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

The lessons here:

Never trust Hollywood.

Never trust Fox.

"Reality" television isn't very real.

reply to post by flightsuit


god this is a cheap ass show

how can one wish it had been someone else abducted, if one hadnt been abducted in the first place

reply to post by Travis Walton


Travis, you have eyewitness testimony to corroborate your testimony.

It is up to your doubters to provide any evidence to the contrary

To this date they have provided nothing concrete to contradict this.

P.S. to my previous comment I am not trying to stir up a hornets nest.

Just merely voicing an opinion.

Originally posted by Krusty the Klown
reply to post by Travis Walton

 

Travis, you have eyewitness testimony to corroborate your testimony.

It is up to your doubters to provide any evidence to the contrary

To this date they have provided nothing concrete to contradict this.

You have this backward. It is up to the claimant to provide irrefutable evidence. Without irrefutable evidence, provided by the claimant, the claimant has nothing. His/her word is not good enough.

There is no evidence that the poster claiming to be Travis Walton is indeed Travis Walton. It could be John Lear!

There is no evidence that the poster claiming to be Travis Walton is indeed Travis Walton. It could be John Lear!

LOL, very good point.

In terms of the evidence I was thinking that the other eyewitnesses was deemed proof, I guess it comes down to what an individual deems to be irrefutable.

Originally posted by Krusty the Klown

There is no evidence that the poster claiming to be Travis Walton is indeed Travis Walton. It could be John Lear!

LOL, very good point.

In terms of the evidence I was thinking that the other eyewitnesses was deemed proof, I guess it comes down to what an individual deems to be irrefutable.

Not that simple. Irrefutable evidence stands on its own without being affected by an individual. Watch Forensic Files documentaries on TV. Without the forensic evidence, a case is weak and the culprit may skate. When the forensic evidence is beyond reproach, the culprit(s) go to jail.

The Walton cohorts only provided moral support, not considered evidence.

reply to post by The Shrike


OK, thanks for the heads up, irrefutable means independent from eyewitness testimony.

So does that mean there are thousands of people in jail that need to be released?

Or is there a difference in the legal system where a court uses either reasonable evidence to convict (eyewitness testimony) and irrefutable evidence of guilt (physical evidence).

Taking it a step further does that mean that observations can not be used as data in any scientific investigation? Such animal behaviour studies like Jane Goodall and the gorillas should be taken as conjecture by her and not as fact, as eyewitness testimony is not irrefutable? Even if another researcher conducts a similar observation with the same results, it should still not be valid as eyewitness evidence is untrustworthy.

Originally posted by Krusty the Klown
reply to post by The Shrike

 

OK, thanks for the heads up, irrefutable means independent from eyewitness testimony.

So does that mean there are thousands of people in jail that need to be released?

That is one of the main problems with our justice system. Almost everyday you read in the papers about individuals who were released because, finally, dna proved them to be innocent. Even though it doesn't depend on evidence, to answer your question in a round about way, there are thousands in jail that should be released because their only crime was that they were caught with a small amount of marijuana.

Or is there a difference in the legal system where a court uses either reasonable evidence to convict (eyewitness testimony) and irrefutable evidence of guilt (physical evidence).

Courts don't use reasonable evidence. It has to be irrefutable evidence to sway a jury to find guilt. Otherwise, if a doubt exists the jury cannot come to an agreement and might result in a mistrial.

Taking it a step further does that mean that observations can not be used as data in any scientific investigation? Such animal behaviour studies like Jane Goodall and the gorillas should be taken as conjecture by her and not as fact, as eyewitness testimony is not irrefutable? Even if another researcher conducts a similar observation with the same results, it should still not be valid as eyewitness evidence is untrustworthy.

edit on 10/10/1010 by Krusty the Klown because: Bad grammar

Observations can help find the evidence by making those involved think in different ways about what is proposed. Science tests hypotheses until desired results are achieved. Then others can do the same tests and should arrive at the same conclusion. With animals studies such as you mention certain results can be accepted since as you say others participating arrived at the same results. Duplication results in identical results. And since these studies and tests are documented with scientific equipment it isn't eyewitness evidence but scientific results since the data has been recorded.

But if someone, let's say someone named Travis Walton just for argument's sake, makes a claim that he was abducted by aliens, well just to say it is meaningless even if others swear they witnessed it. It will be filed simply as a report. But if there is irrefutable evidence, that evidence can be examined and the results may support the claim or fault may be found. But at least some physical evidence is better than hearsay.

So far, not one single human has been able to produce any irrefutable evidence of any contact with alleged aliens. And don't count so-called implants as evidence since they haven't passed scrutiny. Alien abductions claims are accepted because the majority of humans are believers which do not require evidence. Since there are fewer non-believers than believers you can see why we non-believers have a hard time dealing with believers.

reply to post by The Shrike


Ok, I'm going to make an assumption that you reside in the US, because the majority of posters on this site are US citizens, please correct me if I am wrong. As you can see from my details I am from Australia.

I know that both our legal systems are derived from the English system of law.

In Oz, eyewitness testimony can be sufficient evidence for a conviction by a judge or jury.

Is that not the case in the US?

The example you gave of the pot smoker actually had physical evidence.

Eyewitness testimony can lead to somebody being convicted of a crime in the US.

Originally posted by Krusty the Klown
In Oz, eyewitness testimony can be sufficient evidence for a conviction by a judge or jury.

Is that not the case in the US?

The example you gave of the pot smoker actually had physical evidence.

Eyewitness testimony is better for supporting a case which has other evidence. I think by itself, eyewitness testimony is pretty weak and they teach that in law schools so most in the legal system know it.

For example:

www.in.gov...

RICKY SCOTT,
Appellant-Defendant,
vs. STATE OF INDIANA,
Appellee-Plaintiff.
August 6, 2007
OPINION - FOR PUBLICATION
ROBB, Judge

p9:
At least one commentator has suggested banning eye-witness testimony altogether from criminal trials:
Eyewitness identification testimony is known to the courts and to psychologists to be extremely unreliable. However, there is a great resistance to excluding this type of evidence at trial. The commonsense belief that “seeing is believing” is hard to overcome. The problem is not just that people are being convicted of crimes they did not commit, but that for every wrongful conviction there is a guilty party left to wreak havoc on the public. The only effective way to fix this problem is to exclude eyewitness testimony from trials.

So there is common knowledge that eyewitness testimony is very unreliable, but we still use it, at our peril.

Scientists aren't bound by legal tradition so that's why they tend to classify eyewitness testimony as the lowest form of evidence possible.

Travis here. Posts subsequent to my characterization of skeptics have been born out. Everything not proved true is deemed proved false. There were some of those who called themselves "skeptics" but described an approach that was "objective", meaning that when you can't conclusively prove something as absolutely true or false you leave it open. So these people would be more accurate (and only then justifiably proud) if they described themselves as objective. Trouble is, forum, a huge proportion of things we deal with every day cannot yet be classified into one of these absolute categories at the ends of the spectrum. As I pointed out earlier, the believer is wrong to classify as true everything not disproved. Just as wrong as the skeptic who tries to classify as false everything not proved. This leads to the dumb conclusion that unless Travis provides absolute irrefutable proof, he is absolutely irrefutably a liar. Or crazy. Or hallucinating. Or duped by the hypnotist.

After my being criticized for taking the testimony of seven men reporting that they were eyewitnesses to a UFO and comparing it to the testimony of seven who say they witnessed a murder, the thread has made a long series of comparisons of this matter to court cases. I would like to point out that, contrary to some posts, the majority of court cases do not require "proof beyond a shadow of a doubt" because that is the standard only in murder cases where the consequence might be execution. Most court cases use the standard "by a preponderance of the evidence." And in everyday life this is the standard most of us, skeptics included, actually use. No doubt many on this forum can think of innumerable examples in which skeptics routinely go forward on the basis of "a preponderance of the evidence" because they don't have irrefutable proof of the truth or falsity of the things they act upon as if they were one or the other. The standard of "irrefutable proof" would leave us frozen, unable to act, waiting until we didn't just "believe", we would have to "know" for absolute certain. The proud skeptics, not the objective inquirers, are quite selective in their doubt. They never seem to doubt my detractors, the naysayers have the skeptics unquestioning confidence. They constantly question the motivation of the woods crew, but not the motivation of a phony game show, and not the motivation of the debunkers, who have just as many opportunities to profit from their fanatical position with appearances and the books they sell. The fact of the matter is, I have proved that Philip Klass has told many absolute falsehoods, as has Bill Spaulding of GSW, as has the ex-inquirer reporter Jeff Wells. For crying out loud, the skeptics have for years derided the tabloid writers as fabulists of the lowest order, the journalistic dregs. Then as soon as one of them tries to make a few bucks capitalizing on a prior story, suddenly Klass is praising him for his "significant insights". I demolished the credibility of Jeff Wells' article way back in the 1996 edition of my book by disproving key "facts" in it, and by revealing that Wells sold a contradictory version of the same article to Omni Magazine. The two versions were nearly identical in the wording of key passages, except for things like in the one the debunkers circulate we were rolling drunk, but in the Omni Magazine version "total abstainer" was the description. This isn't a mistake, it is a lie. Yet two skeptics, Anson Kennedy and Robert Scheafer, still keep a copy of the one version of Wells' phony article on their respective websites and neither will post my refutations. Which proves THEY are the liars, deliberately deceiving the public about the reliability of the article. If it's not about getting the truth to the public, it's propaganda.

Originally posted by Travis Walton

I would like to point out that, contrary to some posts, the majority of court cases do not require "proof beyond a shadow of a doubt" because that is the standard only in murder cases where the consequence might be execution. Most court cases use the standard "by a preponderance of the evidence." And in everyday life this is the standard most of us, skeptics included, actually use.

That's what I was trying to establish, I didn't know the exact term used in the US.

I mistakenly referred to it as "reasonable evidence", in Australia we call it "evidence beyond a reasonable doubt" for criminal cases, and "on the balance of probabilities" for civil cases.

Nice post Travis, very eloquent.

reply to post by Travis Walton
Travis- I know you have addressed the skeptics in this thread as I have stated in an earlier post I have always felt you have been truthful in your accounts of everything that has happened to you,I felt the show was a scam when I watched it,but if you could address my question did you ever feel that the aliens were connected in any way to our government?or that our government is involved in any way?If so how,as it has been rumored that all of this is part of a military plan of a fake invasion sometimes in the future,to tell you the truth I don't know what to think.......

reply to post by thedeadlyrhythm


You missed the point there buddy!

This is my contribution to this thread. Take 10 minutes out

and watch it. You may find out what a skeptic really is

instead of your own delineation of what you think it is!

I didn't "miss the point buddy". You miss MY point. Skeptics try to redefine the word skeptic to imply that they use the most scrupulous and logical approaches to issues, when they do quite the opposite. The underlying motivation seems to be to put the world on notice that they are the only ones capable of seeing things as they are, that they are always right, and that the world is comfortably composed of certainties. It doesn't matter what tenets skeptics "claim" to abide by, if in actual practice they are just what I described. This forum has a number of self described skeptics who do exactly what I'm describing in my analysis. This approach is not rational and is not objective. I maintain that the only rational approach to inquiry is OBJECTIVE. My Webster's defines "skeptic" as "One who carries a critical or incredulous attitude into his inquiries..." Incredulous is a synonym for disbelieving, with the emphasis on "dis-". Which means that they begin, prior to having any facts, a bias AGAINST something. You can't truly consider something if you have already rejected it out of hand, and are simply seeking rationalizations and cherry picked data to support the preconceived belief. To "mount a case" if you will. All of us would wish, if we ever find ourselves in a court of law, that judge and jury enter into deliberations with no prejudice toward any of the litigants, or towards ourselves if we stand accused of a crime. A fair examination of the evidence is only possible if we are willing to actually consider all alternatives. Skeptics are simply guilty of what they believe the fools of the world are guilty of, only to the opposite extreme. We may have a semantics issue here. If someone calling themselves a skeptic DOESN'T do these things, then they aren't really a skeptic, they are objective.
I've had 35 years to observe first hand what reasoning patterns that self titled skeptics ACTUALLY employ. Oh yeah, the debunkers give lip service to logic and science, but they sadly fall far short of actually employing them. Ugg, me know gullible and skeptic not good. Objective good.

People who are emotionally involved in debunking and who are professional skeptics have a shocking tendency to practice the very thing they claim to abhor: pseudoscience.

How so?

Well, they start with a certain conclusion in mind, and then they ignore data which doesn't fit that conclusion.

Originally posted by Travis Walton
I would like to point out that, contrary to some posts, the majority of court cases do not require "proof beyond a shadow of a doubt" because that is the standard only in murder cases where the consequence might be execution. Most court cases use the standard "by a preponderance of the evidence."

I never heard of proof beyond a shadow of a doubt. I used to watch "The Peoples Court" TV show, and they said there were two main standards:

1. Criminal cases: Proof beyond a REASONABLE doubt
2. Civil cases: Preponderance of the evidence

The fact of the matter is, I have proved that Philip Klass has told many absolute falsehoods, as has Bill Spaulding of GSW, as has the ex-inquirer reporter Jeff Wells.

I've seen some of the lies told by Klass. But I'm not aware of what stuff Jeff Wells said is a lie. He wrote the article "Profitable Nightmare of a Very Unreal Kind" published in "The Age", Melbourne, Australia, 6 January 1979, and since as they say there are two sides to every story, I'd love to hear your side and which parts he's lying about if any.

"...IF ANY."you say? I just gave a clear cut example of one of the lies in Well's article. There are at least three conflicting versions of it. He sold the same article to Omni Magazine for their "Antimatter" column in the March '82 issue without some of the major embellishments added to the version for the Australian paper. I could go line by line and give numerous examples, but what would be the point of that? An exercise in futility. If you are so completely untroubled by one version that describes a "total abstainer", and another that claims we were "staggering drunk", your opinion becomes less than relevant. What a joke. I should jump through hoops and go into greater detail than the six pages I wrote on it in my book, for someone who would trust ANYTHING Wells said after that wild of a lie?. Wells said, ".. it was all the psychiatrists could do to get him ready for the lie detector expert we had lined up." A bald faced lie. The psychiatrists could NOT have done any such thing, since they did not arrive from Colorado until after the "test". The psychiatrists DID NOT "tranquilize the kid", and would not have done so if they were getting me ready for a test because a sedated person is not in a testable condition. I have passed polygraph tests stating that I used NO drugs during that time: "Between November 1 and 11, 1975 did you use any drugs, either legal or illegal?" Answer NO. I'm beginning to wonder if I'm wasting my time here. Again, selective suspicion and doubt. Tabloid writer is trusted in spite of outrageous lies -- why? -- because he attacks me. Wells doesn't have to prove he's telling the truth. But I'm expected to prove he isn't. Too bad three of the people who were there have passed away. But selective doubt would discount any testimony from the others, probably even the other tabloid reporters.

I think I'll just post my rebuttal to the IMBd link posted earlier in this thread.