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.

 

Fire in the Sky: Travis Walton Update

page: 7
58
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 12:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by CardDown
reply to post by sean
 
Based on what I've read, the most likely scenario is that the UFO was staged by Walton and a confederate or two. Most of the witnesses did not get a good look at things, but were taken in by the performances.
Steve Pierce on Travis Walton and the hoax scenario


I read the PDF. To me it seems the $10,000 bribe was all taken out of context. Klass admits to offering $10,000 to anyone who could prove it. His words in the transcript are "to prove extraterrestrial space craft ". To a third-party, this can be easily be misconstrued. Klass probably did think about it.


edit on 21-6-2012 by FlySolo because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 01:34 PM
link   


No I do not have all the answer. That's what the UFO'rs believe.
reply to post by Kang69
 


No, I don't think people who believe in UFO's think they have all the answers. I know people like myself who have read UFO cases for the most of 20 years now, believe something physical and extraterrestrial have been witnessed on our planet.



They feel like they have to believe something, just like any religious nutjob. I am open to all beliefs and theoreys, I'm just questioning it. It dosen't make any sense.


No, it's not that they have to believe something, most of us have done research on the subject and have weighed the facts based upon several well documented sightings.




People are basically saying that these aliens that made us through DNA splicing are keeping watch over us.


That's only one theory out of several. Theories are just that, a theory. Do we have tangible facts to justify that no. Do we have facts based upon recent scientific discoveries, no. We do have questionable ancient artifacts on how people were capable of carving stone and lime stone with copper tools. We also have questionable skulls like the star child skull. We also have found suggestive drawings, and artifacts like the Bagdad battery.




Why? Why has their been not one piece of evidence about aliens? Tangible evidence btw, not just eye witness reports. (just like religion)


There has been evidence recovered. Chemical residue and impression where vehicles were said to have landed. There are intricate huge crop circles, where the chemical composition of the plant has changed nor has the physical plant been damaged. Landing sights where vegetation no longer grows. There's probably more, but I can't recall everything I've read.

J. Allen Hynek who was hired by the U.S. Air force to debunk UFO sighting was initially a skeptic. After his investigations into UFO sightings, he became a believer.



To think that a UFO is flying around watching us, abducting us to review our DNA, doesn't make sense. Not only that, that would mean they would have to have a base that's close by to earth. Whether it's a mothership or some secret base on earth.


It doesn't make sense to us. How can we even begin to know what an advance race of beings are planning. All we can do is speculate and give some kind of credibility to those witnesses who have had contact with these beings. When you have police witnesses, pilots, and military personal putting their reputation on the line, you have to give these people the benefit of the doubt.

There have been pilots who have witnessed mother ships. Who knows if they have bases or if they even have to have a base. If their multidimensional beings they could pop in or pop out of a dimension. So really if they have a base or not, unless you have a space vehicle to check out our surrounding planets, we'll never know. If the government knows, they're not telling.




Not only that, but most of the UFO videos I see are in broad daylight, even the ones at night don't make any sense.


As far as their technology, all I can do is refer you to my thread about technological advances that have grown from leaps and bounds since the start of the early 90's.

Eyewitness accounts of ET technology are now emerging in government research and in the marketplace



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 01:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Kang69
 


The only "bull #" I see is your trolling post buddy... There's far more evidence for UFOs than there is for Christianity so let's not even make that comparison. It must be easy for people like you who have never experienced a UFO or abduction, etc. to come onto a website such as this an anonymously trash the entire subject. Go research the topic beyond the internet before you go on babbling about something being "bull #" or not...



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 03:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Kang69
 




To think that a UFO is flying around watching us, abducting us to review our DNA, doesn't make sense. Not only that, that would mean they would have to have a base that's close by to earth. Whether it's a mothership or some secret base on earth.

No, it doesn't. Not if they possess trans-dimensional technology. Again, you're cherry-picking the arguments that suite your beliefs. If you're not willing to entertain alternative explanations, no one else in this thread is going to entertain your explanations or take you seriously.



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 04:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Kang69
 


Lets get this out of the way. Ufos are very real, and sone, very
unexplained. Anyone who thinks that there is no evidence that
sone ufos defy explanation, are people who have not studied
the subject.

Militery sightings alone tell you that something odd is happening
here. Militery black projects, ET, or any other theory is just that, a
theory. But there is more than enough evidence that some ufos defy
explanation, and needs further investigation.

As for the walton case, i find the case very interesting. What i find interesting
is the fact that none of the witnesses has come forward to say its a hoax. Apart
from travis, the other witnesses have normal lives. If they wanted to make money,
then coming out and saying it was a hoax would be a great way to start. But no, they
have stuck to their story, even though they have nothing to gain.

I find this very telling.



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 04:39 PM
link   
Even if "UFOs" and "Aliens" are real, this story isn't automatically true or even more believable.

Polar Bears are real, but if someone in the Everglades told me he saw one living there, I wouldn't believe it without some pretty convincing evidence.



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 04:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Furbs
Even if "UFOs" and "Aliens" are real, this story isn't automatically true or even more believable.

Polar Bears are real, but if someone in the Everglades told me he saw one living there, I wouldn't believe it without some pretty convincing evidence.


Er, ufos are real, what sone of them are, we dont know.

As for the walton case, to many unanswered questions
to stat calling it a hoax. Guess we will never know.



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 05:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by mirageman
Travis Walton portrays a story that is both similar to stories of abduction from the post Close Encounters era but also includes elements of the Nordic looking humanoids from an earlier age. There is no warning from the humanoids about impending doom for the earth nor does there seem to be any real conviction that he was experimented on. It is almost a real life transition point for popular culture to move from portraying aliens as "space brothers" to the more sinister alien greys who experiment and steal genetic material.

That is one of the more curious aspects of the case -- the combination of old school contactee imagery with the new school grey alien imagery. Abduction/contactee cases often contain the most heavy sociological components and this is one of the few cases where those components are so nicely mixed up.

It can certainly be debated as to whether or not the experience was "real," but in a lot of respects it doesn't really even matter. I think it helps illustrate that in the end, what might turn out to be the most important thing about UFOs and aliens is the interaction between the witnesses and the phenomenon. That it's a matter of how reality is constructed from what we perceive, and how the things we perceive (or imagine) might not play as passive a part as we generally understand.



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 05:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jay-morris

Originally posted by Furbs
Even if "UFOs" and "Aliens" are real, this story isn't automatically true or even more believable.

Polar Bears are real, but if someone in the Everglades told me he saw one living there, I wouldn't believe it without some pretty convincing evidence.


Er, ufos are real, what sone of them are, we dont know.

As for the walton case, to many unanswered questions
to stat calling it a hoax. Guess we will never know.


Semantics aside, there is enough evidence to nicely label this a hoax. Believers simply want to believe, and they will continue to believe.



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 05:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cosmic911

To think that a UFO is flying around watching us, abducting us to review our DNA, doesn't make sense.

No, it doesn't. Not if they possess trans-dimensional technology. Again, you're cherry-picking the arguments that suit your beliefs. If you're not willing to entertain alternative explanations, no one else in this thread is going to entertain your explanations or take you seriously.

I agree that it makes very little sense from our point of view for an "alien" to abduct anybody. Assuming advanced technology, they could simply tap into our databases to find out anything they would care to know about us, or they could gather perfectly good DNA samples from chewed gum stuck under movie seats. Walton doesn't believe he was experimented on, but he was also unconscious for long periods of time, so he might not know for sure.

That's not to say, however, that our DNA or some other part of us doesn't contain some quality or property we don't know about. Some kind of trans-dimensional link or structure (soul) that they can measure and we can't, and they have some interest in it that we have no clue about, and the only way to really get a proper reading on it is to get the subjects into their labs and study them first-hand. It's a puzzle.

The thing I keep coming back to, though, is the notion of "see and be seen." They need us to consciously experience them in order to exist, and there's something about us that is driven to create these things. It's a mutual thing where our consciousness allows them to exist, and then they can actively interact with us. I don't know. Maybe someday we'll figure it out.



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 05:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Furbs

Originally posted by Jay-morris

Originally posted by Furbs
Even if "UFOs" and "Aliens" are real, this story isn't automatically true or even more believable.

Polar Bears are real, but if someone in the Everglades told me he saw one living there, I wouldn't believe it without some pretty convincing evidence.


Er, ufos are real, what sone of them are, we dont know.

As for the walton case, to many unanswered questions
to stat calling it a hoax. Guess we will never know.


Semantics aside, there is enough evidence to nicely label this a hoax. Believers simply want to believe, and they will continue to believe.


I never said that i believe that travis was taken by aliens. All i have
said, is that the case is interesting. Like i saide before, why has not
one of the witnesses come foward to say its a hoax? Its not like
they are all good friends, or making money from it.

Also, answer me this. If they hoaxed the whole thing for money, like
alot of people say, then why have none of the witnesses come forward
to say it was a hoax? The person to come forward could easily make big
money by saying one of the most popular ufo cases was a hoax.

So, we can rule out friendship because they are all not close. And we can rule
out attention because travis is the only one in the public eye, and we can rule
out money because if a witness came foward, then he could make a killing.

Even if they done it to get out of their contract, what is stopping any of them
now coming forward saying its a hoax?
edit on 21-6-2012 by Jay-morris because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 05:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jay-morris

Originally posted by Furbs

Originally posted by Jay-morris

Originally posted by Furbs
Even if "UFOs" and "Aliens" are real, this story isn't automatically true or even more believable.

Polar Bears are real, but if someone in the Everglades told me he saw one living there, I wouldn't believe it without some pretty convincing evidence.


Er, ufos are real, what sone of them are, we dont know.

As for the walton case, to many unanswered questions
to stat calling it a hoax. Guess we will never know.


Semantics aside, there is enough evidence to nicely label this a hoax. Believers simply want to believe, and they will continue to believe.


I never said that i believe that travis was taken by aliens. All i have
said, is that the case is interesting. Like i saide before, why has not
one of the witnesses come foward to say its a hoax? Its not like
they are all good friends, or making money from it.

Also, answer me this. If they hoaxed the whole thing for money, like
alot of people say, then why have none of the witnesses come forward
to say it was a hoax? The person to come forward could easily make big
money by saying one of the most popular ufo cases was a hoax.

So, we can rule out friendship because they are all not close. And we can rule
out attention because travis is the only one in the public eye, and we can rule
out money because if a witness came foward, then he could make a killing.

Even if they done it to get out of their contract, what is stopping any of them
now coming forward saying its a hoax?
edit on 21-6-2012 by Jay-morris because: (no reason given)


It is easy to assume that they saw something out there. Nothing in any of their statements preclude the idea that they saw something that could have been smaller in scale and man-made, like a luminous balloon. They may very well believe that they saw a "UFO".

The damning evidence is the physiological tests.



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 06:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Furbs
 





It is easy to assume that they saw something out there. Nothing in any of their statements preclude the idea that they saw something that could have been smaller in scale and man-made, like a luminous balloon. They may very well believe that they saw a "UFO". 

The damning evidence is the physiological tests.


Well this is the thing. First skeptics said they were all lying. Then
the story came out and said that the two of them made an object
that resembles a ufo, and the other witnesses kbew nothing about it.

So, the skeptics threw out their ild explanation that they were all lying,
when the evidence suggested othetwise, and then started concentrating
on this new theory.

See what im trying to say here? That no matter what happened in the case,
Some people will always find a way to discredit them with their own belief
system.

If the latest theory turned out to be false, then the same skeptics
will revert back and say they are all lying.

At the end of the day, they just cant win!



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 06:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jay-morris

See what im trying to say here? That no matter what happened in the case,
Some people will always find a way to discredit them with their own belief
system.

If the latest theory turned out to be false, then the same skeptics
will revert back and say they are all lying.

At the end of the day, they just cant win!



I don't care which theory you want to talk about regarding the other men.

Travis Walton's body wasn't reacting like it should have for someone who hadn't eaten and had lost 10 pounds. This is why his story falls apart. Physical evidence is the key, and the physical evidence points toward hoax.



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 06:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jay-morris
reply to post by Furbs
 





It is easy to assume that they saw something out there. Nothing in any of their statements preclude the idea that they saw something that could have been smaller in scale and man-made, like a luminous balloon. They may very well believe that they saw a "UFO". 

The damning evidence is the physiological tests.


Well this is the thing. First skeptics said they were all lying. Then
the story came out and said that the two of them made an object
that resembles a ufo, and the other witnesses kbew nothing about it.

So, the skeptics threw out their ild explanation that they were all lying,
when the evidence suggested othetwise, and then started concentrating
on this new theory.

See what im trying to say here? That no matter what happened in the case,
Some people will always find a way to discredit them with their own belief
system.

If the latest theory turned out to be false, then the same skeptics
will revert back and say they are all lying.

At the end of the day, they just cant win!



YOur absolutely right, there will be people who will never EVER believe this story. The only way theyd believe it if Travis, his mates and the grey boys were sporting enought to do a live reanactment on tv!
Even then theyd scream CGI,



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 06:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Furbs
 


Also its ketones. Not Acetone. And the lack of ketones in his urine proves nothing. It's just another feeble attempt to debunk a very solid case.

Yes the first polygraph was inconclusive, not failed. He passed every one since so your argument is weak.

Not to mention the others who passed their polygraphs with flying colors. Keep on trying.



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 06:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Furbs
 





I don't care which theory you want to talk about regarding the other men. 

Travis Walton's body wasn't reacting like it should have for someone who hadn't eaten and had lost 10 pounds. This is why his story falls apart. Physical evidence is the key, and the physical evidence points toward hoax.


I really dont see how this makes the story fall apart? Us humans,
as dumb and as primative as we are, like to think we have all the
answers.

Lets just say he was taken by aliens. Whos to say they did not give
him some cant of supplement for food? Are we that smart to know
that ET would not do that, or we think we are that smart


To say this proves that the case is a hoax is clutching at straws.



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 06:21 PM
link   
Alien abduction doesn't seem that far fetched to me. I mean how many times have humans experimented on "lesser" creatures. Truth is its a mystery.



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 06:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheIrishJihad
reply to post by Furbs
 


Also its ketones. Not Acetone. And the lack of ketones in his urine proves nothing. It's just another feeble attempt to debunk a very solid case.

Yes the first polygraph was inconclusive, not failed. He passed every one since so your argument is weak.

Not to mention the others who passed their polygraphs with flying colors. Keep on trying.


Do yourself a favor and do some research before saying things like that.

Acetone is a type of ketone.

He failed the first Polygraph administered by the National Inquirer, and he failed his latest administered on a television show.



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 06:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Jay-morris
 


I agree completely. Maybe the aliens supplied him some type of nourishment. It is a weak argument.



new topics

top topics



 
58
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join