Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
Saru

Lie detector confirms Roswell testimonies

104 posts in this topic

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

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.

arrow3.gifRead more...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 ! :innocent:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm drunk and Australian and I know that there is no merit in lie detector results.

Sorry for echoing earlier posts but I felt this was an important development in the search for anti-bullsh!t.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We better ck you out then ! THe Lies never end on this topic !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

best way i can think to test the software is to take 911 recordings and assert the technology to it. in a 911 call u have actual recorded voice and then u have the report from when police and rescue were dispatched. if the true ones come out true and the false ones come out false then u can assume that its spot on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FAIL!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this should be done with every little thing. even if they arent accurate if the person truely believes it. the odds are against it doing that with the more people they test. so i say, TEST EVERY LAST THING!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The bottom line is, and I think someone already pointed this out, lie detectors can only pick up on what a person believes is truthful. So, if someone sincerely believes something is true, then the detector is going to show them as telling the truth. Also, people who are psychopathic do not exhibit any physical changes/emotions when lying, so the lie detector would show them as being truthful when they're actually lying. It's simply not a cut and dried scenario when using lie detectors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 ! :innocent:

YOU are so right Donteatus:

In the case of Marcel, I have touted that we have to look at what he did moments after the alleged incident. And his actions are in direct line with what someone of his position, intelligence and sociological standing would have had him do, tell his family first. You see, I submitted this to Stanton Freidman years ago that the major’s first actions were in line with what his military career and family life afforded him in the case of finding something incredible. Any psychologist worth their accreditations, understands the need for a person, especially a father of a healthy household to secure his position in said household. In other words, he knew from his military experience and training that two things were going to happen:

1. This thing would go on display around the world and never be touched by human hands again other than those of specialized museum or military personnel.

2. It would be secreted away by the military never to be seen or heard about again.

As father in my own household making sure my family, those closest to me in the world knew what I saw and believed in me would have been the most important duty. No matter what the rest of the world thought, as long as those he had to wake up with every day knew the truth. Major Marcel was a member of the most Top Secrete, elite Military base on American soil KNEW what he saw was not of this earth. I once held a Secret Military clearance, this man was NOT Stupid. Here is what we have to understand in dealing with the military and in specific, this case. It is not that there is no proof; it is that we have NO access to the proof. If I shot someone in the leg with a laser pistol back in 1947, and then had the ability to create a place that doesn’t exist officially and lock it away. No one could prove the pistol exists, because they would not have access to it. Neutrinos only exist because huge facilities are used to reveal them, at one time they too were the stuff of a scientists’ dreams.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

YOU are so right Donteatus:

In the case of Marcel, I have touted that we have to look at what he did moments after the alleged incident. And his actions are in direct line with what someone of his position, intelligence and sociological standing would have had him do, tell his family first. You see, I submitted this to Stanton Freidman years ago that the major’s first actions were in line with what his military career and family life afforded him in the case of finding something incredible. Any psychologist worth their accreditations, understands the need for a person, especially a father of a healthy household to secure his position in said household. In other words, he knew from his military experience and training that two things were going to happen:

1. This thing would go on display around the world and never be touched by human hands again other than those of specialized museum or military personnel.

2. It would be secreted away by the military never to be seen or heard about again.

As father in my own household making sure my family, those closest to me in the world knew what I saw and believed in me would have been the most important duty. No matter what the rest of the world thought, as long as those he had to wake up with every day knew the truth. Major Marcel was a member of the most Top Secrete, elite Military base on American soil KNEW what he saw was not of this earth. I once held a Secret Military clearance, this man was NOT Stupid. Here is what we have to understand in dealing with the military and in specific, this case. It is not that there is no proof; it is that we have NO access to the proof. If I shot someone in the leg with a laser pistol back in 1947, and then had the ability to create a place that doesn’t exist officially and lock it away. No one could prove the pistol exists, because they would not have access to it. Neutrinos only exist because huge facilities are used to reveal them, at one time they too were the stuff of a scientists’ dreams.

And yet he would go to his deathbed arguing with his son over the physical description of said debris. Sounds like it didn't have the impact one would imagine when coming face to face with alien technology.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So how many people who say this was not an alien craft was this tech used on, and what are those results?

Or did we avoid that to ruin the surprise?

Bragalia is well known for clutching at Roswell straws. This is feelgood news, not news news.

Edited by psyche101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Perhaps this can put to rest the I Beams / Square beams issue. Marcel Snr and Marcel Jnr never agreed on this aspect of debris. Are they both telling the truth? Both handled said debris. What we do have to also consider is Marcels intelligence background, and if he would carry a cover up to the grave, which I feel is a distinct possibility in that I feel he knew this was an Intelligence operation, not an alien landing, and took that secret to his grave.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.