The Wikipedia entry on Travis Walton is very interesting. He faked it all and Philip J Klass proved it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Travis_Walton_incident
Well, he never did because he used dirty tricks and lies and was caught out. The watch tower was only publicised over 40 years later and most people dismissed this as the "UFO" or having any connection.
When I wrote UFO Contact I spent months going over every account Walton gave. I went over every debunkers work on the case and I was shocked (having expected this would give me what I needed to dismiss the Walton case) that it all fell apart. As already noted, I scrapped my first Ms and started from scratch again to dismiss the on board or other accounts and every time I thought "I've got him -it was a hoax!" the 'evidence fell apart. When it comes to taking Klass's word on something...no. He has a well known track record of faking to debunk (I should write "had" since he passed away).
I don't hold polygraph tests as evidence though the willingness of someone to undergo the test to prove they are not lying adds a tad more credibility. Undergoing hypnosis has (see previous post) been shown to add details to accounts as the mind fills in gaps and one psychologist has mentioned that looking at the aftermath of the incident Walton appears to have had some signs of post traumatic stress.
No one seems to want to mention that, independent of each other, Walter and Sgt Moody both described similar entities and neither knew of the other as the incidents were around the same time and Moody's was not publicised.
Based on all of the original details the Walton case is certainly not "dismissed by Ufologists and believers in abductions" -you have to look at this from outside the Ufological framework because otherwise you believe everything and I for one have seen the unprofessional and disreputable behaviour of Ufologists in 50 years. I*t is interesting that the Wikipedia entry has changed from the pro -con entry to the "this is all lies!" stance. Detail everything alleged to prove a case a hoax and leave it at that.
I did laugh out loud reading:
"Walton didn't report paralysis, recovered memories or other common elements of an "alien abduction" narrative, leading Fire in the Sky screenwriter Tracy Tormé to opine "I don't think the Travis case is an abduction case... it doesn't fit any of the other patterns as in the cases that were explored in [Budd Hopkin's book] Intruders... So many witnesses, gone for five days... So I think all those things break the mold and make this case unique."
Tracy Tormé was an American screenwriter and television producer, known for his work on the science fiction series Sliders and Star Trek: The Next Generation, and the film Fire in the Sky. Hew was not a Ufologist and of course he was going to promote the film he was involved with if you take the debunker stance. I think that the joke is that what Budd Hopkins spouted was taken as factual.
Also, Klass wrote in response that"a 'UFO-Abduction Mold' did not yet exist in 1975" -so he shoots himself in the foot. If Walton had followed an established Hopkins type UFO abduction then that would have put a flashing "possible hoax" sign right next to it. Klass also did not study on board experiences to any degree and so he could never draw comparison with other cases recorded but not publicised at that time -and there were more than a few.
Most of the components of the "this is a hoax" claims can easily be turned around and that is what I found so annoying. I wanted the actual evidence that this was a hoax.
Mike Rogers argument and statements re Walton in 2021 were embarrassing -for Rogers. It seemed as though age was catching up with him and that was exploited by certain people. I noted that he contradicted himself several times while not even under pressure to answer questions. Rogers later apologised and re-united with Walton. The claims that he was being paid to "say certain things" were ignored by Ufology in general.
The Walton case is recorded and there for researchers to compare with similar, often not reported on cases. This is a 50 years old report and can be argued back and forth without achieving anything. It's True. It's Fake. It's Might have happened. It is a "You decide" situation and is very similar to the Patterson-Gimlin 1968 Bigfoot footage of "Patty" and the fact that more time is spent on arguing back and forth shows that all you can do is record the facts then leave it to history to decide.
Walton's case, like the Petterson-Gimlin footage, has been recorded and in the meantime we have lost some pretty genuine sounding reports from seemingly credible people. Research in both fields is basically a mess.
No comments:
Post a Comment