Originally posted by Access Denied
Originally posted by johnlear
I listened to Travis' story in Snowflake, AZ in late 1987 at his house. It was one of the most interesting stories I have ever heard. He told me
what he remembered about being in the ship.
No offense but did he also tell you most of his story was "recalled" under hypnosis?
, but according to Travis's account in this particular radio interview, prior to the hypnosis, he could still fully remember the
incident. The difference was, each time he recalled everything, it would also bring feelings of hysteria and fear, and he would often break down
before he could finish. Under the hypnosis, he recalled the exact same details, but in a calmer, relaxed mood - without the fear, which made it more
comfortable for him. He also says that under the hypnosis he "couldn't supply any extra details"
. This is in the interview itself.. you
listen to the radio interview, right? After all, this is the point of the thread topic. It's just when you say "most" of the story was
recalled under hypnosis, you are implying that his 'story' was concocted under those circumstances, and that was simply not true.
I do have find a bit of a raised eyebrow when I read Travis' written version of the entire episode. If this is a simple guy, there are
certainly some words he used that do not "fit" with his level of education. Maybe this is just a ghost writer dressing up his version, but it raises
a red flag when you picture this simple man using words that don't mesh.
I found this statement rather patronising. Travis is actually an intelligent, well-spoken, level-headed man. His occupation as "a logger", doesn't
mean he's a simple, dim, doofus from the sticks. It irks me when I see sweeping generalisations like this. Your chosen career path does not
always correlate with your level of education or your intelligence. Take myself for example. I am a university graduate. Where am I working? At a meat
processing plant. Yep.. a slaughterboard among the "peasants and simpletons". Except.. not all of them are peasants and simpletons - some of them
are actually innately clued-in to what is happening in their worldview and express far more coherence and intelligence than some of the MBA and
Medicine graduates I've had the pleasure of flatting with during my varsity days.
And there's a wider implication of this - members on this website have this tendency to judge cases based on their overgeneralised assumptions on how
*they* believe humanity functions. How many times, for example, have we seen threads where people try and debunk cases with "oh this is rubbish,
human physics and science proves that this cannot be possible" - they make a huge sweeping generalisation based on how *they* think things exist. And
again we see it here, someone makes the comment along the lines of "oh he's a logger, how dare he develops the ability to think critically for
himself and actually empower himself to rationalise what happened to him". It's not like "once a dumb-nut, always a dumb nut". People are complex
creatures. Travis himself in the interview says even before the incident, he considered himself a philosophical person. I believe him; there are
people in my walk of life whom I would consider having a similar personality profile, if you will.
On the subject of possibly hoaxing the incident for the pursuit of fame, wealth etc, Travis himself says in the interview "I never sought out an
interview in my life"
..and that he was already becoming of international interest to the media even before he came back, such was the mystery of
his disappearance. He never sought any of this. And he also says that he wish it never happened.
A question for John Lear - how did Travis strike you in terms of personality / intelligence when you met with him? In your estimation, is there any
way he could possibly have a "ghostwriter" behind the scenes, helping to make it all up? In my personal view, I think Travis is absolutely legit.