It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

UFO investigator solves 1979 Livingston Bob Taylor alien encounter

page: 1

log in


posted on Nov, 22 2013 @ 04:56 AM
Daily Record new article regarding the 1979 Livingston UFO
incident involving local forester Robert Taylor who claimed
to have encountered a spaceship and foiled an abduction.

posted on Nov, 22 2013 @ 05:00 AM
Great find.

Particularly nice about this piece, is that the guy solving the mystery does not slam or call the "victim" a nut ball.

posted on Nov, 22 2013 @ 05:41 AM
reply to post by deprogrammer

Apart from the fact Taylor was a forestry worker and knew every foot of that forest intimately...and was in a completely different wood entirely to the one containing the ground level water tank (tank is in the North wood, Taylor consistently showed people the same spot in the SOUTH wood)...but clutching at straws to explain the unexplained is always loose with the facts isn't it.

An incorrect explanation in order to put a subject to bed, is no explanation at all.

posted on Nov, 22 2013 @ 12:56 PM
reply to post by deprogrammer

another force fit debunk...

posted on Nov, 22 2013 @ 01:06 PM
I don't consider this solved, but it is a good hypothesis.

posted on Nov, 22 2013 @ 01:18 PM
So many ufo stories I have yet to look up still. Interesting, thanks for the post!

posted on Nov, 22 2013 @ 07:20 PM
Taylor saw "a large, circular object, spheroid in shape and approximately twenty feet (six metres) in diameter hovering above the forest floor. The object had a narrow rim running along its circumference with stems topped with propellers and the surface of the object seemed to be constructed from a dark metallic material ..." Source:

How exactly does this new research 'solve' the case in the light of that description?

posted on May, 21 2015 @ 02:19 PM
a reply to: SummerLightning

You can read my report here which should explain it all:-

posted on May, 21 2015 @ 03:27 PM
a reply to: phillfenton

Hi Phill,

This is one of those UFO cases that is more like a twilight episode and one I've continued to be baffled by since I remember seeing it on TV as a kid. This is certainly an interesting theory as I believe Mr. Taylor signed himself out of hospital before any full diagnosis of his condition could be made.

I am certain you are aware of another 'prosaic' explanation involving Bob Taylor ingesting belladonna and hallucinating.

Bob's description of the craft given to the police was :

As I cleared the trees and entered the clearing I saw this object in front of me. It was about 30 feet high, but not as high as the trees. It was grey in colour although I got the impression that the top of the dome shape changed from grey to translucent continually. The top of the object was dome-shaped and had a flange around the middle on which were situated several antenna with objects similar to rotors on the top. There were also several round porthole type apertures on the dome shape above the flange. I do not know what the bottom of the object was like

Illustration based on description

Of course it was not far from the M8, and even back in 1979, this was a busy motorway. So it remains a bit strange that no other witness has ever come forward.

Just wondering if you would consider posting a full thread on here with all the relevant information?

Thanks MM

posted on May, 21 2015 @ 06:45 PM
a reply to: phillfenton

It doesn't even come close does it really? Why is that, the police forensics crew and those police who visited the site didn't immediately pick up on this as the "explanation"? After all, it would saved them all some considerable time, not to mention expense at carrying out a proper crime scene investigation replete with forensics. The bottom line is, you are really saying neither the original witness, or the police were as bright as you and were actually, really rather daft aren't you>? Your implication is that, the original witness and the police were caught up in the "hysteria" of the incident when , the reality is there is absolutely no suggestion of either is there?

So, to sum up, the original witness had an accident and then concocted this story to hide having an accident and then deliberately took the police to a different site he'd already decided might match the scene of the real accident. Why would he have done that? Given he never had a similar incident post this one, what was he trying to hide? You can dress it up as nicely as you like, behind all the words you are in effect saying. "The bloke hadn't a clue where he was and scared people would think he was some how ill, concocted a story that would make look like even more of a nutter than if he had just had some mental spasm?".

Why not go the full "Klass approach". He'd been snorting daytura, using belladonna as eye-drops, couldn't tell a tree from a car and was just out of his gourd and didn't want to fess up to his wife because he'd come home late with his trousers ripped ?

To my mind this is one of those cases where there are only three answers. Firstly that, it happened exactly as the witness said it did or secondly, it was someone with no experience of a "psychedelic experience" that can be triggered by any number of outside factors and he was convinced the experience was real. The third is probably the most out there and yet, might well be the most coherent, it was a "directed" experience, part illusory in nature, part real and that the witness, might well have triggered some sort of "soft defence mechanism" in some sort of robotic drone. The origin and technology of that drone being the moot point.

new topics

top topics


log in