It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Is Every UFO video Fake or Mistaken?

page: 4
5
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 16 2015 @ 02:42 AM
link   
a reply to: Scdfa

You're losing your touch, zeta, nothing you list in any way runs contrary to Travis Walton being abducted. Quite the contrary, most people know that abductees are usually taken more than once, often from the time they were children, and family members are often involved.

So are you saying that Walton got abducted more than once and other family members were involved? Sounds like you are expanding the story.

Nobody saw him get abducted. True or false?



Deniers gotta deny, I guess, but you can't deny the fact he passed three legitimate polygraphs.

Sure I can. He failed the first one and the rest weren't legitimate. At least that's what some investigators claim. Personally, unless I can see all the questions and results and how everything was set up, I don't put a whole lot of value into any of it.

He was here talking about the game show a few years ago. You should check it out. And I am kind of his side on that one. He was probably set up by the cheezy game show. But I guess that serves him right for hoaxing in the first place.




posted on Jan, 16 2015 @ 04:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: windword
Have the Phoenix Lights been debunked?

Psychological Warfare Testing?
Holograms, 'digitally induced reality' and such has been experimented with by the military forever, seemingly back to WWI when religious images were (allegedly) projected onto clouds over trenches, to convince enemies that god favoured one side. People always underestimate the true power of psychological warfare.

Some witnesses (including people who believed in aliens) claimed to have been shown military hologram demonstrations that looked absolutely real... im of the opinion that the "triangle craft" are unconventional aircraft platforms. As noted in the article I posted above, people witnessed a warped effect between the objects in formation, possibly a holographic effect. Interesting to note as it progressed it began to appear as a single object.

Imagine the military advantage of a few cheap UAVs that could float in formation appearing as a single massive unknown craft, and when the enemy shot at it, the munitions pass right through!



originally posted by: skyblueworld

I think the above holds true for this case as well, just not as advanced. As shown that projections were theoretically possible in WWI, I dont think there's any question of its possibility in WWII.

Considering that they were on edge from Pearl Harbour, they would shoot anything they didnt expect, and if it was a projected image, it would explain why none of the munitions could hit or damage it, and why some went through and allegedly killed soldiers on the other side. Some people have said that the lights are simply illuminating clouds, well you need a surface to project on to, hence clouds! I suspect it was a test to see how realistic the enemy would perceive it.



posted on Jan, 16 2015 @ 05:41 AM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Thanks for the reply…
You did see the reply I got on page one and the accompanying video showing the spider silk reflecting in the sun? After seeing that…

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Jan, 16 2015 @ 07:41 AM
link   
a reply to: intrptr
After seeing that...what? You realized he hadn't videoed an alien spaceship? I don't think he videoed a spider web.
Yes I saw that, but that explanation doesn't explain the boomerang shape described by witnesses, being seen by multiple witnesses who weren't seeing the same spider web, it doesn't explain the blobs moving around inside the apparition, it doesn't really explain why it faded, and my explanation explains all of those things well.



originally posted by: skyblueworld
The UFO's seen flying over Washington in July 1952, please debunk!

or


Those are probably two of the WORST examples I can think of, no picture for the first and a faked picture for the second.

The official explanation of the first one actually makes sense to me, and the criticisms of it are flawed. Samford said the "radar contacts were not caused by solid material targets" which is not completely accurate because they were in some cases radar reflections of solid objects on the ground (in one case a steamboat was confirmed to be the source of the "UFO" radar reflection) due to a thermal inversion and unusual thermal patterns in the atmosphere, and the same unusual atmospheric conditions were distorting observations of astronomical objects leading to false "visual confirmations":

1952 Washington D.C. UFO incident

Press stories called Samford and Ramey the Air Force's two top UFO experts.

Samford was heavily influenced by Capt. Roy James, who had discussed the sightings with him earlier in the day and who also spoke at the conference. Samford declared that the visual sightings over Washington could be explained as misidentified aerial phenomena (such as stars or meteors). Samford also stated that the unknown radar targets could be explained by temperature inversion, which was present in the air over Washington on both nights the radar returns were reported.

In addition, Samford argued that the radar contacts were not caused by solid material targets, and therefore posed no threat to national security. In response to a question as to whether the Air Force had recorded similar UFO radar contacts prior to the Washington incident, Samford admitted that there had been "hundreds" of such contacts where Air Force fighter interceptions had taken place, but stated they were all "fruitless." The conference proved to be successful "in getting the press off our backs", Ruppelt later wrote.
Among the witnesses who supported Samford's explanation was the crew of a B-25 bomber, which had been flying over Washington during the sightings of July 26–27. The bomber was vectored several times by National Airport over unknown targets on the airport's radarscopes, yet the crew could see nothing unusual. Finally, as a crew member related, "the radar had a target which turned out to be the Wilson Lines steamboat trip to Mount Vernon...the radar was sure as hell picking up the steamboat."[25] Air Force Captain Harold May was in the radar center at Andrews AFB during the sightings of July 19–20. Upon hearing that National Airport's radar had picked up an unknown object heading in his direction, May stepped outside and saw "a light that was changing from red to orange to green to red again...at times it dipped suddenly and appeared to lose altitude." However, May eventually concluded that he was simply seeing a star that was distorted by the atmosphere, and that its "movement" was an illusion. At 3 a.m. on July 27, an Eastern Airlines flight over Washington was told that an unknown object was in its vicinity; the crew could see nothing unusual. When they were told that the object had moved directly behind their plane, they began a sharp turn to try to see the object, but were told by National Airport's radar center that the object had "disappeared" when they began their turn. At the request of the Air Force, the CAA's Technical Development and Evaluation Center did an analysis of the radar sightings. Their conclusion was that "a temperature inversion had been indicated in almost every instance when the unidentified radar targets or visual objects had been reported." Project Blue Book would eventually label the Washington radar objects as "mirage effects caused by double inversion" and the visual sightings as "meteors coupled with the normal excitement of witnesses." In later years two prominent UFO skeptics, Dr. Donald Menzel, an astronomer at Harvard University, and Philip Klass, a senior editor for Aviation Week magazine, would also argue in favor of the temperature inversion/mirage hypothesis.


For the second one, did you know that photo is what today we would call "photoshopped" but back then they didn't have photoshop, however they had non-digital photo alteration techniques. They started shooting at a weather balloon and there was no UFO over the city. Before the shooting started there was a UFO on radar, but that UFO isn't what started the shooting. The guys who released the weather balloons confirmed they were shooting at their balloons, and they were told not to say that because there was a lot of ammunition wasted.

"Battle of Los Angeles" 1947

In 1983, the Office of Air Force History concluded that an analysis of the evidence points to meteorological balloons as the cause of the initial alarm....
A photo published in the Los Angeles Times on February 26, 1942 has been cited by modern day conspiracy theorists and UFOlogists as evidence of an extraterrestrial visitation. They assert that the photo clearly shows searchlights focused on an alien spaceship; however, the photo was heavily modified by photo retouching prior to publication, a routine practice in graphic arts of the time intended to improve contrast in black and white photos.[11][12] Los Angeles Times writer Larry Harnisch noted that the retouched photo along with faked newspaper headlines were presented as true historical material in trailers for the film Battle: Los Angeles. Harnisch commented, "if the publicity campaign wanted to establish UFO research as nothing but lies and fakery, it couldn't have done a better job."



edit on 16-1-2015 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Jan, 17 2015 @ 12:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: Scdfa

Travis Walton was abducted by aliens.This case is about as close as the aliens have allowed us to get to catching them in the act.

It didn't take me long to realize that there are more than a few posters here on ATS whose aim is to mislead people about the reality of alien contact. With a dedication that seems like a profession, they never fail to overwhelm a thread that starts to actually gain ground on the issue.

Their unanimity is surpassed only by their ubiquity, and their careful attention to talking points reminds one of a campaign.

Name an important figure in Ufology, and they will hammer away at a single problem they magnify to an unrealistic degree in an effort to derail support for a UFO event, even when there is far more substantial evidence to support the case as being genuine. And sometimes these points they hammer at are downright fraudulent.

Now, I'm not accusing this poster of any such behavior, I'm not in a position to judge, but his repeating the disinformation makes it a moot point.

He says Travis Walton is "outright lying". Pretty bold statement to make. Based on what? One thing. 33 years after his abduction, Travis Walton appeared on a Fox TV game show, where they allege he failed their polygraph test.

Trouble is, beyond the fact that polygraphs are unreliable in the first place, is that the test was fraudulent.

In fact, it was the producers of the show who lied to Travis Walton, when they assured him that accepted, modern methods of polygraph testing were being used. The "test" they gave Walton violated the American Polygraph Associations Standards and Principles of Practice. Not just one violation of standards of practice, but a whole list of violations.

A fraud. In fact, the format of the test used on this reality TV show were estimated to yield as high as 80% false positives. This according to the testimony of a court authorized polygraph examiner in 2004. Who added that, " “Due to the vague, subjective, futuristic nature, and sheer volume, of relevant questions asked on The Moment of Truth, there can be little more than chance accuracy in determining truth or deception to these questions. In other words, they could simply flip a coin and achieve the same accuracy levels."

Wow. That is what you call a fraudulent test.

And folks, it is on that test alone that the deniers justify calling Travis Walton an "outright liar".

But wait a minute, is this the only lie detector test that Travis Walton took?

Not by a long shot. After his abduction, Travis was tested by the Arizona State Police, whose polygraph examiner determined he was telling the truth.

And, immediately after the travesty of the Fox reality TV game show, Travis was retested. This time with the most rigorous testing standards in the country. In New Mexico, where polygraphs are heavily regulated by the state because results are admissible in court.

Walton was tested by a firm that administers polygraphs for the Albuquerque Police Dept, the NM State Prison, and the U.S. Marshal’s office. Tested with the most accepted methods, and tested on state-of-the-art computerized equipment. And Travis Walton passed two different new tests. Flawlessly.

Travis Walton told the truth when he said he was abducted by aliens.

That's according to three legitimate polygraph examinations. The only false reading came from a fraudulent test that violated accepted standards and principles of practice, given on a Fox reality TV game show.

The truth is obvious. Anyone calling Travis Walton a liar is a liar themselves.

Thank you for taking the time to read this post. Good night and good health.

Scdfa



That is my post. I explain how some people in here are lying about important events of alien contact, specifically, the Travis Walton abduction. My post is well researched, and I provide the facts about the four polygraph examinations that Travis Walton took. Three of them were legitimate, one was a Fox reality TV game show which was established to be fraudulent.

Travis passed all three legitimate tests, failed the Fox game show test.

Now. Here's what Zeta Rediculan has to say:



He failed the first one and the rest weren't legitimate.


It simply isn't true that Travis failed the first polygraph test. But don't take my word for it, look into it for yourself, the public record is clear on this. In the wake of his abduction, Travis took a polygraph test, not on a Fox game show, mind you, but as part of an official criminal investigation. It was administered by the Arizona State Police. And guess what?

Travis Walton was telling the truth when he said he was abducted by aliens. At least according to the Arizona State Police.

So when Zeta Rediculan says Travis Walton failed his first polygraph test? That would be false.

That's harsh, but aren't we talking about lies and lie detectors?

And when Zeta Rediculan says that the three polygraph examinations that Travis Walton passed were not legitimate? That too would be false.

An Orwellian bit of doublespeak, really, for the truth is, the only test that was established to be fraudulent was the Fox reality TV game show, and that should come as a surprise to no one. There are more details in my previous post, I simply can't retype every time these posters repeat the same fraudulent point, I'm not getting paid to post. Unlike some.

And I love this at the end of Zeta's post:



He was probably set up by the cheezy game show. But I guess that serves him right for hoaxing in the first place.


Hoax? Not according to the test results. Stick to the facts.
edit on 17-1-2015 by Scdfa because: (no reason given)

edit on 17-1-2015 by Scdfa because: (no reason given)

edit on 17-1-2015 by Scdfa because: (no reason given)

edit on 17-1-2015 by Scdfa because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 17 2015 @ 01:11 AM
link   

edit on 17-1-2015 by Scdfa because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 17 2015 @ 03:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: Scdfa
Travis took a polygraph test, not on a Fox game show, mind you, but as part of an official criminal investigation. It was administered by the Arizona State Police. And guess what?

Travis Walton was telling the truth when he said he was abducted by aliens. At least according to the Arizona State Police.
Do you have a link supporting that? According to the GSW "Ground Saucer Watch" memo, all the witnesses and the polygraph results confirm he never boarded the UFO.

Here's what I read:
Travis Walton "UFO Abduction" Story

Some of the most damning evidence that the entire case was a hoax surrounds the various polygraph examinations and the behavior of the principles involved, Duane and Travis Walton, and Mike Rogers. APRO announced on February 7, 1976, that both Travis and Duane had passed an exam given by George Pfeiffer, who worked for Tom Ezell and Associates. But that test was flawed in a number of respects: Pfeiffer allowed Walton to dictate a number of the questions he asked. While it is not uncommon for polygraphers to allow the test subjects and/or sponsors to outline the general area to be probed, allowing the subject to dictate specific questions violates the basic principles of polygraphy and should invalidate the test results. Also, Pfeiffer was relatively inexperienced, having been practicing only two years. This inexperience expressed itself when he judged Walton's "No" answer to the question "Before November 5, 1975, were you a UFO buff?" to be truthful. Walton's answer directly contradicted information provided by both his mother and brother Duane and by Walton himself during an earlier psychological examination.

Later in March of 1976, when Pfeiffer's employer Tom Ezell had reviewed the charts, he concluded that it was impossible to determine if Walton and Duane were answering the test questions truthfully. Ezell stated in a letter to Phil Klass: "Upon review of this examination, I find that to me it is not acceptable. In the first place I would not be a party to an examination in which the subject dictated the questions to be asked ... Because of the dictation of the questions to be asked, this test should be invalidated. Also, upon examining the resultant charts, I find that I cannot give an opinion one way or another" whether the subjects had been truthful or not. Yet this is the examination to which Walton refers when he states he has passed a lie detector test.

But the real "bombshell," as Klass describes it in his book, was the fact that Walton had failed an earlier polygraph examination miserably and this information had been suppressed by APRO, which had been proclaiming the Walton case "one of the most important and intriguing in the history of the UFO phenomena." This test was administered by John McCarthy, who with twenty years of experience was one of the most respected examiners in the state of Arizona. His conclusion: "Gross deception." Proponents of the Walton case never mention this examination.
In the polygraph he passed where he dictated the questions, they were questions like "did he see a UFO" and he could answer truthfully to that part "yes" because all the witnesses did. But that's not the part of the story in question, which is, was he actually abducted. Here's what GSW (Ground Saucer Watch) had to say about that, among other details about the case (see #1):


"Ground Saucer Watch" Memo on the Walton Incident
Conclusions (undated: probably December, 1975)

"Ground Saucer Watch," a pro-UFO organization, was the very first UFO organization on the scene of the Walton "abduction". In cooperation with Dr. J. Allen Hynek of CUFOS, Dr. Lester Stewart of GSW began to interview the Walton family while Travis was still "missing." They immediately smelled a hoax. These are their conclusions, without any changes - RS.

1. Walton never boarded the UFO. This fact is supported by the six witnesses and the polygraph test results. [3]

2. The entire Walton family has had a continual UFO history. The Walton boys have reported observing 10 to 15 separate UFO sightings (very high).

3. When Duane was questioned about his brother's disappearance, he stated that "Travis will be found, that UFO's are friendly." GSW countered, "How do you know Travis will be found?" Duane said "I have a feeling, a strong feeling." GSW asked "If the UFO 'captors' are going to return Travis, will you have a camera to record this great occurrence?" Duane, "No, if I have a camera 'they' will not return."

4. The Walton's mother showed no outward emotion over the 'loss' of Travis. She said that UFO's will not harm her son, he will be returned and that UFO's have been seen by her family many times.

5. The Walton's refused any outside scientific help or anyone who logically doubted the abduction portion of the story.

6. The media and GSW was fair to the witnesses. However, when the story started to 'fall apart' the Waltons would only talk to people who did not doubt the abduction story.

7. APRO became involved and criticized both GSW and Dr. Hynek for taking a negative position on the encounter.

8. The Waltons 'sold' their story to the National Enquirer and the story was completely twisted from the truth.



edit on 17-1-2015 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Jan, 17 2015 @ 04:13 AM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Hello A,

I no longer see lie-detector tests as relevant in these cases and discussions. Walton has failed and passed several times over the years which makes any results redundant. Those who see him as a liar cite an early test and those who don't cite a contemporary rebuttal. If I was more motivated, I believe there are examples where he's passed and failed the same two questions at different times.

He says he was on some type of craft and has no physical evidence to support the assertion. Beyond that, people seem to pick the outcome that appeals to them the most regardless of absent evidence.

I've a recording of a brother ringing a UFO hotline whilst Walton was missing. Something about the tone, phrasing and underlying emotion has done more to persuade me against the veracity of the story than any of the critical analyses. Still, it's a great narrative and part of the folklore whatever we decide.

On topic - I'm not sure if I could come up with 20 videos that appear to show genuine unidentified phenomena. The percentages of unknowns in UFO/UAP reports typically varies from 5% to 10%. In video terms, it's probably considerably less than a percent.



posted on Jan, 17 2015 @ 04:52 AM
link   
a reply to: Scdfa

Ha! that's pretty good. Arbitrageur found the source I was talking about. But why would you take what I said completely out of context and try to paint it in a different way? I mean people CAN read and the full context of what I really said is right there and yet you pulled out my first sentence which was completely opposite from my real meaning? Here I bolded the part that has the actual meaning.

Sure I can. He failed the first one and the rest weren't legitimate. At least that's what some investigators claim. Personally, unless I can see all the questions and results and how everything was set up, I don't put a whole lot of value into any of it.

But you must have understood my real thoughts because it looks pretty clear to me. So why would you grossly try to misrepresent my actual statement by just pulling out my first sentence? And it looks like you worked really hard at trying to make me look dishonest since you had four edits?

All that and after I gave you a cool bit of info about how TW was here on the boards talking about the game show? Travis Walton (Moment Of Truth) Proof, Hes A Liar!!

Its OK. I am kind of used to all those disinfo tactics.

a reply to: Kandinsky

he was on some type of craft and has no physical evidence to support the assertion. Beyond that, people seem to pick the outcome that appeals to them the most regardless of absent evidence.

This is true. There really is no evidence of hoaxing either other than circumstantial.

edit on 17-1-2015 by ZetaRediculian because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 17 2015 @ 05:33 AM
link   
a reply to: ZetaRediculian

Hiya Z, the thread you linked is one of those I was thinking about in the comment about his hit versus miss rates. Nice one


We had some good squabbles and debates back then!



posted on Jan, 17 2015 @ 05:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: Scdfa

Ha! that's pretty good. Arbitrageur found the source I was talking about. But why would you take what I said completely out of context and try to paint it in a different way? I mean people CAN read and the full context of what I really said is right there and yet you pulled out my first sentence which was completely opposite from my real meaning? Here I bolded the part that has the actual meaning.

Sure I can. He failed the first one and the rest weren't legitimate. At least that's what some investigators claim. Personally, unless I can see all the questions and results and how everything was set up, I don't put a whole lot of value into any of it.

But you must have understood my real thoughts because it looks pretty clear to me. So why would you grossly try to misrepresent my actual statement by just pulling out my first sentence? And it looks like you worked really hard at trying to make me look dishonest since you had four edits?

All that and after I gave you a cool bit of info about how TW was here on the boards talking about the game show? Travis Walton (Moment Of Truth) Proof, Hes A Liar!!

Its OK. I am kind of used to all those disinfo tactics.

a reply to: Kandinsky

he was on some type of craft and has no physical evidence to support the assertion. Beyond that, people seem to pick the outcome that appeals to them the most regardless of absent evidence.

This is true. There really is no evidence of hoaxing either other than circumstantial.


Actually the edits were to put you in a better light, you're welcome.

I quoted your own words, and you claim to be "grossly misrepresented"? And then you say I "understood your real thoughts"? Wow.

Didn't take you long to respond, like it was a job and you're working overtime. Keep posting, the truth isn't going to twist itself.



posted on Jan, 17 2015 @ 05:54 AM
link   
a reply to: Scdfa


I understood your real thoughts

Thank you for being honest.

Did you check out that link I gave you? Travis comes in around page 5.



posted on Jan, 17 2015 @ 10:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: Kandinsky
I no longer see lie-detector tests as relevant in these cases and discussions. Walton has failed and passed several times over the years which makes any results redundant. Those who see him as a liar cite an early test and those who don't cite a contemporary rebuttal. If I was more motivated, I believe there are examples where he's passed and failed the same two questions at different times.
Like the question about whether he was formerly a "UFO buff" before his encounter perhaps, and he said "no"? I could see him passing and failing that question on two different tests, partly because one of the examiners said they thought he was using techniques to try to deceive the test like holding his breath. However I agree that the lie detector tests are largely irrelevant, and I agree with a lot of what Walton posted here about the unreliability of lie detector tests:

www.abovetopsecret.com...


He says he was on some type of craft and has no physical evidence to support the assertion. Beyond that, people seem to pick the outcome that appeals to them the most regardless of absent evidence.
I used to believe his story, before I had done research on it, beyond watching the "Fire in the Sky" movie and watching some documentaries. That was before I learned about all the other circumstances in the case (besides the lie detector tests), like his need for an "act of God" to get him out of his failed logging contract, and many other things such as this:

Travis Walton "UFO Abduction" Story

As others have said much of the evidence is circumstantial, but even for people who still believe his story, I think they should admit these circumstances cast a shadow of doubt. Most people reporting UFO incidents didn't do so shortly after they heard about an offer of "tens of thousands of dollars", (up to $100,000) from the National Enquirer for a UFO story. While that doesn't prove the other UFO reports are more true, I would say they don't have that big shadow of motivational doubt hanging over them.
edit on 17-1-2015 by Arbitrageur because: clarification


(post by Scdfa removed for a manners violation)

posted on Jan, 17 2015 @ 01:06 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jan, 17 2015 @ 01:08 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jan, 17 2015 @ 01:19 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jan, 17 2015 @ 01:23 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jan, 17 2015 @ 01:25 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jan, 17 2015 @ 01:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Scdfa




And just to play along, tell me what "proof" you request that can be provided in an internet chat room, I'm all ears.

Well there's the problem isn't it , the pro ET case is based mostly on belief and second hand information , if there is proof it isn't in the public domain.
There are people on this forum on both sides of the fence with years of research under their belts which is what makes it probably the best UFO forum on the net , the aim here is to find the truth and not rely on belief.

You will find that a lot (including myself) of the dissenting voices here once believed much of what you believe but after looking at the available evidence and digging deeper into the stories held dear to believers in ET UFOs found their is little or no truth to many of them .... including the holy grail that is Roswell.

Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean they're trying to hide the truth or change your mind it just means they have a different view on what is curious subject , most of us want to believe but need real evidence to do so now.




top topics



 
5
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join