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.

 

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

page: 12
22
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 5 2010 @ 12:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Shrike

Originally posted by MarrsAttax

Originally posted by The Shrike

Originally posted by MarrsAttax
snip
You are correct that in this case there is not enough evidence to prove Travis' claims. snip


Enough said.


Not really.

Saying there there is not enough evidence doesn't mean there is no evidence.

Furthermore, the lack of a definitive conclusion does not mean that the premise is false.

Also, the fact that there is not enough evidence to prove Travis' claims doesn't mean that the claim that he is a liar is proved. A skeptic would know this. It is Logic 101.

By the way, you've still not presented any facts that have led you to your conclusion. This would seem to be a necessary first step in making a case that Travis is a liar.


edit on 4/10/2010 by MarrsAttax because: clarity




edit on 4/10/2010 by MarrsAttax because: (no reason given)


I provide below the best evidence that Travis Walton and his family and cohorts are liars. It is not the only source. Go to google, type: travis walton hoax - and you'll get 4,100 results. Possibly not all negative for there will always be the supportive gullible, but I'm sure there are a lot of reasonable thinkers who see through the abducted claim b.s.

http://j_kidd.tripod.com/b/218.html
Travis Walton Fact Sheet
By Phillip Klass
Date: Aug 16 1993
Formatted By CammoDude
01-08-2000

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Travis Walton Speaks With a "Forked Tongue":
-----------------------------------------------

Following are some of the claims made by Travis Walton in reference to his alleged UFO-abduction in 1975 in his book "The Walton Experience," published in 1978 by Berkley Publishing Co.:

"I was arrested for my involvement with others in _writing bad checks_. I paid for that one stupid mistake in jail...Charges were dropped and I was never actually convicted." (p. 146) (Emphasis added.)

The Truth: On May 5, 1971, Travis Walton and Charles Rogers pleaded guilty in the Navajo County Superior Court to the following charge: "On or about the night of February 18, 1971, they broke into the office of the Western Molding Co. with intent to steal and did steal therefrom a quantity of Western Molding checks and on the 19th day of February filled out said checks payable to a fictitious person and signed the name of Robert W. Gonsalves, thereby to cheat and defraud." After the defendants agreed to make restitution of the funds, they were placed on a two-year probation, i.e. they were _not_ jailed.

"There were several exaggerated reports to the effect that my mother, my brother and I were freaks on the subject of Unidentified Flying Objects...Our family did _not_ have any obsessive interest in the subject of UFOs, nor are we UFO 'buffs.'...My brother Duane saw something he believed to be one about 12 years ago, but no one else in the family has seen one. I have talked with him on a couple of occasions about the subject since then, but we never had an overt interest in the topic." (pp. 144-45)

The Truth: In a tape recorded interview with UFOlogist Fred Sylvanus on Nov. 8, 1975, Travis's older brother Duane said: "We've paid a lot of attention to it [UFOs]. We've lived with it for ten years..._we see them quite regularly_." During the same interview Duane added: "Travis and I discussed this _many, many times at great length_ and we both said that [if either ever saw a UFO up close] we would immediately get as directly underneath the object as physically possible. _We discussed this time and time again_!...and whoever happened to be left on the ground--if one of us didn't make the grade--to try t convince whoever was in the craft to come back and get the other one. But he [Travis] performed just as we said we would, and he got directly under the obje And he's received the benefits for it..._I don't feel any fear for his life...I think he's in any danger at all. He'll turn up. All I can say is that I wish I with him..._" (Emphasis added.)

"The NBC television special 'The UFO Incident,' about the abduction of New Hampshire couple [Betty/Barney Hill], was aired several weeks before our November encounter. So, of course, a rumor was started that we seven [crew members] had all seen the show and been inspired to fabricate a story like it..._not one of us had seen that show_." (p. 143) (Emphasis added.)

The Truth: In the book "Ultimate Encounter," dealing with the Walton incident, author Bill Barry quotes crew chief Mike Rogers as admitting that he "did watch the first part of it."

Travis claims that his mother "was terribly upset by my disappearance and had to be sedated." (p. 145)

The Truth: According to Deputy Sheriff Ken Coplan, who was present when Travis' mother first learned that Travis allegedly had been zapped and abducted by a UFO, "_she did not act very surprised_." According to Coplan, Travis' mother calmly replied: "_Well, that's the way these things happen._" Then she proceeded to tell about her own and son Duane's UFO sightings.

"Why didn't I accept the money offered by the [National] Enquirer for my exclusive story? I turned down many offers from writers and movie producers...All I wanted then was to be left alone to think things over and adjust." (p. 143)

The Truth: According to Jeff Wells, one of the National Enquirer reporters who was sent to Arizona to meet with Travis and investigate the case: "If we liked the story, and it could be properly documented, and the kid [Travis] could pass our lie detector tests, we would open our check books all the way and start talking in five figures...The test lasted an hour and I was in the ne room fending off the [CBS] TV crew when I heard [Duane Walton] scream: 'I'll kill the sonofabitch.' The kid had failed the test miserably. The polyg man [McCarthy] said it was the plainest case of lying he had seen in 20 years.. I sat down to detail everything that had happened in a 16-page memorandum designed to kill the story. It was all over."

Travis' story of being zapped by UFO beam on the evening of Nov. 5, 1975: "...when a tremendously bright blue-green ray shot out of the bottom of the craft...All I felt was the numbing force of a _blow that felt like a hig voltage electrocution_...The stunning concussion of the foot-wide beam _struck me full in the head and the chest_...My body arched backward, arms and legs outstretched, _as I was lifted off the ground. I was hurled backward through the air for 10 feet. My right shoulder collided with the hard rocky earth..._" (p. 28) (Emphasis added.)

The Facts: On Nov. 11, shortly after Travis reappeared, he was given a physical examination in Phoenix by Dr. Howard Kandell and Dr. Joseph Saults. They found no evidence of physical injury, such as burns or black- and-blue marks anywhere on Travis' body. Dr. Kandall did note a small mark in Travis' right elbow "which was compatible with a puncture wound such as when somebody takes blood from you."

The morning after the incident, law enforcement officers examined the dead brush pile near where Travis had been standing when he (allegedly) was zapped by the UFO beam. There was a thick carpet of dry pine needles. _None of the pine needles showed any evidence of burning or blast effect dispersal, according to Deputy Sheriff Chuck Ellison_.

If The Story Told By Travis And His Six Associates Were True, There Should Have Been Physical Evidence Both At The Site And On Travis' Body.
Yet There Was None_.



Philip J. Klass
Washington, D.C.
March 10, 1993



lol all hearsay and most likely a government coverup




posted on Oct, 5 2010 @ 12:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by FireMoon
Quoting Klass is like quoting Greer. Chances are a fair bit of it is total bunkum.
Yes, Klass has been caught with some outrageous stories, some were definitely not true. But I look at him the same way I look at Stanton Friedman, some of what they say is absolutely true, and some isn't. Some of those claims I haven't seen before so I'm not sure how true they are. The court case we might be able to look up from public records. I can attest the claim about the Jeff Wells story is true because I've read it and that's what it says. Now how accurate Jeff Wells was, I don't know, but that's what he wrote.



posted on Oct, 5 2010 @ 01:13 AM
link   
i love when ops act really self righteous and then get asked legitimate questions and then simply disappear because answering them isn't convenient for them. aka, they cant


Originally posted by Kandinsky
C'mon Mr Skepticc, a true skeptic would address some of the points raised in the thread and not be so ready with the rhetoric as that last sentence. Why didn't the polygraph pick him up on some of the other answers? That's enough to make the final result inconclusive.

If you've decided to accept the last result and ignore the preceding ones, it suggests you're picking and choosing evidence to support a pre-fabricated conclusion.

It remains inconclusive imo and whether he's truthful, or not, most people would try to win a $100 000...it's no reflection on his character.



Originally posted by Jay-morris
Ok mr skeptic. What about the people who have passed polygraph tests when it comes to ufo cases? Does that mean they are telling the truth? or does it only count when they fail?


so howbout it op?



posted on Oct, 5 2010 @ 01:24 AM
link   
reply to post by KIZZZY
 



Originally posted by KIZZZY



LOL @ science thriving on open-mindedness. tell that to Galileo or Copernicus. or any of the ancient contributors to the alexandria library. minds take a longgggg time to open. not saying that parts of this aren't true but believing in the possibility of ufo's and being the way described in the video about it (ie not being critical at all and jumping to conclusions) don't go hand in hand. there are closed minded people on both sides of the fence.
edit on 5-10-2010 by thedeadlyrhythm because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 5 2010 @ 04:20 AM
link   
reply to post by OrionHunterX
 


Really? So how does this show measure a lie?

We don't get this show in Oz, so I don't know how it works, this is the first time I've ever seen it.

My assumption is that they used a lie detector because they said it at the start of the show.
edit on 5/10/1010 by Krusty the Klown because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 6 2010 @ 10:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrionHunterX
reply to post by Travis Walton
 

Travis, these aliens are real imbeciles! Imagine letting some fella whom they've abducted to roam around freely on an empty bridge of that UFO!! That's the nerve center of the craft for crying out loud!!

And then you even had the chance to fiddle around with those controls on the panel as no one was around!
Duh! Those bozos don't seem to have any standard operating procedures (SOPs)!!
Imagine Capt Kirk bushwhacks some alien from a planet where no man has ventured and allows him to roam free on an unattended bridge of the Enterprise! Geeez!


But what do I know of alien psyche? Nix!
Ok, carry on......



Not only do you know nothing of the alien psyche, but you also know nothing of their motives. Obviously they wouldn't give an abductee free reign to wander their ship unsupervised and tinker with the controls. But they could very well allow an abductee to think he was having such an experience and opportunity. That would be totally consistent with the many abduction accounts in which the aliens are intentionally deceptive and manipulative, and seem to play psychological games with the abductees.



posted on Oct, 6 2010 @ 11:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by flightsuit

snip

Not only do you know nothing of the alien psyche, but you also know nothing of their motives. Obviously they wouldn't give an abductee free reign to wander their ship unsupervised and tinker with the controls. But they could very well allow an abductee to think he was having such an experience and opportunity. That would be totally consistent with the many abduction accounts in which the aliens are intentionally deceptive and manipulative, and seem to play psychological games with the abductees.


There is no doubt that if ATS was restricted strictly for those employing reason, logic and common sense, it would fold up in a heartbeat. What keeps ATS going are members such as the one responsible for the above reply.

First, there is not one iota of evidence not only for the reality of so-called aliens, which may not be aliens from afar after all, but that they're doing any abducting. These tales have emerged from people's fantasies and when challenged they fail to produce irrefutable evidence. Second, the poster has some nerve stating comments as if he had some special knowledge that no other human has: thinking he knows the "alien psyche" and knowing their motives. This is all hot air with nothing to substantiate it.

Details of the alleged Walton "abduction" cannot be discussed as if they were historical, for they exist only in Walton's mind (and his cohorts") and in those that have investigated it. Nothing exists outside of the mind.



posted on Oct, 7 2010 @ 02:16 AM
link   
reply to post by The Shrike
 


Your post is filled with bald assertions. Even if I accept your assertion that there is no evidence for aliens from the Walton case the logical conclusion of that is NOT that it is all in his mind. The conclusion would be that 'there is no evidence for aliens'.

'Believers' aren't the only people to use faulty logic. Simply stating you are a skeptic doesn't make one immune to logical fallacy or mean you are somehow suddenly incapable of of woolly thinking.

Common sense is a terrible method for obtaining truth. Common sense says an electron can't be both a particle and a wave. For many years common sense said that the sun revolved around the earth.

You use inductive reasoning to draw your conclusions and then state those conclusions as fact, when they can only ever be a best guess.

I prefer using deductive reasoning which ensures that any conclusions reached have to be true. It just means that sometimes you have to wait for more information before coming to a conclusion.



posted on Oct, 7 2010 @ 06:21 AM
link   
Whoa! Travis Walton failed a polygraph test?

With such damming evidence, do you think there's perhaps a reason why these 'truth machines' are not used in legal courts?



posted on Oct, 7 2010 @ 08:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Shrike
I provide below the best evidence that Travis Walton and his family and cohorts are liars. It is not the only source. Go to google, type: travis walton hoax - and you'll get 4,100 results. Possibly not all negative for there will always be the supportive gullible, but I'm sure there are a lot of reasonable thinkers who see through the abducted claim b.s.


Firstly how is the number of search results relevant? If I type 'travis walton real ufo abduction' into google I get 209,000 results. Does that mean the chances that his claims are true are 50 times more likely?

I note how you continue to use value judgements in your cause. People who are supportive are 'gullible', people who see through the claims are 'reasonable'. Basically what you are saying is those who share your conclusions are 'reasonable', those who don't are 'unreasonable'. Just because someone reaches a conclusion doesn't mean they used reason to do so, whatever side of the fence they are on.

On to the 'fact sheet'.

Unfortunately I don't have a copy of the book Klass is quoting so I'm unable to check these facts for myself. I guess I could just take them at face value like you but I'm not prepared to do that. If anyone does have a copy perhaps they would be able to provide the relevant quotes in full and in context. That way we don't have to worry about possible distortion by Klass.



"I was arrested for my involvement with others in _writing bad checks_. I paid for that one stupid mistake in jail...Charges were dropped and I was never actually convicted." (p. 146) (Emphasis added.)


I note there is a section missing between 'jail' and 'Charges'. I'm assuming the missing words provide some clarification. After all it seems strange for Travis to say he was in jail yet was not convicted.



The Truth: On May 5, 1971, Travis Walton and Charles Rogers pleaded guilty in the Navajo County Superior Court to the following charge: "On or about the night of February 18, 1971, they broke into the office of the Western Molding Co. with intent to steal and did steal therefrom a quantity of Western Molding checks and on the 19th day of February filled out said checks payable to a fictitious person and signed the name of Robert W. Gonsalves, thereby to cheat and defraud." After the defendants agreed to make restitution of the funds, they were placed on a two-year probation, i.e. they were _not_ jailed.


Again, Travis states he was not convicted. When do people who are not convicted go to jail? Perhaps when they are on remand? Maybe Travis even meant a night in the police cell after his arrest. Without the missing words it's speculation but Klass seems to have missed this and addresses only one part of the quote without considering that as it stands the quote itself is self-contradictory.



"There were several exaggerated reports to the effect that my mother, my brother and I were freaks on the subject of Unidentified Flying Objects...Our family did _not_ have any obsessive interest in the subject of UFOs, nor are we UFO 'buffs.'...My brother Duane saw something he believed to be one about 12 years ago, but no one else in the family has seen one. I have talked with him on a couple of occasions about the subject since then, but we never had an overt interest in the topic." (pp. 144-45)

The Truth: In a tape recorded interview with UFOlogist Fred Sylvanus on Nov. 8, 1975, Travis's older brother Duane said: "We've paid a lot of attention to it [UFOs]. We've lived with it for ten years..._we see them quite regularly_." During the same interview Duane added: "Travis and I discussed this _many, many times at great length_ and we both said that [if either ever saw a UFO up close] we would immediately get as directly underneath the object as physically possible. _We discussed this time and time again_!...and whoever happened to be left on the ground--if one of us didn't make the grade--to try t convince whoever was in the craft to come back and get the other one. But he [Travis] performed just as we said we would, and he got directly under the obje And he's received the benefits for it..._I don't feel any fear for his life...I think he's in any danger at all. He'll turn up. All I can say is that I wish I with him..._" (Emphasis added.)


I'm unable to find a transcript of this interview. What you've presented is a second hand account of the interview. We don't even know if Klass listened to it himself or is relying on someone else's interpretation. This is called hearsay.

Even if we accept the quote from Duane at face value it doesn't necessarily show that Travis is a liar. If Duane had seen a UFO some years before then it's likely he was interested in the subject but interest does not equate with obsessiveness. It's also the case that two people can have very different views on about the same facts, so that Travis may not have realised how interested his Brother really was. I'm reminded of the scene in Annie Hall where Woody Allen and Diane Keaton's characters are asked by their respective therapists how often they have sex. Allen's character replies 'Hardly ever. Maybe three times a week. '. Keaton's character replies 'Constantly. I'd say three times a week.'





"The NBC television special 'The UFO Incident,' about the abduction of New Hampshire couple [Betty/Barney Hill], was aired several weeks before our November encounter. So, of course, a rumor was started that we seven [crew members] had all seen the show and been inspired to fabricate a story like it..._not one of us had seen that show_." (p. 143) (Emphasis added.)

The Truth: In the book "Ultimate Encounter," dealing with the Walton incident, author Bill Barry quotes crew chief Mike Rogers as admitting that he "did watch the first part of it."


This doesn't mean Travis is lying. He may have believed this was the case when he wrote the book. Mike Rogers may have only remembered this detail afterwards. I have to ask the question, if this was a hoax based on the NBC show, why would Mike Rogers admit he'd seen it? Why not just say he hadn't seen it? After all who would ever know? Isn't it more likely he admitted seeing it because he was being honest despite the perceived damage it did to his claims about a UFO?



Travis claims that his mother "was terribly upset by my disappearance and had to be sedated." (p. 145)

The Truth: According to Deputy Sheriff Ken Coplan, who was present when Travis' mother first learned that Travis allegedly had been zapped and abducted by a UFO, "_she did not act very surprised_." According to Coplan, Travis' mother calmly replied: "_Well, that's the way these things happen._" Then she proceeded to tell about her own and son Duane's UFO sightings.


The quote from Walton's book is very short and does not state that his mother was terribly upset when she first learned about his disappearance. She may have become upset after a few days when it became less and less likely that Travis would show up and the police were suspecting foul play. Without the full quote in context it's impossible to know but I suspect Klass is cherry-picking quotes.



"Why didn't I accept the money offered by the [National] Enquirer for my exclusive story? I turned down many offers from writers and movie producers...All I wanted then was to be left alone to think things over and adjust." (p. 143)

The Truth: According to Jeff Wells, one of the National Enquirer reporters who was sent to Arizona to meet with Travis and investigate the case: "If we liked the story, and it could be properly documented, and the kid [Travis] could pass our lie detector tests, we would open our check books all the way and start talking in five figures...The test lasted an hour and I was in the ne room fending off the [CBS] TV crew when I heard [Duane Walton] scream: 'I'll kill the sonofabitch.' The kid had failed the test miserably. The polyg man [McCarthy] said it was the plainest case of lying he had seen in 20 years.. I sat down to detail everything that had happened in a 16-page memorandum designed to kill the story. It was all over."


Jeff Wells' account can be found here. Although he concludes this was a hoax there are a couple of quotes that I find interesting


Our first sight of the kid was at dinner in the hotel dining room that night. It was a shock.
He sat there mute, pale, twitching like a cornered animal. He was either a brilliant actor or he was in serious funk about something.



The kid was a wreck and it was all the psychiatrist could do to get him ready for the lie-detector expert we had lined up.





Travis' story of being zapped by UFO beam on the evening of Nov. 5, 1975: "...when a tremendously bright blue-green ray shot out of the bottom of the craft...All I felt was the numbing force of a _blow that felt like a hig voltage electrocution_...The stunning concussion of the foot-wide beam _struck me full in the head and the chest_...My body arched backward, arms and legs outstretched, _as I was lifted off the ground. I was hurled backward through the air for 10 feet. My right shoulder collided with the hard rocky earth..._" (p. 28) (Emphasis added.)

The Facts: On Nov. 11, shortly after Travis reappeared, he was given a physical examination in Phoenix by Dr. Howard Kandell and Dr. Joseph Saults. They found no evidence of physical injury, such as burns or black- and-blue marks anywhere on Travis' body. Dr. Kandall did note a small mark in Travis' right elbow "which was compatible with a puncture wound such as when somebody takes blood from you."

The morning after the incident, law enforcement officers examined the dead brush pile near where Travis had been standing when he (allegedly) was zapped by the UFO beam. There was a thick carpet of dry pine needles. _None of the pine needles showed any evidence of burning or blast effect dispersal, according to Deputy Sheriff Chuck Ellison_.

If The Story Told By Travis And His Six Associates Were True, There Should Have Been Physical Evidence Both At The Site And On Travis' Body.
Yet There Was None_.


Is Klass's claim that there should have been physical evidence correct? Walton doesn't say he was bruised or burned only that he felt badly burned. Who's to say the aliens didn't tend to any wounds?

Where did the puncture mark come from? From the aliens maybe? Or maybe from the pine needles when Travis was knocked down. Either way it doesn't contradict his story.

What is the physical evidence at the site that Klass expects to see? How can you predict the effect of an unknown energy beam?

Klass' statement 'If The Story Told By Travis And His Six Associates Were True, There Should Have Been Physical Evidence Both At The Site And On Travis' Body' is simply fallacious.

The strongest piece of evidence here is Jeff Well's account and even that is opinion. The rest is innuendo and hearsay.



posted on Oct, 7 2010 @ 11:06 AM
link   
reply to post by MarrsAttax
 


Clap-Clap, well done.

I do not believe in UFOs nor aliens visiting us but I do believe we must allow others to believe in what they want without trying to impose our own views onto them and becoming upset if we cant and then procedding to call them names.

I am sure there are people that have had experiences that make THEM believe they have seen something supernatural or out of this world and no matter what we say will change their mind as to what they saw.

we can speculate on what it may have been and perhaps pass our views onto them in a sociable manner without resorting to calling them names and accusing them of lying, in their minds they really did see what they say they did and I believe that in time they will either prove or disprove it themselves.

As for me I appriciate the people that do come and tell us the experiences they have had as for the most part it makes for some entertaining reading and although I dont believe things have been flying around in our atmosphere I do believe that there are others out there like ourselves wondering if there is anything or anyone past the boundries of their own space.


Time=Truth



posted on Oct, 7 2010 @ 10:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Shrike


...the poster has some nerve stating comments as if he had some special knowledge that no other human has: thinking he knows the "alien psyche" and knowing their motives. This is all hot air with nothing to substantiate it.


Please show me where I claimed to have "special knowledge that no other human has." Please quote any statement in which I claimed to know the alien psyche or their motives.



posted on Oct, 7 2010 @ 10:40 PM
link   
reply to post by MarrsAttax
 


You use up a lot of bandwidth to express your views and then you blow it with a sentence/question: "Who's to say the aliens didn't tend to any wounds?"

Who's to say, with irrefutable evidence, that aliens exist and if they exist who's to say that they are from afar? Never mind that the alleged aliens are claimed to adbuct humans again without any evidence to support the claims. You are in effect saying that you accept Walton's tale as real and that aliens either caused his alleged wounds or if he was wounded through another source they may have healed him, to some extent.

Beliefs are the result of mental conditioning. Beliefs exist only in the mind. Believers do not require evidence. Why is this so difficult to accept, it's common sense!



posted on Oct, 7 2010 @ 10:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by flightsuit

Originally posted by The Shrike


...the poster has some nerve stating comments as if he had some special knowledge that no other human has: thinking he knows the "alien psyche" and knowing their motives. This is all hot air with nothing to substantiate it.


Please show me where I claimed to have "special knowledge that no other human has." Please quote any statement in which I claimed to know the alien psyche or their motives.


This is your comment: "Not only do you know nothing of the alien psyche, but you also know nothing of their motives." To me, it's the same thing as saying "I know about the alien psyche, I know of their motives." In reality, you know nothing of the kind and are just projecting. It's better to be on safe ground when dealing with alleged aliens to be frank and up front and admit that you do not know anything about alleged aliens, their psyche or their motives because you first have to prove the reality of the alleged aliens and you have to divulge how you know the things you intimate to know.



posted on Oct, 8 2010 @ 08:19 AM
link   
reply to post by The Shrike
 


I was demonstrating that Klass claims do not prove Travis Walton is a liar since there are alternative explanations.

I was making no statement about what I personally accept. My point is that the truth or otherwise of Walton's claims are unknown, yet some people are ready to conclude that they are false.

Who is the believer here? Someone who takes Philip Klass' list of hearsay and second-hand evidence as fact or someone who leaves the matter in question until further evidence emerges?

By the way 'Common Sense' does not equal 'Logic'.

edit on 8/10/2010 by MarrsAttax because: (no reason given)

edit on 8/10/2010 by MarrsAttax because: typos



posted on Oct, 8 2010 @ 08:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Shrike
reply to post by MarrsAttax
 


Beliefs are the result of mental conditioning. Beliefs exist only in the mind. Believers do not require evidence. Why is this so difficult to accept, it's common sense!


Oh give me a break! Its not just believers who use their "beliefs" its people like you too, though your ignorance will never let you admit it.

You are the worst type of person to ask to review a case, bcause your mind is made up way before you atarted to read the case. And thats because of your belief that this is all rubbush. Its the same with hardcore believers, just don't think i am picking on the de-bunker, because i am not.

But if you are always going to mention the "belief" word, then at least look in the mirror and realise that so do you.



posted on Oct, 8 2010 @ 11:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Shrike

Originally posted by flightsuit

Originally posted by The Shrike


...the poster has some nerve stating comments as if he had some special knowledge that no other human has: thinking he knows the "alien psyche" and knowing their motives. This is all hot air with nothing to substantiate it.


Please show me where I claimed to have "special knowledge that no other human has." Please quote any statement in which I claimed to know the alien psyche or their motives.


This is your comment: "Not only do you know nothing of the alien psyche, but you also know nothing of their motives." To me, it's the same thing as saying "I know about the alien psyche, I know of their motives." In reality, you know nothing of the kind and are just projecting. It's better to be on safe ground when dealing with alleged aliens to be frank and up front and admit that you do not know anything about alleged aliens, their psyche or their motives because you first have to prove the reality of the alleged aliens and you have to divulge how you know the things you intimate to know.


If you had bothered to read the post which I'd been responding to, you would have seen that the poster said something like, "I know nothing about the alien psyche." That was his choice of words, not mine. I never claimed to know anything about the alien psyche or their motives. It is you who is projecting.
edit on 8-10-2010 by flightsuit because: edited for grammar



posted on Oct, 8 2010 @ 11:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jay-morris

Originally posted by The Shrike
reply to post by MarrsAttax
 


Beliefs are the result of mental conditioning. Beliefs exist only in the mind. Believers do not require evidence. Why is this so difficult to accept, it's common sense!


Oh give me a break! Its not just believers who use their "beliefs" its people like you too, though your ignorance will never let you admit it.

You are the worst type of person to ask to review a case, bcause your mind is made up way before you atarted to read the case. And thats because of your belief that this is all rubbush. Its the same with hardcore believers, just don't think i am picking on the de-bunker, because i am not.

But if you are always going to mention the "belief" word, then at least look in the mirror and realise that so do you.


First, I do not have a belief system. This is something that may be difficult for you to accept because you obviously have a belief system.

Second, I have never accepted tales of alien abduction. I find every single case to be false, as far as the reality I live in.

Third, I became aware of the Walton case when it happened and it smelled fishy right off the start. That investigators uncovered the truth put the icing on the cake.

No criticism that you level at me is going to affect me one iota as far as accepting Walton or any tale of abduction. They all smell.



posted on Oct, 9 2010 @ 12:12 AM
link   
That article by Klass has no class. To say this debunks the Walton story and discredit's him is grasping for straws. If walton stole or wrote bad checks that has nothing to do with the abduction. Everyone makes mistakes and some more that others but that was just a character assassination. If his relatives were UFO buffs and he did not consider them UFO buffs and they considered themselves enthusiasts that is just a difference of opinion nor does it mean or prove he thought this thing up because of it. There were then as there is now many people in to the UFO subject it is natural curiousness. So if i make this post in this forum and get abducted tomorrow does that mean im no longer credible because i posted here?



posted on Oct, 9 2010 @ 03:26 AM
link   
Travis Walton here. Unbelievable. I provided proof that the MOT uses a method completely discredited by the top polygraph experts in the world, yet some posters on here continue to treat it as if it had any some significance!! What is there about "no validity whatsoever" and "they could simply flip a coin and achieve the same accuracy levels" that is so hard to understand?? (By the way, I gave that THE TRUTH ABOUT THE MOMENT OF TRUTH TV SHOW website wrong. It is www.polytest.org/momenttruth.html NOT www.polytest.org/momenttruth.org -- do your homework now) Of course the various true/false verdicts on the show are self contradictory! They are random!! The relevant/irrelevant method MOT (and McCarthy) used is completely rejected -- even if used as prescribed -- by every modern reputable examiner. Yet MOT further corrupted the method in numerous major ways. They only go through the questions one time, when modern techniques require 3 or 4 runs through the identical list. The other charts are necessary to distinguish random fluctuation in responses from consistent signs of deception. The American Polygraph Association's STANDARDS AND PRINCIPALS OF PRACTICE item #5 specifically forbids single chart tests. Four questions are the max in accepted modern procedure, MOT is closer to 54! Sure the show contradicts the other questions they say I (and crewman Ken Peterson) passed. But more importantly they contradict the other 16 polygraph tests passed on this question.

A couple of years ago the corporation employing me for nearly a decade announced a lay off of the 50 most recently hired. I was on the list. I went home and got a call that same day from the show offering the opportunity to win 6 figures. Hopeful solution to the lay off? All I had to do was truthfully answer a bunch of questions. No problem, but I was wary. The polygraph operator was their man, with incentive to keep his employer from paying any prize money. E-mailed some friends about my misgivings. Job situation clouded my judgment. Already had one situation with examiner using obsolete method. I asked if they used modern accepted technique, was assured they did. Turned out that claim was grossly untrue. Found out no previous "contestant" had ever won big prize! Most shows filmed never aired because "contestants" walked out. The show was about to be canceled and they needed something to boost ratings. Sequence showing me being tested was fake, "examiner" was an actor, my arm rested comfortably on table as per proper method. For their "test" my arm had to balance perfectly still on a narrow metal rail for a very long time -- excruciating. Would cause stress unrelated to lying. The examiner lied to me saying he knew police polygraph examiner Cy Gilson and was using same method. MOT's ancient machine was in no way the same as Gilson's modern computer assisted equipment.

Before agreeing to be on the show I specifically asked the producer if their man was using accepted modern procedure and I was told that he absolutely WAS using the best methods. This was absolutely NOT true, and they had to know it, since THE TRUTH ABOUT THE MOMENT OF TRUTH website was created years before my episode. The site says,"FOX TV has intentionally blocked us from publishing this information on their public internet forum..."
Also NOT true is the oft repeated claim that polygraph results aren't admissible in court. In some states they most certainly ARE admissible. And there is a reason the CIA and FBI still use polygraph: if done properly, they work.

I went home from MOT and sought out the most rigorous new tests available. In New Mexico testing is strictly regulated because results are admissible in court there. The highest recommended firm which does work for the New Mexico State Prison, the Albuquerque Police Dept and even the United States Marshal Service administered two tests. State of the art methods and a modern 5 trace, computerized machine with video monitoring were used. I passed both tests flawlessly. Details in the new edition of my book.

I have never claimed that polygraph constitutes absolute proof. But 16 properly conducted tests certainly out weigh the big zero -- anything done with a completely discredited and further corrupted method.

By the way, the show used deceptive editing. The reaction shots of my family are not paired with the correct question. In fact, astute observers might have noticed that they actually reused the identical reaction shots. The audience knew the show was bogus and showed it. When the "false" verdict was announced, the crowd started booing. The host, Mark Walberg, turned to them and asked, "Who still believes he's telling the truth?" The audience erupted into a roar of cheering loud and long. Then he asked, "Who thinks he lied?" A few scattered calls from the back. THE CUT THIS PART OUT. I e-mailed one of the producers after the show 2 years ago and said, They could reduce the volume of that or edit it out...but that would be deceptive, wouldn't it?" I was right.



new topics

top topics



 
22
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join