Aliens On Earth.com Resources for those who are stranded here Our Bookstore is OPEN Over 5000 new & used titles, competitively priced! Topics: UFOs - Paranormal - Area 51 - Ghosts - Forteana - Conspiracy - History - Biography - Psychology - Religion - Crime - Health - Geography - Maps - Science - Money - Language - Recreation - Technology - Fiction - Other - New Search... for keyword(s)   in Page Titles in Book Title/Author in Contents of Pages ---other searches--- Metacrawler Yahoo FAST Search Google Altavista Dogpile Inference Find Northern Light IWon.com MSN Search Las Vegas Sun Mothership -> UFO -> Updates -> 1997 -> Jul -> Here

From: KRandle993@aol.com [Kevin Randle]
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 09:00:27 -0400 (EDT)
Fwd Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 22:05:27 -0400
Subject: Re: Lie Detection in UFO Controversies


 >Date: Tue, 22 Jul 1997 18:20:57 -0700
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
 >From: Geoff Price <Geoff@CalibanMW.com>
 >Subject: Lie Detection in UFO Controversies
=20
 >Lie Detection in UFO Controversies
 >=A91997 Geoff Price
=20
 >Grappling with fraud and deception is par for the course in the context of
 >UFO claims, and as a result, "lie detector" tests are frequently demanded
 >of UFO claimants, and their results, positive or negative, brandished as
 >evidence.
=20
 >Some cases in particular have put lie detection in the spotlight, notably
 >the Travis Walton abduction case of 1975, as well as the more recent (and
 >divisive) case of Ed Walters and his Gulf Breeze photographs.
=20
 >Kevin Randle, in his latest book the Randle Report, rules both cases a
 >hoax, pointedly citing the original, failed polygraph test of Travis=
 Walton
 >(administered by John McCarthy, hereafter "the McCarthy test".)  Gulf
 >Breeze detractors, such as Carol and Rex Salisberry, have cited the
 >successful voice stress analysis test conducted on a taped deposition=
 given
 >by Tommy Smith (who says he observed the fabrication of photographs by
 >Walters).
=20
 >Both of these examples represent somewhat irresponsible use of "lie
 >detection" evidence, illustrating some of the pitfalls and common=
 confusion
 >that surrounds the topic.
=20
[snip]


While the information about the polygraph was informative and interesting,=
 the results of the polygraph aren't the only reasons for suggesting that=
 the Walton case and the Gulf Breeze cases are a hoax. It is one of many=
 reasons.

A careful reading of The Randle Report will show that I have reservations=
 about the McCarthy test, not the least of which is that McCarthy seemed to=
 have some sort of personality conflict with Walton that could have colored=
 his report.

However, it should be noted that the second test, given by Pfeifer, while=
 more reliable, was also questioned by Tom Ezell. Ezell owned the company=
 for which Pfeifer worked. Ezell's review of the charts suggested that=
 Walton had not passed the test, or had barely passed. Now, as I said in the=
 book, the weight of the evidence has to be given to Pfeifer because he=
 administered the test.

And, when we get to a point where a story has been told so often, has been=
 shared with the world, has been documented in books, and in which the=
 subject has undergone hypnotic regression, the the results of a test=
 administered some twenty years after the fact might be flawed. This is=
 based on the experiences of a number of qualified individuals.

But the real point is that I reject the Walton case, not only=20
because of the failed, or allegedly failed polygraphs, but on=20
other evidence as well. We must look at the whole package and=20
not just a small segment of it. Look at the deception of both=20
the Lorenzens and the Waltons concerning the first test. That=20
is very revealing.

Finally, according to your report, as many as one in four=20
polygraph tests might be invalid. Other figures suggest one in=20
ten. This is the reason that the polygraph is not used to prove=20
guilt or innocence.

As for Gulf Breeze, the polygraph information is just one small=20
part of the whole picture.Again, it is all the other evidence=20
that I find to be persuasive when arguing against the reality of=20
the Ed Walter's Gulf Breeze sightings.

But hey, I could be wrong on these points. I just need to see=20
additional and persuasive evidence. To this point I find it=20
lacking.

KRandle