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.

 

Ten Alien Encounters Debunked!

page: 4
13
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 12 2010 @ 03:24 AM
link   
Nothing debunked here in the OP. Its just a bunch of opinionated statements and nothing more.

Im sure we all have opinions on each matter.




posted on Jun, 12 2010 @ 03:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by sweatmonicaIdo
When was the Walton abduction revealed to be a hoax?


I'm not sure it was "revealed" to be a hoax so to speak, but it was pretty apparent even to pro-UFO investigators that it was probably a hoax even before Travis Walton came back to tell his story.

"Profitable Nightmare of a Very Unreal Kind" by Jeff Wells
Look at these comments from a pro-UFO organization in that link, called "Ground Saucer Watch":


"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.


When a pro-UFO organization has doubts, maybe I should too. And now I do, big doubts. That article also points out the coincidental timing that it was 5 days after the National Enquirer offered a large reward for such a story that Walton came up with this story, an interesting "coincidence".

What's a little disappointing is that most abduction cases seem to happen alone when the victims could really be victims of "sleep paralysis", so the Walton case and the Hill case were abductions where sleep paralysis could be ruled out due to multiple witnesses. But apparently the witnesses in the Walton case aren't so credible, and even the Hill case has questions about whether the hypnosis retrieved memories or planted them, so I'm left doubting if anyone was ever really abducted. But I agree the Hills had a lot to lose by making up a story, so I don't think they were hoaxers. But I'm not sure what happened to them either.



posted on Jun, 12 2010 @ 03:35 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Arbitrageur.....



I'm not sure it was "revealed" to be a hoax so to speak, but it was pretty apparent even to pro-UFO investigators that it was probably a hoax even before Travis Walton came back to tell his story.


I agree.....

There are huge problems with the Walton abduction story.

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not



posted on Jun, 12 2010 @ 11:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 



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


Walton was never SEEN boarding the UFO. His friends ran off after Walton was struck by the beam of light. Therefore, the witnesses were indeed being truthful when they stayed Walton never boarded the UFO. If they did not see it, how do they know if it happened or not?


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).


This is another one of those I do not know what to make of. A person with a history of witnessing UFOs in their past does not necessarily "disqualify" their most recent encounter. Another fact to consider is the Waltons' place in the world at the time. They lived in a small town in the middle of nowhere, they were not highly educated, etc. They are the demographic that has the highest likelihood of misidentifying flying objects. As I said in my last post, a trained observer can spot certain things right off the bat, but people like the Waltons would probably default to the most extraordinary explanation if they could not identify something.



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."


Interesting. That's all I have on this right now.



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.


I found this entry on Wikipedia regarding this very issue:


Rogers and Sheriff Coplan went to tell the news to Walton's mother, Mary Walton Kellett, who lived on a small ranch at Bear Creek, some 10 miles (16 km) from Snowflake. Rogers told her what had happened, and she asked him to repeat the account. She then asked calmly if anyone other than the police and the eyewitnesses had heard the story. Coplan thought her reserved response was odd; this factor contributed to the growing suspicion among police that something other than a UFO was responsible for Walton’s absence. On the other hand, Clark noted that Kellett was known as being generally guarded, and had furthermore raised six children largely by herself under often trying circumstances, which "had long since taught her to not to fly to pieces in the face of crises and tragedies. Yet in the days ahead, as events overwhelmed her, she would show emotion before friends, acquaintances and strangers alike — a fact that would go unmentioned in debunking treatments of the Walton episode." (Clark, 631)




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


If I understand correctly, this was largely a reaction to Ground Saucer Watch promising Walton a medical exam for Travis upon his return, only for Walton to find that the "doctor" was actually a hypotherapist. This meeting with the hypontherapist became a major issue. My guess is that the Waltons became convinced people were simply trying to nail them to a wall, which is why, understandably, they did not seek out outside scientific help.



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.


Nothing to argue there.



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.


From my research, the Waltons did not sell their story to TNE. APRO, which was investigating the case for them, are the ones who "sold" the story to TNE.


When a pro-UFO organization has doubts, maybe I should too. And now I do, big doubts. That article also points out the coincidental timing that it was 5 days after the National Enquirer offered a large reward for such a story that Walton came up with this story, an interesting "coincidence".


That is an interesting coincidence. But have there not been other very interesting coincidences throughout history as well? There was a massive military exercise going on the morning of 9/11, not to mention the Secretary of Defense happened to be on the other side of the Pentagon when the plane struck. Yet I think its pretty clear now that this was no "inside job."


What's a little disappointing is that most abduction cases seem to happen alone when the victims could really be victims of "sleep paralysis", so the Walton case and the Hill case were abductions where sleep paralysis could be ruled out due to multiple witnesses. But apparently the witnesses in the Walton case aren't so credible, and even the Hill case has questions about whether the hypnosis retrieved memories or planted them, so I'm left doubting if anyone was ever really abducted. But I agree the Hills had a lot to lose by making up a story, so I don't think they were hoaxers. But I'm not sure what happened to them either.


Do not forget the Walton story was also unique in that there were witnesses who themselves were not physically affected by the UFO (i.e., abducted, harmed, etc.). My take is that the Walton story, for all its problems carries a whole lot more water than a lot of these other abduction accounts. I think the repeated polygraph exams, which revealed all those involved to be truthful, shows that something indeed did happen to Walton and his co-workers. As for the problems with the story, I think its safe to say a bunch of simple, backwoods folks got overwhelmed by an extraorindary event.

[edit on 12-6-2010 by sweatmonicaIdo]



posted on Jun, 12 2010 @ 01:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by sweatmonicaIdo

8. The Waltons 'sold' their story to the National Enquirer and the story was completely twisted from the truth.
From my research, the Waltons did not sell their story to TNE. APRO, which was investigating the case for them, are the ones who "sold" the story to TNE.


Thanks for the well-stated feedback and intelligent comments worthy of consideration. Like I said, even if I don't agree with everything you say, you do an excellent job of presenting an argument.

I'm always open to more research if my ideas about a case are wrong. Can you share your research on that point that the Walton's didn't sell their story to the National Enquirer? I wasn't even aware that there was any doubt that they would be compensated since the story was about them.

[edit on 12-6-2010 by Arbitrageur]



posted on Jun, 12 2010 @ 05:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 



Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Can you share your research on that point that the Walton's didn't sell their story to the National Enquirer? I wasn't even aware that there was any doubt that they would be compensated since the story was about them.


I have read a lot of literature on the story as well as listen to/watched a lot of interviews with the folks involved and not once have I ever heard of Travis Walton selling the story to anybody other than the studio that eventually made the film Fire in the Sky.

What occured was that APRO offered to assist Walton's family in investigating the case. When Travis Walton returned, APRO offered them a private medical exam at his home via two doctors. Duane Walker, Travis' brother, agreed to it and the examination was done. At the same time, The National Enquirer called APRO and offered to fund APRO's investigation, in exchange for full cooperation and access to the Waltons. APRO apparently decided that TNE had the money to allow APRO to do whatever it was they needed, so they practically allowed TNE into affair on their own accord.

This, however, does have the effect of making it seem as though the Waltons "sold" their story to the Enquirer. If the Waltons sold it to anybody, it was APRO, who then sold it to TNE. Quite unfortunate, because it only raised speculation of a cover-up.

EDIT: I want to briefly go back to Barney and Betty Hill. Barney and Betty Hill's story did not come to light until many years after the incident. The couple never made an attempt to publicize the story in any way. Public knowledge of the story came only after a reporter wrote the story after he was given tapes of a lecture the Hills had delivered on their experience to a UFO research group.

My point being, again, if this were indeed a hoax, it was a rather useless one if they made no attempt to profit, financially or otherwise, from the story.

[edit on 12-6-2010 by sweatmonicaIdo]



posted on Jun, 12 2010 @ 09:26 PM
link   
Talking of coincidences... These appeared as crossword clues and answers in the Telegraph England ....in May 1944


One of the USA ...answer Utah

Omaha was another answer to one of the clues, so was Mulberry, so was Neptune and to cap it all

‘Big-Wig’, to which the answer was Overlord.

You can see why the British secret service investigated the coincidence, but that's exactly what it was , just a coincidence.

For those not aware... The answers to those crossword clues in May 1944 were the code names of. 2 of the beaches the allied intended to land on, Utah and Omaha. Mulberry was the code name of the top secret artificial harbour to be towed to the French coast. Neptune was the code name of the Naval support mission for the whole invasion and the whole operation was coded as Operation Overlord, planned for June 1944.


Again, with Betty and Barney Hill, much has been made of their viewing of a certain episode of , i believe, "The Outer Limits", that contained a very similar incident in it's story line.

The subject of coincidence and UFO sightings is worth a thread of its' own. If you read through many of the books that relate little more than sightings. Phrases such as *I don't normally take notice of the sky but that night.... "I don't know why but something just told me to step outside and look at the sky" are, actually quite common.

You can view such statements in more than one light., That the person(s) was seeking to add some gravitas to their sighting that maybe they were, gilding the lily, a little as it were. That, these "craft" give out some kind of electro magnetic radiation that triggers a response in the human brain. Or even that, the people are deliberately "triggered" into viewing the *object*.


At this juncture you raise a whole load of issues that have much in common with those who have "visions" in the quasi shamanic and cultist religious field. In some cases, i am sure there are those who exhibit what might be termed as a "Prophet complex". Yet, often the people giving testimony, never felt like this before the sighting after it. In many cases people often describe an uneasy sense of being "toyed with" and almost, resent the idea that they were somehow "led" into the sighting by an outside force. To many people, the concept that, they were not in full control of their sub conscious faculties, for however brief a period, is an anathema.

Then again, some feel for want of a better term, "blessed", by the experience and whilst, they have no wish to turn into some kind of religious experience, enjoyed the feeling that they were "chosen" as it were, to see such an object.

Others, have a minor crisis of "faith", as it were. Given, what they feel drawn to see, without choice, confronted just about everything they thought they knew up to that point in life. That is, they wish they really hadn't seen it and had no wish to have chosen to do so.

It's a huge area of the UFO phenomenon, one that sadly, is often pushed to the back of the list when discussing sightings, witnesses and their evidence.



posted on Jun, 12 2010 @ 11:05 PM
link   
reply to post by OrionHunterX
 


lol...I didn't know cattle having all their blood 100 % drained with laser like cuts in addition to the bodies ending up over power lines or trees in some cases was a natural process

[edit on 12-6-2010 by primetime2123]



posted on Jun, 12 2010 @ 11:13 PM
link   
I don't think the word debunked means what the OP thinks it does.

How does all crop circles fit into the "ten alien encounters debunked!" theme. I don't get it. Even though I do think they are man-made myself.

You can't "debunk" Roswell quoting the well-known excuses by the government. There are plenty of reasons to believe the government would create a story to cover up the truth, if it were indeed aliens. And there are many aspects of the encounter that don't fit into their neat little excuse. Especially as it wasn't the first story they came up with. Nor even the second.



posted on Jun, 12 2010 @ 11:14 PM
link   
Wow no argumentation, facts ?
I was expecting more than 4 lines of text per subject...


Sorry but this thread is really useless if you want my opinion...


:/



posted on Jun, 13 2010 @ 01:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


The equipment used to measure radiation levels is not classified and the base would have known what was on their own balloon. Again, there would not be a need to fly the debris to Wright Patterson to identify what is already known. The DCM would of been informed of the classified project and would have also known that not any of the debris was classified in itself. The debris would of gone through the normal supply channels, and not treated like unknown debris like this was.



posted on Jun, 13 2010 @ 02:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Oouthere
reply to post by OrionHunterX
 


Ok, my blood is boiling. I am an abductee and the second time I had greys in the house my oldest daughter saw it also as I chased it down the hallway. There was no memory recovered years later, I still remember having a UFO hover on my covered patio and then penetrate the ceiling.

Then lets look at the night my youngest daughter was born when a ball of light came to my son while he and two other boys were staying at his grand mother’s apartment….three witnesses, two of them crying and frightened.

People like you disgust me. You look at CNN and know they are telling the truth, about as honest of reporting as when the BBC announced building 7 had collapsed 20 minutes before the event occurred.

Did you know that several of the cattle mutilations that were reported by Linda Moulten Howe also had highly increased radiation levels up to about 20’ from the site? Probably wind anomalies from nuclear bombs.

As far as nuclear bombs go, I have only seen videos and physical evidence of them exploding but never one myself. I do not think they exist, only fabricated to frighten our enemies. Sheesh……

Rich


Agreed, 100%. Debunkers know nothing about the reality of this existence. They don't deny ignorance, they deny everything-- everything that doesn't fit their mold of how the world should be. They live an existence comprised of denial of reality. They parrot what they've been taught by the MSM, and those purporting to be "scientists." Science has proven throughout history to be wrong, over and over and over again. For the most part, they're just snooty little twits that haven't experience ANYTHING of substance in this life and enjoy telling the rest of us that we didn't really see/experience what we KNOW we saw and experienced. I have an article in mind to refute their "sleep paralysis" excuse but as usual don't have the time to put it together. In a nutshell, that claim is more incredible and devoid of science than anything we ufo fanatics could come up with.



posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 06:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by primetime2123
reply to post by OrionHunterX
 

lol...I didn't know cattle having all their blood 100 % drained with laser like cuts in addition to the bodies ending up over power lines or trees in some cases was a natural process



An FBI study, for example, found nothing unusual, while many mainstream experts contend that the mutilations are entirely normal scavanging or predation. Columnist Cecil Adams notes that "In 1974, for instance, state veterinary labs investigating a rash of mutilation reports in Nebraska and South Dakota reported that every animal brought to them for examination had died of natural causes."


No alien cattle abductions here!!

And have you checked out the Satanic cults? They could be responsible too!
Are you still LOL?




www.book-of-thoth.com...



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 03:14 PM
link   
It's good to see that someone is willing to write such a thorough post on this. It pisses me off when people think things are related to ET life forms, even when there is evidence stating otherwise, which people tend to ignore.



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 04:38 PM
link   
Sigh, I'm surprised the Kottmeyer myth about Arnold persists.

In short, Arnold did observe "disc-like" craft, there's a drawing in the Air Force Files days after the event which illustrates this. Arnold himself calls them "disc-like" in his letter to the Air Force. In several newspaper articles Arnold is quoted that the objects appeared to be disc-shaped. Only years later would Arnold claim - in his book - that the leading object was crescent-shaped. In short, the newspaper description of "saucers" was accurate, it did not misrepresent the Arnold account and people did not just start seeing round UFOs because of some reporter's supposed misrepresentation. This is all a convoluted fairytale proposed by psychosocial theorists who can't deal with the actual data.

The phrase that the UFOs looked like a saucer would if you skipped it across the water is in any case an awkard one to make. Obviously you skip rocks in water, not saucers. Clearly Arnold was refering to their motion of moving up and down. No one in his right mind would take this analogy and claim the shape description was not meant literally. Especially when taking into account the Air Force files and interviews/articles days after the sighting.

[edit on 15-6-2010 by jclmavg]




top topics



 
13
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join