103 replies to this topic

[Saru]

New software able to determine if someone is lying by analysing words has been used on Roswell witnesses.

The Bragalia Files said:

Two renowned professors at the Stevens Institute of Technology in Hoboken, NJ have recently stunned the criminal psychology and law enforcement communities with the introduction of a computer program offering an astounding 86%-99% rate of success in lie detection.

Read more...

[DBunker]

Sadly, a lie detector doesnt work (as it should) if the people truly believe in what they are saying.

[trick_or_truth]

As DBunker stated, these tests don't lend much credence to the topic at hand because they truly believe what the saw....whether is was a UFO or some top secret government project.

[RingFenceTheCity]

Very interesting article and what a wonderful use of their new equipment. My best hypothesis on the Roswell incident is that advanced visitors have left us a calling card and wish for us to advance enough for our plantary acquaintances to be made. If the eye-witness of the crash site saw strange beings with long fingers, some half dead, then I would guess that these are in fact indiginous to earth and were left as a second calling card suggesting that we have yet much to learn!

Edited by tailormaneinafog, 17 December 2011 - 02:30 PM.

[Jubal]

trick_or_truth I would agree with what you are saying, but we aren't simply talking about an incident in which witnesses simply reported what they saw.  We are also looking at conflicting testimony between the official explanation and the testimony from those who claim what really happened on the day in question.  For example, it has been stated that there were dead aliens and one live alien at one of the crash sites.  A moving, living being is a far cry from a large test dummy that wasn't dropped in tests until 7 years later.

[DBunker]

Who knows what really happened at Roswell that night back in the days. I hear lots of stories of conflicting nature. One crash sight, two crash sites, I have even heard of five sites. Aliens big, small, grey.....?


Who knows anymore?

[quillius]

DBunker, on 17 December 2011 - 03:21 PM, said:

Who knows what really happened at Roswell that night back in the days. I hear lots of stories of conflicting nature. One crash sight, two crash sites, I have even heard of five sites. Aliens big, small, grey.....?


Who knows anymore?

now this I do agree with......its one case that has certainly been flooded over the years.

[bison]

Just two points, here:  First, ,Jesse Marcel's testimony involved specifics about various sorts of the wreckage, which he says he handled. His testimony passes as true via this new technology. If this occurred  because Marcel falsely believed what he said, he would, it seems, have had to have been subject to some very elaborate hallucinations, which are quite rare. Have we any evidence to suggest that he was subject to such hallucinations?   Second, In case anyone was wondering, the Stevens Institute of Technology is a real and respected university. It has a couple of Nobel prize winners to its credit.

[quillius]

some good points Bison.

I wonder if the test itself can be repeated to reduce the error percentage and increase accuracy?

I see 86% as easily attacked as far as proof goes for somehting like this.

[WoIverine]

They can wire up your head to tell if you're lying, brain activity in certain areas spike, and can easily be read by close monitoring.

[MrObvious]

Let's all remember that Maj. Marcel was in charge at the site and was in charge of USA and Pacific testing at the time of the incident.  This is a high post and he isn't just some "average joe" off the streets, he is highly credable witness and at the time of his testimony he had never seen any material of this world like what he saw at the wreckage.

[bison]

quillius, on 17 December 2011 - 03:58 PM, said:

some good points Bison.

I wonder if the test itself can be repeated to reduce the error percentage and increase accuracy?

I see 86% as easily attacked as far as proof goes for somehting like this.

Since it is the words themselves that are analyzed, and these would remain the same if the test were repeated, I doubt repeated testing would increase the accuracy. If they could analyze the accounts of other witnesses giving similar details, and these were also found to be true, it would reduce the level of doubt.  A minimum figure of 86% accuracy means a 14% chance of an incorrect 'true' verdict. I'm not a statistician, but two similar accounts, both found true, would presumably mean .14 x .14 doubt, or .0196, say ~ 2%, or 98 percent certainty.  Using the same logic, three similar accounts would yield 99.8% certainty.

[deloprator20000]

There are many deception detection methods that have been researched by serious and qualified people:

Deception Detection Research Articles

One book that may be useful is:

The detection of deception in forensic contexts

It details methods used by law enforcement agencies.

I believe that non human intelligently controlled craft are currently visiting earth, but I also realize that the data is sometimes quite weak and the methods to investigate potential ET cases are not well-defined and vary in quality. So certain methods should be standardized.

Deception detection should be one of the cornerstones of serious UFOlogy. If these methods are used correctly, Ufologists may be able to distinguish between deceptive and non-deceptive UFO reports. Now, simply because someone sincerely and accurately saw a UFO does NOT mean it is necessarily a non-human intelligently controlled craft, it could have been a misidentification of human craft, weather phenomena, maybe even someone else perpetrating a hoax. So deception detection methods should be combined with other research methods.

Edited by deloprator20000, 17 December 2011 - 08:50 PM.

[trick_or_truth]

Jubal, on 17 December 2011 - 03:15 PM, said:

trick_or_truth I would agree with what you are saying, but we aren't simply talking about an incident in which witnesses simply reported what they saw.  We are also looking at conflicting testimony between the official explanation and the testimony from those who claim what really happened on the day in question.  For example, it has been stated that there were dead aliens and one live alien at one of the crash sites.  A moving, living being is a far cry from a large test dummy that wasn't dropped in tests until 7 years later.

My reply was rather vague, so perhaps I seemed to nonchalant about the lie detector tests and what they actually proved, all I meant from my post is the lie detector tests, although valid do not lend conducive credence to an actual alien at Roswell. I read through what was posted and only examined, that they validated his claims of the aircraft and
the materials it was made of and although strange did not read any proof of the actual alien?
From my post, it may seem that I am opposed to any life form of extraterrestrial origin at Roswell, but in fact its quite the contrary, I am just a skeptic.

The problem with Roswell for me at least, is the reports of what was or wasn't there have become so distorted, its hard to separate the facts, as DBunker mentioned "I hear lots of stories of conflicting nature. One crash sight, two crash sites, I have even heard of five sites. Aliens big, small, grey.....?"

I do believe the was something strange at Roswell...but I am not certain if we can say it was a UFO. Either way very interesting stuff.

[DONTEATUS]

A Alien landing in the Front Lawn of the White house with all the press present would still be an issue of opinion ! Someone would still say it was faked or Swamp gas !