Why can't I think that Walton is a liar? There's no way he can prove what he says he saw and that what happened actualy happened. Same thing goes for the Alagash people.
You can think whatever you like, Angelo. You can think Barack Obama is a reptilian alien from the draco system, or that Travis Walton is a liar. Thinking something does not make it so, and doesn't mean anyone is ever going to take any notice of you.
I would just advise you to consider that in the Walton case there were seven separate witnesses to the incident. All seven reported exactly the same thing. Not one has changed a single detail of their story for 35 years. Some of them didn't even like each other, and never got along. Even Mike Rogers and Travis were very cold to each other for 10 years or more. One of the other witnesses even came round to Travis's house to punch him out, he got so upset by the publicity the case generated for him, and the ridicule he was exposed to by association with it. BUT HE NEVER RECANTED ANY DETAIL OF HIS TESTIMONY, NOR DECLARED ANY OF THE OTHER WITNESSES A LIAR.
Now it doesn't matter a damn what you think or say, you are never gonna make any difference to the unshakeable testimony of seven separate witnesses in this case, nor to the fact that Travis was missing and then turned up after five days and nights - dirty, dishevelled, dehydrated, frightened and confused - following a three-day search through the hills by the police and local volunteers. It just comes down, in the end, to your personal ideology which can't accept that this encounter, resistant to all debunkerism for 35 years, might in fact have happened as reported. No debunker has ever presented any evidence of any kind to discredit this case. To discredit the Walton case they have to state that all seven witnesses were liars, and have continued to lie consistently for 35 years, with no benefit, no pay-off, just ridicule to contend with. This is character assassination and defamation on the strength of no evidence except the stupidity of personal ideology, which as usual (as with creationists and new-agers) triumphs over multiply corroborative testimony. The attitude, basically, stinks. Nothing personal.
---------- Post added at 05:56 AM ---------- Previous post was at 05:29 AM ----------
About the Khoury case, they brought up the point that this guys' proof of an alien was the analysis of the hair that proved it was HUMAN DNA - rare human DNA, but human DNA none the less. If it was alien DNA it would have been alien, no? I just think that there's more to this than saying, yeah, it was an alien visitor. He saw them when he was in bed.
Human DNA certainly, but assembled in a way which can never occur in a "natural" human. Just for starters, it is impossible for a natural human to have two different and separate types of mitochondrial DNA present. This would mean the person must have had two separate biological mothers.
Have you even read the lab reports, or Bill Chalker's book? Contacted either Peter Khoury or Bill Chalker in person, or bothered to do any in-depth investigation of the case? Debunkers are generally ignorant, lazy, ideologically-driven charlatans but these qualities don't seem to apply to you, so I was just wondering how much proactive investigation you really do.
Explain how five genetic substitutions/deletions in the DNA from the blond hair in the Khoury case, which have never been seen on any human, EVER, and would make the native resistant to virtually all lethal viruses including HIV and smallpox, could possibly occur by accident. Explain how the natural occurrence of these features might be possible, let alone plausible. The evidence of advanced and sophisticated bio-genetic engineering from human source material is, surely, the only possible explanation: remember Sherlock Holmes' famous dictum that when you have discounted the impossible then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.
Hybrid-type engineering? Looks like it. Explain how, biologically, we could possibly be dealing with anything else here. You have my attention.
And BTW the suggestion that Peter Khoury might have been having an affair and wanted to fool his wife with some outlandish explanation is not only groundless defamatory character assassination, but would betray knowledge of the facts of the case to be close to zero. The idea is so preposterous, so ridiculous in light of the evidence, that it's not even funny.
---------- Post added at 06:43 AM ---------- Previous post was at 05:56 AM ----------
The Mitochondrial DNA AND Y Chromosome Haplotype found in the Blonde Hair do pinpoint a location. That is Western Connaught Ireland. That is were the Tuatha de Dannann settled according to the texts and legends and myths and that area of Ireland today is mainly Irish speaking pure 100% Irish born. For me this case from Australia is just confirming my theories about fairy lore.
Kieran
There were many anomalies revealed by the analysis of this peculiar hair sample: the rare genetic types, the substitutions, the deletions, the conclusion that the hair should not even be blond but dark.
However the one glaring, inescapable anomaly which needs to be right at the top of the list for consideration is that the hair contained two separate kinds of mitochondrial DNA. This is impossible for a normal, biological human. People really need to get this. It means the woman had two separate biological mothers. How is this possible? What does it tell us?
Work it out.
) the third is too disturbing!! But I really don't know at this point. 