Continuing with Peter Robbins' roundtable podcast, I've responded in two more tweet storms. Here are all three:
Addressing the roundtable's devastating takedown* of the Gentry Tower theory (Travis Walton hoax)
Addressing the supposition that Charlie Wiser is a unit
Addressing Kathleen Marden, who addressed me, re. the Hills case
*You be the judge
I plan to do a few Twitter threads about the Hills case, as there's a few different angles to cover. I'm a little more comfortable with Twitter than with Facebook, and I like its bite-sized method for delivering certain types of communication.
Here's my first thread, looking at how Betty and Barney Hill did not have missing time on their 7-hour journey from Colebrook NH to Portsmouth, and how both Marden's and Fuller's books conveniently ignore the earlier information from the Hills themselves in order to create two hours of missing time.
The thread is fully illustrated and - fair warning - it does include fourth-grade math. Click the pic to begin.
I've completed my overhaul of the Betty & Barney Hill case by dividing their drive through New Hampshire into sections.
It was a pretty tough task to plough through this, because no matter whether I look at the overall story or the itty-bitty details, it strikes me as so... disappointing. It's not disappointing that we fallible humans can mistake a beacon for a flying saucer - we do that all the time. But that a legend grew up around such a mundane incident.
Makes you wonder how many of our legends are equally silly.
Anyway, you'll probably notice that the further you progress through these pages, the more apparent in my writing is my fed-uppedness.
I get emails. Sometimes they are sent by people in an RPG who appear to believe I am in the same RPG. It's pretty funny.
Email from the simulation
Dear Charlie Wiser,
I have addressed you by name, but I am not at all certain that is your real name.
That is an advantage you admittedly have over me, my friend [redacted], and the rest of the well meaning and often gullible UFO community – in today’s world, anyone and everyone can become an instant authority just by claiming to “be in the know,” without qualification or verification. I have been closely examining the information on your Three-Dollar Kit website. A lot of thought and work has gone into this criticism of the basic narratives associated with two of the most significant Alien Abduction cases on record, Travis Walton and the Betty and barney Hill Encounter.
If you are sitting where I think you may be sitting when you read this, you probably have direct access to law enforcement and intelligence databases such that you can instantly establish my identity and history. I am a retired [redacted] who has had a lifelong interest in the UFO Mystery. (Here is the best way I can present my perspective [redacted links to an interview and a personal website].)
From my perspective, you are an unidentified source. I am trained to evaluate not just the information or evidence presented, but the quality and significance of a particular source from the perspective of how much weight would be given the evidence by a prosecutor or defense attorney. Is the evidence qualified and admissible by a qualified witness who would be sworn and subject to cross examination. Admittedly, this is way beyond the standard of the public in general.
You could be, for instance, a member of an Intelligence agency furthering the apparent goal of an Orwellian rewrite of UFO history so that when completed, there will be nothing left that occurred before 2004 and doesn’t originate with Tom DeLonge, Luis Elizondo and the TTSA. You might also represent QAnon, or a foreign government helping to further doubt and fear by any means possible. Or you may be also a very skilled researcher with a keen interest in chasing down the ever elusive Truth.
But your explanations for Travis Walton and the Betty and Barney Hill Encounter depend upon a lot of “It’s possible…” assumptions. You haven’t identified your sources of information, or your experience or professional qualifications. When I saw that you had targeted Travis Walton and the Hills, I started wondering if there was a deeper agenda. I noted that you don’t have an “About” tab on your website, and your FB page has just about nothing on it except your alleged name.
At the same time I am an investigator at heart. If it turned out that either of these events was hoaxed, then that revelation will become part of the history of human interaction with something alien, otherwise known as the UFO Mystery.
So my question is: Charlie Wiser, who are you really?
[some guy I've never heard of]
Playing the game
Thanks for your email.
On the assumption your email is in jest, I have responded in kind. Feel free to divulge any of the information I am about to reveal, although doing so may result in increased black helicopter activity in your vicinity as well as mine.
I am known as Charlie Wiser.
I claim no authority in the well meaning and often gullible UFO community.
I appreciate your close examination of Three-Dollar Kit, which is hosted by Weebly.
I have instantly established your identity and history by visiting the two URLs you kindly provided.
I am not aware of any Intelligence agency with the apparent goal of an Orwellian rewrite of UFO history so that when completed, there will be nothing left that occurred before 2004 and doesn’t originate with Tom DeLonge, Luis Elizondo and the TTSA. You're freaking me out, sir.
I may consider an offer to represent QAnon if, and only if, they will pay me in unmarked canisters of pure adrenochrome (ethically sourced).
I am Australian but do not represent my government. To my knowledge, the Australian government does not further doubt and fear in the United States. Australians would rather you visit with your tourist dollars and pet a koala.
I am flattered that you entertain the possibility that I am a very skilled researcher.
I have identified my sources of information as far as I’m able, namely: original reports on the cases, which I have excerpted; books, which I have quoted; and recorded interviews with witnesses, which I have linked to.
I am not above ending a sentence with a preposition.
I have no agenda but the truth.
I have no About tab because it didn’t fit along the menu bar in an esthetically pleasing manner.
I haven’t bothered to fill in my FB profile but am open to ideas.
To answer your question, I am known as "Charlie Wiser", a "suburban" "mum"*.
You can’t hindsight anything. What happened happened, so why think you can do anything about it now? ... In reality there’s almost nothing that can be proven. All there really is, is evidence. - Mike Rogers, July 16th, 2021
Mike Rogers just appeared on a UFO Classified with Erica Lukes livestream on July 16th with the same ol' tale and a few bizarre tangents. Erica encouraged him to emphatically state he was not involved in any hoax:
Did you, Travis, and Duane hoax the case for money?
"No absolutely not. Travis and I didn’t hoax it. Duane apparently didn’t. I don’t know anything about Duane."
Erica entices Mike to double-down a little later (unlike Chas from 51 Areas, Erica goes for the hard questions instead of the complex questions, thus getting Mike unambiguously on the record):
You are 100% backing up the story that this happened, there was no hoax?
"Right. One hundred percent."
After Mike's appearance, Ryan Gordon called into the show. Ryan is the producer who recorded Mike's confession on April 30th, 2021, and released it on July 4th. Mike has since said he has a secret recording from May 1st of the following:
Mike has not yet released this recording that allegedly says what he claims to have said.
You can skip to 1:55:00 of the UFO Classified podcast for Ryan's portion. His main concern was a professional one - Mike had accused him of digitally manipulating the audio confession in some way, to make him appear to say something he didn't say. It is obviously not legal to manipulate someone's speech and present it as accurate.
While Mike later retracted the accusation, in my opinion it was done in a way that made it seem he did so only to avoid accusing Ryan of criminal behavior. He has not explicitly admitted the audio is authentic:
"I will say no comment but I’m going to explain why: I have one comment - it appears to be a federal law to accuse somebody of digital manipulation, so I don’t accuse him of that. Even though I did a while back, I won’t. Anybody can digitally manipulate anything digital. So that’s basically it. I have no idea what he did with that recording of me."
That's a piss-poor way to retract a serious allegation.
Ryan cleared up the matter: the call was not altered in any way.
Mike's "damage control" over this recording is to claim he was telling Ryan about a day in 1977 when he and Travis were talking about what skeptics (like Phil Klass) had said about their 1975 UFO sighting. Listening to the audio, this explanation makes no sense at all.
Mike has been claiming for two weeks, and again in this interview, that Ryan is an unknown who "did it to gain a name for himself." But Ryan stated he has been communicating with Mike for months, and Travis for even longer, regarding his documentary, and that they both knew ahead of time that the audio was going to be released. The hosts confirmed they have seen the evidence for this.
It was clear Ryan had communicated to Erica (and co-host Scott Browne) before the podcast, sending them information and communications to back up his side of things.
Ryan directed listeners to Three Dollar Kit, for which I'm grateful, as my reason for creating the site was to lay out the evidence that the Travis Walton incident was hoaxed by Travis, his brother Duane, and Mike, against the other five guys in the truck. We have spoken in the past and talked about different theories. He told me the story of how one evening he mistook lit-up Gentry Tower for a UFO until he zoomed in his phone. Some of the photos on my site were provided by him, as he'd taken B-roll footage of the area while developing his documentary.
What do I want to be remembered as? A human being, a good guy. - Mike Rogers, July 16th, 2021
When a media outlet posts a front-page story that they are later forced to retract, they don't put the retraction on page 27.
Okay, sometimes they do, but they get hell for it.
Mike posted his accusation as a big shiny Facebook square. It would nice if his retraction was a similar sized post, instead of hidden away in the comments as a reply to me, an irrelevant party.
NOTE: Times and dates on screenshots are Australian AEST.
My detailed report on the Travis Walton case is reorganized into shorter pages to make navigation easier.
This week I watched the movie Travis, in which the three surviving "innocent witnesses" talk about how this incident affected their lives. It ain't pretty.
I listened to hours of interviews and read Travis's book so you don't have to. Along with information gleaned from the web, I've pieced together a credible account of what really happened that night in 1975.
SPOILER: It was a hoax perpetrated by Travis and Mike on the other men in the truck. The UFO was a lit-up lookout tower. The innocent witnesses suffered harm and still don't know what was done to them. That's a little upsetting to me. How about you?
Who was The Walton Experience (1978) written for?
It was written for UFO enthusiasts, of course.
It was written for Travis to make a bit of money.
It was also written for the five witnesses in the truck. Or, at least, it was written with them in mind. According to Steve Pierce (2013), the book was written without consulting them. It was Travis's account, and the rest was based on Mike's account while Travis was missing.
The book came out about three years after that night. In it, the event had to be described more-or-less factually because any one of those guys might read it and point out obvious errors if they remembered things differently. As a result, the book is curiously vague in a few key places, notably the time that passes between leaving the work site and seeing the UFO. I'd go so far as to say it misdirects the reader, without contradicting the witnesses' memories, so that the takeaway message matches the official story.
To this end, I've updated the main Travis Walton page with a side-by-side comparison of the events of that night: what happened (according to the evidence I've provided) versus what Travis wants us to believe. Scroll down to the table and don't forget to bring cocoa.
I strongly urge anyone interested in the Travis Walton case to listen to Mike Rogers defend himself on this 51 Areas podcast, where "Chas" nails him to the wall with "the hard questions".
Then again, you could come back later when Chas learns the difference between a complex question and a hard one. The aim of the interview was to establish whether Mike played any part in a hoax. Yes, it's a hard question but the asking of it should be simple.
Chas doesn't like simple. Chas goes for complex: he asks a 42-word question. Mike launches into a 101-second answer about... Travis's abduction.
Chas tries again (bless him) to really pin it down "on record" and asks a 47-word question. Mike waffles on for another 41 seconds about... you guessed it, Travis's abduction.
Yes, yes, yes, we already know that Mike won't vouch for the abduction. We want Mike to answer the hard question:
"Did you play any role in perpetrating a hoax that night?"
Mike cannot answer that question honestly because Mike played a vital role in the hoax. Travis couldn't have done it without him: when to stop the truck, when to drive away, how to manipulate the emotions of the crew, and where to take them "back" to search for Travis.
Introducing the liar in the sky:
I've updated the main Travis Walton page to include all the latest information that's been coming out this month, starting with the release of Mike Rogers' confession tape.
As you'll see, this led me to what seems like a better - and simpler - theory for how this UFO hoax was created.
I want to thank everyone who helped point me in the right direction, as well as sources who've sent me information, ideas, and more. What appears on my site is a collation of evidence already out there on the internet, and the conclusions I've drawn after rethinking what happened to those seven woodsmen on that night in 1975.
Coming soon: Evidence to support the claim that Mike Rogers drove the woodsmen to a different location when they "returned" to look for Travis...