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

[Christopher O'Brien]

What about all the other unexplained activity that blossomed around the Heber, AZ region that fall? Does this count for anything? I mentioned it on the show...

 

[Randall]

Let's unpack this.

What I guess I'm getting at is why do either one of you think about it as anything more than "maybe true" or "maybe not true?" For me it's "I want it to be true but I don't know if it is."

This forum and ufology in general is more than about you or me or Don. There are other people out there who have their own beliefs and opinions and are not as well informed as they could be on this case. Therefore knowing more about it will help them form a more balanced opinion.

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

Here's the account: Reasonable Evidence

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

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

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

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

Pleading guilty after getting caught doesn't make a criminal less guilty, and I've fully acknowledged that strange things can happen to people with bad credibility. The point here again, is that although we may know these things, a lot of other people don't, and they are more inclined to believe the story because they haven't been given any reasons why they should suspect a hoax..

Again, both are opinions. For me, the altered cheques make him slightly less credible.

Seriously. Like I asked Don. If some guy stole your chequebook and forged some cheques on your account, got caught, admitted to doing it, and then came to you and asked for a reward for being abducted by aliens, you would only think he's "slightly less credible" ... lol.

But on the other side of that, it's hard to argue with the other witnesses ...

Actually it's fairly easy and I've covered some of that. What aspect do you think is hard to argue?

... and it's hard to argue with the missing time.

Not really. It's far more reasonable to suggest he was laying low at a buddies place ( as claimed by one informant ) than abducted by aliens.

At any rate, the case is in my grey basket anyway.

Ya mine too. The really really really almost totally black and white it was hoax basket.

Even if it were 100% true there's very little information to be gleaned from it. Even if it were 100% false there's very little information to be gleaned from it. For me, it exists in a semiotic space, and there it will be until he admits he faked it, or they come down and show us their CCTV footage of the event. In the meantime, round and round we go. I'm not sure where we're getting to.

Again, this isn't just for our benefit here. It's for those who haven't considered the cons, and The Paracast and USI aim to be informative rather than simply promoting a belief system.

You have a point. The guy pulled some shady stuff. We get it. But you can swap out 'Roswell' or any other 'golden age of ufology' topic in, and you get the same result. It's like an engine that you're redlining, only it's not in gear.

Generally speaking you are correct in that if what one wants is verifiable scientifically valid material evidence that is sufficient enough to prove to the scientific community that alien visitation is real, then we ( in the public arena at least ) don't have it. But for many people, that's neither the beginning, nor the end of the story, and simply hand waving the whole phenomenon because of that would only put them into a state of denial. Here's that quote from the X-Files I was trying ( badly ) to recall:

Deep Throat: Mister Mulder, why are those like yourself, who believe in the existence of extraterrestrial life on this Earth, not dissuaded by all the evidence to the contrary?
Mulder: Because, all the evidence to the contrary is not entirely dissuasive.

That being said. For the SNF incident, I'd say all the evidence to the contrary is dissuasive enough ( for me ) not to believe the story.

 

[marduk]

What about all the other unexplained activity that blossomed around the Heber, AZ region that fall? Does this count for anything? I mentioned it on the show...

It makes it interesting but what does it say?

Someone who believes him would say it provides circumstantial evidence and someone who doesn't would say that he might have grabbed onto what others would say.

 

[Decker]

Why Have This Discussion?
Why should it be fine on one hand to trash Imbrogno for forging a degree, and on the other give Walton a pass for forging payroll cheques? Even with at least 14 reasons why the SNF case should be viewed with extreme skepticism, there are still people who want to believe, and I feel that it's my duty as a responsible ufologist to provide reasons for people to think deeper and question their beliefs rather than just hand wave the whole thing. If we can do that it gets our readers farther than being less informed.

Actually, I was going to admit I was becoming bored with this "back and forth" but then Usual Suspect mentioned Phil Imbrogno in connection with Travis Walton. Apples and oranges ...

When Imbrogno lied and faked his academic credentials and his military service ... this was not done in a vacuum. Imbrogno lied about his credentials to further his UFO researcher street cred. ( Hey Public .... Look! I am a PhD by God, so when I talk crazy shit like Genies and shit ... take me seriously!) Hey, I was a GREEN BERET by God ... you know what it takes to be a GREEN BERET? Take me seriously!!

Walton forged a check which had nothing to do with UFOs. And Suspect, before you tell me ... again ... that Walton tried to get radio stations or whatever interested in his UFO stories ... which I believe you mentioned came from Phil Klass ... well ... I pass. As I stated on the show .. Phil lied when it suited HIS PURPOSES. I would need to see another source that would verify this to be true. Like I mentioned ... I really do not see this discussion going much further ... and accomplishing anything... Just saying ...

with all respect and affection ...

Decker

 

[marduk]

This forum and ufology in general is more than about you or me or Don. There are other people out there who have their own beliefs and opinions and are not as well informed as they could be on this case. Therefore knowing more about it will help them form a more balanced opinion.

I guess that's what I'm getting at and challenging.

This field has a few thousand metric tons of opinions and a few kilos of facts.

How anyone could listen or read Walton's account and think anything but "that's interesting" is beyond me.

I want to believe him. I can't call it factual as in "it happened."

Pleading guilty after getting caught doesn't make a criminal less guilty, and I've fully acknowledged that strange things can happen to people with bad credibility. The point here again, is that although we may know these things, a lot of other people don't, and they are more inclined to believe the story because they haven't been given any reasons why they should suspect a hoax..

Seriously. Like I asked Don. If some guy stole your chequebook and forged some cheques on your account, got caught, admitted to doing it, and then came to you and asked for a reward for being abducted by aliens, you would only think he's "slightly less credible" ... lol.

It speaks to his credibility, that's for sure. But does it damn it? Is everything he says now a lie?

I once lied to a girl when I was 16 and told her I was 18 when I was on a ski trip so I could sleep with her. An asshole move, to be sure, but I also saw some strange stuff around the same time. Does that make those things a lie? FWIW, it didn't work with that girl.

On the other hand, it sure doesn't make him a bastion of truth, either.

As you have said, there's plenty of evidence to question him. For me, that starts with his whole account which is entirely different than almost anyone else's, and certainly my own. Many people would say all of them were lying just because they saw a saucer.

What say you to the other witnesses?

Actually it's fairly easy and I've covered some of that. What aspect do you think is hard to argue?
Not really. It's far more reasonable to suggest he was laying low at a buddies place ( as claimed by one informant ) than abducted by aliens.

Totally could be true. What I mean by hard to argue is that it's hard to argue that anybody saw him during that time.

Now, I've gone off the grid myself a couple times and it's easy to do. Certainly back then.

Ya mine too. The really really really almost totally black and white it was hoax basket.

Again, this isn't just for our benefit here. It's for those who haven't considered the cons, and The Paracast and USI aim to be informative rather than simply promoting a belief system.
Generally speaking you are correct in that if what one wants is verifiable scientifically valid material evidence that is sufficient enough to prove to the scientific community that alien visitation is real, then we ( in the public arena at least ) don't have it. But for many people, that's neither the beginning, nor the end of the story, and simply hand waving the whole phenomenon because of that would only put them into a state of denial. Here's that quote from the X-Files I was trying ( badly ) to recall:

Deep Throat: Mister Mulder, why are those like yourself, who believe in the existence of extraterrestrial life on this Earth, not dissuaded by all the evidence to the contrary?
Mulder: Because, all the evidence to the contrary is not entirely dissuasive.

That being said. For the SNF incident, I'd say all the evidence to the contrary is dissuasive enough ( for me ) not to believe the story.

Groovy, I'm good with that. I'm not going to argue with your well informed opinion. It's a reasonable one. Just like I'm not going to argue with Chris' well informed opinion. It's also a reasonable one.

But you guys both gotta admit that you both probably have it wrong, right? Neither of you guys actually know what happened to the guy. I don't think even he really understands what happened to him, but that's my opinion. That's all we have here, is opinions. Your opinions may intersect with reality, but we're never gonna know what happened to some logger decades ago. Never, unless one of them cops to the hoax or Zorg comes down and admits he took Walton.

You guys both have bright minds that could be arguing about stuff that has an answer. Stuff like, I dunno, whatever the hell Vallee was talking about when he talked about a new case?

 

[Randall]

... That's all we have here, is opinions ...

And like I always say, some opinions carry more weight than others. There's enough counterpoint now that anyone who is interested can come to a much more well informed opinion than the average Walton believer who is only aware of his books, movies, podcasts and other one-sided stories.

STORY - Mock-up capsule is Rendelsham's Mogul balloon: Does this photograph and shock new evidence solve Rendlesham UFO mystery once and for all?

What about all the other unexplained activity that blossomed around the Heber, AZ region that fall? Does this count for anything? I mentioned it on the show...

What counts most to me Chris is that you are inclined to believe his story. You know the guy and seem to believe him. Maybe if I knew him like you do I'd be inclined to agree. On the lights, I don't have sufficient information about those sightings to comment, but I believe @marduk made a pretty good point.

Also I mentioned previously that because it was hunting season Pierce had said on tape that he thought the lights resembled a spotlighting setup. Maybe there were more of those out there that were seen at some distance and interpreted as strange lights. Maybe there was some aerial surveillance of those hunters going on by wildlife authorities ( spotlighting isn't always legal ). I don't know, but both of those possibilities are at least as reasonable as an alien craft, so they should have been considered by investigators. To your knowledge were they?

 

[Randall]

Actually, I was going to admit I was becoming bored with this "back and forth" but then Usual Suspect mentioned Phil Imbrogno in connection with Travis Walton. Apples and oranges ...

Not really Apples & Oranges because forging a university degree doesn't have anything to do with UFOs either. But a connection is made because Imbrogno wanted credibility as a UFO guy. Same deal with Walton. Forging cheques doesn't have anything to with UFOs either until Walton claims he's been abducted by a UFO. So it's more like Granny Smith apples to McIntosh apples. It's a minor distinction. Forging cheques however is probably a more serious offense.

I was also musing about your comment that dimesnsions and universes are basically a tomáto vs tomāto thing, so I was trying to work out a tomato analogy, and the way it works out is that a tomato is to a dimension as separate hothouses are to different universes. So there's really a huge difference there in terms of concepts.

Hope that's not too boring. What would liven it up for you? Any comments on the mock-up capsule story in connection with Rendlesham?

 

[marduk]

And like I always say, some opinions carry more weight than others. There's enough counterpoint now that anyone who is interested can come to a much more well informed opinion than the average Walton believer who is only aware of his books, movies, podcasts and other one-sided stories.

STORY - Mock-up capsule is Rendelsham's Mogul balloon: Does this photograph and shock new evidence solve Rendlesham UFO mystery once and for all?



What counts most to me Chris is that you are inclined to believe his story. You know the guy and seem to believe him. Maybe if I knew him like you do I'd be inclined to agree. On the lights, I don't have sufficient information about those sightings to comment, but I believe @marduk made a pretty good point.

Also I mentioned previously that because it was hunting season Pierce had said on tape that he thought the lights resembled a spotlighting setup. Maybe there were more of those out there that were seen at some distance and interpreted as strange lights. Maybe there was some aerial surveillance of those hunters going on by wildlife authorities ( spotlighting isn't always legal ). I don't know, but both of those possibilities are at least as reasonable as an alien craft, so they should have been considered by investigators. To your knowledge were they?

Lol, nice find. Rendlesham has always struck me as a dead end case, with the final nail going in with the binary BS.

But this seems to have totalled it.

It's like Kecksburg. You have a soviet capsule coming down at about the same time, looking exactly like the reports, with a very good reason for the US grabbing it and NORAD saying it came down in pieces somewhere else.

If it could be something prosaic, I think you have to assume it was prosaic.

 

[Randall]

Lol, nice find. Rendlesham has always struck me as a dead end case, with the final nail going in with the binary BS.

But this seems to have totalled it.

It's like Kecksburg. You have a soviet capsule coming down at about the same time, looking exactly like the reports, with a very good reason for the US grabbing it and NORAD saying it came down in pieces somewhere else.

If it could be something prosaic, I think you have to assume it was prosaic.

Yup. However if I recall correctly, there were some other seemingly good reports associated with the bases over there that involved unknown radar contacts. My suspicion has always been that the Rendlesham incident was a red herring designed to draw attention away from that activity, then eventually when the less sensational cases were sufficiently forgotten and buried, deflate Rendlesham and poof! It all blows away like smoke in the wind. IMO the deflation started with Penniston's claim of having been telepathically imparted with some sort of digital message. That probably caused other serious ufologists to distance themselves from the case to some degree as well.

 

[ALPHA ROMEO UNIFORM]

Regarding the Bentwater Case/ Rendlesham incident were you actually there on those joint facilities of NATO? Yes something happened and reckoned something happened to Mr Warren as the others in the US /NATO facilities. Also it was not the only NATO facility to have odd radar contact and it was ongoing through the 1970s. (Not many folks know of the events that occurred in 1960s at NATO bases and its Submarines facilities which no doubt still classified . Robert Hasting has done excellent work on this subject and his book is more the angle to look at , similar events and MK don't think so at nuclear facilities those folks don't muck around with nuclear weapons especially if there is contact on the base. Also back then no private contractors looking after those bases and SF units would be more plausible ). Could it have been the Soviets off the coast of UK and Europe mainland plausible. Not ignoring the other nations at that time China and Israel who were dealing with Iran's Islamic Revolution which affected the UK and other parts of Europe Islamic terrorism / other groups. Also Don mention on his great radio show Darkmatters "the facility held nuclear weapons " . Which no doubt the UK & US/NATO Governments new and had policy to deal with any threats during that period in history. Whatever it is the nuclear /ordnance is the subject matter which they are interested in.

Unless they are Green peaceful loving global warming and anti coal aliens who are seeking to save the World from human destruction

 

[Creepy Green Light]

I'm sure 90% of us know this, but if it's accurate - kinda makes Travis Walton's case seem laughable. So wait....Travis had an agreement with his brother (before his incident) that if either one of them are ever abducted by aliens - that they would try and get the aliens to go back to get the other brother (what?). And that "The Interrupted Journey" (Betty & Barney Hill Movie) aired just two weeks before Walton's episode happened? And the part about having to get out of their logging contract because they were never going to complete it on time unless an "act of God" happened? Then the receiving of the $ from the National Enquirer?

I'm not saying that it couldn't have happened - but when you take some of these other things into consideration - it kinda makes you raise an eyebrow.

But this episode of the Paracast was great. Keep up the good work guys

Skepticblog » Travis Walton’s Alien Abduction Lie Detection Test

 

[marduk]

Regarding the Bentwater Case/ Rendlesham incident were you actually there on those joint facilities of NATO?

That insinuation is not defensible.

I didn't have to be there when the US landed folks on the moon to know it happened.

I didn't have to be there when Xenu was supposed to have nuked all those space prisoners in Scientology lore to know it didn't happen.

Something did happen. Was that something weird? Sure. Was it ET? Probably not. Have people made up BS stories about it since then? Absolutely.

Is the landing capsule explanation a good one? Very much so. You have your triangular craft, you have your tripod, you have your helicopter recovery making it fly away.

And you have that part of the base not talking to the other part that witnessed it. Seems like a pretty reasonable explanation.

A far better one than some future craft coming back in time to communicate with some guy in ASCII that is binary encoded... I mean, why? The transmission wasn't even supposed to make sense to him, but it was a human craft! Why not just talk to him with whatever the future version of Siri is. And he kept it hidden for decades because he didn't want to be laughed at? Sure.

Besides, the message was using ASCII that isn't even unicode, and many systems don't even use any more for data storage or transmission.

 

[Walter Bosley]

LMFAO In my opinion, the satellite capsule possibility makes perfect sense. In fact, it probably explains a lot of cases over the years -- AND the govt secrecy about them. It makes so much sense to me that I wonder why no one figured it out before, lol.

 

[SheaOlmsford]

I just joined Paracast+ recently so I am playing catch up on the After-the-Paracast episodes.

I would like to share what I guess can only be called an anecdotal story, although I believe it.

I am in Phoenix. About 7 years ago, I had a very serious health problem. My life was at stake. I was blessed to come under the care of a medical specialist who has been rated one of the top 10 in the USA (in his medical specialty) for years by some medical community of his peers. I have no right to give his name, since what he told me was in confidence.

He was a serious UFO buff. Not your standard "believe any wild story because it is cool" sort of guy. He was by nature very serious and methodical. I do not recall how this happened (who set this up with him), but supposedly after the Travis Walton situation, my doctor volunteered to pick Phil Klass up at the Phx area airport and drive him up to Snowflake where the abduction occurred.

So my doctor did this in his enthusiasm back then to be part of the investigation.

Here comes the point of this post:

My doctor told me that he drove Phil Klass to Snowflake, where they stopped at a gas station. Phil Klass got out of the car, used the facilities, and walked around a bit. Then when the doctor asked where Phil wished to go next, Phil told the doctor that they could return to Phoenix! The doctor must have had a look of incredulity on his face because Phil then supposedly said that he could in truth claim that he had gone to Snowflake to investigate the story. The doctor was appalled that THIS was the extent of Phil Klass's onsite investigation into the abduction case. The doctor then drove Phil back to Phoenix in silence, feeling that he had been suckered by a fraud.

I am trusting that this story as related is true because my doctor was again a very sober serious man. What possible reason would one of the top 10 doctors in the USA in his field have to make up a story like this to tell a relative "nobody" like me. This doctor saved my life! I owe him more than I can say.

But I can't prove the story is true. All I can confirm is that this is the story that I was told. I only share this to shed some light on the character of Phil Klass.

 

[Decker]

So my doctor did this in his enthusiasm back then to be part of the investigation.My doctor told me that he drove Phil Klass to Snowflake, where they stopped at a gas station. Phil Klass got out of the car, used the facilities, and walked around a bit. Then when the doctor asked where Phil wished to go next, Phil told the doctor that they could return to Phoenix! The doctor must have had a look of incredulity on his face because Phil then supposedly said that he could in truth claim that he had gone to Snowflake to investigate the story. The doctor was appalled that THIS was the extent of Phil Klass's onsite investigation into the abductioncase. But the doctor drove Phil back to Phoenix in silence, feeling that he had enabled a fraud..

And that was the duplicitous Phil Klass I knew. Remember what I stated earlier in this thread .. Klass was a convenience liar.

Nuff said ...

Decker

 

[SheaOlmsford]

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

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

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

Sadly, we cannot really rely on our own impressions of someone to determine objective proof. Look at all the people flocking to Corey Goode's SSP flag! We each have our own relatively unique psychological profile that determines what we find credible, how we determine "truth", and what that truth is. Knowing this is daunting, but this points out a need for an objective criteria, e.g., science. (I almost wrote "true science" but what would I know about true science that wasn't based on B science fiction movies and Perry Mason detective deductions?).

Not to belabor this, but I have just seen so many people say that "This is true because I FEEL IT IN MY GUT, or MY HEART, or IT RESONATES WITH ME....." That sort of thing. But although we may not see the subjectivity of that in ourselves, we easily see it in others. Someone I consider a narcissistic psychopath, someone else considers the best President in modern history! Something is NOT true just because it FEELS true. We have been fighting this battle with human nature and its bent to project its own qualities outward since the split of religion versus science.

In the case of Travis Walton, I don't care if some of you have known him for 20 years and think he is the salt of the earth. Con men and psychopaths are excellent at creating the proper impression. It takes more than charm and people skills to convince me of a story's validity. I don't believe or disbelieve Travis Walton. Yes, I have met him. He seemed nice but so what?

There has to be much more to the determination of truth than a pleasing personality.