Talk:Travis Walton incident

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)
 * 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 &#124;&#9993; 11:30, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Proposed revision below, all references are currently in the article.  5Q5 &#124;&#9993; 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)

"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 &#124;&#9993; 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 &#124;&#9993; 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  who started this discussion. Let's finish this up with a decision, as I'm about done and this is getting long.  5Q5 &#124;&#9993; 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)
 * 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 &#124;&#9993; 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:
 * - 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 &#124;&#9993; 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 &#124;&#9993; 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 . 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,, . 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 &#124;&#9993; 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 &#124;&#9993; 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 &#124;&#9993; 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)
 * It's an improvement on the existing text, and that's OK with me. - LuckyLouie (talk) 12:45, 23 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)
 * I've made the edit. Thanks to everyone who helped us get here. Happy  ( Slap me ) 12:43, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * No, why would they? Polygraph tests are crap. Read Polygraph. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:02, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Recent edits
Regarding, it's not a definitive fact that the other loggers saw Walton zapped by an alien spaceship and as a result were frightened and drove away. At least according to our cited sources, it's ambiguous why they left, so I have reverted and copyedited appropriately. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:53, 1 June 2023 (UTC)


 * You split the paragrahp in a way that left the first pargraph (the one that ends with "...other six men were frightened and drove away.") without a citation. Where's the citation for that paragraph? Nightscream (talk) 16:18, 5 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Are you talking about this diff? That's user:Vandergay's edit, and he is the one that had split the paragraph. Which I reverted. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:02, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Sources, and observations on tone
I'm concerned that new material being added is weighted heavily on WP:SELFPUB sources such as threedollarkit.weebly.com, badufos.blogspot, Youtube, etc. There may be a valid WP:PARITY argument for using blog posts by experts like Robert Scheaffer in small doses, but I think basing whole sections on them is rather excessive. Also the WP:TONE of some additions ("Gentry Tower as UFO?") is way too WP:PERSUASIVE, and in general, more suited to magazine feature writing than an encyclopedia. The focus of article writing should be to create a solidly sourced reference work rather than weave a fascinating narrative. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:39, 16 October 2023 (UTC)


 * I agree and I removed the ones in the "Missing person investigation" section. WP:USERG and WP:RSSELF are not reliable sources and shouldn't be used. The guideline states: "Never use self-published sources as independent sources about other living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer." ThaddeusSholto (talk) 14:49, 16 October 2023 (UTC)


 * I should add that Youtubers like this one are also not reliable sources, especially for statements of fact made in Wikipedia's voice. And again, on the subject of editorialized section titles, its not clear that the phrase "Two-hoaxed-five hypothesis" has been attributed to any particular source. It seems something that an editor made up on their own. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:20, 16 October 2023 (UTC)


 * The "Two-hoaxed-five hypothesis" section wasn't distinct from the "Waltons as UFO buffs and pranksters" so I combined them. I removed more WP:USERG and WP:RSSELF references and content. We need more than blogs and YouTube videos to reference theories. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 15:49, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Good feedback, thank you. I've tried to address tone (e.g. chopped descriptors like "bumpy, dirt road", cut interrogative heading), have removed the objectionable supplementary refs, and provided inline attribution.  As for the "Theory of Everything" Youtube Clip about Travis's Jr High friend -- I think our readers would benefit from some neutral, objectively worded summation of the clip, as Walton admits recalling the friend and conversations about faking a UFO, but attributes the idea to the friend rather than himself. But on the other hand, we do have plenty of sourcing for Walton's affinity for UFO and pranks. Feoffer (talk) 06:00, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:RSPYT. Selecting comments from interviews found on non-notable Youtube channels is WP:OR unless some third party independent source has taken notice. I should add, good job working to expand the article and your obvious understanding of WP:FRIND, WP:SENSATIONAL and WP:MAINSTREAM. Your efforts are appreciated. Just try to resist the urge to leverage every obscure detail you can find to create a narrative others will find as fascinating as you do. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:17, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Lead Section and Neutrality
It seems the lead section of this article contains little information regarding the events leading up to and during the incident. Be aware that this section, as per WP:LEAD, may be the only thing that a user will read. As such, the lead should be given appropriate weight across the topics that are discussed in the article in a way that is neutral. As of now this section gives the impression of an editorial piece due to the lack of information being given to the user about the incident.

Further, putting The UFO Incident information immediately preceding the explanation of how this incident occurs is absolutely unacceptable (read WP:NPOV). The purpose of articles on wikipedia are not persuasion, they are for information.

If those with extensive knowledge about the topic can add detail regarding the events of incident it would be appreciated. Viiz1 (talk) 03:48, 18 May 2024 (UTC)


 * First of all, thank you for taking the time to write this.  The biggest feedback is that we shouldn't begin the narrative in the lead with the UFO Incident tv movie... But Walton has spoken / written about his pre-existing desire to be taken aboard a flying saucer as potentially causative.   Vallee, a UFO believer, argues pre-existing cultural expectations shape encounters.   Whichever way you slice it, hoax hallucination or CE3K, the story seems to begin with the UFO Incident tv movie. Feoffer (talk) 06:03, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I took a stab at making the lead more neutral. It now starts with the forestry job not the TV movie, explicitly mentions that they watched the movie and discussed it. I tried to "de-snark" the link between the TV movie and Travis's disappearance by adding intervening text, I suspect that's the biggest thing you were picking up on as potentially non-neutral.  We also now mention the 2021 Rogers confession and retraction in the lead. Feoffer (talk) 08:14, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * If you have room on your plate, I wonder if you might take a peek at the article's lead and see if you summarize it better than I or otherwise improve it. the version of the lede that Viiz1 saw probably wasn't as neutral or as complete as we should strive to be;  but I worry I've gone too verbose now as an overcorrection.   I'll see what others think. Feoffer (talk) 11:01, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * absolutely and thanks for reaching out. I was just listening to a podcast about this guy while driving out to a client in another parish this past week. If reliable sources describe his story as based on or inspired by "The UFO Incident", then NPOV would be to have that in the lead (WP:DUE).  Rjjiii  (talk) 14:39, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I took a shot at shortening the lead some. Feel free to revert or partially revert anything that is not helpful. Rjjiii  (talk) 01:55, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Many thanks!! Feoffer (talk) 02:50, 21 May 2024 (UTC)