UFO cases that you KNOW are a hoax/froad

[Creepy Green Light]

There are countless hoaxes. But I'd say probably some of the most well known ones are;

Billy Meier
Gulf Breeze/Ed Walters
Trinidade
Rex Heflin's UFO
Guardian Case
Morristown, NJ hoax

What other ones?

 

[Burnt State]

Maury Island
The Cortile Case (shhhh....)
& probably most abduction cases i.e. Buff Ledge
& probably most UFO photo shot series like Heflin i.e. Cluj

The Guardian Case is a classic - one of my faves for its sincere attempt at hoodwinking with videotape.

 

[Wade]

Not sure if this counts but what about Derenberger's run in with Indrid Cold ?

And anything involving Albert Bender?

 

[Randall]

If I pay attention to the word "KNOW" as yelled out at us in the thread title, I would have to say that it is very unlikely that we actually "KNOW" what cases are hoaxes or frauds because all we've got to go on is second and third-hand information. We weren't there to witness either the hoaxing or the real event. We're just parroting articles and videos and whatever so and so says, and making judgement calls based on what we think is most likely to be true. But is that really the same as knowing? I don't think so.

For example, I would submit that only Travis Walton really knows if his story is a hoax or not. Even the Billy Meier case with those seeming obvious photo fakes might not be what we think. I've seen it proposed that the obvious fakes aren't even photos taken by Meier or advocated by him as genuine. IMO the only time we can say with some certainty we really know that some experiential claim is true, is when we experience and investigate it ourselves. But even then, it's possible that we might be misinterpreting the evidence perceived through our senses and/or misinterpreting data gathered from technology, or perhaps we're not misinterpreting the data but the data itself is in error due to undetected malfunctions, and we're drawing inaccurate conclusions, even though our own thinking and experience is just fine. In the end it begs the question: How do we really know anything experiential is really what we think it is?

 

[Creepy Green Light]

Maury Island
The Cortile Case (shhhh....)
& probably most abduction cases i.e. Buff Ledge
& probably most UFO photo shot series like Heflin i.e. Cluj

The Guardian Case is a classic - one of my faves for its sincere attempt at hoodwinking with videotape.

Thanks for reminding me about Cortile, Burnt. That might be #1 on the list.

 

[Creepy Green Light]

If I pay attention to the word "KNOW" as yelled out at us in the thread title, I would have to say that it is very unlikely that we actually "KNOW" what cases are hoaxes or frauds because all we've got to go on is second and third-hand information. We weren't there to witness either the hoaxing or the real event. We're just parroting articles and videos and whatever so and so says, and making judgement calls based on what we think is most likely to be true. But is that really the same as knowing? I don't think so.

For example, I would submit that only Travis Walton really knows if his story is a hoax or not. Even the Billy Meier case with those seeming obvious photo fakes might not be what we think. I've seen it proposed that the obvious fakes aren't even photos taken by Meier or advocated by him as genuine. IMO the only time we can say with some certainty we really know that some experiential claim is true, is when we experience and investigate it ourselves. But even then, it's possible that we might be misinterpreting the evidence perceived through our senses and/or misinterpreting data gathered from technology, or perhaps we're not misinterpreting the data but the data itself is in error due to undetected malfunctions, and we're drawing inaccurate conclusions, even though our own thinking and experience is just fine. In the end it begs the question: How do we really know anything experiential is really what we think it is?

Ok, so I'll take the bait. So what are some other options to Eduard "Billy" Meier's? How could it be something other than what it is (fraud)?

 

[Bob Watson]

"dr Jonathan Reed/Rutner alien in the freezer...
I been on the fence about Linda if anyone can offer solid evidence of fraud I would be grateful!

 

[Creepy Green Light]

"dr Jonathan Reed/Rutner alien in the freezer...
I been on the fence about Linda if anyone can offer solid evidence of fraud I would be grateful!

I guess this doesn't prove or disprove anything and I've said it before. Is it possible that in the middle of the night in the biggest city in the United States that a flying saucer from another world can hover outside an apartment building, use it's tractor beam to suck a woman out through her bedroom window, multiple times, and NOBODY saw this? Nor was it captured on film? NYC is the city that never sleeps. There are millions of people up in the middle of the night. Even if a couple people saw something, it'd be all over the news outlets (just like today - when one person or one family thinks they saw or filmed a UFO, it's on the news). This makes zero sense. Then factor in all the nonsense about meeting the Pope and seeing mobster John Gotti inside the flying saucer amongst other people.....c'mon. This isn't a put down to her personally or to people that have mental issues, but in my opinion, that's exactly the issue here.

 

[Randall]

Ok, so I'll take the bait. So what are some other options to Eduard "Billy" Meier's? How could it be something other than what it is (fraud)?

Sorry about the delay in responding. While something cannot be something other than what it is, it might not be what we think it is in the first place, especially when the information used to base a conclusion isn't firsthand. Sources could be inaccurate. So unless we have a way of verifying every aspect of an experiential claim firsthand, we are not in a position to know with certainty that the information used to draw our conclusions is true. All we can do is make a decision based on what seems to be a reasonable likelihood of it being true, and IMO that's not the same as "KNOWING".

 

[Goggs Mackay]

I guess this doesn't prove or disprove anything and I've said it before. Is it possible that in the middle of the night in the biggest city in the United States that a flying saucer from another world can hover outside an apartment building, use it's tractor beam to suck a woman out through her bedroom window, multiple times, and NOBODY saw this? Nor was it captured on film? NYC is the city that never sleeps. There are millions of people up in the middle of the night. Even if a couple people saw something, it'd be all over the news outlets (just like today - when one person or one family thinks they saw or filmed a UFO, it's on the news). This makes zero sense. Then factor in all the nonsense about meeting the Pope and seeing mobster John Gotti inside the flying saucer amongst other people.....c'mon. This isn't a put down to her personally or to people that have mental issues, but in my opinion, that's exactly the issue here.

I agree with you in a sense with the whole big city/craft/beam-up thing, but then again, if anything about UFOs are real, then to me it isn't a stretch that either some cloaking tech could be used or even a kind of mind-wipe field that would prevent anyone in the vicinity forming any memories of the occasion. There are countless drugs which make it virtually impossible to remember anything while under the influence and I imagine there could possibly exist a more technological version of the same effect.

Now, I'm not saying for a second that I buy anything whatsoever of the whole Cortile abduction tale, I'm just pointing out that in the great scheme of the UFO field and all the weird occurrences that get reported in it, pulling off an abduction without witnesses in a large city doesn't actually stretch the imagination too much.

 

[Creepy Green Light]

Sorry about the delay in responding. While something cannot be something other than what it is, it might not be what we think it is in the first place, especially when the information used to base a conclusion isn't firsthand. Sources could be inaccurate. So unless we have a way of verifying every aspect of an experiential claim firsthand, we are not in a position to know with certainty that the information used to draw our conclusions is true. All we can do is make a decision based on what seems to be a reasonable likelihood of it being true, and IMO that's not the same as "KNOWING".

Ummm.....ok. But you do believe the Meier case is 100% fraud, correct?

 

[Creepy Green Light]

I agree with you in a sense with the whole big city/craft/beam-up thing, but then again, if anything about UFOs are real, then to me it isn't a stretch that either some cloaking tech could be used or even a kind of mind-wipe field that would prevent anyone in the vicinity forming any memories of the occasion. There are countless drugs which make it virtually impossible to remember anything while under the influence and I imagine there could possibly exist a more technological version of the same effect.

Now, I'm not saying for a second that I buy anything whatsoever of the whole Cortile abduction tale, I'm just pointing out that in the great scheme of the UFO field and all the weird occurrences that get reported in it, pulling off an abduction without witnesses in a large city doesn't actually stretch the imagination too much.

I guess to me the Cortile case is the equivalent of the Adamski case way back when and other contactees that say flying saucers from Venus come and the Venusians take them on board and bring them back to Venus, then fly them to the other side of the moon to show them all the cities & colonies that they have there.

 

[Creepy Green Light]

I agree with you in a sense with the whole big city/craft/beam-up thing, but then again, if anything about UFOs are real, then to me it isn't a stretch that either some cloaking tech could be used or even a kind of mind-wipe field that would prevent anyone in the vicinity forming any memories of the occasion. There are countless drugs which make it virtually impossible to remember anything while under the influence and I imagine there could possibly exist a more technological version of the same effect.

Now, I'm not saying for a second that I buy anything whatsoever of the whole Cortile abduction tale, I'm just pointing out that in the great scheme of the UFO field and all the weird occurrences that get reported in it, pulling off an abduction without witnesses in a large city doesn't actually stretch the imagination too much.

I see what your saying. In the grand scheme of things, this doesn't seem that far of a stretch. But in my reality here in New Jersey, USA - it pretty much is. As a side note, after doing some more research, I've come to the conclusion that the McMinnville/Paul Trent photos are a fraud. I've even gone to the McMinnville UFO festival with my family (when we lived in Oregon for 7 years). Fun stuff there. I got to listen to Stanton Friedman and Kathleen Marden speak. (sorry, I know this is getting off topic).

 

[Creepy Green Light]

Maury Island
The Cortile Case (shhhh....)
& probably most abduction cases i.e. Buff Ledge
& probably most UFO photo shot series like Heflin i.e. Cluj

The Guardian Case is a classic - one of my faves for its sincere attempt at hoodwinking with videotape.

Who's that one investigator that bought the Guardian case hardcore? I believe he is a Canadian fellow. Actually I think his name is something like Hexler. Guardian case is most ridiculous. I also think Bruce Maccabee buys this one as well.