August 27, 2017 — Don Ecker with J. Randall Murphy

[Han]

Right I am going to put the world to rights, well maybe not, but I will speak my mind:

T'internet's a funny thing.

but then again the world is rather odd at the moment, but that is another thread entirely.

The reason I am writing this is: the type of thinking that was audible during the show, is the reason I have been a longtime member of the forum.

Made me think about extrasensory perception (as in things outside our 'mundane' perception).

Why people have to point score is beyond me, but I suppose it is a consequence of the fact that the host's engage the audience.

I for one am very grateful for all the information that Chris has presented me with, it has broadened my knowledge in all sorts of directions.

The reason I don't want to write this is because Chris is very humble, but more importantly doesn't need me to fight his battles, but the fact remains I feel indebted to him personally (and the show and forum) for broadening my horizons and looking at the world in a very different way than I would otherwise.

I am such a Cynic that I don't even own an 'armchair' but Chris, Gene and too many to mention would always be welcome to eat at my table or raise a toast or both!
And believe me coming from a cynic that is praise indeed (I haven't got a table either have I?) ((grrrr! cynicism begone))

All in all, thank you everyone, you know who you are! ass for the rest, well: comprehension don't come cheep

Try listening next time, but that might be hard over the sound of the axes you are grinding.....

 

[withoutlimits09]

I just want to point out that at one point someone said they didn't believe the Walton story, and pointed to the fact they were fraudsters, and petty criminals. The witnesses should be deemed less reliable because they were "panicked..."

Why would they be panicked if it was all a lie and they failed lie detectors?

 

[Randall]

I just want to point out that at one point someone said they didn't believe the Walton story, and pointed to the fact they were fraudsters, and petty criminals. The witnesses should be deemed less reliable because they were "panicked..." Why would they be panicked if it was all a lie and they failed lie detectors?

One could reasonably propose that if the event were staged that making it seem as though they were in a panic would give them a reason not to stay on the scene long enough for the whole thing to unravel for anyone who wasn't in on what was really going down. The driver would naturally have to be in on it and coincidentally or otherwise Rogers who was the driver tends to show up with Walton at media events ( example ). The other 5 were jammed into the cab of the truck and not all accounts were the same ( as is often claimed ). For example Dwayne Smith said to the press that Walton went walking toward it [ the alleged craft ] and just vanished, making no mention of any flash knocking him down.

I've already given plenty of reasons in other posts here why any serious and objective ufologist should have serious doubts about the story ( 14 reasons here ). Ufologist Carl Pflock wrote in the Jan. 15, 2000 issue of James Moseley's UFO gossip sheet Saucer Smear ( Vol. 47 Nr. 1 ) :

"I thought Walton and his best friend Mike Rogers could have rigged up something convincing enough to make the other five think they'd seen a hovering, hostile UFO. * Properly primed with flying saucer talk by Walton and Rogers, with clever theatrics by the duo during the sighting/zapping, with Rogers whisking the crew away after but a few seconds exposure, it wouldn't have taken a "Day the Earth Stood Still" saucer to fool them. After the fact, in the forest gloom, with Walton and the UFO mysteriously gone, their impressions easily could have been further molded by Rogers continuing his act and repeating his version of the saucer and what it had done to Walton."​

 

[marduk]

I want to believe Walton is telling the truth. When I hear him or see him, he just seems haunted and humbled by the event. It strikes me as true.

I cannot prove Walton was telling the truth, and neither can anyone else including Walton. I can have an opinion about the event, but I cannot decisively state any factual things about his missing time.

And that's exactly where the Walton case will sit, probably until the end of time. So I'm not sure what putting energy into the debate is going to achieve.

 

[Decker]

In my opinion, Marduk is absolutely correct. This discussion on Walton IS GOING absolutely nowhere ...

What difference does it make if User #01 BELIEVES the case is hoaxed ... and User #02 is convinced Walton is the paragon of virtue ... yes he did .. no he didn't! In the end, much like the entire UFO field ... does any of it equate to the proverbial "fart in a windstorm?" No it does not ... move on people .. nothing to see ... nothing to see ....

Decker

 

[marduk]

In my opinion, Marduk is absolutely correct. This discussion on Walton IS GOING absolutely nowhere ...

What difference does it make if User #01 BELIEVES the case is hoaxed ... and User #02 is convinced Walton is the paragon of virtue ... yes he did .. no he didn't! In the end, much like the entire UFO field ... does any of it equate to the proverbial "fart in a windstorm?" No it does not ... move on people .. nothing to see ... nothing to see ....

Decker

Holy crap.

We agreed on something.

I'm suddenly very, very afraid it's the end of the world or something.

 

[technomage]

While we may not get a definitive answer that satisfies everyone, I think the "debate" sheds light on the process of analyzing a case and what should be considered sufficient evidence and what factors different people rely on to make a judgment on the validity of a case.

 

[marduk]

While we may not get a definitive answer that satisfies everyone, I think the "debate" sheds light on the process of analyzing a case and what should be considered sufficient evidence and what factors different people rely on to make a judgment on the validity of a case.

That's what people have been doing for 60 years.

If it hasn't worked yet, it's not likely to work any time soon.

 

[Han]

That's what people have been doing for 60 years.

Times that by at least a thousand and I agree

 

[technomage]

That's what people have been doing for 60 years.

If it hasn't worked yet, it's not likely to work any time soon.

I think it has worked; I'd rather see more information than not and weigh different points of view than having someone pronounce a case as legitimate (or not). I'd rather hear the Usual Suspect's concerns regarding the Travis Walton case and I'd rather hear Chris's and Don's responses. With this kind of discussion, I have a better understanding of the case and the uncertainties that surround it. Yes, there is a point where nothing can be gained by further debate, but I didn't see that point reached during the show or in the forums. Obviously those people that have seen the "back and forth" many times are welcome to skip it (like with Roswell), but since I haven't, I find the discussion illuminating.

 

[marduk]

I think it has worked; I'd rather see more information than not and weigh different points of view than having someone pronounce a case as legitimate (or not). I'd rather hear the Usual Suspect's concerns regarding the Travis Walton case and I'd rather hear Chris's and Don's responses. With this kind of discussion, I have a better understanding of the case and the uncertainties that surround it. Yes, there is a point where nothing can be gained by further debate, but I didn't see that point reached during the show or in the forums. Obviously those people that have seen the "back and forth" many times are welcome to skip it (like with Roswell), but since I haven't, I find the discussion illuminating.

When people start spending their time arguing about opinions, I lose interest very rapidly.

It's like when I see people pull estimates out of their ass at work, and then argue about them with other people. You're just arguing about stuff you just made up as a response to stuff you probably don't understand with someone who did the exact same thing, but made up something different.

I go do something else that's productive.

 

[technomage]

When people start spending their time arguing about opinions, I lose interest very rapidly.

It's like when I see people pull estimates out of their ass at work, and then argue about them with other people. You're just arguing about stuff you just made up as a response to stuff you probably don't understand with someone who did the exact same thing, but made up something different.

I go do something else that's productive.

Obviously, arguing about opinions incessantly is pointless. The Usual Suspect provided facts and Chris and Don provided other facts plus their own personal assessment of Travis Walton based on knowing him. This lead each of them to have different opinions, which I can now review and come to an opinion of my own based on the knowledge I have at present.

 

[marduk]

Obviously, arguing about opinions incessantly is pointless. The Usual Suspect provided facts and Chris and Don provided other facts plus their own personal assessment of Travis Walton based on knowing him. This lead each of them to have different opinions, which I can now review and come to an opinion of my own based on the knowledge I have at present.

And that gets us where?

Nowhere.

 

[Han]

I think it has worked; I'd rather see more information than not and weigh different points of view than having someone pronounce a case as legitimate (or not). I'd rather hear the Usual Suspect's concerns regarding the Travis Walton case and I'd rather hear Chris's and Don's responses. With this kind of discussion, I have a better understanding of the case and the uncertainties that surround it. Yes, there is a point where nothing can be gained by further debate, but I didn't see that point reached during the show or in the forums. Obviously those people that have seen the "back and forth" many times are welcome to skip it (like with Roswell), but since I haven't, I find the discussion illuminating.

I agree with this, sometimes I learn more from what I disagree with rather than what I agree with, and I try to hear all sides of an argument before making a judgement, and since judgement are based on experience I try to take into account that I have had a different experience to anyone else, just like everybody.

I am more interested in the reasons why experiences vary so little and so much at the same time, as opposed to what they actually mean or represent.

So the more information the better.

 

[marduk]

I agree with this, sometimes I learn more from what I disagree with rather than what I agree with, and I try to hear all sides of an argument before making a judgement, and since judgement are based on experience I try to take into account that I have had a different experience to anyone else, just like everybody.

I am more interested in the reasons why experiences vary so little and so much at the same time, as opposed to what they actually mean or represent.

So the more information the better.

Information and opinion are two fundamentally different things.

We have lots of both, but confuse the two.

 

[Han]

Information and opinion are two fundamentally different things.

We have lots of both, but confuse the two.

When it comes to 'eyewitness' accounts I am not sure when one starts and the other begins.

 

[Randall]

I want to believe Walton is telling the truth. When I hear him or see him, he just seems haunted and humbled by the event. It strikes me as true. I cannot prove Walton was telling the truth, and neither can anyone else including Walton. I can have an opinion about the event, but I cannot decisively state any factual things about his missing time. And that gets us where? Nowhere.

In my opinion, Marduk is absolutely correct. This discussion on Walton IS GOING absolutely nowhere ... What difference does it make if User #01 BELIEVES the case is hoaxed ... and User #02 is convinced Walton is the paragon of virtue ... yes he did .. no he didn't! In the end, much like the entire UFO field ... does any of it equate to the proverbial "fart in a windstorm?" No it does not ... move on people .. nothing to see ... nothing to see .... Decker

Why Have This Discussion?

Why? The answer is fairly simple. Because people deserve to know both the pros and cons before deciding how reasonable it is to believe a claim, and it seems that fewer people are familiar with the cons than they are with all the pro-Walton publicity.

Even Don didn't know some of the more damaging facts ( and few things get past Don's filters ). Why should it be fine on one hand to trash Imbrogno for forging a degree, and on the other give Walton a pass for forging payroll cheques? Even with at least 14 reasons why the SNF case should be viewed with extreme skepticism, there are still people who want to believe, and I feel that it's my duty as a responsible ufologist to provide reasons for people to think deeper and question their beliefs rather than just hand wave the whole thing. If we can do that it gets our readers farther than being less informed.

 

[Randall]

When it comes to 'eyewitness' accounts I am not sure when one [information] starts and the other [opinion] begins.

Starts here: "I saw a bluish spherical light around 10pm that drifted over the forest and winked out."
Ends here: "It was obviously a UFO from Zeta Reticuli."

 

[marduk]

Starts here: "I saw a bluish spherical light around 10pm that drifted over the forest and winked out."
Ends here: "It was obviously a UFO from Zeta Reticuli."

Exactly.

 

[marduk]

Why Have This Discussion?

Let's unpack this.

Why? The answer is fairly simple. Because people deserve to know both the pros and cons before deciding how reasonable it is to believe a claim, and it seems that fewer people are familiar with the cons than they are with all the pro-Walton publicity.

What I guess I'm getting at is why do either one of you think about it as anything more than "maybe true" or "maybe not true?"

For me it's "I want it to be true but I don't know if it is."

Even Don didn't know some of the more damaging facts ( and few things get past Don's filters ). Why should it be fine on one hand to trash Imbrogno for forging a degree, and on the other give Walton a pass for forging payroll cheques? Even with at least

14 reasons why the SNF case should be viewed with extreme skepticism, there are still people who want to believe, and I feel that it's my duty as a responsible ufologist to provide reasons for people to think deeper and question their beliefs rather than just hand wave the whole thing. If we can do that it gets our readers farther than being less informed.

OK so let's look at that with a skeptical eye.

Here's the account: Reasonable Evidence

He admitted to smoking pot and altering some cheques a few years earlier.

One could point at that and say the guy is a fraud. And you could be true.

Or you could point at that and say it has nothing to do with this account, which by any rate had other witnesses. And this could be true.

There is no a priori linkage between the two events in time or space except they relate to Walton's credibility. Again, on one side you could say that makes him less credible because he altered some cheques. On the other side, you could say it makes him more credible because he admitted it.

Again, both are opinions. For me, the altered cheques make him slightly less credible. But on the other side of that, it's hard to argue with the other witnesses and it's hard to argue with the missing time. At any rate, the case is in my grey basket anyway.

Even if it were 100% true there's very little information to be gleaned from it. Even if it were 100% false there's very little information to be gleaned from it. For me, it exists in a semiotic space, and there it will be until he admits he faked it, or they come down and show us their CCTV footage of the event.

In the meantime, round and round we go. I'm not sure where we're getting to.

You have a point. The guy pulled some shady stuff. We get it.

But you can swap out 'Roswell' or any other 'golden age of ufology' topic in, and you get the same result. It's like an engine that you're redlining, only it's not in gear.