Travis Walton - September 21, 2014

[Stagger Lee]

The trouble with the "acid trip" -we still have the crew witnessing the craft. Even if the entire crew were tripping with chainsaws that day, they wouldn't have shared a psychedelic hallucination. All their accounts of the object matched. Also, law enforcement would have most likely noted that the crew were less than sober if that were the case. When tripping face, it's almost impossible to pretend you're not while interacting with those who are sober.

 

[Rizla]

Stagger, I agree and it's an imperfect idea... still, there were planes, spotlights, and, ahem, substances in the area. Just sayin'.... I'm looking for early Walton reports from APRO and Hynek and others to get a better idea. As far as interacting with people when tripping "face"... well, probably you're right, but there are plenty of people who can be on a bit less and still be convincing, especially if they had a real, mysterious reason to be frightened (the spotlight from the AF plane)... As I said, the Travis story is one of the most interesting and I value this discussion. I don't claim the whole crew were tripping with chainsaws, but maybe there were substances around and we have that account from the Snowflake guy who discussed Travis passed out... link on previous page... I think these are claims that could be proven at least as well as certain Roswell evidence, perhaps if we were lucky to have a blogger in Snowflake. Finally, no matter what I say about the story, as a speaker and general guy to have a Dos Equis with, I'll take Travis Walton over Napolitano or Jacobs, etc., any day. I quite enjoyed this PCast episode. He gave, generally, as we say, good Radio, capital R. I think that's what the hosts were proud about, and I don't blame them. Skol. Rizla

 

[Sentry]

Recently, our pal, Chris Rutkwoski had a chance to talk to Travis Walton at Minnesota Paracon 2014.

 

[Burnt State]

Recently, our pal, Chris Rutkwoski had a chance to talk to Travis Walton at Minnesota Paracon 2014.

Ok, let me get this straight, those who have something (critical?) to say about his case are a threat? Just what exactly are they a threat to? Sounds like a bit of holiness creeping in there, or at least concern for the primacy of his truth & the shared narrative of believers, perhaps. Sometimes his word choice is really interesting and is worth its own more detailed investigation, not the recurring waving of the lie detector test flag of confirmation.

 

[Rizla]

Mr. State: Yes, and the lie detector test thing cuts both ways, to say the least. I remember that APRO did a test which he failed, which was covered up and so on... lie detector tests are a mixed bag to begin with. I wasn't questioning his experience at all. I just think there are probably people in Snowflake and environs who know a lot more about all of the witnesses than we do. But what a great point. Questions are a "threat". It's been that way from Linda "Cortile" onward... Let us not ask questions of Holy f-in Writ. Skol.

 

[Dedpanman]

A fine episode with Travis Walton. I've listened to him tell his story several times in various places (C2C, documentaries) and my impression of him remains the same. Honest. Intelligent. Down-to-earth. I feel like the guy has integrity and I believe he believes what he's saying. Something happened to him that is outside the normal human experience.

 

[Shayfinn]

Just managed to listen to this episode last night and I really enjoyed it. For me Travis comes across as just an ordinary guy with an incredible story. The fact there were others there and the story hasn't changed over all this time, in my opinion makes it one of the strongest UFO/Abduction cases ever.

 

[Jimi H.]

I was just reading in Vallee's Mesengers of Deception, and this caught my eye (p.12 bottom):

.. the beliefs of the Mormon Church, whose founder would today be regarded as a contactee.

This supports what I was getting at previously, namely that Walton could be influenced by Mormon 'extraterrestrial' ideas and possibly exploited it.

PS: I'm still waiting for the believers to acknowledge that we are dealing with a guy who commited a classic fraud for economic gains, he lied about his previous interest in UFOs, his book is clearly dramatized etc etc. One would have to make a decision (like a religious follower with closed eyes) to disregard these facts and reach the conclusion that the story is 'strong' or that Walton is just this 'regular' innocent guy who is out talking for the benefit of the public.

He seems more like a cult leader to me, someone who would see criticism as a 'threat':

Ok, let me get this straight, those who have something (critical?) to say about his case are a threat? Just what exactly are they a threat to? ...

 

[Randall]

I was just reading in Vallee's Mesengers of Deception, and this caught my eye (p.12 bottom):

This supports what I was getting at previously, namely that Walton could be influenced by Mormon 'extraterrestrial' ideas and possibly exploited it.

PS: I'm still waiting for the believers to acknowledge that we are dealing with a guy who commited a classic fraud for economic gains, he lied about his previous interest in UFOs, his book reads like fiction (it is clearly dramatized), etc etc. One would have to make a decision (like a religious follower with closed eyes) to disregard these facts and reach the conclusion that the story is 'strong' or that Walton is just this 'regular' innocent guy who is out talking for the benefit of the public.

He seems more like a cult leader to me, someone who would see criticism as a 'threat':

I've not run across any references to Walton being influenced by Mormonism, and he hasn't put together any sort of congregation until his recent "Summit Conference" which he was wanting to make into a yearly pilgrimage for believers. As for them ( the believers ), I've found that they often aren't aware of those facets of the case that detract from his credibility. I can't explain the psychology of those who are aware of those facets, but give him a pass on all that and remain believers anyway. We could of course resort to conjecture. How many believers have similar issues in their past or have something to sell or gain by participating in the conference?

 

[Jimi H.]

I've not run across any references to Walton being influenced by Mormonism, and he hasn't put together any sort of congregation until his recent "Summit Conference" which he was wanting to make into a yearly pilgrimage for believers.

Yea, actually the Mormon thing was just an idea I was toying with previously, but I need to find something substantial if I want to argue that he was influenced by it!

I didn't know about the yearly 'pilgrimage' idea. But naturally, a yearly 'pilgrimage' = yearly dividends for Walton et. al., very convenient.

I can't explain the psychology of those who are aware of those facets, but give him a pass on all that and became believers anyway..

Indeed, it's what gets to me time after time. I guess the answer is pretty clear though, it's a belief.

 

[Randall]

Yea, actually the Mormon thing was just an idea I was toying with previously, but I need to find something substantial if I want to argue that he was influenced by it!
But the yearly 'pilgrimage' idea is his words then. And naturally, a yearly 'pilgrimage' = yearly dividends for Walton et. al.
Indeed, it's what gets to me time after time. I guess the answer is pretty clear though, it's a belief.

I don't think Walton himself calls the yearly event a pilgrimage, but in the context of your allusion to coming across as a cult leader, the yearly event "commemorating the Travis Walton UFO incident of 1975" certainly has cultish parallels. On the issue of motivation, I also just noticed that the event page features a $19.95 pay-per-view feed option: http://www.skyfiresummit.com/

 

[Burnt State]

The Walton case is a real anomaly in Ufology as you would think that the primary objective for a hoaxer would be to rack up the $$$ and really exploit the situation in a more grandiose manner. Walton appears to have been very low key across his lifespan with regards to the abduction. Yes, there was a movie and book, and now there is a conference, and numerous public speaking engagements but it's all bits and pieces and not really indicative of a Greer like enterprise. Perhaps this recent conference marks a shift where he is starting to look at his narrative as more of a marketable product, one that needs to get into other markets, that needs to deal with threats to its brand etc.? But he certainly has not gone for messianic grandeur and only in recent times have we heard him address his role as one about making pathways for other abductees and to validate their reality and assist them in their process. This could be the beginning of guru status.

I know that ufology, our poster, has repeatedly asked just what have been the total profits of Walton's experience over the years and I do think that this is a crucial question if you are going to prove hoax, that and finding financial agreements and transactions between him and what would only be two or three other people at the most. In my hoax scenario I could see only two people being involved in the case, possibly three at the most, as any more would invite disaster to any pact for profit.

While there remain these small pieces to poke at with this case, and one that really does not have hardcore evidence attached to it at all, it seems to me that its history and longevity, like Roswell, has turned it into an institution. The story has become fact. It is no longer a singular case - it is an entity, in the way that Barney and Betty Hill, Rendelsham, Roswell and Mothman are all institutions and cornerstones in the history of Ufology. What's strange is that these are not the best hardcore cases in terms of verifiable evidence from multiple sources. There are other cases that make stronger arguments, but they just don't have the attraction and audience appeal that those other cases do, and so they will continue to dominate and be accepted as fact. These are the transcendent cases imho.

 

[Randall]

The Walton case is a real anomaly in Ufology as you would think that the primary objective for a hoaxer would be to rack up the $$$ and really exploit the situation in a more grandiose manner. Walton appears to have been very low key across his lifespan with regards to the abduction. Yes, there was a movie and book, and now there is a conference, and numerous public speaking engagements but it's all bits and pieces and not really indicative of a Greer like enterprise. Perhaps this recent conference marks a shift where he is starting to look at his narrative as more of a marketable product, one that needs to get into other markets, that needs to deal with threats to its brand etc.? But he certainly has not gone for messianic grandeur and only in recent times have we heard him address his role as one about making pathways for other abductees and to validate their reality and assist them in their process. This could be the beginning of guru status.

I know that ufology, our poster, has repeatedly asked just what have been the total profits of Walton's experience over the years and I do think that this is a crucial question if you are going to prove hoax, that and finding financial agreements and transactions between him and what would only be two or three other people at the most. In my hoax scenario I could see only two people being involved in the case, possibly three at the most, as any more would invite disaster to any pact for profit.

While there remain these small pieces to poke at with this case, and one that really does not have hardcore evidence attached to it at all, it seems to me that its history and longevity, like Roswell, has turned it into an institution. The story has become fact. It is no longer a singular case - it is an entity, in the way that Barney and Betty Hill, Rendelsham, Roswell and Mothman are all institutions and cornerstones in the history of Ufology. What's strange is that these are not the best hardcore cases in terms of verifiable evidence from multiple sources. There are other cases that make stronger arguments, but they just don't have the attraction and audience appeal that those other cases do, and so they will continue to dominate and be accepted as fact. These are the transcendent cases imho.

I have doubts that the Walton Abduction case is accepted as fact by so many people as you suggest. There is good reason to have serious reservations about the veracity of the story, and when I've shared those reservations, more often than not, people tend to re-evaluate their own belief in the case. As for whether or not Walton has made money off his story, that alone isn't all that relevant, but when taken in the context of the other issues at the time, it doesn't look good, and even if the gross revenue over the years hasn't been substantial, that doesn't mean there hasn't been any effort to make it more substantial, or that it has been so meager as to have been irrelevant, or that the notoriety alone hasn't been a motivating factor.

Few people sell movie rights, write and promote books, make public speaking appearances, take part in TV documentaries, appear as a guest on radio shows, claim rewards from a national paper for their story, go on game shows where they're almost guaranteed to collect even more money basically just for showing up, even if they fail to demonstrate they are being truthful, and then finally create an annual conference to "commemorate" their event and charge money for attendance, if they weren't actively interested in promoting their story and reaping any associated rewards.

And I'd hardly call all this activity "low key", especially in light of the fact that all these efforts have made Walton an iconic figure in UFO abduction lore. I just don't understand the level of denial that seems apparent in the "true believers" of this case. There are simply too many reasons to have reservations about it, but hey, it seems that no matter what anyone says, the "true believers" are going to be that way regardless of what anybody says, and all one needs to attract the "true believers" is enough exposure. And Walton has had plenty.

 

[Burnt State]

I have doubts that the Walton Abduction case is accepted as fact by so many people as you suggest. There is good reason to have serious reservations about the veracity of the story, and when I've shared those reservations, more often than not, people tend to re-evaluate their own belief in the case. As for whether or not Walton has made money off his story, that alone isn't all that relevant, but when taken in the context of the other issues at the time, it doesn't look good, and even if the gross revenue over the years hasn't been substantial, that doesn't mean there hasn't been any effort to make it more substantial, or that it has been so meager as to have been irrelevant, or that the notoriety alone hasn't been a motivating factor.

Few people sell movie rights, write and promote books, make public speaking appearances, take part in TV documentaries, appear as a guest on radio shows, claim rewards from a national paper for their story, go on game shows where they're almost guaranteed to collect even more money basically just for showing up, even if they fail to demonstrate they are being truthful, and then finally create an annual conference to "commemorate" their event and charge money for attendance, if they weren't actively interested in promoting their story and reaping any associated rewards.

And I'd hardly call all this activity "low key", especially in light of the fact that all these efforts have made Walton an iconic figure in UFO abduction lore. I just don't understand the level of denial that seems apparent in the "true believers" of this case. There are simply too many reasons to have reservations about it, but hey, it seems that no matter what anyone says, the "true believers" are going to be that way regardless of what anybody says, and all one needs to attract the "true believers" is enough exposure. And Walton has had plenty.

Maybe we travel in different circles but I understand that Travis Walton is kind of synonymous with UFO abduction and that he is a legacy member of those top ten significant and popular cases in the field. It's not a best case scenario, but if you ask the general audiences who's who, I would think Walton would rank fairly high. And that ranking would have a lot more to do with word of mouth and general populous acceptance as opposed to people who have tried to detail the initial timeline of events nitpick over his brother's role, why his clothes were throws haphazardly into the trunk or why he took the scale with his brother to the doctor's office. I think his story is generally accepted as factual.

Now I admit, I don't go to conferences and I'm not reading everyone's blog but at the same time of him having this stature, I do not think he's taken it and tried to consciously create an empire out of it as he's just not everywhere in the way that when Greer wants to rock the house he works to get his name and brand out there.

Perhaps "slow and steady wins the race" is his motto and what you've outlined does highlight a long and lengthy career in the field as an abductee and now spokesperson. But if we are going to speculate and draw some direct lines in his character then surely wouldn't we be looking at trying to define his character from that perspective: forged cheques once, wants to win the Enquirer big cash prize, then wants the TV show cash prize etc. and then would he not be looking for bigger and bigger cash prizes? These things of course could be behind the scenes though as he does seem to have some familiarity with LA and the scene. I would not deny that he isn't actively working on completing the legacy piece right now, with the year before the big anniversary which will then translate into more and more annual conferences. Certainly, next year will be all about Travis and we will revisit all of these pieces again.

Here's the very critical version of events, though I'm sure it's been posted before elsewhere but it is a different view: The Selling of the Travis Walton "Abduction" Story

 

[SheaOlmsford]

This is one of my charming tangents. What this case illustrates to me is the way many people all tend to evaluate a person's UFO or paranormal claims. They base their position on the veracity of a case like Travis Walton's on his stage presence. One person in this thread said as much, e.g., Walton comes across as a sincere truthful man, therefore I believe the story is true. Our evaluation of truth is based on our own particular psychological make-up, how the story we hear and the manner it is given appeal to our subconscious programs. As a gay man, I have actually found myself unconsciously giving a HANDSOME male abductee's story more credibility than others. (See below. "Peter" was intensely handsome to me, and I automatically believed his story! )

Realizing such unconscious drivers in the forming of our views can liberate us to be more objective.

Now, the only sited proof of Walton's experience is passed lie detector tests, right? I admit this carries weight unless an intelligent person can manipulate lie detector results? But my rather obvious point is that the biggest frauds in ufology can be part of the HALL OF HEROES because they have a great personality and a sincere charming demeanor (these are actually well known traits of the average psychopath also, by the way).

I personally am going through a sort of ufology related "old age" life crisis.

I look back at so many cases that I fervently supported and now wonder if my support was based on superficial stage presence, subconscious motivations and a desire to believe. The desire to believe is GONE, and I have uncovered at least some of my subconscious motivations.

This leaves me questioning all UFO related abduction cases. What is the point of joining "TEAM TRAVIS" or "TEAM JIM SPARKS" or "TEAM ANDREASSON" just because you "feel" they are truthful? Without more proof to go on, I feel I have spent my life being fooled by my own psychological make-up.

I am seeking an OBJECTIVITY. How do I find it?

Well, reading the views of others on this forum is a start.

 

[Randall]

This is one of my charming tangents. What this case illustrates to me is the way many people all tend to evaluate a person's UFO or paranormal claims. They base their position on the veracity of a case like Travis Walton's on his stage presence. One person in this thread said as much, e.g., Walton comes across as a sincere truthful man, therefore I believe the story is true. Our evaluation of truth is based on our own particular psychological make-up, how the story we hear and the manner it is given appeal to our subconscious programs. As a gay man, I have actually found myself unconsciously giving a HANDSOME male abductee's story more credibility than others. (See below. "Peter" was intensely handsome to me, and I automatically believed his story! )

Realizing such unconscious drivers in the forming of our views can liberate us to be more objective.

Now, the only sited proof of Walton's experience is passed lie detector tests, right? I admit this carries weight unless an intelligent person can manipulate lie detector results? But my rather obvious point is that the biggest frauds in ufology can be part of the HALL OF HEROES because they have a great personality and a sincere charming demeanor (these are actually well known traits of the average psychopath also, by the way).

I personally am going through a sort of ufology related "old age" life crisis.

I look back at so many cases that I fervently supported and now wonder if my support was based on superficial stage presence, subconscious motivations and a desire to believe. The desire to believe is GONE, and I have uncovered at least some of my subconscious motivations.

This leaves me questioning all UFO related abduction cases. What is the point of joining "TEAM TRAVIS" or "TEAM JIM SPARKS" or "TEAM ANDREASSON" just because you "feel" they are truthful? Without more proof to go on, I feel I have spent my life being fooled by my own psychological make-up.

I am seeking an OBJECTIVITY. How do I find it?

Well, reading the views of others on this forum is a start.

Great post. It takes courage and honesty to admit one's own biases. But it's an essential step in obtaining the objectivity you're talking about. Personally, when it comes to objectivity, I strive to employ critical thinking on a more deeper level than the average person, which is why I often get bogged down in the details. However the devil is often in those details and subtleties can make all the difference. Here's a link to a page I like to visit to remind me how the process is supposed to work: http://www.criticalthinking.org/ctmodel/logic-model1.htm

The other thing is to recognize common logical fallacies in people's claims and arguments, which is why I come across as argumentative sometimes, when in reality I'm just being analytical. People don't like having their beliefs or claims or statements analyzed and challenged. They want them to be accepted because that makes them feel personally accepted, and when that doesn't happen, that's probably why they retort with personal criticism rather than sticking to the substance of the issue at hand. Here's a link to a list of fallacies in logic and rhetoric: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

I haven't mastered a full working knowledge of all the above, but reviewing them from time to time and using them when one comes to mind in a discussion has helped me recognize when something isn't making sense, and from there the appropriate principle can always be looked up. It's a hardline approach to take, and it doesn't always win points in popularity, but if objectivity is what you're striving for, they are some of the best tools out there.

 

[AlienEsq]

There is good reason to have serious reservations about the veracity of the story, and when I've shared those reservations, more often than not, people tend to re-evaluate their own belief in the case.

I think it's absolutely appropriate for anyone who hears Walton's story more than once to re-evaluate their position. In fact, this goes for just about any story you hear about in this field. I don't think anyone should stay stagnant in believing or not believing in any ufo-related story, so long as there is a sufficiently credible basis for it. If you reach the same conclusion consistently, however, you might want to move onto the next one.

 

[Burnt State]

I personally am going through a sort of ufology related "old age" life crisis.

I look back at so many cases that I fervently supported and now wonder if my support was based on superficial stage presence, subconscious motivations and a desire to believe. The desire to believe is GONE, and I have uncovered at least some of my subconscious motivations.

This leaves me questioning all UFO related abduction cases. What is the point of joining "TEAM TRAVIS" or "TEAM JIM SPARKS" or "TEAM ANDREASSON" just because you "feel" they are truthful? Without more proof to go on, I feel I have spent my life being fooled by my own psychological make-up.

I am seeking an OBJECTIVITY. How do I find it?

Well, reading the views of others on this forum is a start.

You are narrating a repeated pattern. Grown men who were once fervent UFO believers appears to be the core demographic of this paranormal meme. Our absence from the field of study is suddenly interrupted by a much more skeptical vision following our more retun to the discussion.

The more I read here the more skeptical I get. On his forum there really is a lot of distillation of the signal as you become more and more aware of just how much noise there is in Ufology. This forum has an incredible concentration of well researched facts and extremely well reasoned opinions.

People are by far the best concentrated transmitters of unique information.

 

[William Strathmann]

I haven't read every comment of this thread here, but I've skipped through it, and I am familiar with the pros and cons of Walton's story. I happened to find online a 19 page .pdf of the entry from Jerry Clark's UFO Encyclopedia, which is attached. Clark's account puts several things in perspective, and it seems Clark is generally sympathetic to Walton's report. So, I thought I'd add it for the sake of "due diligence."

 

[Randall]

Ok, let me get this straight, those who have something (critical?) to say about his case are a threat? Just what exactly are they a threat to? Sounds like a bit of holiness creeping in there, or at least concern for the primacy of his truth & the shared narrative of believers, perhaps. Sometimes his word choice is really interesting and is worth its own more detailed investigation, not the recurring waving of the lie detector test flag of confirmation.

Wow, I just picked up on this now.

Rutkowski: After all these years, how do you respond to the critics who are hammering away, "It didn't happen"?

Walton: It kind of depends. Some of them can seem like more of a threat because they actually have something to say. But so many of these are without substance.

So as you pointed out; if the concern has substance it's a threat. A threat to what? The irresistible inference is that if the concern has substance it threatens to discredit the story.

"There is the endeavor to deflect any suspicion from himself, to efface all traces of the crime, and an impulse
growing more and more intense suddenly to cry out his secret in the street before all people, or in milder cases,
to confide it at least to one person, to free himself from the terrible burden." - The Compulsion to Confess​