Talk:Travis Walton incident/Archive 1

Archive 1

More detailed article

I wish this article were laid out in more precise and clear detail Bernie 06:01, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Does the following line from the article contain a mis-print: "and one of few abduction cases where the time allegedly spent in the custody of aliens plays a rather minor role in the overall account." Shouldn't that be "a rather MAJOR role" - in the sense that he was missing for 5 days and seemingly not traceable? Or am I reading the intention of the line wrong? If it's supposed to be "minor' I don;t understand the statement. 167.127.24.25 15:51, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Fred Sylvanus doesn't seem to exist outside of this incident. Could he and his materials be counterintelligence or a hoax or something along those lines? Hackwrench 21:37, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Given the lack of security on the room and the lack of response after he was discovered, it would seem that the room was an entertainment center at its simplest, a flight similator at its more complex, and given the state of technology, both these days and as projected in holodecks, there's no reason it couldn't be both.

I use password protection on the computer I am working at. The lack of even that much security would suggest that the room is the advanced equivalent of a Playstation 3. Even the Playstation 2 had a password for parental controls on DVD's to keep the kids from watching what they wanted. It is possible that the device has a biometric scanner of some sort and can upon reading the proper biometric profile, control everything. Such biometric devices are relatively trivial and with the technology we have today there are a number of inexpensive USB drives with heavy encryption.

WTF are you talking about? Where are you getting holodecks, PS2's and PS3's from? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:B:A3C0:7:CCAC:60E1:1431:DA6D (talk) 02:32, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

http://www.timeatlas.com/mos/Reviews/Reviews/ClipDrive_Bio_-_A_Safe_and_Secure_Thumb_Drive/ Hackwrench 18:33, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Given the resources of an interstellar government, that room could have been anything from the equivalent of an entertainment center for a teenager to the lieutenant's office on an aircraft carrier.

He saw three types of saucers or unknown ships at the base. Flat, round and oval as related in document that mentions Walton. Teslafieldmachine (talk) 18:41, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Name of article

Just a little thing... wouldn't it make more sense for this article to be named Travis Walton alien abduction? Especially when it's linked to from other pages (such as Snowflake, Arizona), it appears to be referring to a kidnapping. Bird of paradox 18:23, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

How about basics like his date of birth, profession, etc... ?

See my comment under #Birth date, below. —Quicksilver^{T @} 08:52, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was PAGE MOVED per discussion below. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:40, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

---

Travis Walton abduction → Travis Walton — Currently, the redirect goes the other way, but seeing as this is the man's only claim to fame, I assume having it as such would make more sense.

$\sim$ Lenoxus " * " 19:08, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Add  # '''Support'''  or  # '''Oppose'''  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~. Please remember that this survey is not a vote, and please provide an explanation for your recommendation.

Survey - in support of the move

1. Support - since the ufo incident is also a biography, and since Travis walton is redirected here, lets move this article to Travis Walton. But we have to make sure all the pages that link here get redirected to the new article name (:O) -Nima Baghaei (talk) 19:23, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
2. Support, if that his is only claim to fame, then it makes sense to just have the article at his name, IMO. Recury 19:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Survey - in opposition to the move

Discussion

Add any additional comments:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

A Song About the Claim

There was a somewhat popular Country / Western song about the claimed event at the time, though I do not recall the singer or all of the words. From memory:

I was chopping wood near Heber, Arizona
When something weird was hanging in the sky
I stepped up to take a closer look at it
And a blue light zapped me right between the eyes

The next thing I woke up aboard a space ship
They took my hand and showed me all around
They came not to condemn me
But merely to observe my ways
I wish they'd found a better place
To set me down.

Chorus:
Why'd they have to let me out in Tucson?
They could have shown me Jupiter or Mars!
Why'd they have to let me out in Tucson?
I guess they've never seen the women in these bars.

I found a phone and tried to call my brother
I was intercepted by the FBI
The sheriff and the doctor
And the Secret Service guys
Are convinced that they're convinced
I'm telling lies

The song also mentioned "I could have seen the dark side of the Moon" and other such space alien adventures, but I have not heard the song for over TWO DECADES. The last time I tried to find the lyrics to the song (a year or so ago) on the Internet I failed to find any such song. --Desertphile (talk) 02:49, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Polygraph disambiguation

There are two problematical sentences in the article regarding the use of polygraphs in the story. The first is ""Excepting Dallis (who had not completed his exam, thus rendering it invalid)...." which makes no sense. All polygraph tests are invalid, as polygraphs and polygraph examiners perform no better than chance at determining veracity. The second problem is the sentence "Travis would later take and pass two additional polygraph exams...." which also has no meaning. How does one "pass" a polygraph exam?

I suggest "(who had not completed his exam, thus rendering it invalid)" in the first sentence be removed since it makes no sense to add it; I also suggest someone explain what "pass" means in the vernacular of polygraph pseudo-science.

It would also be a good idea to also note in the article that polygraphs are useless. --Desertphile (talk) 03:45, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Monetary Gain?

Does anyone know how much was made from the book/movie & his various interviews/UFO convention Appearances? Thanks:) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.242.35.95 (talk) 22:04, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Travis Walton a Mormon?

this link infers/claims that Travis Walton was/is Mormon. This is true / correct, can anyone confirm this source or add mention with this as source for the article? 67.42.0.13 (talk) 09:08, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

He's lapsed. He talks about it in the book, but someone keeps on deleting that category from his page.--MacRùsgail (talk) 23:30, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Understandable since it's not discussed within the article itself. Categories should be supported by the article text. DonIago (talk) 15:15, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Why isn't in the text? In fact, why don't you go and write it. Could do with some more biographical information other than the invident...--MacRùsgail (talk) 17:22, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

If I had a reliable source I might do so. If you have one, you are welcome to add pertinent text. DonIago (talk) 14:49, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I was expecting you to do it. Or whoever keeps on removing the category. If they have energy enough to do that, they can also do this! --MacRùsgail (talk) 19:01, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you're expecting another editor to add information that you're invested in seeing included...but it's been my experience that if you wait for another editor to make a change you'd like to see made, you might end up waiting a long time. You're welcome to be bold and make the appropriate changes yourself. :) DonIago (talk) 20:18, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

If you've got the energy to keep removing stuff, you've got the energy to get off your backside and look for it.--MacRùsgail (talk) 14:35, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, according to Travis's book, Fire in the Sky, he has Mormon roots. Referring to Snowflake residents on first moving to Snowflake Travis wrote, "I never told anyone, but my Mormon roots were as deep as anyones. They didn't know it but, going way back, I'm actually related to some of them. My great-great-grandfather, Joseph Walton, was among the pioneer families to settle the Utah Valley with Brigham Young." I plan to work on this page as I get time. I am very new on here so be patient with me. I currently live in Snowflake, AZ. MorenciMarkeen (talk) 23:39, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Matheson?

As much as I think the whole Walton affair is a load of bull, I really think that the included parts in which "Matheson states/argues/claims" are not put in the right places It should be in the aftermath section, all of it, and not palced in the middle of Walton's explanation of the soc-called alien craft nonsense. Or we could remove it entirely. Any thought? 64.234.0.101 (talk) 03:00, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Unrelated link

I have removed an unrelated link from the Books section :

1993 Lie detector test shows Travis Walton spoke the truth - conducted during preparation for the 1993 film adaptation of Walton's experiences, also titled Fire in the Sky.

It was marked as broken as of March 2009, and now it is even worse, as it redirect to something unrelated. --77.198.58.37 (talk) 16:44, 23 September 2010 (UTC) (Hibou57)

Birth date

During an on-air interview with Linda Moulton Howe and George Noory on the Coast to Coast AM radio show on February 24-25, 2011, Travis Walton confirmed he had celebrated his 58th birthday a couple of weeks earlier. That would make his birth year 2011-58 = 1953. Subtracting "a couple of weeks" (14 days) from February 24 would put the date about February 10, with an uncertainty of plus or minus a few days. Linda and Travis also commented on the wildly inaccurate date currently shown in the Wikipedia article (April 23 1957). This information can be verified by anyone who has a subscription to the archived Coast to Coast AM shows. It may be possible to source additional material to pinpoint the exact date, but knowing at least the year and month is no worse than the biographical information available for many Wikipedia entries, and better than some. —Quicksilver^{T @} 19:03, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Klass and CSICOP

It would not surprise me if Klass and CSICOP had tried to mislead Walton and the polygraph. Klass and Kurtz (the former head of CSICOP) can be rather ill-tempered, insensitive people. Frankly, they can be jerks in person. It's the reason they do what they do and not spend their time investigating food safety or some other thing like the IMF & the Third World… as real compassionate people who have a thirst for truth, justice, and honest inquiry would be more inclined towards. Not everone has a need to expose truth, but those who do and aren't jerks tend towards constructive investigations and skepticism that positively affect humanity. What Klass and Kurtz do has little real contribution. They'd rather prey on honest people who have been traumatized, while they puff themselves up as guardians of The Truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.65.115.103 (talk) 04:37, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

One thing I will give the late Mr. Klass credit for, is that he actually WENT to some of the UFO conferences. Most debunkers stay at home and issue a priori proclamations about things. I lost every shred of respect I'd had for the CSI-Clowns after reading the about the "sTarbaby" shenanigans involving Dennis Rawlins. Tonybaldacci (talk) 23:52, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Distance traveled

What was the distance between where he was "abducted" and the gas station? TacfuJecan (talk) 05:11, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Accurate coordinates for his abduction seem difficult to find, but it appears to be in the vicinity of 34°16′49″N 110°35′54″W. He was not released at the phone booth / gas station, but on the open road west of town, exactly at 34°26′02″N 110°36′25″W, based on a youtube video where he identifies the site. The distance would be about 17.1 kilometres (10.6 mi) as the crow flies. Then he ran into town, and made the call from the booth, located at 34°25′52″N 110°35′34″W, an additional distance of 1.3 kilometres (0.81 mi). JMK (talk) 13:03, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

The Waltons

When mentioning Duane Walton and Travis Walton in the same paragraph could someone please not use just the last name given that there are 6 Walton children. It might be clear to whomever wrote this article but to someone who does not have knowledge of this subject I find it confusing which Walton you are referring to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:B:A3C0:7:CCAC:60E1:1431:DA6D (talk) 02:35, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Can you specify the paragraph or paragraphs you're referring to? Nightscream (talk) 04:41, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree. It's very confusing to read "Duane and Walton" over and over, interspersed with "Duane Walton." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.205.179.220 (talk) 05:09, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Fixed. Nightscream (talk) 12:16, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Unsourced material

Below material has been tagged for needing sources since 2011. Feel free to reinsert with appropriate references. DonIago (talk) 14:09, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Walton's return

Just before midnight on Monday, November 10, Grant Neff, who was married to Walton's sister Alison, reportedly answered his home telephone in Taylor, Arizona, a few miles from Snowflake. The caller spoke in a weak voice, "This is Travis. I'm at a phone booth at the Heber gas station, and I need help. Come and get me." Initially, Neff says he thought the caller was another prankster. However, before Neff could hang up the telephone, the caller spoke again, nearly hysterical and screaming, "It's me, Grant … I'm hurt, and I need help badly. You come and get me." Neff reconsidered the caller's identity: his panic seemed genuine to Neff, so Neff and Duane Walton drove to the gas station. They reported that they found Walton there, collapsed in the second of three telephone booths. He wore the same clothing as when he had disappeared — still inadequate, the temperature was about 20 °F (−7 °C) — and he seemed thinner and to have not shaved in the time he was absent. On the drive back to Snowflake, Walton seemed afraid, shaken, anxious and repeatedly mumbled on about beings with terrifying eyes. He thought he had been gone only a few hours; when he learned he had been absent nearly a week, he seemed stunned and stopped speaking at all. Duane Walton said he decided not to reveal Walton's return immediately, out of concern for his brother's apparently fragile condition. However, by not notifying authorities, Duane would face charges that he was complicit in a cover-up of evidence he or Walton might not want police to see. At his mother's house, Walton said he bathed and tried to eat, but was unable to keep from vomiting even after eating mild foods. As Spaulding had suggested, Duane told Walton to keep a sample of his first urination following his return. Following a tip from a telephone company employee about 2:30 a.m., police learned that someone had called the Neff family from a pay phone at the Heber gas station. Gillespie sent two Deputies to dust the booths for fingerprints, but as near as the deputies could tell in the dark, none of the prints were Walton's. This fact would be noted by critics who thought the entire affair was a prank, while supporters argued that a fingerprint examination carried out in the dark, early morning hours by two deputies wielding flashlights was hardly ideal and by no means exhaustive. Walton later noted that he had been an amateur boxer and had rarely bruised even after rough matches; he also noted that in his logging duties, he and others had taken some painful bumps and falls which had not left significant marks. When Sheriff Gillespie learned of Walton's return through the mass media, he was angered. Gillespie thought that he had demonstrated his belief in the UFO story with his announcement following the polygraph exams. However, Duane was still bitter over what he saw as the lackadaisical search effort during Walton's absence. Walton then told Gillespie what had happened during the five days he had been gone. It was the first time he had told anyone the tale, other than his family or close friends.

Discovery

Rogers later said he was convinced Walton was dead, so he drove away very quickly over the rough road, afraid that the disc was chasing the truck. After about a quarter of a mile, the truck skidded off the road and Rogers stopped. After some discussion, the crew went back to the site to find Walton. The disc was gone, and his co-workers said they searched for Walton for a half-hour but found no sign of him.

Why Is This Article Littered With the Name Terry Matheson?

I fail to understand why the viewpoint of a writer unassociated with the case is implicitly controlling the narrative, especially when the facts of Walton's missing time are so well documented. There are absolutely no circumstances that justify a running critique of Walton's own reported narrative. It should stand on its own, with citations where possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.25.13.90 (talk) 17:38, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Other editors have made the same point. There is no justification for the lead-in to the section on "Walton in the UFO" consisting in Matheson's commentary. It is being removed, along with other intrusive instances of Matheson's narrative hijacking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.25.13.90 (talk) 17:41, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Fringe Theories Noticeboard

There is currently a discussion on the Fringe Theories Noticeboard regarding this article. Interested editors are invited to join the discussion here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:34, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

The discussion was archived here: WP:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_45#Travis_Walton. 5Q5 (talk) 12:22, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Symbolic art.

A "lie detector" like used here, should be considered unserious. Really just as unserious as the story itself. However a little knowledge about symbolic art, such as that drawn by users of hallucinogens, should give the necessary information. The cover of "Fire in the sky" with the beam, looks like hallucinogenic art, drawn by others aswell. Such as the "game over" image, from the game "Shadow of the beast", by "Psygnosis", wellknown users of hallucinogens. http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Rr4r2ysztc8/maxresdefault.jpg

The aliens look like "tree-spirits" often drawn by hallucinogen-users, and he is a logger, and the hallucinogenic amanita muscaria grows by trees. Maybe they all are "trippers" wanting to scam the world. Unfortunately the "acid-trip" usually makes the user schizophrenic, so he doesn´t quite know morality, the wrongs of lying extremely, or looking completely out of place to normal people. The diagnosis of schizophrenia actually coined by Jung, based on his own use, and disturbance.

This is not uncommon. A lot of "ufos" are actually symbolically shaped. Aliens, such as "greys" are symbolically drawn, as to represent "coming from outer space", yet with the look of a beast, because they are often claimed to be "superior to humans". Which ofcourse is only a facist. And the same lack of morality.

Hitler also uses this type of totemic art. Look at the symbols nazis use. They are really idols to be worshipped, like totems, but the sharp eye will recognize severe deviance in this art. So really if possible it should be common knowledge. "Idolatry is of Satan" - The God of Monotheism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.211.164.8 (talk) 07:15, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Without a reliable source this is all original research and inappropriate for inclusion. DonIago (talk) 13:12, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Archiving

This talk page is a little long with a lot of stale threads. I am going to set up ClueBot III so it will auto archive threads that have had no activity for 90 days. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:02, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

There appear to be no links to the archive.-MacRùsgail (talk) 17:02, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

ClueBot isn't good for this. Also someone did a page move and left the archives at the old name location. I fixed the problems and replaced ClueBot with Miszabot. GigglesnortHotel (talk) 19:50, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Too Much Clark Sourcing, Missing Details

There's missing information in this article, particularly the damning evidence that Travis once told his mother not to worry if he were ever "abducted by a UFO" because he would "return safely," as well as the tape-recorded conversation in which his crew mates confidently proclaim that he'll be coming back and is having the experience of his life. I've got Clark's encyclopedia and I just finished reading Klass's writeup on this case, but the latter includes various suspicious details that are unmentioned here. I hardly think anyone could believe this case after reading the details that Klass presents; it seems like the writer of this article is using too few sources. 108.171.130.176 (talk) 19:20, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Sources please? Page numbers and quotes? GigglesnortHotel (talk) 17:11, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Details of his return

There is zero information about the circumstances of Travis's return. One minute he's missing, the next minute he's already returned, but exactly how he returned is never spelt out. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 09:32, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

It was just arranged poorly. I fixed that. GigglesnortHotel (talk) 17:12, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

Please discuss your problems with the page here rather than mass deleting and changing sentences to push POV. GigglesnortHotel (talk) 19:43, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Specifically this "The article is heavily PROFRINGE. many of the sources are fringe and fail RS. There is longstanding consensus that UFO's are a fringe theory." Which sources are fringe? Where is the consensus that UFOs are a fringe theory? The only consensus I've seen is that their existence is undetermined. GigglesnortHotel (talk) 19:45, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

The article has 33 references to "The UFO Book: Encyclopedia of the Extraterrestrial. " I would imagine that this is definitely a fringe source! Theroadislong (talk) 19:50, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

This article is a textbook example of a one sided promotion of fringe theories. The sources are so biased that if we deleted all the material referenced to fringe sources we would end up with a stub. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:56, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

It has been more or less in this state FOR OVER A YEAR, as it was tagged "fringe theories" in Feb 2015. None of you has done a thing to resolve what you seem to think is an urgent issue in all that time? Suddenly, now that I want to remove the tags, you're all up in arms about it? This further supports my statement that the tagging is not meant to inspire someone to fix the issue but to push POV. GigglesnortHotel (talk) 19:58, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Polygraphs are not reliable, agree about the source, unreliable too. Raquel Baranow (talk) 19:59, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Please do not remove maintenance tags w/o consensus. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:00, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Yeah. Tags suck. But here they're needed. Alexbrn (talk) 20:02, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

It's hilarious how this has sat tagged for years, now suddenly you guys are all het up about it. When were you lot planning to fix the issues? GigglesnortHotel (talk) 20:04, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Now seems to be good. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:19, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

• Question Is there a single cited source that anyone thinks passes WP:RS? -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:05, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

There is this EL[1] which links to this PDF[2] of newspaper clippings. Rhoark (talk) 21:11, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Agreed that UFOlogists and UFO websites are not independent reliable sources. Some possible non-UFO believer sources might be: [3], [4], [5], [6]. I'm sure some digging will unearth more. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:27, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

This article was beyond repair in its previous state. I have stubbed it in the hopes that it will be expanded in an NPOV compliant manner using only reliable sources. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:36, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Looking over the available non-fringe sources the notability is all about the UFO claim rather than the person. There doesn't appear to be enough data to support a WP:BIO article. I suggest this be renamed Travis Walton UFO incident or something similar. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:48, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:55, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

• I just added a neutrally-worded version of the abduction claim. It should read better than the old version, even if it is a bit short. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 22:04, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

I like that. I will just add that we need to be careful that we don't become overly reliant on skeptic sources. That could create its own set of POV issues. I am trying to find some secondary source material from the mainstream press/media.-Ad Orientem (talk) 22:10, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Stop stealing my lines. ;) MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 00:07, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

It's hard to find mainstream media coverage of the topic that isn't played for sensationalism (example: the Huffington Post piece currently cited takes a credulous tabloid approach to the subject). - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:26, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

I found quite a few sources on HighBeam Research, we also have this article here on WP, Fire in the Sky, a movie made about his alleged experience, not sure why it's not mentioned, there's also the book he wrote The Walton Experience, here's a couple sources I found pretty easily.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 22:21, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

• Just a Down-to-Earth Guy; Travis Walton, Sticking By His Extraterrestrial Tale The Washington Post (March 13, 1993)
• 'FIRE' HAS ITS BRIGHT MOMENTS, BUT MOST OF THE TIME IT FIZZLES The Buffalo News March 13, 1993

Don't agree with this clean-up of the article. The truth, and i don't expect otherwise, is that wikipedians 'consensus' is skeptical by nature, and cannot accept anything 'strange' without calling it a 'frige'. Just for curiosity, how much would you take for religion too, as anything is 'fringe' there? Or the 'paranormal' is the only thing that interests wikipedian censorship? I repeat, the article like reduced now is totally pointless, and it was filled with 'skeptical' sources. Is it NOT biased, then? Or wikipedians states cleary that UFO cannot exists, or deleting so much material is still a real censorship and nothing else, made by someone who has an agenda camouflaged by 'reliable source' or similar labels. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.11.0.22 (talk) 14:36, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Promotion of Fringe Theories

A discussion concerning this article has been opened at the Fringe Theories Noticeboard Interested editors are encouraged to join the discussion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:52, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Fringe theories, another name for censorship. Then i'll expect that also the religion will be relegated in the 'fringe theories', or not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.11.0.22 (talk) 14:39, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Ummm... no. And this is not the place for debating our policies and guidelines. If you wish to question or challenge WP:FRINGE the place to hold that discussion is on the talk page of that guideline. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:27, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Exact location

Can someone make a map of the site where the Travis Walten UFO incident should have taken place, where he was brought back to earth and all other geographical objects involved in the incident. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:DF:1F02:4388:9FE:FBCA:6258:A66C (talk) 12:48, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Refs in lead

Re [7], the lead doesn’t strictly require any references since it’s meant to reflect sources already cited in the article body. But in this case the refs were placed in the lead to discourage continual vandalism and claims that the sentence is “uncited”. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:42, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

The Lead indeed requires sources where appropriate, which is determined on a case-by-base basis, as it states at MOS:LEAD, both in (ironically) the last sentence of the Lead section of that page, and then in the citations section, MOS:LEADCIT. Nightscream (talk) 04:04, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Recent near-confession by Mike Rogers

I'm not sure if anyone wants to add this. I prefer to take part in the discussion rather than editing. Recently Travis and Mike got into an arguement on Facebook, and Mike made a statement saying that henceforth he was no longer to be considered a corroborating witness to Travis' abduction, called Travis a liar and threatened to reveal the truth about what happened. About two months later, he retracted this, reaffirmed his support for Travis, and said that his anger had been due to him finding out that Travis was trying to get a remake of Fire in the Sky made without his involvement. In a radio interview, he stated that he had made amends with Travis after Travis agreed to involve him in the film, and unashamedly and excitedly admitted he expects to make millions from it. I don't think you can cite Facebook posts or interviews with YouTube personalities as sources. However, skeptic Robert Shaeffer wrote an article on his blog covering at least some of this.

To be clear, even during the two months when he first made the statement and when he retracted it, Mike responded to his followers who asked if he was admitting to a hoax that he still stood by the truthfulness of the portion of the event he and the rest of the crew witnessed, but that he was now skeptical (up until he retracted his statement) that Travis had been abducted because he no longer considered Travis to be an honest person. Nevertheless, he certainly implied that he was harboring a secret about the event that Travis would not want other people to know. DonIago (talk) 14:54, 23 May 2021 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:3d08:5d85:6100:4924:b558:ca4d:3fc5 (talk • contribs)

I think we'd need a reliable source to discuss this. "A radio show" isn't very specific, but may be citable if more specifics are available. I don't think Facebook or YouTube or blogs are a great idea though. DonIago (talk) 14:54, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

"Copyvio"?

@User:Bilby: What is "copyvio" about those two external links? [8]

Now the only external link we have is WP:PROFRINGE. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:01, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

FWIW, that's not how you ping a user. I'll go ahead and do so now. @Bilby: DonIago (talk) 18:18, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

The Robert Staffer link is to a site which is reposting newspaper articles without any sign that they are doing so with permission. Per WP:LINKVIO, that would be contributory infringement under US copyright law. In regard to Skeptoid, Skeptoid is self published, so would come under WP:BLPEL. - Bilby (talk) 23:38, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Wiki at its worst "sceptics reception" ???

The nice way to rate this representation of the TW. abduction is to say it has been badly "researched" by the staff at wiki ... the truth IS out there ... but the lies are in your head . Do your own research on T.W. ... 2A00:23C5:FD92:D301:798A:7F95:866C:711 (talk) 22:33, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Are you suggesting changes to the article? And if so, what changes? DonIago (talk) 22:41, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

"The staff at wiki" doesn't research articles. If you believe there are corrections to be made to this article, please make them.The andf (talk) 14:48, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

FWIW, the IP hasn't edited since November, so it's doubtful we'll hear back from them. This seems to be a drive-by comment. DonIago (talk) 15:13, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Mike Heston Rodgers (2021 Confession)

April 30, 2021 Mike Rogers appeared on a recording talking to Ryan Gordon about the alleged abduction of Travis Walton. On this call, Rogers makes claims about Walton and his brother creating a hoax.

After the confession aired, Rogers posted on social media claiming the phone call had been manipulated and the abduction wasn’t a hoax. He later retracted said claim of digital manipulation. “I am hereby retracting my accusation of Ryan Gordon’s manipulation of that call on 4-30-2021, although digital manipulation of anything is certainly possible.” - July 15, 2021

July 16, 2021 Mike Rogers agreed to an interview with Erika Luke’s for an episode of her weekly show “UFO Classified”. He clarified, "I didn't actually see Travis abducted," This goes against what Travis Walton has claimed, that all 6 men on the crew saw what happened. While this is by no means proof Travis Waltons story is a hoax, it has caused skeptics to further doubt the legitimacy of witness statements from the abduction. 2601:401:8280:3623:C493:5259:31FE:E076 (talk) 22:01, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

If you can point to reliable, secondary sources for this, per WP:V/WP:NOR/WP:CS, feel free to add it to the article, or cite them here, and other editors may add it to the article for you. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 18:41, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

I brought this up earlier under the heading "recent near-confession by Mike Rogers". However, you are inaccurately characterizing a couple things here. First, it has never been claimed that the witnesses actually saw Walton get taken aboard the craft. All the 6 witnesses said is that they saw Walton get struck and knocked to the ground by a "beam of light" and that they then drove off, and this is all Rogers is saying now. His story hasn't changed. Second, while I personally don't by his excuse of "digital manipulation", I think it's only fair to note that Rogers only retracted his accusation after Gordon threatened legal action, but made it clear - both in the careful wording of his "retraction" and more bluntly in subsequent statements - that he still stood by the accusation and was only withdrawing it because he wanted to avoid the legal hassle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.112.219.95 (talk) 05:08, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure who you're addressing with your accusation of being "inaccurately characterized", but in any event, do you have reliable, secondary sources for this, per WP:V/WP:NOR/WP:CS? Nightscream (talk) 17:02, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Polygraph

Regarding this edit: "One source states that a polygraph operator believed he did not pass a polygraph test". It refers to a particular TV show, and the premise of the show is that people take polygraph tests. The show uses descriptions such as "lying" and "telling the truth". The TV show is a primary source. Robert Schaeffer is a secondary source. Which source are referring to as "One source"? - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:48, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

I changed the wording to simply refer to the polygrpher's conclusion, but do not state that he was lying. The most you can state is that a polygraph operator concluded that he did not pass the test. Just because a TV show makes a false statement does not mean that Wikipedia has to state it as if it is true. For example, when Donald Trump says, "The election was stolen", that doesn't mean Wikipedia states that the election was stolen. One of the sources about the polygraph is completely inaccessible. Thanks for raising this issue. By the way, it helps if you ping someone if you're asking a question. Sundayclose (talk) 16:10, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

The relevant passage from the reliable secondary source (Schaeffer) is [Walton] failed one [a polygraph test] on the 2008 TV show Moment of Truth.. Because the secondary source uses the word "failed" and provides no comment about a polygraph operator or said operator's beliefs, it is WP:SYNTH to state, as the article currently does, that "A polygraph operator believed he did not pass a polygraph test." That statement might be correct, of course, but it is not explicitly indicated by the source. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 16:34, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Correct. On the TV show, a polygraph operator concluded that he failed the test. No source mentions the operator's beliefs. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:20, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

@LuckyLouie: I'm open to discussion about the wording. But Wikipedia cannot state that he lied. That also is SYNTH. If I had to choose which SYNTH, it would be that the polygraph operator concluded that he failed the polygraph. You can't have a polygraph without a polygraph operator. And that operator will always conclude either passed, failed, inconclusive. They don't use the term "lied". That's far less controversial than stating that he lied or that a polygraph concluded that he lied. I would also be in favor of striking the entire sentence. At best the sentence is misleading. It's Wikipedia falling prey to pseudoscience, sensationalism, and popular misconception. There are good reasons that polygraphs have no scientific support and are not admissible in any court. Sundayclose (talk) 18:03, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Firstly, I am aware of no policy that prohibits editing an article while Talk page discussion(s) are proceeding, especially if such edits are removing WP:SYNTH. Secondly, nowhere in the article does it state that he lied. Indeed the word "lied" is nowhere in the article. The word used, which is identical to that used in the reliable, secondary source, is "failed." Using that word is in no way "misleading." Thirdly, your desired prose is unambiguously WP:SYNTH, as I presented above, because nowhere in the reliable, secondary source is there any mention of a polygraph operator or their belief(s). If you have even a single, reliable, secondary source that explicitly reports about the polygraph operator during Walton's test and their beliefs, please include it to support your desired content. Otherwise, your content will remain inappropriate WP:SYNTH, and will continue to be reverted. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 19:09, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Unless there is clear vandalism, if there's a consensus discussion it is inappropriate to revert until the discussion if finished, per WP:BRD. As for whether the word "lied" was used in the article, it helps to look at the edit history. Before my first revert the article stated, "The polygraph test indicated he was lying". I've already made my case that stating that he lied or that the polygraph test indicated that he lied is also SYNTH. There's no need for me to repeat myself. We are now waiting to see if a consensus develops. Sundayclose (talk) 19:28, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

You call it a "consensus discussion," I call it an attempt to remove your WP:SYNTH. In any case, the word "lie," or variants thereof, was nowhere in the content you removed here. And in that edit you also restored a primary reference. You are correct, however, that there is no need for you to repeat yourself. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 20:43, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

With respect, my comment about "lied" being in the article was in response to your comment "nowhere in the article does it state that he lied". The use of the term "lied" is what began this content dispute. Also with respect, I disagree with you that the current discussion is anything other than a consensus discussion about a content dispute, especially since one point of disagreement here is my point that there are two issues of SYNTH. One was pointed out by LuckyLouie regarding the source not stating anything about a polygrapher's beliefs. I pointed out the other SYNTH, that any conclusion that Walton lied or that a polygrapher stated that he lied is SYNTH. It's fine for us to disagree about any of this. But it's a content dispute, and this is a consensus discussion about that dispute. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 21:35, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

So you feel both issues are SYNTH, but you wish the SYNTH that you inserted ("A polygraph operator believed he did not pass a polygraph test") to remain, and you will revert any changes in order to keep it in? That makes no sense. - LuckyLouie (talk) 23:01, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

(ec) Please, I'll kindly ask you to read all of my comments above and (respectfully) stop putting words in my mouth. I accept your comment stating that the polygrapher indicated that Walton was lying is SYNTH. I have stated that both are examples of SYNTH. I have said that I am open to discussion about the wording of the sentence. If we have two statements, both of which are SYNTH, that doesn't necessarily make either better than the other. That's why we're having this discussion, to determine the best wording if the sentence is to remain in the article. I have suggested that the entire sentence be omitted because it is misleading no matter how it's stated and puts Wikipedia on the side of fringe science because use of a polygraph has no scientific merit whatsoever. Removing the sentence would take care of both problems related to SYNTH. I respect your right to express your opinion and to discuss here. Please respect my right to have a different opinion without distorting what I am saying or telling me that what I say makes no sense. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 23:20, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Maybe I wasn't clear or didn't express myself well, so let me try to clarify. Regarding consensus: it seems that two editors prefer using "Walton failed the polygraph test", because I agree with JoJo Anthrax. "Walton failed the polygraph test" is not a distortion or a synthesis of the cited source. It is identical to the cited source. It does not say Walton lied. It does not insinuate Walton lied. The word "lied" is nowhere in the article. Of course I am open to discussing improvements, including the pros and cons of whether the game show detail should be in there at all. However at this point you have no support for including "A polygraph operator believed he did not pass a polygraph test" in the article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:52, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't think you were unclear, and I understood your point. But I appreciate the clarification. You've been around a while, so I'm sure you know that consensus is not a vote. Anyone who determines consensus here (which, of course, shouldn't be you or me) should consider all opinions, including all comments made in this section about the controversial nature of polygraphs. Sundayclose (talk) 22:44, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

• I think any discussion of polygraphs should include some mention that their use and overall reliability are the subject of much controversy and debate. FWIW I don't consider a polygraph test to be worth the paper it's printed on. But others clearly disagree. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:15, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't think there's any disagreement among any serious scientists who are aware of the overwhelming evidence about the polygraph. Or among members of the legal profession who long ago dismissed any attempt to use a polygraph in court. There is disagreement among the general public based on misunderstanding and lack of knowledge, which, in my opinion, is why we have this dispute. Sundayclose (talk) 23:23, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

It is also why we should not have this discussion. It simply does not matter whether he "failed a polygraph test", just as it would not matter if an astrologer had said that according to his horoscope he was a fraud. Just delete that UNDUE crap. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:24, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

But...if a reliable, secondary, independent source reported an astrologer's horoscope "reading," and if that reliably-sourced content passed WP:N, then the content could likely be WP:DUE, which I believe describes the situation here: we have a WP:RS, and the event was televised by a notable (if tasteless) television show that was viewed by thousands, if not millions, of people. The RS does not state/claim that polygraph tests are reliable (nor does it need to), it does not state/claim that Walton lied or is a liar, and using its prose almost verbatim is not WP:SYNTH. Now this doesn't speak to editorial policy, but there's also a certain charm to this Woo Meets Woo pairing. If only we had a RS reporting Walton's horoscope for that day, in which he was destined to meet "an interesting stranger." Sigh. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 15:20, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree. Saying that he did not pass the test should be uncontroversial. I mean, it's all nonsense anyways: the abduction claim, the polygraph. I'm ambivalent about whether we should note that polygraphs can be highly inaccurate, but I strongly object to claiming that this proves he was lying. Happy (Slap me) 16:55, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Saying that he did not pass the test should be uncontroversial Wrong. Saying that without context would lend credence to polygraph tests, unless we also quoted a reliable source saying as a response to this specific situation that polygraphs are not reliable. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:17, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Saying that without context would lend credence to polygraph tests, That's like suggesting that a Dowser who doesn't find water in the desert lends credence to dowsing. It's nonsensical. Happy (Slap me) 17:31, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Are you saying that if, in an article about a desert, we write that a dowser could not find any water there, that would not lend credence to dowsing? That is the situation here. We should not mention the dowser in the article about the desert, and we should not mention the polygraph test in the article about Walton. If there is really no water in the desert, there will be non-fringe reasoning confirming that, and the fringe reasoning should be kept out of it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:40, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Are you saying that if, in an article about a desert, we write that a dowser could not find any water there, that would not lend credence to dowsing? Yes and it is quite the leap to conclusions to assert otherwise, especially when said hypothetical desert article includes note of several dowsers who claimed to have found water when there was none.

That is the situation here. We should not mention the dowser in the article about the desert, and we should not mention the polygraph test in the article about Walton. I don't recall "implies untrue things, even though other editors disagree that it actually implies those things" anywhere in WP:DUE as a reason to exclude reliably-sourced information. Besides, as jps points out below, this case is shot through with polygraphy claims and disbelief from otherwise credulous sources. All of that provides a context in which it would be bizarre for us not to include the most prominent incident of polygraph-taking (over which a noted skeptic watched, no less). If it takes a note about the unreliability of polygraphs to satisfy everyone, that's completely fine by me. But I don't see any merit to the argument to exclude this. Happy (Slap me) 14:48, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Skeptic Michael Shermer was on the panel of that episode of Moment of Truth and was the one who asked Walton the question about his abduction that the examiner said he failed. Ref #10 uses a quote from Shermer's report of his experience on the show. The bad link in Shermer's report goes here (Internet Archive). If that failed game show test is noteworthy, then a line from Shermer who was significantly involved should follow it imo. Again, Ref #10 is readily available. 5Q5|^✉ 11:30, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Proposed revision below, all references are currently in the article. 5Q5|^✉ 13:09, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

I like this revision. It makes it very clear that it's merely reporting on the events, without lending any undue credence to the polygraph results. Happy (Slap me) 16:16, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

In 2008, thirty years after the book's release, Walton appeared on the Fox game show The Moment of Truth and was asked by Michael Shermer if he in fact was abducted by a UFO on November 5, 1975, to which he replied, "Yes". Later in the program, an announcer revealed that Walton had failed the show's polygraph test in which he was asked Shermer's question. Shermer wrote about his experience on the show and Walton's reaction to failing its polygraph on that one question, after passing an earlier test question as to whether he believed he had evidence he was abducted, in an August 15, 2012 issue of eSkeptic.

References

"Failed the show's polygraph test", without any additional information and the universal rejection of the validity of the polygraph by the scientific community, is inherently misleading. It is generally equivalent, in terms of bias, to stating that he "failed to convince psychic John Doe". The most elegant solution is to remove any mention of polygraph because it puts Wikipedia in the position of reporting results of WP:FRINGE science as if it might have validity. An explanation that any polygraph results are not supported by scientific consensus is less biased, though not preferred over eliminating mention of the polygraph. Sundayclose (talk) 00:48, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

The story about this hoax is riddled with polygraph claims. Providing proper context may be impossible. There are a few sources which point out how absurd this is, but we're really dealing with WP:FRINGE claims upon WP:FRINGE claims. Walton is disbelieved by many credulous UFO believers which is part of the reason this article is problematic. jps (talk) 12:16, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Shermer's quote about polygraph tests being unreliable is in the same Publicity section in the article and it comes from his eSkeptic report on the TV show. I also included a sourced line per WP:WHYCITE informing readers that Shermer wrote about it and of Walton's reaction. I don't think it's possible to discuss Walton's case without mentioning the polygraph as a test instrument. The fact that the tests are in the movie adaptation and Walton earned an appearance fee on a TV show so many years later to take another test solidifies its inclusion in the story imo. 5Q5|^✉ 14:00, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree that mentioning the polygraph is needed, but the lack of reliable sourcing on what polygraphs are actually capable of in the context of this story makes things complicated. jps (talk) 14:19, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm thinking that covering that Shermer piece from 2012 about it in a bit more detail might be the way to do. He mentions how unreliable they are are and links to debunkings of ploygraphy he did previously. Something like:

Michael Sherner wrote in 2012 about sitting on the panel of the game show Moment of Truth, in which Walton failed the administered polygraph. He highlighted the unreliability of polygraphy, commented on its use in this case and concluded that "the power of deception and self-deception" is all that is necessary to explain this case.

Happy (Slap me) 15:42, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

But he didn't fail it completely. According to Shermer's article, Walton passed the first polygraph question about whether there was evidence and failed the second about his belief that he was abducted. Robert Scheaffer's existing citation would have to go unless someone can confirm it applies, as well as the one to YouTube. 5Q5|^✉ 16:27, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

The point is not whether he failed it or didn't fail it as there is no consistent way to verify either case except as an attribution to a particular test giver. As that is typically uncommented upon in sources, we really should stick to just outlining the fact that the polygraph was basically the only thing ever used to decide whether Walton was telling the truth about his abduction. jps (talk) 16:56, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Giving it some more thought, I don't think a game-show entertainment environment is a reliable source for polygraph results. The producers may have had cash prize motivation to allow a win or deny one. Can you imagine the police or CIA having a TV game show do their polygraphs? Shermer's quote about polygraph unreliability, ref #10, goes to his eSkeptic report on the show. For these reasons, I would support deleting the two sentences about the TV show altogether. The current sentence A polygraph operator believed he did not pass a polygraph test. clearly is awkward and can't remain as is. Ping to @LuckyLouie: who started this discussion. Let's finish this up with a decision, as I'm about done and this is getting long. 5Q5|^✉ 11:41, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Convenience break

I mean, polygraphy is little better than guessing under the best of circumstances, I don't think the game show format really impacts the reliability that much. But it adds notability, which is something we need to bear in mind, because we're discussing the "Publicity" section, here.

How about another proposal...

Thirty years after the book's release, Walton appeared on the Fox game show The Moment of Truth and was asked if he was, in fact, abducted by a UFO on November 5, 1975, to which he replied, "Yes", an answer that the show's polygrapher concluded to be false. Michael Shermer, who sat on the panel for the show, wrote about the episode. He highlighted the unreliability of polygraphy, commented on its use in this case and concluded that "the power of deception and self-deception" is all that is necessary to explain this case.

Happy (Slap me) 12:40, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Most people would agree that a subject's appearance on a game show is notable for mention as part of their BLP. If it's decided to include more than just the date and the name of the show, I think HappyMcSlappy's proposal is an improvement over the present wording and includes an appropriate nod to the unreliability of polygraphy. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:00, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

No objection, even though this isn't a BLP. Kind of odd for an article on a UFO abduction to have its own Publicity section. 5Q5|^✉ 13:18, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

this isn't a BLP Good point. Don't know where I got the idea it was a BLP. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:32, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

As mentioned earlier, the first reference is a primary source, and explicit reference to a polygrapher or their conclusion/belief is WP:SYNTH. We have a reliable, secondary source (Scheaffer) that explicitly reports Walton "failed" the test, so I suggest that in the proposed content above from HappyMcSlappy that the phrase "was asked if he was, in fact, abducted by a UFO on November 5, 1975, to which he replied, "Yes", an answer that the show's polygrapher concluded to be false" be replaced with "was asked during a polygraph test if he was, in fact, abducted by a UFO on November 5, 1975, to which he replied, "Yes." Walton failed the test." with a citation to Scheaffer. The subsequent content concerning Shermer seems fine. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 14:03, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

I believe that stating without qualification that he failed the polygraph is lending undue credence to the reliability of polygraphy, and I find your argument about synthesis to be uncompelling.

Why would referring to the tester be synth? Do you think there's any possibility whatsoever that the tester did not administer the test? Are polygraphy results not required to be interpreted by the polygrapher? Are you under the impression that the results produced by polygrapher are "true" or "false"?

Besides, the Shermer sources explicitly supports my wording. See:

The next question, for $100,000, was refreshingly straight-forward: “Were you abducted by a UFO on November 5, 1975.” Without hesitation he barked “Yes.” The voice in the sky once again boomed: “That answer is…”
“False.” I couldn’t believe it.

- Travis Walton’s Alien Abduction Lie Detection Test

So I don't see any problem with my suggested phrasing. Happy (Slap me) 15:00, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Why would referring to the tester be synth? Because nowhere in the reliable, independent, secondary source (Scheaffer), or in the passage you quote above, is there any explicit reference to a polygraph tester/operator or said person's opinion/belief. If you can find any secondary source that explicitly refers to the operator or their opinions/beliefs (as opposed to a vague "voice in the sky," which could be anyone associated with the program), then please include it, but AFAIK there is no such source available. Per WP:RS, article content is based upon what is presented in reliable sources, not upon what we "think" the sources imply. Adding content to an article based upon what we "think," no matter how logical, is WP:SYNTH. The passage from the reliable source is brief and to the point: Walton failed one [a polygraph test] on the 2008 TV show Moment of Truth. That passage no more provides undue credence to polygraph tests than your suggested "an answer that the show's polygrapher concluded to be false." In any case, the subsequent content from Shermer in your suggested edit adequately handles the credence issue, if there even is an issue. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 18:03, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Because nowhere in the reliable, independent, secondary source (Scheaffer), or in the passage you quote above, is there any explicit reference to a polygraph tester/operator or said person's opinion/belief.

Um...

The voice in the sky once again boomed: “That answer is… False.” AFAIK, polygraphs output measurements of skin conductivity, blood pressure, pulse and breathing rates, not voices in the sky. The voice in the sky was giving a determination of the truth or falsehood of the answer, not a polygraph result.

And the very nature of polygraphy-used-as-a-lie-detector is such that the ultimate output is the polygrapher's opinion. I mean, if you're really bothered by it, then including a source from polygraph would solve the issue, because synth is extrapolating from two or more sources to produce a result that isn't verifiable in either. The suggestion that "the opinion of the polygrapher is the determination of a truth or a lie in a polygraph exam" is synth simply because it's not mentioned by the source giving the result of this particular polygraph test seems like pointless rules lawyering.

Nobody's suggesting we include any claims that aren't verifiable. WP:SYNTH explicitly refers to claims which are unverifiable. I think whoever wrote WP:SYNTHNOT probably deserves more credit than they seem to get around here. Happy (Slap me) 14:37, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Just want to toss this in there that IMDb's credits for the series do not list any polygrapher's name and neither is the episode appearance listed in Walton's or Shermer's entries (because the particular episode itself has no entry). Apparently not that verifiable or notable. 5Q5|^✉ 15:21, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Checking around, it seems the second season (in which Walton did his appearance) wasn't aired. That's a fact which severely undercuts the notability (in the general sense, equivalent to WP:DUE) of this appearance.

Maybe we should just drop all mention of it. What do you think? Happy (Slap me) 16:02, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

The broadcast is available from multiple sources on YouTube (including [Spanish captioned versions) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ob3YLAriQDw]. Perhaps it was aired in syndication? Anyhow, from watching this silly video, it's evident that the "voice in the sky" is a synthesized female announcer, not a real person whose "beliefs" could be attributed. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:20, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

The broadcast is available from multiple sources on YouTube (including [Spanish captioned versions)

A simple DVD release could readily explain that. Although, checking our page on it, almost all of it is sourced to blogs, and some of them contradict each other. I'm wondering if that page doesn't need to be stripped down to a stub. In any event, IMDB doesn't have air dates for any of the second season episodes except the first and last.

Anyhow, from watching this silly video, it's evident that the "voice in the sky" is a synthesized female announcer, not a real person whose "beliefs" could be attributed.

Even if it's a synthesized voice, someone necessarily told it what to say. Happy (Slap me) 20:13, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

• Support deleting. TV Guide says the lie detector voice was actress Tasia Valenza. She also is not listed in Truths IMDb's credits for the series and there is no credit in her own IMDb entry (embarrassed?). She's done computer voices for Star Wars and Star Trek. I've already supported deleting the mention higher up this page on Apr 11. I would feel differently if at least we could identify the polygrapher. The show won't do it. The polygrapher won't do it. This ABC News criticism of the series in 2009 probably contributed to its demise. In this instance, the polygraph was just loosely structured entertainment and shouldn't be taken seriously as real-world evidence for or against imo. 5Q5|^✉ 12:00, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

  I've already supported deleting the mention higher up this page on Apr 11. I would feel differently if at least we could identify the polygrapher. The show won't do it. The polygrapher won't do it.

  This has been what I've encountered as well, trying to find the name of the polygrapher. I found one passing mention yesterday that said that Fox declined to identify the person upon request, but that was in an article about polygraphy more generally. Happy (Slap me) 12:22, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Walton appeared on a TV show and was asked a question specifically relevant to the article topic, so I can't quite understand the arguments for not including mention of it. I also can't understand why people are obsessed with ID'ing the show's polygrapher Nick Savastano [9]. Such WP:OR doesn't support WP:SYNTHetic commentary describing who "believes" Walton failed the test. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:25, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Walton appeared on a TV show and was asked a question specifically relevant to the article topic, so I can't quite understand the arguments for not including mention of it.

Not all television shows are notable. An unaired season of a television show is not necessarily notable enough to merit inclusion. I don't see how that's a particularly difficult argument to follow.

I also can't understand why people are obsessed with ID'ing the show's polygrapher Nick Savastano. Such WP:OR doesn't support WP:SYNTHetic commentary describing who "believes" Walton failed the test.

Are you aware that you just provided a source which verifies that the determinations of truth or falsehood were made by a single person in the sentence immediately preceding one in which you argued that the assertion that the determinations were made by a single person is original research?

If you're arguing, instead, that polygraphy produces empirical determinations of truth or falsehood (which is the only reasonable assumption from which your argument here seems to follow), then I would ask you to read the article polygraph and its sources, because that is not how polygraphy works.

To help you get started;

• Here's a source that explains how an examiner should make their determination.
• Here is a source that shows how much opinion goes into that determination.
• Here is a source showing that polygraphs cannot distinguish between a person telling a lie and a person made nervous by the question (which helps explain the why of having the examiner make a determination, rather than having the machine simply read "false" when readings cross a certain threshold).
• Here's a court case that which includes among it's findings of fact that polygraphy results are non-expert opinions.

Furthermore, you're accusing your fellow editors of being "obsessed" with something that was mentioned exactly once, in a brief back and forth, which is a shocking example of the assumption of bad faith.

Finally, you may note that I have proposed two variants of the same basic text. If you prefer the first over the second, you may simply indicate so without railing at me about being opposed to synth without ever actually making an argument that this information is, in fact synth. Congratulations on finding the name neither of us was able to in our searches. I'm not sure what that proves, other than the point that we can now state with authority who made the determination.

Now, we are currently trying to have a discussion about whether or not this information is WP:DUE. You are welcome to join that discussion, and the opening of the comment I am replying to seems to indicate that you believe this information is due. But please stop sidetracking this discussion by returning to an earlier issue that no-one else is concerned with, and which might be moot based on the result of this one. Happy (Slap me) 21:05, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Sorry you're shocked and felt 'railed' at, but it was a serious and legitimate question. Focusing on the examiners name is of no value: their name can't be used in the article without SYNTH, so discussing it was the real 'sidetrack' here. Let me be clear: I still support some variant of your second proposed text and I have given reasons why I thought mention of the game show appearance is due. I also support some mention of the unreliability of the polygraph, as suggested by use of the Shermer source. What's not to like? - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:51, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Game shows in the U.S. have a history of being rigged and cheating[10], [11], [12]. It's important therefore to confirm that the show actually had a polygrapher since for some reason the producers don't want the polygrapher identified as such on IMDb. Thank you Luckylouie for finding his name. Checking Nick Savastano's entry on IMDb it appears that he IS credited on the series, but listed only as "other crew." IMDb says he died on November 22, 2008 in India at age 63. His credits, if complete (doubtful), are only for the first 16 episodes of season one and Walton supposedly appeared on episode 10 of season two. Season two on IMDb is missing except for a barebones entry for Walton's episode. The important point for me is to establish that an actual polygrapher existed and Savastano's name should be added going forward to the Wiki article on The Moment of Truth using the TV Guide source (go ahead anyone). I have crossed out my support delete above and am okay now with a mention of the show and polygraph continuing in the article. It just needs tweaking to fix some of its awkward wording. 5Q5|^✉ 12:12, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

@LuckyLouie, I'm sorry if me separating the statements by multiple paragraphs and framing them in response to specific quotes from your comment wasn't clear enough: I'm not shocked by the question, nor did I find it railing. Instead, as I attempted to make perfectly clear, it was the out-of-the-blue accusation of "obsession" that I found surprisingly uncivil, and it has been your continued and rhetorically unsupported assertions about synth which come across as "railing", or "ranting" if you prefer a less euphemistic term for it.

The question you posed seemed perfectly fine, if more than a little lost, as the answer seems so incredibly obvious. And yes, I found it rather apparent from your earlier comment that you do not support deletion, thank you for re-affirming that. As 5Q5 has withdrawn their concerns about due weight in the light of the name you managed to dig up, I feel like that resolves the matter.

@5Q5: If you no longer have any concerns about the weight of this mention, then I would submit my second proposal above, one more time:

Thirty years after the book's release, Walton appeared on the Fox game show The Moment of Truth and was asked if he was, in fact, abducted by a UFO on November 5, 1975, to which he replied, "Yes", an answer which the show declared to be false. Michael Shermer, who sat on the panel for the episode, subsequently wrote about his experience. He highlighted the unreliability of polygraphy, commented on its use in this case and concluded that "the power of deception and self-deception" is all that is necessary to explain this case.

Since you have expressed concerns about whether the show was even using the polygrapher at this point (I'm of the opinion that IMDB shouldn't be taken as evidence, and thus the missing credits don't necessarily indicate anything), I've changed "...the show's polygrapher concluded to be false." to "...which the show declared to be false." We could also return to my first proposed text, which simply declares Walton to have "failed the polygraph", although jps has objected to that on the grounds that it unduly implies some empirical basis to the "false" result, and I tend to agree that it does do that. I would prefer to attribute to the polygrapher (even if we can't name them), but attributing it to the show itself is also workable. Happy (Slap me) 12:44, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

The revised proposal by HappyMcSlappy looks good to me with one suggested change: "Michael Shermer, who sat on the panel for the show, wrote about the episode" change to "Michael Shermer, who sat on the panel for the episode, subsequently wrote about his experience." 5Q5|^✉ 13:22, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree, that sounds better. I've updated the proposal. Happy (Slap me) 14:42, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

@LuckyLouie do you agree? If so, consensus will have been reached and HappyMcSlappy can make the edit and close this. 5Q5|^✉ 11:37, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

It's an improvement on the existing text, and that's OK with me. - LuckyLouie (talk) 12:45, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

• I've made the edit. Thanks to everyone who helped us get here. Happy (Slap me) 12:43, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

The article should have information on the polygraph tests administered by the sheriff's office to the 6 loggers while Walton was missing, and to Walton immediately after he returned. (IMO, there should be a whole section on the immediate investigation of the incident including that the 6 loggers were accused of murdering Walton.) These tests would seem to be more credible than the mentioned polygraph tests by a tabloid and a second-rate game show 30 years later. Unforgettable fan (talk) 12:38, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

No, why would they? Polygraph tests are crap. Read Polygraph. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:02, 14 August 2022 (UTC)