Phil J. Klass has issued an "expose" of the Travis Walton case claiming that it is a hoax. He also claims that APRO has withheld, from its members and the public, information that indicated that the case was a hoax. His claims are without substance. It should be remembered here that Philip Klass, with his two financially succe ful anti-UFO books and his $10,000 offer has "boxed himself in" with respect to the UFO mystery and must therefore view every good case as a threat. In this respect his expose is a perverse sort of endorsement.
His 17 page copyrighted report arrived at our office on July 10, 1976 forwarded by a member. News media in the area received their copies well in advance of that date, APRO has received no copy directly from Klass at this writing.
According to Phil, APRO's great sin was withholding information on a polygraph (he insists on calling it a "lie detector") test which Travis took on Nov. 15, 1975 and failed. What he does not report is that three psychiatrists who examined Travis on the same occasion declared the test to be meaningless because of Waltons state of mind and the circumstances under which it was given.
One of them, Dr. Jean Rosenbaum, released a statement to the press on that date in which he declared his certainty that Travis was not lying and that there was no drug usage involved in his experience. Klass ignores this entirely and chooses instead to quote Rosenbaum's speculations concerning the Walton's alleged previous preoccupation with the UFO subject.
Rosenbaum's opinion is particularly important with respect to Polygraph validity since he has been accepted in several court cases as an expert in this very area. He can by no means be considered prejudiced in favor of the UFO abduction theory since he has personally expressed the opinion that Walton was not abducted but had a psychotic experience.
The Polygraph operator was only one of several experts consulted by the National Enquirer to help them decide on the validity of the Walton case. The operator, McCarthy, was recommended by an APRO member who lives in Phoenix who knew only that McCarthy had long experience in the field. Mr. Lorenzen made the initial call to McCarthy to determine his willingness to participate. On his affirmative response, Lorenzen turned the phone over to Dr. Harder who discussed at length the agitated state of mind that Travis was in and expressed his doubts concerning Travis' testability. McCarthy promised to take this into consideration, and promised complete confidentiality. "The information will never leak out of this office", he said "you can rest assured of that." Subsequently, Dr. Harder turned the phone over to Paul Jenkins of the Enquirer who then made arrangements for the test.
Initially, the Enquirer's insistence in confidentiality was tied to their interest in protecting their story and the agreement was made between McCarthy and the Enquirer that results of the test would be their property. The Enquirer in turn promised Travis that they would not reveal the results of the test without Travis' permission. APRO, represented by Dr. Harder, was to be made aware of the test results on the understanding that it was privileged information. When the validity of the test results were over-ruled by the other experts consulted, there was, of course, no point in requesting its release since it had then become useless information from a scientific standpoint. Another very important point (now that the constraint of confidentiality is removed) is that the test conducted by McCarthy on Nov. 15, 1975 was unbelievably incompetent. In his pre-test interview with Travis and in the framing of questions he broke some of the most elementary rules of the polygraphic profession. Specifically (I) two significant questions were posed in terms that forced Travis to answer on the basis of assumption rather than experience. (2) To a third question in the test, McCarthy, during the pre-test interview, created a deliberate association with an event in Travis' past of which he is ashamed.
Polygraph test questions must be phrased in such a way that they can be answered with a simple "yes" or "no", thus they must be phrased so that the subject can answer from his own experience or knowledge. McCarthy's first test question violated these simple concepts. It was as follows:
1 . Were you actually taken aboard a spacecraft on Nov. 5th?
Travis was "boxed in". The question forced him to speculate since the information required to answer the question was not in his memory. Experienced polygraph operators know that this situation will produce the stress reaction that they call deception. In the pretest interview Travis had just explained to McCarthy that he had blacked out after experiencing something like a physical blow after he had approached the UFO and that his next memory was of being on his back in what he first thought was a hospital and he had no idea how much time had passed in the interim.
McCarthy's next question is no better. It reads:
2. Were you actually aboard a spacecraft from the 5th of Nov. to the 10th of Nov.?
Travis has repeatedly emphasized that he did not know where he was and that, of the five day period, he remembers at the most, two hours.
There is no way that Travis, whether he said "yes" or "no" could have passed these first two questions.
Describing this test as meaningless as we have done is really being too kind. It was badly botched by the tester. Sometimes long years of experience can serve to crystallize bad habits.
In the course of any scientific study those involved will acquire test results that are inconclusive. The obvious course in such a case is to restest in a manner that will be conclusive. This is what APRO did. We felt that it would be advisable and appropriate to call on Dr. R. Leo Sprinkle, head of the dept. of counselling and testing at the University of Wyoming for help in this matter. Dr. Sprinkle agreed but it was not until Feb. 7, 1976 that his busy schedule allowed him to come to Phoenix where he would meet with Mr. Lorenzen and Duane and Travis Walton.
Meanwhile, Dr. Cahn (APRO Consultant) had made some preliminary contact with Tom Ezell of Ezell and Associates and ascertained his willingness to conduct the desired testing. Mr. Lorenzen called Mr. Ezell approximately a week in advance of Dr. Sprinkle's planned visit and made a tentative appointment to test Duane Walton at 1:00 p.m. Travis had to make the 160 mi. trip from Snowflake and since he had been having trouble with his car the time of his arrival was indefinite so no appointment was made for him. When Mr. Lorenzen called Mr. Ezell on Friday Feb. 6, to confirm the appointment Mr. Ezell asked if it would be OK if his assodate Mr. George Pfeifer conducted the test. Mr. Lorenzen inquired as to Mr. Pfeifer's competence and was told "He's qualified as I am. He's up on all the latest methods." Mr. Lorenzen then agreed to accept George Pfeifer as the tester.
On Saturday Feb. 7, Dr. Sprinkle, Dr. Cahn, Hal Starr and Jim Lorenzen met with Mr. Pfeifer and outlined the areas to be covered in Duane's test. A set of tentative questions formulated by Dr. Sprinkle was submitted. Mr. Pfeifer looked them over and made a few wording changes. These questions were then reviewed with Duane Walton and Duane went in for his test. While Duane was being tested Travis arrived from Snowflake and asked if he could be tested as soon as Duane was through. Mr. Lorenzen said "it's OK with APRO if Mr. Pfeifer has the time." Mr. Starr, Mr. Lorenzen, Dr. Sprinkle and Dr. Cahn began discussing the areas to be covered in Travis' test. Travis, with friends who had accompanied him from Snowflake, took a stroll in the park which is across the street from Ezell & Associates' office.
Duane emerged from taking test and left immediately since he had personal matters to attend to. Pfeifer was asked to test Travis and agreed. By the time Travis and friends returned from the park the questions for his test had been worked out. When he reviewed them with Mr. Pfeifer he pointed out that certain areas where accusations had been made against him were not covered in the test. Questions were then formulated following forms suggested by Mr. Pfeifer. Unfortunately, in his formal report Pfeifer refers to these questions as having been "dictated" b y Travis Walton. He says that "suggested" would be a more accurate representation of the facts.
However, in no case is there a justification of Klass' claim, attributed to Ezell, that Travis came in with questions that he wanted asked.
Tom Ezell is quoted by Klass as saying that the Travis-Pfeifer test should be invalidated because Travis furnished some ("some" is expanded to "all" in the Klass Account) of his own questions. Other operators say that it is common practice to accept help from the subject - providing his suggestions are valid with respect to the test area.
We apologize for taking up so much Bulletin space in explanation. Klass' hoax theory will be dealt with in the next issue. Suffice it to say that the Forest Service people did not "buy'. the hoax theory. Mike Rogers is back at work for them on another contract at this writing.
Also, Rogers, Walton and the other wood-cutters have challenged Klass: they will each take another test with an expert that Klass finds acceptable if he will pay for it providing they pass - otherwise it will cost him nothing. Klass is still equivocating on this one.