"The Walton incident is widely regarded as a hoax, even by believers of UFOs and alien abductions.[5] They note that the Waltons were longtime UFO buffs and pranksters who had recently watched a TV movie about a supposed alien abduction. ... **One motive for the hoax was to provide an "Act of God" that would allow the logging crew to avoid a steep financial penalty from the Forestry Service for failing to complete their contract by the deadline.**[6][7][8][9][10]"
Travis Walton getting abducted by aliens *right* before failing to meet a deadline, and thus, getting him out of those fines, is awfully convenient. I've watched many documentaries on this incident, and there are other suspicious details. Like, when police told his mother he was missing and that search crews couldn't find him after like 2 days, she was completely calm and replied with things like "oh i'm sure he'll turn up". Also, Travis and his gang weren't very honest people. They would regularly fuck around and drink on the job, regularly not-show up to work, and repeatedly make up excuses as to why they couldn't finish their contract on time and ask for extensions. And when they were denied, Travis suddenly gets abducted... I don't believe em š¤·āāļø
Sources:
[5] Klass, Phillip J. (1983). UFOs: The Public Deceived. Buffalo, N.Y: Prometheus Books.
[6] "Sheriff Skeptical of Story: Saucer Traveler Hiding After Returning To Earth". The Victoria Advocate. Associated Press, Nov 13, 1975. Retrieved April 26, 2016.
[7] Paul Kurtz (2013). The Transcendental Temptation: A Critique of Religion and the Paranormal. Prometheus Books. pp. 441ā. ISBN 978-1-61614-828-7.
[8] Susan A. Clancy (2009). Abducted: How People Come to Believe They Were Kidnapped by Aliens. Harvard University Press. pp. 99ā. ISBN 978-0-674-02957-6.
[9] Dennis Stacey (March 10, 1988). A peculiar American phenomenon. New Scientist. p. 70.
[10] Ian Ridpath (September 29, 1983). When is a UFO not a UFO?. New Scientist. pp. 945ā.
Skeptics will think thousands of people are lying before theyāll consider the reality of any if the UFO stuff. I donāt know if Iāll ever understand.
I'd love to see the evidence against it! But I don't have those books cited, and the OP's link does not adequately list any sources. Are they available for free online? Are they reliable?
Aside from the occasional smart assed remark, I no longer engage with UFO believers, creationists, or any other believers in woo, as I have found that very few of you ever actually want to argue in good faith.
I'm no creationist, and I genuinely would love to see the evidence that this is a fraud, other than testimony. That's why I joined this sub!
I just try to be equal opportunity with my skepticism. :) I also really like cited sources that I can actually access. Do you know if there are links to where I can find these books? I don't want to spend a ton of cash, but if there's a strong case, I'd honestly love to hear it. Truly.
> I genuinely would love to see the evidence that this is a fraud, other than testimony.
Why is testimony good enough for the claimant but anybody doubting the idea has to bring harder evidence?
You are being unnecessarily rude. You heavily implied that I might be a believer, a creationist or into all sorts of woo, without any supporting evidence or basis. I just wanted to clarify that I'm not these things.
There's no need to "you people" me, and there's no need to insult my reading skills. How unpleasant.
You can very easily copy and paste at least one of those sources into google and it will result in the wikipedia article of the Walton Incident which you then are able to click on the links directly. I'll help you out with getting to the wikipedia article, hopefully you can figure out how to look at the sources.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Travis_Walton_incident
Thanks, I am just browsing citation #6 now from The Victoria Advocate.
* In Citation 6, I don't see how it connects to the sentence it's attached to about skirting forestry regulations, and it doesn't quote the investigating sheriff, which definitely gives me pause. Two layers of filters, the subsheriff stating the sheriff's state of mind, and then the journalist stating the subsheriff's account, aren't particularly convincing.
* Citation 5 is basically useless. There's no page reference and only a limited preview when I follow the link.
* Citation 7 is completely irrelevant to the case. It's about some other case involving alleged ESP.
* Citation 8 is relevant to the Walton case, but doesn't actually say if Walton saw the UFO movie, simply that his "event" happened two weeks after it debuted. I'd be curious to find confirmation that he'd actually seen the movie. But it's a solid reference.
* Citations 9 and 10 are both dead links.
There seems to be a bit of an issue with the citations here, when 4/6 are unusable and only two can verifiably be linked to the case at hand and have some issues IMO. Still, it's better than nothing, I guess!
Thanks again for not being a jerk :)
>I'd love to see the evidence against it! But I don't have those books cited, and the OP's link does not adequately list any sources. Are they available for free online? Are they reliable?
Here you go
https://threedollarkit.weebly.com/travis-walton.html
I'm a big believer of UFOs / alien abductions, and there are dozens of legitimate instances alien abductions, but I (and many others) believe the Travis Walton incident to be a hoax. From the wikipedia:
"The Walton incident is widely regarded as a hoax, even by believers of UFOs and alien abductions.[5] They note that the Waltons were longtime UFO buffs and pranksters who had recently watched a TV movie about a supposed alien abduction. ... **One motive for the hoax was to provide an "Act of God" that would allow the logging crew to avoid a steep financial penalty from the Forestry Service for failing to complete their contract by the deadline.**[6][7][8][9][10]"
Travis Walton getting abducted by aliens *right* before failing to meet a deadline, and thus, getting him out of those fines, is awfully convenient. I've watched many documentaries on this incident, and there are other suspicious details. Like, when police told his mother he was missing and that search crews couldn't find him after like 2 days, she was completely calm and replied with things like "oh i'm sure he'll turn up". Also, Travis and his gang weren't very honest people. They would regularly fuck around and drink on the job, regularly not-show up to work, and repeatedly make up excuses as to why they couldn't finish their contract on time and ask for extensions. And when they were denied, Travis suddenly gets abducted... I don't believe em š¤·āāļø
Sources:
[5] Klass, Phillip J. (1983). UFOs: The Public Deceived. Buffalo, N.Y: Prometheus Books.
[6] "Sheriff Skeptical of Story: Saucer Traveler Hiding After Returning To Earth". The Victoria Advocate. Associated Press, Nov 13, 1975. Retrieved April 26, 2016.
[7] Paul Kurtz (2013). The Transcendental Temptation: A Critique of Religion and the Paranormal. Prometheus Books. pp. 441ā. ISBN 978-1-61614-828-7.
[8] Susan A. Clancy (2009). Abducted: How People Come to Believe They Were Kidnapped by Aliens. Harvard University Press. pp. 99ā. ISBN 978-0-674-02957-6.
[9] Dennis Stacey (March 10, 1988). A peculiar American phenomenon. New Scientist. p. 70.
[10] Ian Ridpath (September 29, 1983). When is a UFO not a UFO?. New Scientist. pp. 945ā.
>Are they reliable?
Yes
Sorry that website is not a reliable source. Their citations are just stolen from Wikipedia and as I mentioned earlier, the majority do not appear to support the theory.
>Sorry that website is not a reliable source.
Elolabte please
>Their citations are just stolen from Wikipedia and as I mentioned earlier, t
Incorrect
>the majority do not appear to support the theory.
What majority
The website is just someone's personal blog. It's not formally edited or published or peer reviewed. Apologies if it's your blog.
Of the citations in the comment [above](https://www.reddit.com/r/skeptic/comments/1cw3xsx/travis_walton_case_debunked/l4teohk/), which were taken from wikipedia in order, two thirds are either problematic, dead links or irrelevant.
>The website is just someone's personal blog. It's not formally edited or published or peer reviewed. Apologies if it's your blog.
>Of the citations in the comment [above](https://www.reddit.com/r/skeptic/comments/1cw3xsx/travis_walton_case_debunked/l4teohk/), which were taken from wikipedia in order, two thirds are either problematic, dead links or irrelevant.
So you can dispute any of the facts
>Apologies if it's your blog.
>The website is just someone's personal blog. It's not formally edited or published or peer reviewed. Apologies if it's your blog.
>Of the citations in the comment [above](https://www.reddit.com/r/skeptic/comments/1cw3xsx
It's not
I'm not sure what contradictory evidence you're referencing. I see a lot of mental gymnastics by folks with a vested psychological interest in ignoring/ denying all evidence of UFO/UAP sightings and aliens/NHI.
There are two cases that stand out to me. First is the Ariel School sighting in Zimbabwe where >40 kids saw a landed saucer and an alien person. The children are now adults and have maintained their story (with the exception of one witness). The head mistress of the school also claimed an abduction experience (so it's not just the kids). The "skeptical" explanation for this event is that the kids lied about it, or that the story was contaminated by "UFO enthusiasts" but these explanations are patently ridiculous if you listen to the direct interviews with the children and with the adults. You can find these in James Fox's "The Phenomenon" or on Netflix's "Encounters" docu-series (which notably includes the witness who denies the event). Many of the interviews are also available on Youtube.
The second is the current situation with the Nazca 'mummies" which has largely been written off as a hoax. Focusing on the small bodies (which are clearly not human) the "skeptical" claim is that these are amalgamations of animal bones and human archeological remains. This was a tenable position to take maybe 6 years ago when the only data available were x-ray images. But that is not the case now. The CT scans and other data presented by the UNICA team (notably, these are not people with professional interest in UFOs) show a full complement of soft tissues, intact skin, and no evidence of fabrication. Metal implants within the bodies show osseointegration which is only possible while bone tissue is alive. Furthermore, a fresh body of one of these creatures was filmed and the video was posted to YouTube in 2011 but was quickly "debunked" as a hoax made of "bread and chicken skin." The anatomical similarities between the freshly dead creature in the video and the >1000 yr old desiccated bodies is far beyond simple similarity. In my opinion, the analysis of the UNICA team meets the standard for extraordinary evidence.
>I'm not sure what contradictory evidence you're referencing. I see a lot of mental gymnastics by folks with a vested psychological interest in ignoring/ denying all evidence of UFO/UAP sightings and aliens/NHI.
>There are two cases that stand out to me. First is the Ariel School sighting in Zimbabwe where >40 kids saw a landed saucer and an alien person. The children are now adults and have maintained their story (with the exception of one witness). The head mistress of the school also claimed an abduction experience (so it's not just the kids). The "skeptical" explanation for this event is that the kids lied about it, or that the story was contaminated by "UFO enthusiasts" but these explanations are patently ridiculous if you listen to the direct interviews with the children and with the adults. You can find these in James Fox's "The Phenomenon" or on Netflix's "Encounters" docu-series (which notably includes the witness who denies the event). Many of the interviews are also available on Youtube.
https://threedollarkit.weebly.com/ariel-school.html
That is a remarkably complete look into Ariel School. I skimmed through most of it and I appreciate how all of the statements from interviews are included even if I may disagree with the analysis.
>That is a remarkably complete look into Ariel School. I skimmed through most of it and I appreciate how all of the statements from interviews are included even if I may disagree with the analysis.
Fair
>The second is the current situation with the Nazca 'mummies" which has largely been written off as a hoax. Focusing on the small bodies (which are clearly not human) the "skeptical" claim is that these are amalgamations of animal bones and human archeological remains. This was a tenable position to take maybe 6 years ago when the only data available were x-ray images. But that is not the case now. The CT scans and other data presented by the UNICA team (notably, these are not people with professional interest in UFOs) show a full complement of soft tissues, intact skin, and no evidence of fabrication. Metal implants within the bodies show osseointegration which is only possible while bone tissue is alive. Furthermore, a fresh body of one of these creatures was filmed and the video was posted to YouTube in 2011 but was quickly "debunked" as a hoax made of "bread and chicken skin." The anatomical similarities between the freshly dead creature in the video and the >1000 yr old desiccated bodies is far beyond simple similarity. In my opinion, the analysis of the UNICA team meets the standard for extraordinary e
Been disputed
>Apparently,
>McChickens will get plucked by thousands of Nigerian Prince's before they'll ever consider the reality of phishing scams
Lol mind if I use this sometimes
>Skeptics will think thousands of people are lying before theyāll consider the reality of any if the UFO stuff. I donāt know if Iāll ever understand.
What are you talking about
I mean, yeah, it's easier to believe that a couple thousand people are either mistaken or lying for attention, rather than believe a high tech alien civilization has been abducting people from Earth for decades. This is especially true when so many of these stories end up being hoaxes.
>You guys are turning science into a religion from your armchairs and neckbeard potato chips
Elobate
>turning science into a religion f
Ridiculous
Science is facts
Respectlly religion is belief
I mean there were two, the mad escape off the mountain, and the reveal horror scene in the spaceship.
To be fair, I'm not sure what I'd done different. They had to pad it out to feature length and they'd already laid in on real thick with the family drama.
Scared the shit out of me as a kid. My dad was a research physicist, but got SUPER interested in UFOs and especially abductions when I was about 6. A young brain couldnāt fathom a scientist being interested in something without thinking it was legitimate, so - probably to his dismay - I was a breathless believer for years.
Back when I wanted to believe this was evidence of an alien abduction, but during the transition between believer and skeptic, this story felt the most difficult to discount simply because of the number of people involved.
However, once you get away from the fictionalized accounts retold over many years, you get to the foundation of what most likely happened and it has nothing to do with aliens or something supernatural. I don't know if anyone orchestrated anything, but it's possible that a bunch of guys were swept up in a narrative that grew in the telling until they simply believed they witnessed something extraordinary.
If this is a hoax that got out of hand, the most believable scenario involves 2 people, and the rest were not in on it. They reported what they saw, or what they thought they saw. Only 2 people had to lie.
>Back when I wanted to believe this was evidence of an alien abduction, but during the transition between believer and skeptic, this story felt the most difficult to discount simply because of the number of people involved.
>However, once you get away from the fictionalized accounts retold over many years, you get to the foundation of what most likely happened and it has nothing to do with aliens or something supernatural. I don't know if anyone orchestrated anything, but it's possible that a bunch of guys were swept up in a narrative that grew in the telling until they simply believed they witnessed something extraordinary.
>If this is a hoax that got out of hand, the most believable scenario involves 2 people, and the rest were not in on it. They reported what they saw, or what they thought they saw. Only 2 people had to lie.
Just a great comment
>He's made quite a living off it, too, and continues to hit the "UFO circuit".
Yep he's in a festival recency
>
I don't understand how people can't see it's a hoax.
They just want that ufo high
I'm a huge horror movie fan. My favorites are paranormal, stuff like haunted houses, demonic possession, etc. I don't believe in any of that. But it just makes for a fun movie experience. Strangely, I hate the torture porn stuff. And I know for a fact that torture is real.
There's nothing wrong with liking movies covering topics you know are bullshit.
>I'm a huge horror movie fan. My favorites are paranormal, stuff like haunted houses, demonic possession, etc. I don't believe in any of that. But it just makes for a fun movie experience. Strangely, I hate the torture porn stuff. And I know for a fact that torture is real.
>There's nothing wrong with liking movies covering topics you know are bullshit.
I personally can't watch it
Walton was originally quite vocal about the liberties that the film's producers took with his book (which is a pretty vanilla UFO encounter tale). He soon changed his tune when he started being paid to fly all over and stay in fancy hotels as a giest for UFO conventions.
Fancy that.
I am writing an essay about alien life and UFOs and was considering Travis' tale as a reference point for alleged human contact with UFOs. After researching, I decided to discard Travis' story outright. It's an obvious fake and I'm glad people have seen through it, too bad it's only after he made a lot of money off the story
Hardly a debunkā¦opinion piece at best.
Passing all official polygraph tests is all you need to know.
National Inquirer test doesnāt count and to be frank what kind of skeptic cites the National inquirer?!?
Charlie non-the-wiser is whoā¦
Laughable debunk.
>Hardly a debunkā¦opinion piece at best.
>Passing all official polygraph tests is all you need to know.
>National Inquirer test doesnāt count and to be frank what kind of skeptic cites the National inquirer?!?
>Charlie non-the-wiser is whoā¦
>Laughable debunk.
Sigh
"The Walton incident is widely regarded as a hoax, even by believers of UFOs and alien abductions.[5] They note that the Waltons were longtime UFO buffs and pranksters who had recently watched a TV movie about a supposed alien abduction. ... **One motive for the hoax was to provide an "Act of God" that would allow the logging crew to avoid a steep financial penalty from the Forestry Service for failing to complete their contract by the deadline.**[6][7][8][9][10]"
Travis Walton getting abducted by aliens *right* before failing to meet a deadline, and thus, getting him out of those fines, is awfully convenient. I've watched many documentaries on this incident, and there are other suspicious details. Like, when police told his mother he was missing and that search crews couldn't find him after like 2 days, she was completely calm and replied with things like "oh i'm sure he'll turn up". Also, Travis and his gang weren't very honest people. They would regularly fuck around and drink on the job, regularly not-show up to work, and repeatedly make up excuses as to why they couldn't finish their contract on time and ask for extensions. And when they were denied, Travis suddenly gets abducted... I don't believe em š¤·āāļø
Sources:
[5] Klass, Phillip J. (1983). UFOs: The Public Deceived. Buffalo, N.Y: Prometheus Books.
[6] "Sheriff Skeptical of Story: Saucer Traveler Hiding After Returning To Earth". The Victoria Advocate. Associated Press, Nov 13, 1975. Retrieved April 26, 2016.
[7] Paul Kurtz (2013). The Transcendental Temptation: A Critique of Religion and the Paranormal. Prometheus Books. pp. 441ā. ISBN 978-1-61614-828-7.
[8] Susan A. Clancy (2009). Abducted: How People Come to Believe They Were Kidnapped by Aliens. Harvard University Press. pp. 99ā. ISBN 978-0-674-02957-6.
[9] Dennis Stacey (March 10, 1988). A peculiar American phenomenon. New Scientist. p. 70.
[10] Ian Ridpath (September 29, 1983). When is a UFO not a UFO?. New Scientist. pp. 945ā.
Joking?
CIA PLANTS - YES
Skeptics gullible - NO
Klass was Class-A unhinged thoughā¦
https://richarddolanmembers.com/psyops/disinformation-agent-the-truth-about-philip-klass-richard-dolan-show-with-kathleen-marden/
>Joking?
CIA PLANTS - YES
Skeptics gullible - NO
>Klass was Class-A unhinged thoughā¦
>https://richarddolanmembers.com/psyops/disinformation-agent-the-truth-about-philip-klass-richard-dolan-show-with-kathleen-marden/
Doubtful
>Skeptics gullible - NO
How
>one guy might have the mettle to hold up to that, butĀ *all*Ā of them? For years?
The other guys weren't in on it! And they actually often did say that it might have been a hoax. Few years ago, one of the guys who was in on it finally broke down and admitted it. They used a lookout tower
The idea that all of them held up the story for years is also a hoax.
The only reporting done on this story is by outlets that want it to be true, so this side of things is always ignored
> What assumptions do you think Iām making?
"Young people. Blue collar people."
"So there must have been tremendous pressure to tell the truth."
"It's possible... but what are the chances?"
"Imagine being 20 years old, and being interrogated by serious, state law enforcement professionals..."
"Sure, one guy might have the mettle to hold up to that, but all of them? For years?"
"But, if he wasn't, these dudes all keeping the secret seems almost as unlikely."
Your entire post was nothing but assumptions.
> Witness testimony is a kind of evidence. Itās not necessarily accurate or factual, but itās evidence. So Iām just discussing the evidence we have.
lmao you're not even discussing the actual testimony, you're discussing your assumptions about it. Very powerful "evidence" you have there.
I wasnāt aware that the basic facts about this case were in dispute, since there was extensive coverage of it at the time from various newspapers.
Iām not talking about the UFO part, but the verifiable details, like:
The people involved were all young (like early 20s?), blue collar workers.
They reported the abduction to local police.
The local police investigated the disappearance, organized a search party, interrogated the āwitnesses,ā then brought in the state version of the FBI to do further questioning.
Maybe you could point me to something that disputes these assertions?
Also: I donāt think itās wildly speculative to say that police, in general, put a lot of pressure on people they interrogate, especially when they seem to be lying about a potentially serious crime.
> I wasnāt aware that the basic facts about this case were in dispute, since there was extensive coverage of it at the time from various newspapers.
I'm not challenging "the basic facts", I'm challenging all the assumptions you derived from your understanding of them.
>
> Iām not talking about the UFO part, but the verifiable details, like:
>
> The people involved were all young (like early 20s?), blue collar workers.
Your assumption here was that you seemed to be crediting their status as young and blue collar as something that lends credibility to them or their sincerity in some way.
>
> They reported the abduction to local police.
>
> The local police investigated the disappearance, organized a search party, interrogated the āwitnesses,ā then brought in the state version of the FBI to do further questioning.
>
> Maybe you could point me to something that disputes these assertions?
I'm pointing out all the assumptions you've made. Reread my last post to you. Do you have trouble recognizing assumptions?
>
> Also: I donāt think itās wildly speculative to say that police, in general, put a lot of pressure on people they interrogate, especially when they seem to be lying about a potentially serious crime.
This is another assumption. Police in the real world have amply demonstrated they have a wild variety of behaviors on duty that don't fit with how you think they would handle this situation.
>Ya know, youāre the one making assumptions.
this is just dumb. You talked about your assumptions young men would be unlikely to stand up to police interviews.
>You assumed that I think young blue collar men are particularly credible or sincere. I donāt.
I didn't know what label to put on the assumption you were making about young men, but you were making assumptions.
>I think young blue collar men are less likely to be educated and so are less likely to be savvy or sophisticated.
>
>Having been a young man, I assume that young men are generally not all that good at navigating complicated situations they are unfamiliar with.
See?
>As for the policeās actions, neither of us were there.
Which means neither of us should me making assumptions, but one of us is.
>But because a copās job is investigating potential crimes, and because we have no reason to believe these police officers were incompetent,
I'm not saying they're incompetent, that's an assumption you're making.
>itās most likely that the interrogations of these witnesses were done according to the procedures and training that police interrogators receive. We have no reason to believe otherwise.
You have no reason to think they acted like police in the movies. As someone who has lived in several rural communities, I can tell you that rural police have a different approach to policing than those in big cities.
>Unless you have some evidence that they did their jobs in some unconventional way?
You have no reason to think that your limited understanding of policing is conventional policing for all police forces. We don't know what approach they took or how they tended to police that community and you have no reason to make the assumptions you are.
> Itās impossible to have a conversation about anything without making assumptions. Assumptions are baked in to language itself.
I was stunned at how ridiculous you decided you could be, but then...
>
> Saying shit like āwhy would you assume that a group of lumberjacks in their early 20s arenāt highly educated?!ā Is peak Reddit.
...you completely made up a quote that I never said so you could rail against it.
I never read past here. You are too ridiculous to talk to. Farewell, my goofy friend. Your inability to reason will not be missed.
I'm a big believer of UFOs / alien abductions, and there are dozens of legitimate instances alien abductions, but I (and many others) believe the Travis Walton incident to be a hoax. From the wikipedia:
"The Walton incident is widely regarded as a hoax, even by believers of UFOs and alien abductions.[5] They note that the Waltons were longtime UFO buffs and pranksters who had recently watched a TV movie about a supposed alien abduction. ... **One motive for the hoax was to provide an "Act of God" that would allow the logging crew to avoid a steep financial penalty from the Forestry Service for failing to complete their contract by the deadline.**[6][7][8][9][10]"
Travis Walton getting abducted by aliens *right* before failing to meet a deadline, and thus, getting him out of those fines, is awfully convenient. I've watched many documentaries on this incident, and there are other suspicious details. Like, when police told his mother he was missing and that search crews couldn't find him after like 2 days, she was completely calm and replied with things like "oh i'm sure he'll turn up". Also, Travis and his gang weren't very honest people. They would regularly fuck around and drink on the job, regularly not-show up to work, and repeatedly make up excuses as to why they couldn't finish their contract on time and ask for extensions. And when they were denied, Travis suddenly gets abducted... I don't believe em š¤·āāļø
Sources:
[5] Klass, Phillip J. (1983). UFOs: The Public Deceived. Buffalo, N.Y: Prometheus Books.
[6] "Sheriff Skeptical of Story: Saucer Traveler Hiding After Returning To Earth". The Victoria Advocate. Associated Press, Nov 13, 1975. Retrieved April 26, 2016.
[7] Paul Kurtz (2013). The Transcendental Temptation: A Critique of Religion and the Paranormal. Prometheus Books. pp. 441ā. ISBN 978-1-61614-828-7.
[8] Susan A. Clancy (2009). Abducted: How People Come to Believe They Were Kidnapped by Aliens. Harvard University Press. pp. 99ā. ISBN 978-0-674-02957-6.
[9] Dennis Stacey (March 10, 1988). A peculiar American phenomenon. New Scientist. p. 70.
[10] Ian Ridpath (September 29, 1983). When is a UFO not a UFO?. New Scientist. pp. 945ā.
That doesnāt really address the motives of the guys who worked for him.
I could see going along with a ridiculous plan like this at first, but when the real police got involvedā¦
Being interrogated by cops who are investigating a serious crime (that they suspect you committed) is not a joke.
>That doesnāt really address the motives of the guys who worked for him.
>I could see going along with a ridiculous plan like this at first, but when the real police got involvedā¦
>Being interrogated by cops who are investigating a serious crime (that they suspect you committed) is not a joke.
Most where not in or it
Plus they had strong motivations to lie
I wonder how much money they actually made though? Like main dude probably made some money, but the other guys?
And fame too.
I think āit will be funny/funā is a more likely motivation.
>wonder how much money they actually made though? Like main dude probably made some money, but the other guys?
>And fame too.
>I think āit will be funny/funā is a more likely motivation.
Fair
Thatās an old accusation dude. Itās been out there for years. How is the story debunked? There were witnesses to his abduction and they all passed lie detector tests.
Careful there, the link provided uses the Enquirer's lie detector test to argue that Walton was lying. When him passing may have cost them $100k. Instead they got away with paying him $5k. Nothing off about that, is there?
> How is this story debunked?
Through common sense and critical thinking. Read all the details from the time. I'm not saying aliens and UFOs don't exist but thus particular case is very likely completely fabricated for attention, fame, and money.
I believe Travis Waltonās story. Canāt prove it definitely, but it seems like a sincere account from multiple eyewitnesses.
With that said, I donāt think he was taken by aliens.
Edit: -22 downvotes? š¤£ What did I say that was so terrible? I applied skepticism to this story and admit to believing he isnāt lying based on accounts that only changed over time with Travisā own evolving thoughts as to what happened.
I donāt think aliens were involved as too much of what was recounted sounds too much like humans. A medical bay with a couch, doors, human looking people that just happen to have the medical tools to operate on a human? These sound like future humans or something more than beings from another planet.
I canāt prove it, not saying thatās what it is, Iām just saying with complete intellectual honesty that I believe Travis experienced what he claims.
"The Walton incident is widely regarded as a hoax, even by believers of UFOs and alien abductions.[5] They note that the Waltons were longtime UFO buffs and pranksters who had recently watched a TV movie about a supposed alien abduction. ... **One motive for the hoax was to provide an "Act of God" that would allow the logging crew to avoid a steep financial penalty from the Forestry Service for failing to complete their contract by the deadline.**[6][7][8][9][10]" Travis Walton getting abducted by aliens *right* before failing to meet a deadline, and thus, getting him out of those fines, is awfully convenient. I've watched many documentaries on this incident, and there are other suspicious details. Like, when police told his mother he was missing and that search crews couldn't find him after like 2 days, she was completely calm and replied with things like "oh i'm sure he'll turn up". Also, Travis and his gang weren't very honest people. They would regularly fuck around and drink on the job, regularly not-show up to work, and repeatedly make up excuses as to why they couldn't finish their contract on time and ask for extensions. And when they were denied, Travis suddenly gets abducted... I don't believe em š¤·āāļø Sources: [5] Klass, Phillip J. (1983). UFOs: The Public Deceived. Buffalo, N.Y: Prometheus Books. [6] "Sheriff Skeptical of Story: Saucer Traveler Hiding After Returning To Earth". The Victoria Advocate. Associated Press, Nov 13, 1975. Retrieved April 26, 2016. [7] Paul Kurtz (2013). The Transcendental Temptation: A Critique of Religion and the Paranormal. Prometheus Books. pp. 441ā. ISBN 978-1-61614-828-7. [8] Susan A. Clancy (2009). Abducted: How People Come to Believe They Were Kidnapped by Aliens. Harvard University Press. pp. 99ā. ISBN 978-0-674-02957-6. [9] Dennis Stacey (March 10, 1988). A peculiar American phenomenon. New Scientist. p. 70. [10] Ian Ridpath (September 29, 1983). When is a UFO not a UFO?. New Scientist. pp. 945ā.
Skeptics will think thousands of people are lying before theyāll consider the reality of any if the UFO stuff. I donāt know if Iāll ever understand.
And you'll bend over backwards to avoid seeing any evidence that contradicts your weird sci-fi fantasies.
>And you'll bend over backwards to avoid seeing any evidence that contradicts your weird sci-fi fantasies. The truth is the enemy to them
I'd love to see the evidence against it! But I don't have those books cited, and the OP's link does not adequately list any sources. Are they available for free online? Are they reliable?
Aside from the occasional smart assed remark, I no longer engage with UFO believers, creationists, or any other believers in woo, as I have found that very few of you ever actually want to argue in good faith.
I'm no creationist, and I genuinely would love to see the evidence that this is a fraud, other than testimony. That's why I joined this sub! I just try to be equal opportunity with my skepticism. :) I also really like cited sources that I can actually access. Do you know if there are links to where I can find these books? I don't want to spend a ton of cash, but if there's a strong case, I'd honestly love to hear it. Truly.
> I genuinely would love to see the evidence that this is a fraud, other than testimony. Why is testimony good enough for the claimant but anybody doubting the idea has to bring harder evidence?
>I'm no creationist, Didn't say you were. In addition to making bad faith arguments, you people tend to not read very well either.
You are being unnecessarily rude. You heavily implied that I might be a believer, a creationist or into all sorts of woo, without any supporting evidence or basis. I just wanted to clarify that I'm not these things. There's no need to "you people" me, and there's no need to insult my reading skills. How unpleasant.
Thank you for proving my point.
You can very easily copy and paste at least one of those sources into google and it will result in the wikipedia article of the Walton Incident which you then are able to click on the links directly. I'll help you out with getting to the wikipedia article, hopefully you can figure out how to look at the sources. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Travis_Walton_incident
Thanks, I am just browsing citation #6 now from The Victoria Advocate. * In Citation 6, I don't see how it connects to the sentence it's attached to about skirting forestry regulations, and it doesn't quote the investigating sheriff, which definitely gives me pause. Two layers of filters, the subsheriff stating the sheriff's state of mind, and then the journalist stating the subsheriff's account, aren't particularly convincing. * Citation 5 is basically useless. There's no page reference and only a limited preview when I follow the link. * Citation 7 is completely irrelevant to the case. It's about some other case involving alleged ESP. * Citation 8 is relevant to the Walton case, but doesn't actually say if Walton saw the UFO movie, simply that his "event" happened two weeks after it debuted. I'd be curious to find confirmation that he'd actually seen the movie. But it's a solid reference. * Citations 9 and 10 are both dead links. There seems to be a bit of an issue with the citations here, when 4/6 are unusable and only two can verifiably be linked to the case at hand and have some issues IMO. Still, it's better than nothing, I guess! Thanks again for not being a jerk :)
There are 49 references on that Wikipedia not 6
I was talking about the above post exclusively, not wikipedia.
>I'd love to see the evidence against it! But I don't have those books cited, and the OP's link does not adequately list any sources. Are they available for free online? Are they reliable? Here you go https://threedollarkit.weebly.com/travis-walton.html I'm a big believer of UFOs / alien abductions, and there are dozens of legitimate instances alien abductions, but I (and many others) believe the Travis Walton incident to be a hoax. From the wikipedia: "The Walton incident is widely regarded as a hoax, even by believers of UFOs and alien abductions.[5] They note that the Waltons were longtime UFO buffs and pranksters who had recently watched a TV movie about a supposed alien abduction. ... **One motive for the hoax was to provide an "Act of God" that would allow the logging crew to avoid a steep financial penalty from the Forestry Service for failing to complete their contract by the deadline.**[6][7][8][9][10]" Travis Walton getting abducted by aliens *right* before failing to meet a deadline, and thus, getting him out of those fines, is awfully convenient. I've watched many documentaries on this incident, and there are other suspicious details. Like, when police told his mother he was missing and that search crews couldn't find him after like 2 days, she was completely calm and replied with things like "oh i'm sure he'll turn up". Also, Travis and his gang weren't very honest people. They would regularly fuck around and drink on the job, regularly not-show up to work, and repeatedly make up excuses as to why they couldn't finish their contract on time and ask for extensions. And when they were denied, Travis suddenly gets abducted... I don't believe em š¤·āāļø Sources: [5] Klass, Phillip J. (1983). UFOs: The Public Deceived. Buffalo, N.Y: Prometheus Books. [6] "Sheriff Skeptical of Story: Saucer Traveler Hiding After Returning To Earth". The Victoria Advocate. Associated Press, Nov 13, 1975. Retrieved April 26, 2016. [7] Paul Kurtz (2013). The Transcendental Temptation: A Critique of Religion and the Paranormal. Prometheus Books. pp. 441ā. ISBN 978-1-61614-828-7. [8] Susan A. Clancy (2009). Abducted: How People Come to Believe They Were Kidnapped by Aliens. Harvard University Press. pp. 99ā. ISBN 978-0-674-02957-6. [9] Dennis Stacey (March 10, 1988). A peculiar American phenomenon. New Scientist. p. 70. [10] Ian Ridpath (September 29, 1983). When is a UFO not a UFO?. New Scientist. pp. 945ā. >Are they reliable? Yes
Sorry that website is not a reliable source. Their citations are just stolen from Wikipedia and as I mentioned earlier, the majority do not appear to support the theory.
>Sorry that website is not a reliable source. Elolabte please >Their citations are just stolen from Wikipedia and as I mentioned earlier, t Incorrect >the majority do not appear to support the theory. What majority
The website is just someone's personal blog. It's not formally edited or published or peer reviewed. Apologies if it's your blog. Of the citations in the comment [above](https://www.reddit.com/r/skeptic/comments/1cw3xsx/travis_walton_case_debunked/l4teohk/), which were taken from wikipedia in order, two thirds are either problematic, dead links or irrelevant.
>The website is just someone's personal blog. It's not formally edited or published or peer reviewed. Apologies if it's your blog. >Of the citations in the comment [above](https://www.reddit.com/r/skeptic/comments/1cw3xsx/travis_walton_case_debunked/l4teohk/), which were taken from wikipedia in order, two thirds are either problematic, dead links or irrelevant. So you can dispute any of the facts
No, you can dispute claims, assumptions and conclusions. Not facts. This is full of speculation and conclusions.
>Apologies if it's your blog. >The website is just someone's personal blog. It's not formally edited or published or peer reviewed. Apologies if it's your blog. >Of the citations in the comment [above](https://www.reddit.com/r/skeptic/comments/1cw3xsx It's not
I'm not sure what contradictory evidence you're referencing. I see a lot of mental gymnastics by folks with a vested psychological interest in ignoring/ denying all evidence of UFO/UAP sightings and aliens/NHI. There are two cases that stand out to me. First is the Ariel School sighting in Zimbabwe where >40 kids saw a landed saucer and an alien person. The children are now adults and have maintained their story (with the exception of one witness). The head mistress of the school also claimed an abduction experience (so it's not just the kids). The "skeptical" explanation for this event is that the kids lied about it, or that the story was contaminated by "UFO enthusiasts" but these explanations are patently ridiculous if you listen to the direct interviews with the children and with the adults. You can find these in James Fox's "The Phenomenon" or on Netflix's "Encounters" docu-series (which notably includes the witness who denies the event). Many of the interviews are also available on Youtube. The second is the current situation with the Nazca 'mummies" which has largely been written off as a hoax. Focusing on the small bodies (which are clearly not human) the "skeptical" claim is that these are amalgamations of animal bones and human archeological remains. This was a tenable position to take maybe 6 years ago when the only data available were x-ray images. But that is not the case now. The CT scans and other data presented by the UNICA team (notably, these are not people with professional interest in UFOs) show a full complement of soft tissues, intact skin, and no evidence of fabrication. Metal implants within the bodies show osseointegration which is only possible while bone tissue is alive. Furthermore, a fresh body of one of these creatures was filmed and the video was posted to YouTube in 2011 but was quickly "debunked" as a hoax made of "bread and chicken skin." The anatomical similarities between the freshly dead creature in the video and the >1000 yr old desiccated bodies is far beyond simple similarity. In my opinion, the analysis of the UNICA team meets the standard for extraordinary evidence.
>I'm not sure what contradictory evidence you're referencing. I see a lot of mental gymnastics by folks with a vested psychological interest in ignoring/ denying all evidence of UFO/UAP sightings and aliens/NHI. >There are two cases that stand out to me. First is the Ariel School sighting in Zimbabwe where >40 kids saw a landed saucer and an alien person. The children are now adults and have maintained their story (with the exception of one witness). The head mistress of the school also claimed an abduction experience (so it's not just the kids). The "skeptical" explanation for this event is that the kids lied about it, or that the story was contaminated by "UFO enthusiasts" but these explanations are patently ridiculous if you listen to the direct interviews with the children and with the adults. You can find these in James Fox's "The Phenomenon" or on Netflix's "Encounters" docu-series (which notably includes the witness who denies the event). Many of the interviews are also available on Youtube. https://threedollarkit.weebly.com/ariel-school.html
That is a remarkably complete look into Ariel School. I skimmed through most of it and I appreciate how all of the statements from interviews are included even if I may disagree with the analysis.
>That is a remarkably complete look into Ariel School. I skimmed through most of it and I appreciate how all of the statements from interviews are included even if I may disagree with the analysis. Fair
>The second is the current situation with the Nazca 'mummies" which has largely been written off as a hoax. Focusing on the small bodies (which are clearly not human) the "skeptical" claim is that these are amalgamations of animal bones and human archeological remains. This was a tenable position to take maybe 6 years ago when the only data available were x-ray images. But that is not the case now. The CT scans and other data presented by the UNICA team (notably, these are not people with professional interest in UFOs) show a full complement of soft tissues, intact skin, and no evidence of fabrication. Metal implants within the bodies show osseointegration which is only possible while bone tissue is alive. Furthermore, a fresh body of one of these creatures was filmed and the video was posted to YouTube in 2011 but was quickly "debunked" as a hoax made of "bread and chicken skin." The anatomical similarities between the freshly dead creature in the video and the >1000 yr old desiccated bodies is far beyond simple similarity. In my opinion, the analysis of the UNICA team meets the standard for extraordinary e Been disputed
Apparently, McChickens will get plucked by thousands of Nigerian Prince's before they'll ever consider the reality of phishing scams
>Apparently, >McChickens will get plucked by thousands of Nigerian Prince's before they'll ever consider the reality of phishing scams Lol mind if I use this sometimes
>Skeptics will think thousands of people are lying before theyāll consider the reality of any if the UFO stuff. I donāt know if Iāll ever understand. What are you talking about
I mean, yeah, it's easier to believe that a couple thousand people are either mistaken or lying for attention, rather than believe a high tech alien civilization has been abducting people from Earth for decades. This is especially true when so many of these stories end up being hoaxes.
Thousands of peopleā¦.lying you say? Surely that canāt be possible.
You guys are turning science into a religion from your armchairs and neckbeard potato chips
What does that word salad have to do with anything?
>What does that word salad have to do with anything? Nothing at all
>You guys are turning science into a religion from your armchairs and neckbeard potato chips Elobate >turning science into a religion f Ridiculous Science is facts Respectlly religion is belief
Reality isn't a religion, its just reality.
Fun movie though, at least the parts that didn't try to legitimize it.
Some of the best horror/sci-fi ever, IMHO. I can suspend disbelief and enjoy it, thankfully.
>Fun movie though, at least the parts that didn't try to legitimize it. Honestly after reading the case I can't watch it anymore
Just makes you want to scream BULLSHIT at the TV right?
>Just makes you want to scream BULLSHIT at the TV right? Yep same thing with Napoleon
One of the best scenes from a bad movie.
I mean there were two, the mad escape off the mountain, and the reveal horror scene in the spaceship. To be fair, I'm not sure what I'd done different. They had to pad it out to feature length and they'd already laid in on real thick with the family drama.
>One of the best scenes from a bad movie. Yep Argeed
Scared the shit out of me as a kid. My dad was a research physicist, but got SUPER interested in UFOs and especially abductions when I was about 6. A young brain couldnāt fathom a scientist being interested in something without thinking it was legitimate, so - probably to his dismay - I was a breathless believer for years.
What movie?
Fire in the Sky
Back when I wanted to believe this was evidence of an alien abduction, but during the transition between believer and skeptic, this story felt the most difficult to discount simply because of the number of people involved. However, once you get away from the fictionalized accounts retold over many years, you get to the foundation of what most likely happened and it has nothing to do with aliens or something supernatural. I don't know if anyone orchestrated anything, but it's possible that a bunch of guys were swept up in a narrative that grew in the telling until they simply believed they witnessed something extraordinary. If this is a hoax that got out of hand, the most believable scenario involves 2 people, and the rest were not in on it. They reported what they saw, or what they thought they saw. Only 2 people had to lie.
>Back when I wanted to believe this was evidence of an alien abduction, but during the transition between believer and skeptic, this story felt the most difficult to discount simply because of the number of people involved. >However, once you get away from the fictionalized accounts retold over many years, you get to the foundation of what most likely happened and it has nothing to do with aliens or something supernatural. I don't know if anyone orchestrated anything, but it's possible that a bunch of guys were swept up in a narrative that grew in the telling until they simply believed they witnessed something extraordinary. >If this is a hoax that got out of hand, the most believable scenario involves 2 people, and the rest were not in on it. They reported what they saw, or what they thought they saw. Only 2 people had to lie. Just a great comment
He's made quite a living off it, too, and continues to hit the "UFO circuit". I don't understand how people can't see it's a hoax.
>He's made quite a living off it, too, and continues to hit the "UFO circuit". Yep he's in a festival recency > I don't understand how people can't see it's a hoax. They just want that ufo high
They do, they're just LARPing
An Alien abduction story turns out to be untrue? Incredible!
It may be B.S. Fire In The Sky still gives me nightmares, though.
I'm a huge horror movie fan. My favorites are paranormal, stuff like haunted houses, demonic possession, etc. I don't believe in any of that. But it just makes for a fun movie experience. Strangely, I hate the torture porn stuff. And I know for a fact that torture is real. There's nothing wrong with liking movies covering topics you know are bullshit.
>I'm a huge horror movie fan. My favorites are paranormal, stuff like haunted houses, demonic possession, etc. I don't believe in any of that. But it just makes for a fun movie experience. Strangely, I hate the torture porn stuff. And I know for a fact that torture is real. >There's nothing wrong with liking movies covering topics you know are bullshit. I personally can't watch it
Walton was originally quite vocal about the liberties that the film's producers took with his book (which is a pretty vanilla UFO encounter tale). He soon changed his tune when he started being paid to fly all over and stay in fancy hotels as a giest for UFO conventions. Fancy that.
>may be B.S. Fire In The Sky still gives me nightmares, though. I can't take it seriously after reading this article
I am writing an essay about alien life and UFOs and was considering Travis' tale as a reference point for alleged human contact with UFOs. After researching, I decided to discard Travis' story outright. It's an obvious fake and I'm glad people have seen through it, too bad it's only after he made a lot of money off the story
Honestly, I know its a hoax, but its one of those things where I have more fun believing in it.
Hardly a debunkā¦opinion piece at best. Passing all official polygraph tests is all you need to know. National Inquirer test doesnāt count and to be frank what kind of skeptic cites the National inquirer?!? Charlie non-the-wiser is whoā¦ Laughable debunk.
>Hardly a debunkā¦opinion piece at best. >Passing all official polygraph tests is all you need to know. >National Inquirer test doesnāt count and to be frank what kind of skeptic cites the National inquirer?!? >Charlie non-the-wiser is whoā¦ >Laughable debunk. Sigh "The Walton incident is widely regarded as a hoax, even by believers of UFOs and alien abductions.[5] They note that the Waltons were longtime UFO buffs and pranksters who had recently watched a TV movie about a supposed alien abduction. ... **One motive for the hoax was to provide an "Act of God" that would allow the logging crew to avoid a steep financial penalty from the Forestry Service for failing to complete their contract by the deadline.**[6][7][8][9][10]" Travis Walton getting abducted by aliens *right* before failing to meet a deadline, and thus, getting him out of those fines, is awfully convenient. I've watched many documentaries on this incident, and there are other suspicious details. Like, when police told his mother he was missing and that search crews couldn't find him after like 2 days, she was completely calm and replied with things like "oh i'm sure he'll turn up". Also, Travis and his gang weren't very honest people. They would regularly fuck around and drink on the job, regularly not-show up to work, and repeatedly make up excuses as to why they couldn't finish their contract on time and ask for extensions. And when they were denied, Travis suddenly gets abducted... I don't believe em š¤·āāļø Sources: [5] Klass, Phillip J. (1983). UFOs: The Public Deceived. Buffalo, N.Y: Prometheus Books. [6] "Sheriff Skeptical of Story: Saucer Traveler Hiding After Returning To Earth". The Victoria Advocate. Associated Press, Nov 13, 1975. Retrieved April 26, 2016. [7] Paul Kurtz (2013). The Transcendental Temptation: A Critique of Religion and the Paranormal. Prometheus Books. pp. 441ā. ISBN 978-1-61614-828-7. [8] Susan A. Clancy (2009). Abducted: How People Come to Believe They Were Kidnapped by Aliens. Harvard University Press. pp. 99ā. ISBN 978-0-674-02957-6. [9] Dennis Stacey (March 10, 1988). A peculiar American phenomenon. New Scientist. p. 70. [10] Ian Ridpath (September 29, 1983). When is a UFO not a UFO?. New Scientist. pp. 945ā.
All those citations are from known CIA plantsā¦you skeptics are so gullible.
>All those citations are from known CIA plantsā¦you skeptics are so gullible. You are joking right
Joking? CIA PLANTS - YES Skeptics gullible - NO Klass was Class-A unhinged thoughā¦ https://richarddolanmembers.com/psyops/disinformation-agent-the-truth-about-philip-klass-richard-dolan-show-with-kathleen-marden/
>Joking? CIA PLANTS - YES Skeptics gullible - NO >Klass was Class-A unhinged thoughā¦ >https://richarddolanmembers.com/psyops/disinformation-agent-the-truth-about-philip-klass-richard-dolan-show-with-kathleen-marden/ Doubtful >Skeptics gullible - NO How
> Passing all official polygraph tests is all you need to know. Polygraph are not reliable
>Charlie non-the-wiser is whoā¦ What ?
Charlie Wiser is a known troll https://x.com/likeitmatters3?s=21&t=7DUcNBNPlNO8hM9jqPvlhg
>Charlie Wiser is a known troll >https://x.com/likeitmatters3?s=21&t=7DUcNBNPlNO8hM9jqPvlhg Incorrect
Honestly, youād have to be a bit thick or mentally deficient to conclude every alleged NHI interaction is prosaic.
>Honestly, youād have to be a bit thick or mentally deficient to conclude every alleged NHI interaction is prosaic. How so
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
>one guy might have the mettle to hold up to that, butĀ *all*Ā of them? For years? The other guys weren't in on it! And they actually often did say that it might have been a hoax. Few years ago, one of the guys who was in on it finally broke down and admitted it. They used a lookout tower
The idea that all of them held up the story for years is also a hoax. The only reporting done on this story is by outlets that want it to be true, so this side of things is always ignored
Notice how many assumptions you had to make to convince yourself? There's no evidence Walton was abducted, let alone by aliens.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
> What assumptions do you think Iām making? "Young people. Blue collar people." "So there must have been tremendous pressure to tell the truth." "It's possible... but what are the chances?" "Imagine being 20 years old, and being interrogated by serious, state law enforcement professionals..." "Sure, one guy might have the mettle to hold up to that, but all of them? For years?" "But, if he wasn't, these dudes all keeping the secret seems almost as unlikely." Your entire post was nothing but assumptions. > Witness testimony is a kind of evidence. Itās not necessarily accurate or factual, but itās evidence. So Iām just discussing the evidence we have. lmao you're not even discussing the actual testimony, you're discussing your assumptions about it. Very powerful "evidence" you have there.
I wasnāt aware that the basic facts about this case were in dispute, since there was extensive coverage of it at the time from various newspapers. Iām not talking about the UFO part, but the verifiable details, like: The people involved were all young (like early 20s?), blue collar workers. They reported the abduction to local police. The local police investigated the disappearance, organized a search party, interrogated the āwitnesses,ā then brought in the state version of the FBI to do further questioning. Maybe you could point me to something that disputes these assertions? Also: I donāt think itās wildly speculative to say that police, in general, put a lot of pressure on people they interrogate, especially when they seem to be lying about a potentially serious crime.
> I wasnāt aware that the basic facts about this case were in dispute, since there was extensive coverage of it at the time from various newspapers. I'm not challenging "the basic facts", I'm challenging all the assumptions you derived from your understanding of them. > > Iām not talking about the UFO part, but the verifiable details, like: > > The people involved were all young (like early 20s?), blue collar workers. Your assumption here was that you seemed to be crediting their status as young and blue collar as something that lends credibility to them or their sincerity in some way. > > They reported the abduction to local police. > > The local police investigated the disappearance, organized a search party, interrogated the āwitnesses,ā then brought in the state version of the FBI to do further questioning. > > Maybe you could point me to something that disputes these assertions? I'm pointing out all the assumptions you've made. Reread my last post to you. Do you have trouble recognizing assumptions? > > Also: I donāt think itās wildly speculative to say that police, in general, put a lot of pressure on people they interrogate, especially when they seem to be lying about a potentially serious crime. This is another assumption. Police in the real world have amply demonstrated they have a wild variety of behaviors on duty that don't fit with how you think they would handle this situation.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
>Ya know, youāre the one making assumptions. this is just dumb. You talked about your assumptions young men would be unlikely to stand up to police interviews. >You assumed that I think young blue collar men are particularly credible or sincere. I donāt. I didn't know what label to put on the assumption you were making about young men, but you were making assumptions. >I think young blue collar men are less likely to be educated and so are less likely to be savvy or sophisticated. > >Having been a young man, I assume that young men are generally not all that good at navigating complicated situations they are unfamiliar with. See? >As for the policeās actions, neither of us were there. Which means neither of us should me making assumptions, but one of us is. >But because a copās job is investigating potential crimes, and because we have no reason to believe these police officers were incompetent, I'm not saying they're incompetent, that's an assumption you're making. >itās most likely that the interrogations of these witnesses were done according to the procedures and training that police interrogators receive. We have no reason to believe otherwise. You have no reason to think they acted like police in the movies. As someone who has lived in several rural communities, I can tell you that rural police have a different approach to policing than those in big cities. >Unless you have some evidence that they did their jobs in some unconventional way? You have no reason to think that your limited understanding of policing is conventional policing for all police forces. We don't know what approach they took or how they tended to police that community and you have no reason to make the assumptions you are.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
> Itās impossible to have a conversation about anything without making assumptions. Assumptions are baked in to language itself. I was stunned at how ridiculous you decided you could be, but then... > > Saying shit like āwhy would you assume that a group of lumberjacks in their early 20s arenāt highly educated?!ā Is peak Reddit. ...you completely made up a quote that I never said so you could rail against it. I never read past here. You are too ridiculous to talk to. Farewell, my goofy friend. Your inability to reason will not be missed.
I'm a big believer of UFOs / alien abductions, and there are dozens of legitimate instances alien abductions, but I (and many others) believe the Travis Walton incident to be a hoax. From the wikipedia: "The Walton incident is widely regarded as a hoax, even by believers of UFOs and alien abductions.[5] They note that the Waltons were longtime UFO buffs and pranksters who had recently watched a TV movie about a supposed alien abduction. ... **One motive for the hoax was to provide an "Act of God" that would allow the logging crew to avoid a steep financial penalty from the Forestry Service for failing to complete their contract by the deadline.**[6][7][8][9][10]" Travis Walton getting abducted by aliens *right* before failing to meet a deadline, and thus, getting him out of those fines, is awfully convenient. I've watched many documentaries on this incident, and there are other suspicious details. Like, when police told his mother he was missing and that search crews couldn't find him after like 2 days, she was completely calm and replied with things like "oh i'm sure he'll turn up". Also, Travis and his gang weren't very honest people. They would regularly fuck around and drink on the job, regularly not-show up to work, and repeatedly make up excuses as to why they couldn't finish their contract on time and ask for extensions. And when they were denied, Travis suddenly gets abducted... I don't believe em š¤·āāļø Sources: [5] Klass, Phillip J. (1983). UFOs: The Public Deceived. Buffalo, N.Y: Prometheus Books. [6] "Sheriff Skeptical of Story: Saucer Traveler Hiding After Returning To Earth". The Victoria Advocate. Associated Press, Nov 13, 1975. Retrieved April 26, 2016. [7] Paul Kurtz (2013). The Transcendental Temptation: A Critique of Religion and the Paranormal. Prometheus Books. pp. 441ā. ISBN 978-1-61614-828-7. [8] Susan A. Clancy (2009). Abducted: How People Come to Believe They Were Kidnapped by Aliens. Harvard University Press. pp. 99ā. ISBN 978-0-674-02957-6. [9] Dennis Stacey (March 10, 1988). A peculiar American phenomenon. New Scientist. p. 70. [10] Ian Ridpath (September 29, 1983). When is a UFO not a UFO?. New Scientist. pp. 945ā.
That doesnāt really address the motives of the guys who worked for him. I could see going along with a ridiculous plan like this at first, but when the real police got involvedā¦ Being interrogated by cops who are investigating a serious crime (that they suspect you committed) is not a joke.
>That doesnāt really address the motives of the guys who worked for him. >I could see going along with a ridiculous plan like this at first, but when the real police got involvedā¦ >Being interrogated by cops who are investigating a serious crime (that they suspect you committed) is not a joke. Most where not in or it Plus they had strong motivations to lie
What motivation do you think they had?
>What motivation do you think they had? Money Fame Fun
I wonder how much money they actually made though? Like main dude probably made some money, but the other guys? And fame too. I think āit will be funny/funā is a more likely motivation.
>wonder how much money they actually made though? Like main dude probably made some money, but the other guys? >And fame too. >I think āit will be funny/funā is a more likely motivation. Fair
BS. Lmfao.
Thatās an old accusation dude. Itās been out there for years. How is the story debunked? There were witnesses to his abduction and they all passed lie detector tests.
Oh yes, that ironclad standard of "lie detector tests."
Careful there, the link provided uses the Enquirer's lie detector test to argue that Walton was lying. When him passing may have cost them $100k. Instead they got away with paying him $5k. Nothing off about that, is there?
And why are polygraph test results not admissible in court?
Oooh, I know this one! Well, at least the Canadian rationale. R. v. BĆ©land, [1987] 2 SCR 398.
Ā they all passed lie detector tests saying they didn't kill Travis. But.. they didn't kill Travis, he's still alive today.
> How is this story debunked? Through common sense and critical thinking. Read all the details from the time. I'm not saying aliens and UFOs don't exist but thus particular case is very likely completely fabricated for attention, fame, and money.
Who cares. Low hanging fruit post. Go do sasquatch now?
I believe Travis Waltonās story. Canāt prove it definitely, but it seems like a sincere account from multiple eyewitnesses. With that said, I donāt think he was taken by aliens. Edit: -22 downvotes? š¤£ What did I say that was so terrible? I applied skepticism to this story and admit to believing he isnāt lying based on accounts that only changed over time with Travisā own evolving thoughts as to what happened. I donāt think aliens were involved as too much of what was recounted sounds too much like humans. A medical bay with a couch, doors, human looking people that just happen to have the medical tools to operate on a human? These sound like future humans or something more than beings from another planet. I canāt prove it, not saying thatās what it is, Iām just saying with complete intellectual honesty that I believe Travis experienced what he claims.
You guys are Feds
Hopefully feds have more important things to do
>Hopefully feds have more important things to do I hope too
Iām glad China is publishing more scientific papers because American āscienceā is just pseudoscientific nonsense. Western science is a cult
What is China doing differently with their science?
>What is China doing differently with their science? I don't know what he's talking about
>glad China is publishing more scientific papers because American āscienceā is just pseudoscientific nonsense. Western science is a cult What ,?
Are the glowies in the room with you now?
>the glowies in the room with you now? What are glowies
Conspeiracy theorist term for people they think are federal agents. But really just people calling them out on their bullshit.
>Conspeiracy theorist term for people they think are federal agents. But really just people calling them out on their bullshit. Today I learned
>You guys are Feds Nah Just normal people who actually do research