Top 10 UFO case witnessed and corroborated by some 30 different people only now to have some strong indication that all the testimony about alien mother ships, was just space junk on re-entry.

The following thread was started by ATS member elevenaugust
Yukon 1996 Busted!?

Originally posted by torsion

Originally posted by Thunda
reply to post by CardDown

 

I have read much on the Walton case, but I still find it hard to believe that the whole logging crew would have been party to a hoax to this day...

The Walton incident may have been hoaxed by only two of the crew, Walton and Rogers, plus a third party (Duane Walton?) who has set up a rig and light show. The suspicious event is when Walton leaves the truck alone, gets “struck down” by a light and then Rogers takes off instead of helping his best friend. Was this to remove from the scene the members of the logging crew who weren’t privy to the set-up? Rogers is also the only one to claim to have seen the “saucer” fly away. Enough time is given for Walton and accomplice to clear the scene and get into hiding before Rogers decides to drive back for the “search”. Why do it? Well, being a UFO abductee celebrity can ensure a life-long source of income. Travis Walton events.

Well, that is indeed a theory, but very far from 'proof'. I think it would have occured to the rest of the logging crew over the years, as they were subject to extremely close scrutiny for a very long time. If it had been me who was a member of the logging team who wasnt in on the alleged hoax, I would have gone over the incident so many times to try and explain it, Im sure I would have thought of this. I know forestry guys, and they are very down to earth types, not prone to flights of fancy or easily taken in by hoaxes. And how was this amazing light show to be powered 30miles up a logging track? Truck battery? No, sorry, dont buy it. And "life-long source of income?"- youre surely not suggesting that Travis Walton and the logging crew in any way got rich off this? Travis Walton had his life ruined by this experience- hes had to put up with everyone and their dog calling him a liar his entire life- sorry, the odd minor pay-out for telling his story in no way covers it. How much do you think you get paid for speaking at a UFO conference?

reply to post by Druscilla


Wow- I love the way de-bunkers put their opinions over as 'fact' or 'identified'. Yes, there was indeed some re-entry of space debris on similar times and dates, but last time I checked, re-entry events dont hover, they tend to be visible for a very short time, very high up. The certainly dont resemble 'motherships'. In the post you link there are several retorts like this:
"This whole Fox Lake incident starts at about 8 PM local time with the first witness “FOX1” driving on Klondike Highway along Fox Lake when he notices a light illuminating a long smooth surface.
Witnesses FOX2 and FOX3 were traveling along the highway(in two separate vehicles) about a half hour later (8:30 PM) and witnessed a huge UFO hovering over the frozen Fox Lake, obviously they immediately stopped their vehicles to further investigate the anomaly.
Around 8:30-9:00 PM, 2 hours drive north the town of Pelly Crossing were seeing this massive UFO as well. “PEL1”( Don Trudeau) was outside just northeast of Pelly when he saw a large row of lights come over the hill.
1 Hours is NOT 3 minutes however you you twist it.

or

"This is a pathetic and laughable grasping-at-straws "explanation" of this sighting. A rocket booster falling to Earth in absolutely NO way matches what the witnesses are describing. Only the feebleminded will buy this."

Im afraid I tend to agree..............