Fire in the Sky: A Real UFO Abduction?
What evidence is there that Travis Walton was abducted for 5 days from an Arizona forest in 1975?
You should follow me on twitter here.
| Skeptoid #94 April 01, 2008 Podcast transcript | Listen | Subscribe |
|
Take cover: The UFO's are coming out tonight to capture us with light beams and whisk us away to their planet for medical experiments. Today we're going to cast our skeptical eye upon the Travis Walton UFO abduction case, better known by the title of the movie made about it: Fire in the Sky. Among many UFO proponents, this case is considered among the most compelling, because of the number of corroborating eyewitnesses. Let's take a look, and see what happened.
In 1975, Travis Walton was a rural Arizona teenager working for his buddy (and eventual brother-in-law) Mike Rogers. Mike had a forest service contract to do odd jobs in the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest, and this particular job was to clear brush from a 1200 acre parcel. Travis, Mike, and five buddies spent the day working, and reported the adventure of a lifetime as they drove home along a remote forest road that evening. A small silvery disk shaped UFO, about 20 feet across, came floating along. Mike stopped the truck and they watched for a few minutes. Travis thought it was pretty cool and jumped out of the truck. He ran toward it for a better view, when suddenly a blue beam of light from the UFO struck him, lifted him a few feet into the air, and while his buddies watched in terror, he was tossed like a rag doll and thrown backward into the ground on his shoulder. Mike floored it and they got the hell out of there. A few minutes later, they decided this was perhaps not the most heroic and loyal of actions, so they went back. The UFO was gone. They searched for Travis for 20 minutes, but found nothing.
Once back to town they reported the story to police, who were more than a little skeptical. Upon hearing the news, Travis' older brother Duane telephoned a UFO group in Phoenix called Ground Saucer Watch, who advised him that if Travis ever returned, to take a urine sample and bring him to Phoenix immediately for a medical exam. After a few fruitless days of searching, Travis and Duane's mother instructed that the search be called off, which the police found a little strange.
The sheriff was not very pleased, and asked Mike and his crew to take a lie detector test. They all did, and all passed, except for one crew member whose results were inconclusive. This test was administered by an examiner named Cy Gilson, who was destined to return to the story almost 20 years later.
Five days after the abduction, Travis' brother-in-law Grant Neff said he received a midnight phone call from Travis asking him to come pick him up at a pay phone outside a gas station. Neff and Duane found Travis there, brought him home, but did not notify the police. Instead, they drove to Phoenix in the morning, to meet with the doctor promised by Ground Saucer Watch. Duane was upset to discover that the doctor, Lester Steward, turned out not to be a medical doctor at all, but a hypnotherapist.
Police were a little annoyed that they only learned of Travis' return through the mass media several days later: Neither Duane nor Mike had informed them. Still suspecting either foul play or a criminal hoax, police checked out the phone booth story. They found that the phone company did confirm the Neff home had received a call from the phone booth around midnight, but that none of the fingerprints on the phone were Travis Walton's. They found other problems too. While other people were out searching for Travis, Duane and Mike spent most of their time giving interviews to UFO investigators. Among the taped interviews that the investigators shared with the police were two interesting stories. Mike stated that he was delinquent on his forest service contract, and said he hoped Travis' disappearance would alleviate the situation. Duane said that he and Travis were lifelong UFO buffs, that they frequently saw them, and that they had recently discussed what to do if one of them were ever abducted.
There was one additional significant player in this cast of characters: The National Enquirer tabloid newspaper, which had a long-standing $100,000 prize offered for proof that UFOs were extraterrestrial. The Enquirer advised the Waltons that if they could pass a lie detector test, they might qualify for a large payment. Travis and Duane were not very keen on this idea, so the Enquirer agreed to keep the results secret should they not pass. The Waltons agreed. The Enquirer engaged an examiner named McCarthy, who, unfortunately, described Travis and Duane's results as "the plainest case of lying he had seen in 20 years." Duane was heard shouting that "he'd kill the son of a bitch." As agreed, the Enquirer did not publish the failed examination.
The local UFO investigators were not convinced it was a deception, however, and so they arranged a third polygraph, this time by an examiner named Pfeifer. Pfeifer reported the results as inconclusive, but the UFO group announced to the press that the results were positive and confirmed that the Waltons' story was true. This is also the examination that Travis states that he passed in his book. In later years, both of the other examiners (Gilson and McCarthy) studied the results and agreed with Pfeifer that they were inconclusive.
And that's about the point where the story fizzled out. Travis got a book deal out of it, called The Walton Experience, and made some money. This book is widely believed, but never proven, to have actually been ghostwritten by Jerome Clark, the editor of the International UFO Reporter. It's not clear whatever happened with Mike's forest service contract or whether Duane ever got any money out of the National Enquirer.
A lot of the information about the case, including the police suspicions and the Enquirer's suppressed polygraph test, was uncovered by Phillip Klass, the late full-time UFO investigator from CSICOP, now known as the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry. Apparently feeling the heat, Mike Rogers proposed a new round of polygraphs for everyone to settle the matter, under an arrangement in which if they passed, Phillip Klass would pay for the exams; and if they failed, the UFO group would pay for them. But the offer wasn't as fair as it appeared. It was only valid if Klass agreed to one particular examiner: A guy from San Diego who gave polygraph tests to plants to prove that they have feelings too.
Some 18 years later Travis' book was made into a movie called Fire in the Sky, which was greatly fictionalized because the studio felt Travis' own account wasn't deemed interesting enough. As part of the publicity for the movie, the studio arranged for Cy Gilson — the polygraph examiner who had originally passed Mike Rogers and the crew — to test Travis, Mike, and one of the crew again. Not surprisingly, they all passed with flying colors. But then a new face appeared on the scene, whose identity has never been known but whom Klass called simply X. Mr. X telephoned Travis and claimed to be a military intelligence operative who happened to be hunting nearby on that day in 1975. The studio had Cy Gilson test Mr. X. The only report of Mr. X's polygraph results come from the most recent edition of Travis' book, wherein he claims that Mr. X was found to be truthful about what he had seen that day, but that he was lying about being a military intelligence operative. Travis opined that Mr. X may have been hired by Phillip Klass to gain popular credibility and then publicly announce that the whole thing was a hoax, a baseless charge denied by Klass. Another possibility is that Mr. X was simply some kook looking for publicity.
So that's about the size of it. What does a skeptical analysis of the Travis Walton episode tell us? Jerome Clark, the UFO editor, has said "After more than two decades, Walton's credibility survives intact. No shred of evidence yet brought forth against it withstands skeptical scrutiny." Well, this would be true, except that there simply isn't any evidence either way. Instead, there is a gaping lack of evidence. There were no injuries to Travis' shoulder from his violent throw in the blue light beam, there were no disturbances to the pine needles on the forest floor where it all happened, and the medical exams revealed nothing to indicate any trauma or malnutrition from his missing five days. Travis and his crew have had to rely only on polygraph tests, and then only on the cherrypicked positive results, ignoring the negative results. There is just as much polygraph evidence against the Walton case as there is supporting it. This self-contradictory nature is the reason why polygraph evidence is not legally admissible in court: Speaking strictly scientifically, it doesn't tell us anything.
The few bits and pieces of physical, testable evidence that Travis' story would have produced, if true, were never present. To summarize, there is, and never has been, any proof that anything ever happened. The far more plausible explanation, that of a youthful moneymaking or attention-getting scheme by a couple of UFO enthusiasts, has worked out well. To critically analyze a far-out, incredible story like an extraterrestrial abduction, the first request we make is to show us any evidence. And, at this first hurdle, the Travis Walton story has failed completely.
You should follow me on twitter here.
Drop a tip in my tip jar? or become a supporter
© 2008 Skeptoid.com
References & Further Reading
AP. "5 of 6 Pass Test In Saucer Mystery." Arizona Daily Sun. 12 Nov. 1975, Volume 30, Number 62: 9.
Klass, Philip J. UFOs: The Public Deceived. Amherst, New York: Prometheus Books, 1983. 133-136,161-221.
United States. Congress. Office of Technology Assessment. Scientific Validity of Polygraph Testing: A Research Review and Evaluation. Washington, DC: United States. Congress. Office of Technology Assessment, 1983.
Walton, T. Fire in the Sky: The Walton Experience. New York: Berkley Pub. Corp., 1978.
Reference this article:
Dunning, Brian.
"Fire in the Sky: A Real UFO Abduction?" Skeptoid Podcast. Skeptoid Media, Inc.,
1 Apr 2008. Web.
12 Mar 2010. <http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4094>
Discuss!
5 most recent comments | Show all 24 comments
Remember, you should always read with skepticism the comments of anyone too lame to put their real name & city.
You skeptics are pathetic. Back in 95, I saw some sort of a time travel mechanism. Approx. 20’ diameter. It shot out from a cross of white light that appeared then disappeared. I know what I visually saw and you can take it to the bank like Mike and the movie.
mR. d, Glendale, AZ.
December 16, 2009 9:20pm
i know travis as do many others and i defend staunchly his tale and refute such allegations by some of you know it alls as meaningless and not worthy of a 2nd glance or thought.i mean sure theres a lack of evidence and thats usually the case peoples.and he had 5 witnesses including himself and was gone for 5 days.where did he go in that time and what didi he do?thats the big issue and i once fed into the hype he was a liar at least regarding parts of his story.well now i abide by his account and regard as a historical event.lets get off travis and telling him to prove it.lets believe his tale or an open minds all im asking.waltons story and event as yes of course it seems plausible that something transcended upon him that night in sitgreaves.but theres plenty of evidence w/o his story if you are a die hard skepic to support ufology and its right in front of us daily!didnt meant to offend anyone but i do not like all of the bashing of some here and various other places.get the facts and the true facts 1st and then rant about his credibility.hes actually an honest man i feel strongly and hasnt changed his tale despite large sums of dough being offered.same thing with the others from,that night!hes truthful and how much you decide but quit insulting him please as he dont deserve that.thank you for allowing me to share in this post,eddy
edward bliss, worcester,mass
December 22, 2009 3:20pm
I'm sorry, Skeptoid guy, but your article here was excruciatingly difficult to follow and keep track of. Not at all bunking at your skepticism, but I was far too lost and confused with it.
Maybe I just need to read it again.
Andariel Halo, Miami, Florida
January 22, 2010 8:29am
I've just read a number (approx 20) of the articles on this site.
There seems to be a tendency to a number of oversights by way of not providing references to acknowledged and validated counter-arguments.
For example, in this article:
"... cherrypicked positive results, ignoring the negative results. There is just as much polygraph evidence against the Walton case as there is supporting it."
However, no provision of any reference (link or otherwise) is provided to allow this assertion to be validated. We have not been provided with a link to the original source data itself, a verifiable analysis thereof, or any link or reference to any independent reports by qualified experts analysing the data.
I don't understand how I am obliged to take the article's position as one of skepticism if I am not, myself, able to examine the base evidence where that evidence is asserted to exist, whether for pro or con.
Understandably, evidence cannot be produced where none exists. However, where it does (as is imtimated by the above quote), basic academic presentation of a piece of evidence is supposed to be accompanied by a reference so that others may check the veracity of the information. This referencing is often missing from the articles I have read so far, so I am unable to check the asserted evidence itself where it does exist.
Some Random Guy, Adelaide, Australia
March 09, 2010 5:24am
Make a comment about this episode of Skeptoid (please try to keep it brief & to the point). Anyone can post:
You can also discuss this episode in the Skeptoid Forum, hosted by the James Randi Educational Foundation.
Join the Skeptalk email discussion list.
What's the most important thing about Skeptoid?
![[Valid RSS]](/images/valid-rss.png "Validate my RSS feed"){kind=small}
One of the requirements to get get hired by "The company", headquartered in Langley, VA. Is to pass a polygraph test.
Well, let me tell you. It is well known that the Cuban inteligence service, DGI, was created with the help of the former East german STASI. They taught the Cubans how to beat a polygraph test. A few years ago "the company" had 38 spies in Cuba. All 38 passed a polygraph test.
When a high ranking Cuban intelligence officer defected, the US learned that all of their intelligence operatives in Cuba had been turned, all were double agents, all then again had beat the polygraph.
The top Cuban specialist at DIA was working for the Cubans. She is now serving a 50 years sentence for spying for a foreign government.
A polygraph test is nothing but a sham .
Joe, L.A. CA.
November 25, 2009 3:26pm