Wednesday, September 15, 2010

Travis Walton Answers

[updated confirmed Travis Walton answers "Moment Of Truth" show lie detector fiasco.


In an article i posted previously, "Sherrif's nephew claims Travis Walton hoax well known", A person from You Tube claimed to be Sherif's Sank Walton's grand nephew he was the" chief Ifinvestigator" on Walton's abduction. I thought we should showcase his answer here.

Sherif’s nephew claims Travis Walton Hoax well kno...

If Travis reads this I hope he can clear up another attack here it is:

Mikod2

"this guy went to the show "the moment of truth" and when they asked him if he was abducted in 1975 he said yes, but the lie detector proved it was a lie. I believed him, but now i think I don't..."

This is Travis Walton, verify this by e-mailing me at [removed]responding to Mikod2 post about the Moment of Truth show. Yes, I was on it but the show does not use real polygraph. They use a further mutated version of a long-discredited method found by the Govt Accounting Office to yield 80% false positives (truth tellers judged as lying). No real examiner accepts the show's verdicts.

A couple of years ago the corporation employing me for nearly a decade announced a lay off of the 50 most recently hired. I was on the list. I went home and got a call that same day from the show offering the opportunity to win 6 figures. Hopeful solution to the lay off? All I had to do was truthfully answer a bunch of questions. No problem, but I was wary. The polygraph operator was their man, with incentive to keep his employer from paying any prize money. E-mailed some friends about my misgivings. Job situation clouded my judgement. Already had one situation with examiner using obsolete method. I asked if they used modern accepted technique, was assured they did. Turned out that claim was grossly untrue. Found out no previous "contestant" had ever won big prize! Most shows filmed never aired because "contestants" walked out. The show was about to be cancelled and they needed something to boost ratings. Sequence showing me being tested was fake, "examiner" was an actor, my arm rested comfortably on table as per proper method. For their "test" my arm had to balance perfectly still on a narrow metal rail for a very long time -- excruciating. Would cause stress unrelated to lying. The examiner lied to me saying he knew police polygraph examiner Cy Gilson and was using same method. Other gross violations of proper method. Show was deceptively edited. When "untruthful" verdict was announced audience erupted in loud booing. Host Mark Walberg turned to crowd and asked, "How many still believe he is telling the truth?" Audience roared with loud, long cheering. Asked how many don't believe him? A few scattered yells from the back. This was edited out to deceive TV viewers that booing was against me, not the show.
I solicited an opinion about the methods used by The Moment of Truth from world renowned polygraph expert Cleve Backster. Backster is still in practice with over 50 years experience and originated procedures adopted as the gold standard throughout the field. He has twice testified before the U.S. Congress and in landmark court cases. He has held high posts in the top polygraph organizations and presided over countless training courses for law enforcement at local, state and federal levels, including Fort Gordon, U.S.Army Counterintelligence Corps, the CIA, the U.S. Dept of Defense Polygraph School, Canadian Police College Polygraph Examiner School, and the the FBI Academy. His school, Baxter Associates said, "Moment of Truth uses a technique that was discarded years ago...a non-validated technique."

Another top expert gave me his opinion on The Moment of Truth. Dr. David C. Raskin, a former Professor of Psychology at the University of Utah is the author of the most respected textbooks in polygraphy and published many oft-cited papers on lie detection and his refinement of the most widely accepted method in use today. In his 50+ years in the field he has been a court recognized expert in famous trials like the Howard Hughes will, Jeffrey (Fatal Vision) McDonald, serial killer Ted Bundy, the DeLorean affair, and the McMartin preschool case. He has testified before British Parliament, Israeli Kineset, and four times before the Judiciary Committee of the U.S. Senate with regard to cases like Watergate and Iran-Contra. Dr Raskin told me, "...I have always thought those TV programs are a disgrace... Any polygraph examiner who participates in such charades should not be allowed to practice. I have been asked to be the principal in such shows and I have always refused...I agree with the criticisms made by Mr. (Michael) Martin." Martin created the aforementioned THE TRUTH ABOUT THE MOMENT OF TRUTH website, www.polytest.org/momenttruth.html

Thinking the show would air as scheduled, I lined up experts and national media appearances to refute the show, and took the most rigorous new polygraph tests available. So they cancelled the show, but told me I was still bound by the contract which specified a one million dollar penalty if I revealed anything about the show before it aired. I added to my book the basics about the show in a general way, and detailed the new tests without telling why I sought new tests. Now that it finally aired in South Africa, Portugal and France I am free to reveal their deceiving of TV audiences around the world. It is possible their unethical examiner deceived them about the validity of his methods, but I know they were aware of THE TRUTH ABOUT THE MOMENT OF TRUTH website (www.polytest.org/momenttruth.org

The most rigorous testing standards available to me were to be found in NM where results are admissible in court and so are tightly regulated by state law. I took two tests from the most respected firm which does testing for New Mexico State Prison, Albuquerque Police Dept and even the United States Marshal's Service. State of the art method and modern 5 trace equipment with digital scoring and readout was used. I passed both new tests flawlessly. More details in the newest edition of my book. But skeptics will try to pretend a deceptive game show's results supercede five properly conducted tests. And the 12 other tests passed by others and all the other evidence.








Travis responds


Travis Walton here. I won't insult your intelligence by telling you that the previous poster claiming to be me was not. First I want to thank you all for your support and commend you for recognizing the "sheriff's nephew" as a fake. He isn't the first to try to gain attention by claiming some connection to the center of this. Even persons taking a supportive position sometimes do it by claiming to be a close school chum, girlfriend or coworker.

One supporter claimed to have attended the homecoming party after I was returned -- except that party was movie fiction. Another man bragged in the chainsaw shop about knowing me and Mike, unfortunately Mike was standing there too and wasn't even recognized by the man.
There are too many lies in the "sheriff's nephew" post to refute all here.

The main points should be sufficient to see it's all fiction. If "nephew" doesn't even know town marshall Sank Flake was never County Sheriff, how much "inside story" could he have? Public record that Marlin Gillespie was Cnty Sheriff. Neither my son nor either of his cousins could figure out who "nephew" was, even after checking the his yearbook. Ken Peterson said his family never owned any property in Concho, which is 30 mi from Snowflake, not 5. Allen never lived in Concho. It's established record that the entire crew lived in Snowflake. The night of the incident the crew met with lawmen at a service station closed for the night, not a diner (that was the movie). There was no Red Robin diner in Heber in 1975. The 1st Red Robin opened in 1993 - in Pennsylvania. "Nephew" changed his claim to the Red Onion but that 1st opened 20 years after the incident. I didn't socialize with Allen off the job. I never rode in any police car in connection with the incident. Allen DID help with the search.

I most certainly DID do interviews locally and interviewers did ask townspeople questions and NONE ever claimed "nephews" story. The big debunkers follow every UFO report with checks on astronomical charts and local aviation, yet never claimed air force helicopter maneuvers. Debunkers scoured this community for discrediting stories yet never used "nephew's" tale that was supposedly known in town. I was an employee only, the contract was Mike's alone. The "contract motive" theory was thoroughly discredited by an affidavit signed by the Forest Service Contracting Officer. I never spent a night in the hospital after my return, but the doctor who examined me wrote a detailed report which did not describe "dirty needle marks" on my stomach and eye. He put my blood & urine samples through the county medical examiner's drug screen which showed no trace of any drug. Also at least 2 of the 5 or 6 polygraph tests I passed asked if I had taken drugs during the incident. All 6 crewmen went back that night, Mike going back alone was movie fiction. The actual polygraph questions are a matter of public record, not "nephew's" version.

Skeptic though Sank is, he will be furious to learn "nephew" is claiming he knew incident was hoax. If Sank can figure out who "nephew" really is, he might join me if I sue for libel, slander and defamation of character. "Nephew" isn't the first impostor to try attaching their selves to this case and won't be the last. In my book I take each charge leveled by the debunkers and, by citing independently verifiable documents and statements by experts, prove their case to be just the sort of sham the "County Sheriff's nephew" has posted.

Thank you Travis hope to hear from you.

Joe Capp
UFO Media Matters
Non-Commercial Blog




12 comments:

  1. Interesting reading.

    I haven't followed this very closely but I am not surprised. The UFO field attracts many nutjobs. However, this deeper and more thoroughly executed defamation effort smells more of some sort of smaller intelligence operation than a one mans sudden delusion.

    One of the more common strategies in the intelligence field seems to be character assassination. Often used in the political field this is a sure way to create doubt and attach a stigma to the person by associating them with negativity, doubt and false facts. By defaming an intriguing case, a lot of readers can be tricked into believing the propaganda, especially the ones that are undecided. This also cements the beliefs of the already skeptic/disbelievers by preaching to the quire. Last but not least it's also to keep the involved and serious people occupied with nonsense in hopes to derail all and any efforts into getting properly organized and gaining proper media's coverage.

    When the cat is out of the bag this is the best strategy to contain a problem for the intelligence organizations. Why resort to heavier means like mental warfare (phone calls, surveillance, creating paranoia), economic warfare (using authorities to occupy and coerce) or explore going into the field of physical harm like poisioning, staged accidents, muggings or killings when not necessary to solve a particular problem?

    This is what I believe is happening Travis Walton.

    Also I have to say that intelligence officer that long afterwards claim he was seeing all of this abduction from a mountain nearby is all bullshit to my ears. Well, these intelligence people can be well rehearsed and convincing but is nonsense with almost 100% certainty. An intelligence officer telling that story this long after the fact is just a way to plant a seed (for later purposes) and make sure to be involved in the information release process so as to be able to convey an opinion on the matter (a spin). By gaining importance and a role in the story, that translates into control to affect how the story is told in the future. This is a good way for intelligence operations to gain control over something inevitable that was previously uncontrolled.

    Thanks and all the best,
    Daniel Bergh, Sweden.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Running off on a tangent, this type of afterthefact-disinfo-operation is also what I believe happened to Bob Lazar.

    Lazar was properly threatened and bodily harmed (coerced) while debriefed at Area 51 the day after he was caught in the desert. I believe that the military didn't think Lazar was a HUGE threat to them since he was not a field heavy-weight and fairly newly hired without tangible evidence he didn't necessarily need killing. My belief is the military also assessed that the coercing was a success and that Lazar wouldn't be a future problem so they let him live.

    However right, the coercing part was done all too well since Lazar took it all so seriously he began fearing for his life and chose to go public believing the military couldn't get to him in the open. What then followed have been years of attack on Lazar in the media (disinformation) while Lazar himself have long since left the UFO scene to leave these allegations unretorted.

    Some of the more intriguing details of the Lazar case, i.e. what happened after Lazar was caught was seldom vented in the media. All of it came from Huff, Lear and Knapp but very little from Lazar. Like the depiction of the debriefing at Area51, what transpired in a casino where Lazar later would meet with his employer and Lazar getting panic attacks weeks and months after these incidents which related to previously suppressed memories that the military was culprit to. Also Lazar has been monitored and even raided by the Government since.

    Lazar went very quiet after his public appearance and haven't started using his fame for commercial success. A lot like Walton who haven't cashed in on his experiences. For me, that is 100% essential in starting assessing the character of the person telling the story.

    Liking the Lazar story or not - each story on its own merits and I don't portray there's a link between Lazar and Walton, just that they got a similar treatment from the military. For me, the Lazar case is highly unlikely to be fabricated and Walton obviously is telling the truth.

    Thanks,
    Daniel Bergh, Sweden

    ReplyDelete
  3. Thanks Daniel for some great points. I believe Lear was intelligence and still do. Lazar I believe was in a setup. Somehow they wanted some of this info leak. I think that happens more then we think. The more our enemies suspect we have advanced alien technology the better it is for us and I think that may be a factor in many leaks. I was pretty sure we hadn't masters aliens technology but after Ben Rich death bed interview I'm not so sure.
    Thanks
    Daniel

    ReplyDelete
  4. Yes. I have changed opinion on Lear. I thought that a lot of what he said in the 1990s made sense and was good research, but now... He is either losing his mind or actively pushing an agenda for intelligence purposes. I don't think it can be explained any other way.

    I don't see how UFOs of alien origin can solely be a military thought-construct made up and put forth as to cover up prosaic terrestrial military advancements. Too much water under the bridge for that.

    Yes, the military would benefit some from aggressively pushing an alien agenda in order to distract professionals in politics/science away from the technology potentially involved. By ridiculing the subject of UFOs and then attach some good data to it (of both terrestrial + ex-terrestrial origin) the intelligence community is probably hoping for disinterest/confusion to build among important demographics that otherwise would be interested in knowing more.

    This is obviously one aspect in keeping advanced terrestrial technology suppressed, but, the association of terrestrial military technology to alien UFOs is only secondary in my mind. The ridiculing of the UFO subject is primary. You wouldn't have disinfo pointing towards alien origin about some good sightings or crashes if you hadn't first made sure the whole ET-subject got doubtful thanks to putting some crazy people and rubbish data there. Obviously the intelligence community have helped made sure there's a certain stigma with the UFO subject.

    In my mind, there are enough good people testifying on ET-stuff first hand like David Adair, Stan Deyo, Gordon Cooper, Ben Rich, Dr Robert Sarbacher, Walter Haut and on and on and their testimonies points towards recovered ET-craft. So while we have some ET-technology it might also be convenient to blame much on ETs and stir the pot for the moment and hope the confusion derail serious research into long-lasting energy (of various origin).

    I can't see how ET-origin or terrestrial origin would matter for foreign military and their interest in this matter. ET or not, the technology displayed and testified is what matters to foreign military and I believe the issue of ET-origin or not is almost a non-issue from their view-point. They would primarily seek to know how.

    Thanks,
    Daniel Bergh, Sweden.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Thanks Daniel of course in the long run we don't know what they know about this. It just seems to me that if the technology should be far in advanced so how could we duplicate it? I don't believe for a minute they used laser lights and fiber optics like Corso claimed.
    Something is wrong between what has been described as recovered and worked on to what it would take in technology to get here. The ability of these objects describe by credential witnesses shatters our ideas on the physics of the cosmos.
    You have mile long craft accelerating at 100 gs and faster and stopping on a dime.
    So for me the technology which has been described by these whistle blowers hasn't added up to what must be out there. So, for me I have to go with the multitude of witnesses and I'm more weary of people who come out with the "inside dope on crashed UFOs.
    By the way when Lear came out with the statement "Aliens have soul catchers on the moon statement" he lost me forever.
    thanks
    Joe
    UFOMM

    ReplyDelete
  6. One of the well-known problems in ufology is the way it attracts attention-seekers and hoaxers. The 'nephew' seems to be one of a long line of hoaxers. His motivation was probably simple mischief and has no impact on the legacy of the case as far as I can tell.

    I've never been convinced one way or the other by Travis Walton's account. For me, it remains intriguingly inconclusive...most great UFO incidents are.

    He was interviewed in June and comes across as reasonable and plausible. As we only have his word for what happened, sincerity becomes an important factor. He sounds sincere to me...

    Here's the direct link to the interview so you can judge for yourselves...

    http://whfr.fm/sites/default/files/whfr-forum-2010-06-01.mp3

    Kandinsky

    ReplyDelete
  7. Hi Joseph. Of course the ET-technology involved ought to be leaps in front of our own understanding. The first ET-technology recovered by any nation would be taken apart completely to be studied and thus rendered unoperative and unusable as a whole. Most of the features and properties of quantum leap technology would not be understood or transferred into viable terrestrial technology but single features would. Stuff that's identified and understood and could be duplicated (manufactured) using terrestrial machinery and materials.

    From what I've heard and read Corso say, Corso didn't necessary say that there were fiber optics or laser lights in the craft that we started copying and manufacturing. If this description was true, it's like infringing upon ET-copyrights, just like the chinese is cloning western products. That would be VERY far fetched but that is NOT what Corso describes. This is a common misunderstanding of Corso's story from what I've seen.

    So, from what I've heard and read, Corso said that parts of the ET-craft were studied and our R&D derived ideas from that technology which Corso then claimed had a direct impact upon the completion of terrestrial technologies like laser, fiber optics, integrated circuits and so on. That's very different to what people usually describe Corso as saying.

    I'm not defending Corso, I can also see that the overt paper trail for these inventions is very different to what he describes. But I'm no stranger to the possibility that he may be on to something since his claims do not throw out history but merely outlines that the overt story got a spin that's false and that the Corso-version is the right version.

    Of course hard to believe Corso at face value. He has no tangible proof to back up his claims. He would have needed some documents pointing in this direction at least. Corso was intelligence on top of that...by judging other intelligence people in the UFO field it paints a bleak possibility for any further 'truth' to see the light of day... There seems to be a spin on what most intelligence people say. They got so oblivious to lying in their work that it comes second nature for them. I don't think they're able anymore to be 100% truthful.

    How are we to know what's right or wrong then with no paper trail? However, I'm open to the possibility of Corso's claims. I don't consider the matter fully resolved either way.

    Fiber optics is an intriguing invention in itself since it's the only known invention in the world where there exist no (known) ongoing research into potential super-seeding technology for replacing it. So that invention has characteristics that truly was and is a quantum leap for us. I'm not saying it's ET but that's food for thought, Joseph.

    I'll continue my thoughts in a second posting.

    Thanks Joseph,
    Daniel Bergh, Sweden.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Dear Kandinsky,
    You can never be sure about one persons account without supporting evidence. However there was supporting evidence that UFOs were around that area. According to freedom of information documents obtained they were buzzing the military airbases. Everyone who has thoroughly studied this case agrees that they saw something and a beam light hit Walton and he fell back.
    For me the Travis case has stood the test of time against horrible personal attacks and all in all it is always Travis who comes off like the gentlemen. I watched him after his conference in Nevada no ones is going to tell me this guy likes the public eye. I love studying people it has saved my ass more than once in NY and this guy is out there but he differently doesn't love it.
    Thanks for the great comment.
    Joe
    UFOMM

    ReplyDelete
  9. I hope I'm not tiring you. Just responding to your thoughts.

    To me, witness-accounts of UFOs are interesting when people just describe what they saw but I wouldn't read all too much into what witnesses translate their experiences to be. This is why.

    From what we know, overt physics R&D and covert physics R&D have really taken different paths since after WWII and so it comes to no surprise that UFO technology (ET or terrestrial) cannot be understood by conventional physics paradigm. We highly suspect that research into so called anti-gravity alternatives went black late 50s, early 60s. This is supported by the historical trail of scientific documentation (or lack thereof) into this subject and also supported by whistle-blowers accounts. So regardless whether the technology was partly or fully derived from any craft from the Roswell crash in 1947, all reasonable evidence points to the direction that we have ourselves developed craft that manipulates the fabric of space-time (void of fossil fuels also redefining travel).

    Anti-gravity - or manipulation of gravity - in itself means the manipulation of space-time. Hence I wouldn't read too much into people seeing craft that stops on a dime and take off quicker than the eye can perceive. That does not spell ET at all in a bigger picture.

    Anti-gravity-craft would manipulate their own gravitational field and only be susceptible to that. Outside gravitation and it's inherited inertia problems would be negated for the time being. Since space and time is interlocked and impossible to separate, there's also probable that time itself is running at a quite different pace inside these craft (much quicker). So what is perceived as a ligtning quick maneuver by witnesses might well be much slower and very controlled within the space-time of the craft. These technologies opens up whole new possibilities.

    What I would say is that witness-accounts of the size of the ships matter more to me. It's hard to manufacture really large constructs here on earth because of constraints in material and physics. There is a limit to how tall or long things can be built before there's too much stress and they break. To retrace, I really believe we have a secret space program since the 60s where I believe we really took advantage in the advancements of anti-gravity research. BUT I won't accept the notion that we could have equivalent manufacturing level to terrestrial manufacturing in zero gravity. That is a whole other matter and a huge challenge. Like starting all over again from a clean slate where previous records of terrestrial manufacturing processes won't help much. I highly doubt we have come to great lengths in zero gravity manufacturing. So when I read about 3/4 mile long craft or much more I seriously doubt it's of human origin. By what I described, it is not plausible how these were manufactured by us, either on earth or in zero gravity. I believe these craft are a lot more likely to be genuine ET-craft based on size rather than anything else reported.

    Thanks,
    Daniel Bergh, Sweden

    ReplyDelete
  10. And some last words...

    I'm intrigued by the 'Skylab 3'-incident in 1973. That might just be a real ET-construct. Astronauts Alan Bean, Owen Garriott and Jack Lousma reported seeing and photographing a 800-1000 feet unknown object orbiting the earth. They described it as a red "satellite". (Haha, nice guess, we don't know what it was). What we do know however is that Skylab 3 was in itself the biggest man-made construct orbiting the earth until that time. The UFO was reported as 6-7 times the size of Skylab 3. The immense size of the UFO and the fact it was not hidden may point toward that it was not military and of non-human origin.

    There are, of course, many more witness-accounts of a lot bigger UFOs also but in the Skylab 3 incident they could properly calculate the actual size and didn't have to revert to guesswork like some witnesses. That's why I find it really intriguing.

    As a sidenote I'm thinking, anti-gravitational technology and the manipulation of time and space may explain some real high-strangeness cases where neither time or opportunity existed for them to take place. I'm thinking of some of the more troublesome cattle mutilations (Skinwalker Ranch). This could perhaps have been done by manipulating time and space itself. Utilizing technology that's manipulating the fabric of space, locally events could take place in seemingly an instant, practically invisible and undetectable to the outside. (Just a thought and IMO an explanation really very far-fetched to be of terrestrial origin, despite our research into anti-gravity as I described earlier)

    Thanks again Joseph!
    // Daniel Bergh, Sweden.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Hi again. I posted this comment yesterday, but it seems to have slipped through your cracks so I send it to you again. I hope I'm not tiring you. Just responding to your thoughts.

    To me, witness-accounts of UFOs are interesting when people just describe what they saw but I wouldn't read all too much into what witnesses translate their experiences to be. This is why.

    From what we know, overt physics R&D and covert physics R&D have really taken different paths since after WWII and so it comes to no surprise that UFO technology (ET or terrestrial) cannot be understood by conventional physics paradigm. We highly suspect that research into so called anti-gravity alternatives went black late 50s, early 60s. This is supported by the historical trail of scientific documentation (or lack thereof) into this subject and also supported by whistle-blowers accounts. So regardless whether the technology was partly or fully derived from any craft from the Roswell crash in 1947, all reasonable evidence points to the direction that we have ourselves developed craft that manipulates the fabric of space-time (void of fossil fuels also redefining travel from conventional flying).

    Anti-gravity - or manipulation of gravity - in itself means the manipulation of space-time. Hence I wouldn't read too much into people seeing craft that stops on a dime and take off quicker than the eye can perceive. That does not spell ET at all in a bigger picture.

    Anti-gravity-craft would manipulate their own gravitational field and only be susceptible to that. Outside gravitation and it's inherited inertia problems would be negated for the time being. Since space and time is interlocked and impossible to separate, there's also probable that time itself is running at a quite different pace inside these craft (much quicker). So what is perceived as a ligtning quick maneuver by witnesses might well be much slower and very controlled within the space-time of the craft. These technologies opens up whole new possibilities.

    What I would say is that witness-accounts of the size of the ships matter more to me. It's hard to manufacture really large constructs here on earth because of constraints in material and physics. There is a limit to how tall or long things can be built before there's too much stress and they break. To retrace, I really believe we have a secret space program since the 60s where I believe we really took advantage in the advancements of anti-gravity research. BUT I won't accept the notion that we could have equivalent manufacturing level to terrestrial manufacturing in zero gravity environment. That is a whole other matter and a huge challenge. Like starting all over again from a clean slate where previous records of terrestrial manufacturing processes won't help much. I highly doubt we have come to great lengths in zero gravity manufacturing. So when I read about 3/4 mile long craft or much more I seriously doubt it's of human origin. By what I described, it is not plausible these were manufactured by us, either on earth or in zero gravity. I believe these craft are a lot more likely to be genuine ET-craft based on size rather than anything else reported.

    Thanks again Joseph!
    // Daniel Bergh, Sweden.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Sorry Daniel 24 hour bug thought I posted it yesterday. Will comment back when I carefully read them.
    No you don't tire this is really what this blog's about those of you out there, the people who can really change the face of UFOs in the planet.
    Thanks
    joe
    ufomm

    ReplyDelete