Philip J. Klass, author of UFO's Explained, agreed to give
NICAP a complete interview regarding his findings concerning the
Travis Walton Case
. After six months of detailed
research, Mr. Klass has valid data which indicates that information had been withheld intentionally by
APRO which is based in Tucson, Arizona. The National
Enquirer was also aware that additional information about the alleged abduction was available but this has been
withheld from the public.
NICAP ran an article covering the
Travis Walton Case in the en issue of
the UFO Investigator. NICAP's consensus even at that time was that Walton and his associates were either
involved in a hoax or that a psychological phenomenon was involved. It was decided that no further manpower would be
allocated. This decision was based on NICAP's original data, and the knowledge that
APRO was continuing the investigation. It has been a normal procedure in the past for
the two organizations to exchange information on cases, and we felt that duplication of efforts was not necessary.
A summary of the incident as it was presented by the news media is included for your information.
On the evening of Nov. 5, 1975, at approximately 6:15 p.m. MST, a crew of seven young woodcutters, headed by Michael Rogers was returning home. Rogers (age 28) was under contract to the U.S. Forest Service to thin out 1,277 acres of National Forest land near Turkey Springs. According to the story later told by Rogers, and other members of his crew (ages 17-25), they saw a UFO hovering nearby. They claim that Travis Walton jumped out of the moving car and walked/ran under the UFO, that he was "zapped" by an intense glowing beam from the UFO, and that the rest of the crew panicked and drove off, leaving their friend behind. A short time later, they claim, they returned to the spot to seek Travis but that he had disappeared -- seemingly carried off by the UFO. It was not until more than two hours later that Rogers and his crew decided to report the incident to Under-Sheriff L.C, Ellison in nearby Heber, Ariz.
While Travis was missing, Rogers and the other five young men took a polygraph test, on Nov. 10, administered by C.E. Gilson of the Arizona Dept, of Public Safety of Phoenix. Five of the young men "passed" the examination but the results for one (Allen M. Dalis) were "inconclusive," according to Gilson. The reported test results have been widely interpreted as endorsing the authenticity of the alleged UFO abduction.
Shortly after midnight on Nov. 11, Travis telephoned his sister, Mrs. Grant Neff, of Taylor, Ariz. (near Snowflake), from a phone booth in Heber, about 30 miles away, Mr. Neff and Travis' older brother Duane, who had come to Snowflake from his home in Phoenix shortly after the alleged UFO incident, both drove to Heber to pick up Travis. They reported finding him crumpled on the floor of the phone booth, and ]n a very "confused" mental state. A short time after returning Travis to his mother's home in Snowflake, Duane decided to drive Travis to Phoenix, reportedly to obtain medical assistance. Later that same day he was examined by two physicians at the request of APRO.
On Feb. 7, 1976, almost three months after Travis' return, he and Duane took polygraph tests administered by George J. Pfeifer, then employed by Tom Ezell & Associates of Phoenix. According to published reports, both men passed the exam which involved many questions dealing with Travis' claim of having been abducted by a UFO. The widely publicized results of these tests seem to confirm that such an incident actually occurred.
In evaluating the authenticity of such a case, UFO researchers must concentrate on the validity of available data. After reading the reports published by other organizations and national newspapers, one would think that the Walton Case was a very strong one for the following reasons.
IT WAS REPORTED THAT:
- Walton passed the polygraph examination,
- There were six other witnesses. Five of the six passed the polygraph examination.
- Walton is of high character,
- Walton and his family had very tittle prior interest [n UFOs. Therefore, it would be unlikely that he would concoct a story relating to UFOs.
- None of the other six witnesses had any motivation to participate in a hoax.
For the information of NICAP members, these points are discussed in detail. They give even stronger indication that NICAP's original conclusion is the correct one, i.e., the case is a hoax.
Walton's Polygraph Examination
Mr. Klass revealed to NICAP that a lie detector test had been administered to Travis Walton three months earlier, on le . Walton failed the polygraph examination at that time.
This first test was given in the Sheraton Hotel in Scottsdale, Arizona on the afternoon of November 15. The arrangements for the examination were made by Mr. James Lorenzen, APRO's director, and the test was paid for by the National Enquirer. The examination was administered by Mr. John J. McCarthy, director of the Arizona Polygraph Laboratory in Phoenix. Mr. McCarthy's credentials are excellent. He was trained at the Army's polygraph school at Fort Gordon. Mr. McCarthy is a member of the American Polygraph Association and has been licensed by the State of Illinois since 1964. At present, Arizona does not require that polygraph examiners be licensed to practice in the state.
The examiner reported his findings as instructed to the National Enquirer and Dr. James Harder, APRO's director of research, immediately upon the completion of the test taken by Walton. Dr. Harder reported that information to APRO's James Lorenzen.
McCarthy was further instructed to send a written report to the National Enquirer. The Enquirer instructed McCarthy not to reveal that he had tested Walton. An excerpt from the report which was sent is, "Attempting to perpetrate a UFO hoax, and that he has not been on any spacecraft." The report further stated that Travis Walton had tried unsuccessfully to distort his respiration pattern in an attempt to deceive the examiner. However, he was unsuccessful.
APRO published a full account of the Travis Walton case in their November 1975 newsletter which included the events that had transpired during the week following Travis' return through November 16. No mention of the November 15 lie detector test was included.
Mr. Klass has hard physical evidence in his possession, which has been checked by NICAP, that Mr. McCarthy did test Travis Walton on November l5, 1975, and that Walton failed the test. The evidence includes such documents as:
- The polygraph examination statement of consent dated Nov. 15, 1975 and signed by Travis Walton,
- McCarthy's written report to the National Enquirer dated Nov. 16, 1975 which includes his conclusion that the UFO account was a hoax.
- The voucher receipt from the National Enquirer payable to McCarthy's Arizona Polygraph Laboratory dated Jan. 14, 1976, for "Travis Walton UFO Incident."
- Agreement to conduct test and supply report to National Enquirer. This statement is dated Feb. 15, 1976 rather than Nov. 15, 1975. This is clearly a typographical error.
Three months after Travis Walton failed the first polygraph exam, he took another one administered by George J.
Pfeifer, an examiner with only two years' experience, who was employed by Tom Ezell Associates of Phoenix. The
results of this test were widely publicized because he seemingly passed the test with flying colors. Mr. Klass
discovered that Travis Walton dictated the questions that he wanted to be asked. Mr. Pfeifer complied with Walton's
request. To check the validity of the method of testing, the president of Tom Ezell Associates, Mr. Tom Ezell, was
contacted. He stated that it is perfectly proper for the sponsor of a test (APRO) to indicate the areas which should
be explored. However, Mr Ezell in later correspondence with Mr. Klass stated, Because of the dictation of
questions to be asked, this test should be invalidated.
He further stated that after examining the Travis
Walton charts, The reactions on the charts, to my way of interpretation, would not be readable. You would not be
able to say if he (Travis Walton) is telling the truth or if he's lying.
Corroborating witnesses' polygraph examinations
As reported in the January 1976 issue of the UFO INVESTIGATOR, the polygraph exam given to the other alleged
witnesses was designed to determine whether or not Walton might be the victim of foul-play instigated by his
associates. Three of the four relevant questions asked during the test dealt entirely with this issue. The test was
given by C.E. Gilson, an examiner with five years' experience. His statement to Mr, Klass was, That was our sole
purpose... to determine whether or not there had been a crime committed.
The single question about the UFO was
added at the request of Sheriff Gillespie. Gilson stressed... That one question does not make it a valid test as
far as verifying the UFO incident.
Walton's character
In the evaluation of witness testimony, the credibility of the witness must also be evaluated.
On May 5, 1971 Travis Walton and Charles Rogers pleaded guilty to first degree burglary and forgery charges. (Charles Rogers is a younger brother of Michael Rogers, who was also involved in the UFO incident.) This information was revealed by Travis Walton himself during a preliminary discussion with the polygraph examiner, Mr. McCarthy, and confirmed by state authorities.
The young men agreed to make restitution of the funds and were placed on a two year probation. Arizona law provides that if probation is fulfilled satisfactorily the party may later return and ask the Court to expunge the record. Both of the boys retracted their original pleas after the completion of the probation period.
At the time of the report there is no indication that Walton was continuing his youthful misbehavior.
Prior interest in UFOs
Interest in UFOs does not prohibit the interested party from having a valid sighting. However, in a large majority
of hoax reports, prior interest is usually present. It has been reported elsewhere that Walton had little or no
prior interest in the field. Dr. Howard Kandell, one of the two physicians who examined Walton at APRO's request was
asked if the Waltons had indicated any prior interest in UFOs. Kendall replied: They admitted to that freely,
that he (Travis) was a 'UFO Freak' so to speak,...
He had made remarks that if he ever saw one, he'd like to
go aboard.
Dr. Jean Rosenbaum, a psychiatrist who examined Walton was asked whether he had mentioned any prior interest in
UFOs. He replied, Everybody in the family claimed that they had seen them (UFOs) . . . Travis has been
preoccupied with this almost all of his life... then he made the comment to his mother just prior to this incident
that if he was ever abducted by a UFO, she was not to worry because he'd be all right.
Duane Walton has stated
that he and Travis had often discussed the possibility of getting a ride on a UFO.
Motivation of the six witnesses
It has been stated that there was no motivation, other than possible friendship for the other six witnesses to corroborate Walton's story if it were not true. Investigation has revealed a strong financial possible motive for Mike Rogers and the other five crew members to perpetrate a hoax.
Mike Rogers had submitted a bid in the spring of 1974 to the U.S. Forest Service for a timber thinning operation of 1,277 acres of land in a National Forest, located in the Apache-Sit-greaves area. His bid was accepted and was 27% under the mid-figure submitted by the other companies. By the following summer (1975) it was clear to Rogers that he had grossly underestimated the magnitude of the job and could not complete it on time. He applied for an extension which was granted but he was penalized $1.00 per acre for all work performed after the expiration of the original contract date. The new work completion deadline was November 10, 1975. As the new deadline approached, it became clear that once again, they could not possibly complete the work by that time and he would have to ask for another extension that would result in another pay cut. More serious, the Forest Service was withholding 10 percent of the payments until the job was done. With winter at hand, Rogers could not finish until the next spring to collect these funds. The alleged UFO incident gave Rogers a legal basis for terminating his money-losing contract on the ground that his crew would not return to the work site out of fear, allowing Rogers to collect the withheld funds and pay his crew.
Summary
The reaction of the Travis Walton family when informed that he had been "zapped" away on a UFO provides a valuable measure of whether they had prior knowledge of a planned hoax. If they believed that the incident actually took place, they would realize that they might never see Travis again. Troopers from the Navajo County Sheriff's Department assembled late on the night of November 5 and returned to the alleged site to search for Travis. It was not until several hours after midnight on Nov. 6 that the group then proceeded to inform Travis' mother that her son could not be found.
One member of the troopers informed Mr. Klass that when he explained the horrible fate of her son, she simply
replied, I'm not surprised.
Mrs. Kellet suggested to the law enforcement officials that the search be abandoned, saying, I just don't think
there's any use of looking any further... I don't think he's on this earth.
Travis' brother, Duane, stated that
he would stay on the site and wait because they always return their victims to the same spot.
At no time during the entire episode did the family or crew members show or express any concern for his well being.
Mr. Klass stated that, One possible explanation for the reaction of Rogers and the members of his family is that
they knew the incident was a hoax and that Travis was safe in a terrestrial hideout, rather than aboard an
extraterrestrial spacecraft that might be taking him to a distant world from which he might never return.
On November 8, while Travis was still missing
, Duane said he was not at all concerned for his brother's
safety. Duane said he regretted that I haven't been able to experience the same thing.
In any scientific investigation, all data must be considered. Any organization or corporation reporting on investigations has the responsibility to disclose all facts to its readers.., not just the information which supports a preconceived position.
When the strengths and weaknesses of the Walton Case are evaluated, it seems that the indications are that a hoax has been perpetrated. NICAP members now have additional data it their disposal and can reach their own conclusions.