Last Updated on February 6, 2026 by Daily News Staff

In recent years, viral YouTube videos and podcast commentary have revived claims that the 1975 Travis Walton UFO abduction case was an admitted hoax. One of the most widely repeated allegations asserts that Mike Rogers, the logging crew’s foreman, supposedly confessed that he and Walton staged the entire event using a spotlight from a ranger tower to fool their coworkers.

So, is there any truth to this claim?

After reviewing decades of interviews, skeptical investigations, and public records, the answer is clear:

There is no verified evidence that Mike Rogers ever admitted the Travis Walton incident was a hoax.

He Vanished for 5 Days After a UFO Encounter | Travis Walton Case

Where the Viral Claim Comes From

The “confession” story has circulated for years in online forums and was recently amplified by commentary-style YouTube and podcast content, including popular personality-driven shows. These versions often claim:

• Rogers and Walton planned the incident in advance

• A spotlight from a ranger or observation tower simulated the UFO

• The rest of the crew was unaware of the hoax

• Rogers later “admitted” this publicly

However, none of these claims are supported by primary documentation.

What the Documented Record Shows

No Recorded Confession Exists

• There is no audio, video, affidavit, court record, or signed statement in which Mike Rogers admits staging the incident.

• Rogers has repeatedly denied hoax allegations in interviews spanning decades.

• Even prominent skeptical organizations do not cite any confession by Rogers.

If such an admission existed, it would be widely referenced in skeptical literature and would have effectively closed the case. It has not.

The “Ranger Tower Spotlight” Theory Lacks Evidence

• No confirmed ranger tower or spotlight installation matching the claim has been documented at the location.

• No ranger, third party, or equipment operator has ever come forward.

• No physical evidence or corroborating testimony supports this explanation.

Even professional skeptics typically label this idea as speculative, not factual.

Why Skepticism Still Exists (Legitimately)

While the viral claim lacks evidence, skepticism about the Walton case is not unfounded. Common, well-documented critiques include:

Advertisement

• Financial pressure tied to a logging contract

• The limitations and inconsistency of polygraph testing

• Walton’s later use of hypnosis, which is controversial in memory recall

• Possible cultural influence from 1970s UFO media

Importantly, none of these critiques rely on a confession by Mike Rogers, because none exists.

Updates & Current Status of the Case

As of today:

• No new witnesses have come forward to confirm a hoax

• No participant has recanted their core testimony

• No physical evidence has conclusively proven or disproven the event

• Walton and Rogers have both continued to deny hoax allegations

The case remains unresolved, not debunked.

Why Viral Misinformation Persists

Online commentary formats often compress nuance into dramatic statements. Over time:

• Speculation becomes repeated as “fact”

• Hypothetical explanations are presented as admissions

• Entertainment content is mistaken for investigative reporting

This is especially common with long-standing mysteries like the Walton case, where ambiguity invites exaggeration.

Viral Claims vs. Verified Facts

Viral Claim:

Mike Rogers admitted he and Travis Walton staged the UFO incident.

Verified Fact:

No documented confession exists. Rogers has consistently denied hoax claims.

Viral Claim:

Advertisement

A ranger tower spotlight was used to fake the UFO.

Verified Fact:

No evidence confirms a tower, spotlight, or third-party involvement.

Viral Claim:

The case was “officially debunked.”

Verified Fact:

No authoritative body has conclusively debunked or confirmed the incident.

Viral Claim:

All skeptics agree it was a hoax.

Verified Fact:

Advertisement

Even skeptical researchers acknowledge the absence of definitive proof.

Viral Claim:

Hollywood exposed the truth in Fire in the Sky.

Verified Fact:

The film significantly fictionalized Walton’s testimony for dramatic effect.

Bottom Line

• ❌ There is no verified admission by Mike Rogers

• ❌ There is no evidence of a ranger tower spotlight hoax

• ✅ There are legitimate unanswered questions about the case

• ✅ The incident remains debated, not solved

The Travis Walton story persists not because it has been proven — but because it has never been conclusively explained.  

Related External Reading

• Travis Walton UFO Incident – Wikipedia
• Travis Walton Interviews – Coast to Coast AM
• Fire in the Sky (1993) – IMDb
• MUFON – Mutual UFO Network Case Files
• NICAP – National Investigations Committee on Aerial Phenomena
• Skeptical Inquirer – Scientific Analysis of Paranormal Claims
• U.S. National Archives – UFO & Government Records

Dive into “The Knowledge,” where curiosity meets clarity. This playlist, in collaboration with STMDailyNews.com, is designed for viewers who value historical accuracy and insightful learning. Our short videos, ranging from 30 seconds to a minute and a half, make complex subjects easy to grasp in no time. Covering everything from historical events to contemporary processes and entertainment, “The Knowledge” bridges the past with the present. In a world where information is abundant yet often misused, our series aims to guide you through the noise, preserving vital knowledge and truths that shape our lives today. Perfect for curious minds eager to discover the ‘why’ and ‘how’ of everything around us. Subscribe and join in as we explore the facts that matter.  https://stmdailynews.com/the-knowledge/

Jordan Miller, Arizona State University

US exit from the World Health Organization marks a new era in global health policy – here’s what the US, and world, will lose

The U.S. departure from the World Health Organization became official in late January 2026, according to the Trump administration – a year after President Donald Trump signed an executive order on inauguration day of his second term declaring that he was doing so. He first stated his intention to do so during his first term in 2020, early in the COVID-19 pandemic.

The U.S. severing its ties with the WHO will cause ripple effects that linger for years to come, with widespread implications for public health. The Conversation asked Jordan Miller, a public health professor at Arizona State University, to explain what the U.S. departure means in the short and long term.

Why is the US leaving the WHO?

The Trump administration says it’s unfair that the U.S. contributes more than other nations and cites this as the main reason for leaving. The White House’s official announcement gives the example of China, which – despite having a population three times the size of the U.S. – contributes 90% less than the U.S. does to the WHO.

The Trump administration has also claimed that the WHO’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic was botched and that it lacked accountability and transparency.

The WHO has pushed back on these claims, defending its pandemic response, which recommended masking and physical distancing.

The U.S. does provide a disproportionate amount of funding to the WHO. In 2023, for example, U.S. contributions almost tripled that of the European Commission’s and were roughly 50% more than the second highest donor, Germany. But health experts point out that preventing and responding quickly to public health challenges is far less expensive than dealing with those problems once they’ve taken root and spread.

However, the withdrawal process is complicated, despite the U.S. assertion that it is final. Most countries do not have the ability to withdraw, as that is the way the original agreement to join the WHO was designed. But the U.S. inserted a clause into its agreement with the WHO when it agreed to join, stipulating that the U.S. would have the ability to withdraw, as long as it provided a one-year notice and paid all remaining dues. Though the U.S. gave its notice when Trump took office a year ago, it still owes the WHO about US$260 million in fees for 2024-25. There are complicated questions of international law that remain. https://www.youtube.com/embed/uacD-03S28E?wmode=transparent&start=0 The U.S. has been a dominant force in the WHO, and its absence will have direct and lasting impacts on health systems in the U.S. and other countries.

What does US withdrawal from the WHO mean in the short term?

In short, the U.S. withdrawal weakens public health abroad and at home. The WHO’s priorities include stopping the spread of infectious diseases, stemming antimicrobial resistance, mitigating natural disasters, providing medication and health services to those who need it, and even preventing chronic diseases. So public health challenges, such as infectious diseases, have to be approached at scale because experience shows that coordination across borders is important for success.

The U.S. has been the largest single funder of the WHO, with contributions in the hundreds of millions of dollars annually over the past decade, so its withdrawal will have immediate operational impacts, limiting the WHO’s ability to continue established programs.

Advertisement

As a result of losing such a significant share of its funding, the WHO announced in a recent memo to staff that it plans to cut roughly 2,300 jobs – a quarter of its workforce – by summer 2026. It also plans to downsize 10 of its divisions to four.

In addition to a long history of funding, U.S. experts have worked closely with the WHO to address public health challenges. Successes stemming from this partnership include effectively responding to several Ebola outbreaks, addressing mpox around the world and the Marburg virus outbreak in Rwanda and Ethiopia. Both the Marburg and Ebola viruses have a 50% fatality rate, on average, so containing these diseases before they reached pandemic-level spread was critically important.

The Infectious Diseases Society of America issued a statement in January 2026 describing the move as “a shortsighted and misguided abandonment of our global health commitments,” noting that “global cooperation and communication are critical to keep our own citizens protected because germs do not respect borders.”

What are the longer-term impacts of US withdrawal?

By withdrawing from the WHO, the U.S. will no longer participate in the organization’s Global Influenza Surveillance and Response System, which has been in operation since 1952. This will seriously compromise the U.S.’s ability to plan and manufacture vaccines to match the predicted flu strains for each coming year.

Annual flu vaccines for the U.S. and globally are developed a year in advance using data that is collected around the world and then analyzed by an international team of experts to predict which strains are likely to be most widespread in the next year. The WHO convenes expert panels twice per year and then makes recommendations on which flu strains to include in each year’s vaccine manufacturing formulation.

While manufacturers will likely still be able to obtain information regarding the WHO’s conclusions, the U.S. will not contribute data in the same way, and American experts will no longer have a role in the process of data analysis. This could lead to problematic differences between WHO recommendations and those coming from U.S. authorities.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that each year in the U.S. millions of people get the flu, hundreds of thousands of Americans are hospitalized and tens of thousands die as a result of influenza. Diminishing the country’s ability to prepare in advance through flu shots will likely mean more hospitalizations and more deaths as a result of the flu.

This is just one example of many of how the U.S.’s departure will affect the country’s readiness to respond to disease threats.

Additionally, the reputational damage done by the U.S. departure cannot be overstated. The U.S. has developed its position as an international leader in public health over many decades as the largest developer and implementer of global health programs.

I believe surrendering this position will diminish the United States’ ability to influence public health strategies internationally, and that is important because global health affects health in the U.S. It will also make it harder to shape a multinational response in the event of another public health crisis like the COVID-19 pandemic.

Public health and policy experts predict that China will use this opportunity to strengthen its position and its global influence, stepping into the power vacuum the U.S. creates by withdrawing. China has pledged an additional US$500 million in support of the WHO over the next five years.

Advertisement

As a member of the WHO, the United States has had ready access to a vast amount of data collected by the WHO and its members. While most data the WHO obtains is ultimately made available to the public, member nations have greater access to detailed information about collection methods and gain access sooner, as new threats are emerging.

Delays in access to data could hamstring the country’s ability to respond in the event of the next infectious disease outbreak.

Could the US return under a new president?

In short, yes. The WHO has clearly signaled its desire to continue to engage with the U.S., saying it “regrets the U.S. decision to withdraw” and hopes the U.S. will reconsider its decision to leave.

In the meantime, individual states have the opportunity to participate. In late January, California announced it will join the WHO’s Global Outbreak Alert & Response Network, which is open to a broader array of participants than just WHO member nations. California was also a founding member of the West Coast Health Alliance, which now includes 14 U.S. states that have agreed to work together to address public health challenges.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom has also launched an initiative designed to improve public health infrastructure and build trust. He enlisted national public health leaders for this effort, including former Centers for Disease Control and Prevention leaders Susan Monarez and Deb Houry, as well as Katelyn Jetelina, who became well known as Your Local Epidemiologist during the COVID-19 pandemic.

I think we will continue to see innovative efforts like these emerging, as political and public health leaders work to fill the vacuum being created by the Trump administration’s disinvestment in public health.

Jordan Miller, Teaching Professor of Public Health, Arizona State University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

STM Daily News is a vibrant news blog dedicated to sharing the brighter side of human experiences. Emphasizing positive, uplifting stories, the site focuses on delivering inspiring, informative, and well-researched content. With a commitment to accurate, fair, and responsible journalism, STM Daily News aims to foster a community of readers passionate about positive change and engaged in meaningful conversations. Join the movement and explore stories that celebrate the positive impacts shaping our world. 

Advertisement

https://stmdailynews.com/

Last Updated on February 4, 2026 by Daily News Staff

Annie Margaret, University of Colorado Boulder

How to avoid seeing disturbing video on social media and protect your peace of mind

When graphic videos like those of the recent shooting of a protester by federal agents in Minneapolis go viral, it can feel impossible to protect yourself from seeing things you did not consent to see. But there are steps you can take.

Social media platforms are designed to maximize engagement, not protect your peace of mind. The major platforms have also reduced their content moderation efforts over the past year or so. That means upsetting content can reach you even when you never chose to watch it.

You do not have to watch every piece of content that crosses your screen, however. Protecting your own mental state is not avoidance or denial. As a researcher who studies ways to counteract the negative effects of social media on mental health and well-being, I believe it’s a way of safeguarding the bandwidth you need to stay engaged, compassionate and effective.

Why this matters

Research shows that repeated exposure to violent or disturbing media can increase stress, heighten anxiety and contribute to feelings of helplessness. These effects are not just short-term. Over time, they erode the emotional resources you rely on to care for yourself and others.

Protecting your attention is a form of care. Liberating your attention from harmful content is not withdrawal. It is reclaiming your most powerful creative force: your consciousness.

Just as with food, not everything on the table is meant to be eaten. You wouldn’t eat something spoiled or toxic simply because it was served to you. In the same way, not every piece of media laid out in your feed deserves your attention. Choosing what to consume is a matter of health.

And while you can choose what you keep in your own kitchen cabinets, you often have less control over what shows up in your feeds. That is why it helps to take intentional steps to filter, block and set boundaries.

Practical steps you can take

Fortunately, there are straightforward ways to reduce your chances of being confronted with violent or disturbing videos. Here are four that I recommend:

Advertisement

• Turn off autoplay or limit sensitive content. Note that these settings can vary depending on device, operating system and app version, and can change.

https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/d1deR/2

• Use keyword filters. Most platforms allow you to mute or block specific words, phrases or hashtags. This reduces the chance that graphic or violent content slips into your feed.
• Curate your feed. Unfollow accounts that regularly share disturbing images. Follow accounts that bring you knowledge, connection or joy instead.
• Set boundaries. Reserve phone-free time during meals or before bed. Research shows that intentional breaks reduce stress and improve well-being.

Reclaim your agency

Social media is not neutral. Its algorithms are engineered to hold your attention, even when that means amplifying harmful or sensational material. Watching passively only serves the interests of the social media companies. Choosing to protect your attention is a way to reclaim your agency.

The urge to follow along in real time can be strong, especially during crises. But choosing not to watch every disturbing image is not neglect; it is self-preservation. Looking away protects your ability to act with purpose. When your attention is hijacked, your energy goes into shock and outrage. When your attention is steady, you can choose where to invest it.

You are not powerless. Every boundary you set – whether it is turning off autoplay, filtering content or curating your feed – is a way of taking control over what enters your mind. These actions are the foundation for being able to connect with others, help people and work for meaningful change.

More resources

I’m the executive director of the Post-Internet Project, a nonprofit dedicated to helping people navigate the psychological and social challenges of life online. With my team, I designed the evidence-backed PRISM intervention to help people manage their social media use.

Our research-based program emphasizes agency, intention and values alignment as the keys to developing healthier patterns of media consumption. You can try the PRISM process for yourself with an online class I launched through Coursera in October 2025. You can find the course, Values Aligned Media Consumption, on Coursera. The course is aimed at anyone 18 and over, and the videos are free to watch.

This story was updated on Jan. 25, 2026 to include reference to the recent shooting in Minneapolis.

Annie Margaret, Teaching Assistant Professor of Creative Technology & Design, ATLAS Institute, University of Colorado Boulder

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.