Travis Walton - September 21, 2014

[Dr.Strange]

Great show! I love this case. I back up Travis on the Paranormal Witness episode that deals with his story. Easily some of the best TV I've ever seen. The testimony of the other loggers is truly jarring and at times heartbreaking.

 

[Jimi H.]

..
$2,500 cash per year would hardly keep a person going for much more than two weeks based on the average family income in the U.S.

I think he makes much more than that. For instance, he mentioned he was speaking at Skrillex' birthday party, that could well be a lot of dough on one night alone (besides the free blow, lol).

His first sentences in the interview sounded like a businessman talking about 'growth' and 'interest'. The story was expanding even in Eastern Europe, he explained. I just couldn't help but find the wording curious

I remember seeing the movie adaptation in the video rentals here in Europe, so it all adds up, it's an international story.

..
Consider, though, that among the most respected UFO researchers, the Walton case is taken seriously.

I'm not quite sure why. Is it the lie detector thing?

There were many things in the interview that sounded off to me, for lack of a better word. For instance, when asked about what actually supposedly happened that night, he told the story in an oddly removed and disinterested fashion. Furthermore, except when he discussed the thing about the light hitting him accidentally, he continuously sounded cautious not to say too much, in fact, he sounded like someone who was afraid of saying something he shouldn't, in case he said something wrong.

I don't know more than anyone else, but I don't trust him, and it was really interesting when you managed to get some prying questions in there, very relevant questions. They put him out of balance. He sounded like someone concerned with not saying something wrong, - but if his story was true, wouldn't he be more interested in finding answers to such questions, rather than deflecting them or discounting them?

Just some stray thoughts..

..
At the end of the day, I don't know what happened to him, and the fact that his memory covers but a small part of his five-day disappearance leaves lots of open questions that will never be answered.

I just wonder whether it was all just a military disinformation/mind control experiment. In that case, lacking any evidence one way or the other after all these years, we just move on.

Yea, let's just say he's telling the truth. In that case, I agree, there are aspects that sound more human in origin than anything else. The starmap thing sounded a bit silly except as something that was put there to make someone believe they were flying around among the stars. So, I would think that's the most reasonable suggestion to the origins of it, also since we don't have evidence for E.T.

I agree, I don't think we will ever know for sure, so the believers will believe, and the sceptics will try to pick it apart, unless some kind of documentation or very strong 3rd party witness testimony comes about.

 

[Constance]

Yea, well, you seem to want to believe quite badly, so it must go both ways.

People who deliberatly pull hoaxes should be treated like what they are, scoundrels. It's uncool when people who are potentially scoundrels get oohs and ahhs from believers. So, imo please wait with the uhhs and ahhs until we have some factual information. It certainly seems best to me, to avoid some people exploiting other people, and not least to avoid reaching un-truths with extremely far reaching implications.

Hmm. I don't remember issuing "oohs and ahhs" about the Walton case.
And I don't know what you mean by "exploiting other people" in reference to what I've posted.

And I'm not sure what you mean by this statement:

People who deliberatly pull hoaxes should be treated like what they are, scoundrels. It's uncool when people who are potentially scoundrels get oohs and ahhs from believers.

Do you mean that we should place people like Walton in the category of 'potential scoundrels' and stop considering the evidence that he is not a scoundrel who hoaxed his experience?

I think we're all on a mutual, collective, path to consolidating what we can learn at this date about 'ufos' from the sizeable complement of data, evidence, and reasoning that exists in ufo research. Most of us here are not researchers but readers of research who weigh what we've each individually read of the available research and commentary concerning given cases. I think we need the benefit of all reasoned and supportable points of view on a given case before we should dismiss it from further discussion. We should all probably read more research on a given case before deciding to take it seriously. From what I've read about the Walton case, I'm inclined to take it seriously. I don't think my doing so is "exploiting other people."

 

[Burnt State]

I think he makes much more than that. For instance, he mentioned he was speaking at Skrillex' birthday party, that could well be a lot of dough on one night alone (besides the free blow, lol).

His first sentences in the interview sounded like a businessman talking about 'growth' and 'interest'. The story was expanding even in Eastern Europe, he explained. I just couldn't help but find the wording curious
.....
I agree, I don't think we will ever know for sure, so the believers will believe, and the sceptics will try to pick it apart, unless some kind of documentation or very strong 3rd party witness testimony comes about.

It's far too late for third party witnesses to do much of anything with regards to this story as it appears to be tightly sealed. Nothing can be added nor taken away. Anything spilling out now to disprove the event would be contested severely. This story, like Arnold's, is simply a historical marker in Ufology. That's an interesting observation regarding his musings on the expansion of the story into other markets though. France seems to be quite interested.

His book retails for $35 on his website which also confirms a fairly frequent annual tour schedule. When you multiply these things out across time, especially as we move towards a 40th anniversary year, it does seem to add up to a rather substantial amount, not millions or anything, but still a good chunk.

What's your take on the light beam part of the story?

 

[manxman]

A Different Perspective

I thought you meant Randal as in our Ufology here.

 

[Constance]

Do we know why Phil Klass has spent so much time, energy, and apparently money to debunk this story?

That's an issue I'd like to dig into this next week. We've all complained about the quacks like Greer and how they've poisoned the water well, but I'm starting to notice, by going back to original sources, that we did have good reports and even, for that time, good researchers but over time it was systematically poisoned. I'm not sure if Klass was a media creation, a government creation or just a whack job that knew the right buttons to push. He was called in on many talk shows as the opposing view. There's a group of them I think, Oberg, Shaeffer, Klass....not sure who else.

Both Klass and Menzel worked for the CIA, advance operators in the US government's disinformational campaign to destroy the credibility of ufo research. Klass nearly destroyed the leading academic/scientific ufo researcher of the early period, James McDonald. He also tried to destroy the career of Robert Jacobs [the Vandenberg missile test film]. If I'm not mistaken he has also vexed Robert Hastings in his long and creditable career revealing the history of ufo incursions over nuclear weapons facilities from nuclear research facilities to SAC missile bases to nuclear power generators and nuclear weapons dumps at numerous air bases. And there's more, much more.

 

[Heidi Lemmer]

It's far too late for third party witnesses to do much of anything with regards to this story as it appears to be tightly sealed. Nothing can be added nor taken away. Anything spilling out now to disprove the event would be contested severely. This story, like Arnold's, is simply a historical marker in Ufology. That's an interesting observation regarding his musings on the expansion of the story into other markets though. France seems to be quite interested.

His book retails for $35 on his website which also confirms a fairly frequent annual tour schedule. When you multiply these things out across time, especially as we move towards a 40th anniversary year, it does seem to add up to a rather substantial amount, not millions or anything, but still a good chunk.

What's your take on the light beam part of the story?

I'm not sure what to make of the money thing. If something happened to me on that scale and I wanted to write about it, is that wrong? If after my book came out and it was received well and folks asked me to come speak, paid my plane and time, is that wrong? If over time I gained a reputation as being solid on my story and the invites increased, should I decline to maintain credibility? Or...should I go?
Another avenue of honesty, what would we read if these events/stories weren't written? Does Vallee' charge for his books? Does he charge to come speak somewhere? And if he does, does that make his work retain credibility?

 

[Ufocurious]

My 2 cents...

First of all, I am a terrible liar, I laugh midway. Therefore I cannot say if people are not telling the truth.

Second: I am not a very good character judge because I hate judging. Everybody is full of defects, including me. Why should go about judging people?

Now, I met Travis Walton and Debbie Jordan in Brazil last May. He seemed like someone I would trust. He doesn't have that air I hate about some people out there. Not one ounce of arrogance. And a bit sad. Not the kind of guy the would go on lying all his life. I like him.

Debbie Jordan was holding back tears during her lecture.She actually cried. I believe her.

Conclusion:
Are they telling the truth?
For me, definitely yes, but it is their truth, maybe not yours. Something happened to them.

 

[Burnt State]

I'm not sure what to make of the money thing. If something happened to me on that scale and I wanted to write about it, is that wrong? If after my book came out and it was received well and folks asked me to come speak, paid my plane and time, is that wrong? If over time I gained a reputation as being solid on my story and the invites increased, should I decline to maintain credibility? Or...should I go?
Another avenue of honesty, what would we read if these events/stories weren't written? Does Vallee' charge for his books? Does he charge to come speak somewhere? And if he does, does that make his work retain credibility?

I don't make anything out of it either. But it does speak to the contentious point at the top of the thread regarding motive, because in this field we like to crucify the witness, and with good reason, as they're the one holding all the cards in cases that are alive only in the memory of witnesses and no real concrete evidence. Yes there is a very unique series of events that unfolded and they are highly questionable, hence enter the skeptic. The skeptic will pick apart their bones looking for truth as that's how they see their role.

When you look at the history of the abductees & contactees it seems that many don't stay in it for long. They destabilize, their families fly apart, they get depressed, the attention hurts them, they claim space brother prophet status, the story changes wildly, they check out of the field and call it a day. But not so with Travis Walton. Again, these are just observations. I'm not judging Walton, but pointing out what are very unique features to his case. That could speak to veracity or to the scoundrel. It's very hard to tell which.

Witnesses are not really comparable to researchers and theorists as they are the gospel writers who bring us the stories and point out which ones to believe and what the features of belief and critical thought of these miraculous events are. And we will either regard them highly or dismiss them - see above. No, the witness is not really held at a distance that way and divided up into good or bad. The witness is the subject of interrogation or sympathy. Without higher thresholds of evidence to support the claims all we end up doing is looking at the originality, the patterns and their character. It's a feeding frenzy in some ways.

 

[Stagger Lee]

I just tend to think that with this many 'collaborators' over this much time, and with no cottage industry of their own to show for it, at least one of them would have struck out on their own by now and tried to turn a buck blowing the whistle. Profit motive, baby.

Or, a death bed confession by one of the two already deceased. Assuming they were in a position before passing.

 

[manxman]

Nah, the witness's were not in on 'it' imo, they must of had many offers to blow travis up, that is a big obstacle for debunkers to overcome.

See they knew him, i mean they were a 'crew' they relied on each other, all the same questions must have crossed their minds over the years, as cross ours, they KNOW what they saw.

 

[Jeremiah Dugger]

I don't make anything out of it either. But it does speak to the contentious point at the top of the thread regarding motive, because in this field we like to crucify the witness, and with good reason, as they're the one holding all the cards in cases that are alive only in the memory of witnesses and no real concrete evidence. Yes there is a very unique series of events that unfolded and they are highly questionable, hence enter the skeptic. The skeptic will pick apart their bones looking for truth as that's how they see their role.

When you look at the history of the abductees & contactees it seems that many don't stay in it for long. They destabilize, their families fly apart, they get depressed, the attention hurts them, they claim space brother prophet status, the story changes wildly, they check out of the field and call it a day. But not so with Travis Walton. Again, these are just observations. I'm not judging Walton, but pointing out what are very unique features to his case. That could speak to veracity or to the scoundrel. It's very hard to tell which.

Witnesses are not really comparable to researchers and theorists as they are the gospel writers who bring us the stories and point out which ones to believe and what the features of belief and critical thought of these miraculous events are. And we will either regard them highly or dismiss them - see above. No, the witness is not really held at a distance that way and divided up into good or bad. The witness is the subject of interrogation or sympathy. Without higher thresholds of evidence to support the claims all we end up doing is looking at the originality, the patterns and their character. It's a feeding frenzy in some ways.

I'll have to go back to dig up specific names/ cases, but when it comes to contactees and abductees all going to pieces and the events ruining their lives, it's not so with all of them. I would agree that the event always marks a turning point, but some of them seem to have blossomed afterwards. Starting new careers, evidencing increased I.Q.s, whole new (happier) lives than the ones they knew before their claimed event. I know it sounds like a new age Spielberg plot, but I seem to recall more than one shaking out for the better. (I'm also not referring to those who simply used their tale to rise from normal lives of obscurity to some of the leech-like cottage industryers we know today.)

 

[Stagger Lee]

Something I wonder about, and should have posted such a question.
Immediately after Travis showed up after his disappearance, if anyone had the idea of sealing up in a plastic bag, the clothes he wore during those 5 days. If any investigators had asked for those clothes. I would imagine, today, something might show up of interest. Heck, monica Lewinski's dress took down an entire political party for 8 years.

 

[Heidi Lemmer]

I don't make anything out of it either. But it does speak to the contentious point at the top of the thread regarding motive, because in this field we like to crucify the witness, and with good reason, as they're the one holding all the cards in cases that are alive only in the memory of witnesses and no real concrete evidence. Yes there is a very unique series of events that unfolded and they are highly questionable, hence enter the skeptic. The skeptic will pick apart their bones looking for truth as that's how they see their role.

When you look at the history of the abductees & contactees it seems that many don't stay in it for long. They destabilize, their families fly apart, they get depressed, the attention hurts them, they claim space brother prophet status, the story changes wildly, they check out of the field and call it a day. But not so with Travis Walton. Again, these are just observations. I'm not judging Walton, but pointing out what are very unique features to his case. That could speak to veracity or to the scoundrel. It's very hard to tell which.

Witnesses are not really comparable to researchers and theorists as they are the gospel writers who bring us the stories and point out which ones to believe and what the features of belief and critical thought of these miraculous events are. And we will either regard them highly or dismiss them - see above. No, the witness is not really held at a distance that way and divided up into good or bad. The witness is the subject of interrogation or sympathy. Without higher thresholds of evidence to support the claims all we end up doing is looking at the originality, the patterns and their character. It's a feeding frenzy in some ways.

I think we agree that money is an aspect of any claim. To what degree we don't always know. Some people have made that job easy, marketing their entire life around their story. Even researcher's are prone to escalate their work to a market making status. Where I think I draw my own personal line is to what degree is this person accessible to the public and on what terms. Mr. Walton came on the paracast show for almost two hours for free. Granted, we could say he was selling his convention coming up. But will he really make much? By the time he's done doing talk shows and standing around for hours each day talking to the folks that attend, will his time be compensated? I kinda doubt it. Not in the way you see a sizable check go in your bank that you can live off of. I would bet that when he calculates his hours spent on this issue, money spent traveling, hotel, food and hours entertaining the masses he gets below minimum wage per hour. It's a good thing he's worked all his life to pay for retirement.
Now on the flip, there has been a lot of people who wanted to make money off Mr. Walton's story. Movie industry, book writing, convention organizers. Every book that features a reference to Mr. Walton has him to thank but I'm sure there's no money coming his way.
As far as abductees go in falling apart after disclosure, I only personally know of one person and he's done very well in his life. We tend to focus on people in the public, maybe that's why the downfall? I can imagine there are many people who simply don't talk about it because the public has a nasty habit of "slicing and dicing" them. One thing I've always wondered, what would I be like, my reaction...if I felt I'd been abducted? I think, honestly, I wouldn't say anything. But would I start freaking out at night, get insomnia, world view change, family change. Depressed? Kathleen Marden's book shares some stories that talk about that. Anyways, I can't know for sure on Mr. Waltons story but nothing pops out for now as an obvious hoax, thus my previous posts on Klass the ass. We lose a healthy conversation when someone like that comes in with disinformation and conjecture and gets a platform to do it.

 

[Jeremiah Dugger]

Clip11 is a trip: Dr. Baxter, who wrote "The Secret Life of Plants" (which is well worth looking at and could easily be it's own episode) comes in as the accepted expert on polygraph examinations.
He gives some nice examples of Phil Klass being ridiculous.
Baxter explains how biofeedback is possibly causing experiments to yield the results the experimenters want/cause; which seems a very John Keel-esque concept. One example given is of a houseplant which he hooks up to a polygraph machine. When he then imagines burning the plant with fire, it's readings instantly become 'panicked'.
And in conclusion, Baxter again echoes the importance, as an examiner, of being able to admit it when you just don't know. Emotions and Ego can only cloud the issue, which is why I really like that more than a few questions put to Travis are met with "I don't know".

Important correction: this is what I get for shooting from the hip/going by memory. "Baxter" is actually Backster; Cleve Backster. And his book (which really is compelling) is called Primary Perception: Biocommunication with Plants, Living Foods, and Human Cells.

 

[Constance]

evidencing increased I.Q.s.)

That's very interesting, Jeremiah. Can you provide a link where I can read more about this?

 

[Constance]

Important correction: this is what I get for shooting from the hip/going by memory. "Baxter" is actually Backster; Cleve Backster. And his book (which really is compelling) is called Primary Perception: Biocommunication with Plants, Living Foods, and Human Cells.

Mutual friends in NYC interested in the anomalous and paranormal introduced Mr. Backster [I remembered it as 'Beckster'] to Ingo Swann in the 1960s, when the latter was engaged as a subject at SPR in New York. Ingo went to Backster's home or lab to discuss the plant research. Backster's asked him to participate and he did, and as I recall the results were 'above average', as we might have expected. I want to read the book you refer to.

 

[Jeremiah Dugger]

That's very interesting, Jeremiah. Can you provide a link where I can read more about this?

I think I actually heard that on the Paracast, although I don't recall who the guest was. I seem to remember the conversation had turned to Dr. John Mack's book on abduction. Gene, Chris, help me out if you recall. Meanwhile, I'll be pouring back through old notes for where I got that, when I get home from work tonight. (No rest for the obsessed. )

 

[Constance]

Thanks. But have dinner first.

 

[Jeremiah Dugger]

Thanks. But have dinner first.

I just hope it doesn't turn out to be something I accidentally remembered from an episode with Sheaffer, or worse yet, Greer. (I know that's rude. But, for me, these two represent the two extremes of when the need to doubt/believe verge on the delusional. )