Skip to content
Above Top Secret
Contact & Abductions

Travis Walton, 1975: five days missing and six other witnesses

A logging crew in Arizona reported a light in the trees and a colleague struck down by it. He was gone for five days. His crewmates took polygraphs. The case has never been broken and has never been confirmed.

ATS Research DeskDocuments and archives
2 min read
A logging road through pine forest

The crew was working in the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest, Arizona, on 5 November 1975.

On the evening of 5 November 1975, a seven-man logging crew driving out of the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest in Arizona reported a light in the trees. Travis Walton, then twenty-two, left the truck to look. His crewmates reported seeing him struck by a beam and thrown, and drove off in panic.

When they returned he was gone. He reappeared five days later.

What is documented

Illustration

A missing person search was mounted, involving local law enforcement and volunteers. Walton was genuinely missing for five days and this was a public event at the time, not a claim made later.

His crewmates were interviewed by police who initially considered the possibility that they had killed him. Several took polygraph examinations within days. Walton took one after his return.

The polygraph question

The polygraph results are the most-cited evidence and they need handling carefully in both directions.

Crewmen passed examinations. Walton’s first test, arranged privately, was assessed as inconclusive or failed depending on the account, and a later test he passed. The details of who administered which test, under what conditions, are contested.

More importantly, polygraphs do not detect lies. They detect physiological arousal, which correlates with deception imperfectly and varies with the subject. The scientific consensus on their reliability is poor and has been for decades. A passed polygraph is evidence that someone believes what they are saying, at best — which in this case nobody much doubts.

The arguments against

Two are made seriously. That the crew was behind on a contract and facing a penalty, which a disappearance would excuse — an argument about motive, not evidence. And that Walton had a prior interest in the subject and had discussed UFOs beforehand, which is true and is also true of a great many people.

Neither is proof of anything. Both are the kind of circumstantial pattern that would matter if there were also physical evidence pointing the same way, and there is none pointing either way.

Where we land

Unresolved, and unusually resistant to resolution. There is no physical evidence, no independent witness outside the truck, and no way to test what happened during the five days.

What can be said is narrower: the disappearance was real, the crew’s accounts have been consistent for fifty years, and nobody has produced a demonstration that it was staged. None of that establishes what Walton says happened, and he has never claimed it does.

Join the discussion

Still open on this one:

  1. 01

    What are the full polygraph records and their conditions?

    Accounts of which tests were taken, by whom and with what result differ. The original examiner reports would settle a dispute that has run since 1975.

Join the discussion

Be the first to comment

Sources

Open them and check for yourself. Where a record is public, it is linked.

  1. The Walton Experience

    Travis Walton, Berkley · 1 Jan 1978 · no public copy located

  2. The UFO Experience: A Scientific Inquiry

    J. Allen Hynek, Henry Regnery · 1 Jan 1972 · no public copy located

0 comments