The Westall School Incident

[NoParty]

We have one witness Terry...

A bit off topic, but have you ever explained why "Three-Dollar Kit"?

 

[purpleivan]

A bit off topic, but have you ever explained why "Three-Dollar Kit"?

I've got to say, you're not the only one who's been curious about that. Thought about that on and off for the last few years, since coming across the site in relation to the Travis Walton "abduction".

 

[Mendel]

I've got to say, you're not the only one who's been curious about that. Thought about that on and off for the last few years, since coming across the site in relation to the Travis Walton "abduction".

Her blog says the Travis Walton case inspired the name, though I can't figure out how.

 

[purpleivan]

Her blog says the Travis Walton case inspired the name, though I can't figure out how.

Ah, I didn't know that. I came across the site and read the sections about the Travis Walton and the Hill's "abduction" and read those. Then, only later, did I see the the blog section and read that, but for some reason didn't read the early parts of it.

 

[Charlie Wiser]

A bit off topic, but have you ever explained why "Three-Dollar Kit"?

Travis Walton's case was the first (along with the Hills) that I looked into in 2021 when I made the site. I liked Raymond E. Fowler's theory that two crewmembers fooled the other five in order to have plausible witnesses. (Karl Pflock also suggested this idea.) In a letter to Allen Hynek, Fowler suggested the mocked-up UFO might be a balloon kit similar to this, which cost three dollars:

 

[Scaramanga]

We have one witness Terry who says she saw the landed craft in the Grange and got close enough to feel its heat. (Again I'm ignoring Victor who claims he along with many other witnesses saw two craft for two hours alongside the school - nobody else corroborates this and his timing doesn't work.)

Terry's testimony in terms of what she saw, what she did, what the UFO did, and who else was there, has changed drastically over the years in ways that bad memory can't account for. And there's no evidence she told any other students at the time. Nobody corroborates it, including another student Tanya whom Terry claims was present at the Grange in varying states of hysteria or consciousness.

I don't think it's worth going into detail for discussion here, but (at the risk of self-promotion) I've collected her stories over the years and compared them here (scroll down to "Case study: Feeling the heat") with quotes and linked sources. As an example of how her story got more and more amazing, she initially told Shane Ryan (reported in Yahoo Groups in 2007, and in his doco 2010) that the UFO was rising up in the air and overhead when she arrived at the Grange, but by 2016 the UFO was landed in front of her for a few minutes before taking off (so she had time to approach and feel its heat).

No, I am quite certain I have seen a documentary in which one of the boys ( who is interviewed for the documentary ) clearly states that there was a purple glow around the edge of the object, and that he actually got onto the object briefly. I suppose I'm gonna have to find it.

Also, you can't just invent which bits of testimony are reliable and which aren't. There are numerous court cases where people have added to testimony and their later testimony turns out to be more accurate than an initial one. Even in my own UFO report ( 1977 ) I failed to initially add that the UFO changed shape...because that just seemed a little too crazy. You can't just automatically assume that later evidence is 'embellished'. And there's a certain level of double standards with regard to later testimony....for example the Rendlesham case where later evidence by Halt and other witnesses is 'embellished'.....yet base Commander Conrad makes a statement 11 years later and nobody seems to question whether his memory is working fine or he is changing the story.

 

[John J.]

And there's a certain level of double standards with regard to later testimony....for example the Rendlesham case where later evidence by Halt and other witnesses is 'embellished'.....yet base Commander Conrad makes a statement 11 years later and nobody seems to question whether his memory is working fine or he is changing the story.

A point you made in post #662 of that thread. Respondents pointed out that Conrad hadn't changed his story or added new highly dramatic claims.
"...nobody seems to question whether... he is changing the story", because he hasn't.

Also, you can't just invent which bits of testimony are reliable and which aren't.

Where there are conflicting accounts, they can't all be objectively correct (even if all witnesses believe their accounts to be accurate).
Either some are largely correct and others significantly wrong, or they're all wrong.
The Westall School incident provided multiple witnesses to the same event. Some claim to have seen something unusual but explicable, and others claim to have seen something utterly extraordinary which involves e.g. visiting aliens as part of the explanation.

The accounts of the "unlikely but explicable" witnesses, who identified what they were looking at as a balloon, might be supported by the fact that balloons were being launched from Mildura and some drifted further than the distance from Mildura to Westall.

 

[Scaramanga]

A point you made in post #662 of that thread. Respondents pointed out that Conrad hadn't changed his story or added new highly dramatic claims.
"...nobody seems to question whether... he is changing the story", because he hasn't.

Well you can't add new dramatic claims to 'nothing happened'...without obvious inventing of material. But why do we assume that Conrad's statement after 11 years is factually correct ? Why do we take his word for it that nothing happened, yet cast doubt on Halt's claim that something did ? Is it not just as possible that someone could do the reverse of embellishing the story...and relate 'nothing to see here, folks' when they know stuff did actually happen ?

 

[Ann K]

Well you can't add new dramatic claims to 'nothing happened'...without obvious inventing of material. But why do we assume that Conrad's statement after 11 years is factually correct ? Why do we take his word for it that nothing happened, yet cast doubt on Halt's claim that something did ? Is it not just as possible that someone could do the reverse of embellishing the story...and relate 'nothing to see here, folks' when they know stuff did actually happen ?

I understand, a verbal report is always subject to question: is it true, is it a misinterpretation, is it a deliberate falsification? But we were discussing the additional factors of the fallibility of memory and the tendency of humans to embellish. Telling a different story after a long period of time opens up the possibility of either or both of those confounding factors to be in play. Telling the same story does not.