I personally believe that Clifford Stone is telling the truth because if he's not, then there is no question about it, he deserves a "best acting" Oscar for his efforts. There isn't any one out there who comes across as passionately as he does when he talks about his experiences and what he knows. But there are so many people in the UFO community who do not believe a word he's saying and for this reason, at least for those more tangible claims he makes e.g. his involvement in UFO crash retrieval and that there were dead bodies of ETs at those sites, I mentioned that he should take a polygraph test on that which, in this case, might give those who question his veracity on that, more indication that he may in fact be telling the truth.
Much progress has been made in the technology of polygraphs tests or rather, variations of it (not including the CIA's use of MRI "tests" to determine if someone is telling the truth or not which they also used for suspects involved in 9/11, for example). "...a new technology has recently emerged that applies software to analyze psycholinguistic cues to indicate truthfulness. This new “lie catcher” software was recently applied to the testimony of a key witness to the Roswell UFO crash in early July of 1947. This witness was Major Jesse Marcel. The new technology confirms that Jesse Marcel had indeed told the truth as a Witness to Roswell.
THE TECHNOLOGY
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. The creators of this “veracity software” are Dr. Raj Chandramouli and Dr. Koduvayur Subbalakshmi. The two (who have established Instream Media, LLC) are now developing partnerships with insurance companies (to detect against false claims) and other businesses where deception often comes in to play. The software developed by the professors is an extraordinary text analytics program.
Dr. Chandrmouli (who graciously provided the software and instructions for use to this author) explains that their approach to deceptive content utilizes a unique combination of statistical analysis, linguistics and psychology. The software combs for 88 psycholinguistic cues that indicate whether an individual is “covering up” or speaking the truth as he or she understands and believes it to be. Traditional polygraphs examine such things as pulse, sweat and respiratory rates to determine veracity. Similarly, “voice stress analysis” has been implemented. But the Stevens Institute scientists (who worked with an interdisciplinary team of linguists, psychologists and information technology engineers) believe that the standard polygraph and voice stress approaches have far too many variables and ‘outside influences’ that can adversely affect the accuracy of those machines and those that operate them.
The professors’ approach is far less open to such variables and influences. They and their team developed an algorithm based upon the Freudian notion that the truth always leaks out no matter how hard we attempt to cover it up- a phenomenon of course known as the “Freudian Slip.”
The technology does not require that an individual be “hooked up” in any way to any kind of machine. In fact, the individual does not even need to be alive to use the deception technology. By carefully and accurately transcribing into text the known and confirmed words of what a person has said on tape or in a video, the Stevens Institute technology is able to scrutinize and interpret their words in text form to determine if they are truthful.Source: http://bragalia.blogspot.com/2011/12...ell-crash.htmlTHE WITNESS
In 1947, Major Jesse Marcel was stationed at Roswell Army Air Field (RAAF) as a Base Intelligence Officer. He was called by Chaves County Sheriff George Wilcox to respond to ranch foreman Mack Brazel’s visit to him about the discovery of strange debris discovered in a field on the JB Foster Ranch in early July of that year.
Major Marcel, when located in 1978, described seeing, handling and transporting very strange crash debris materials. Marcel said that some of the debris was very thin and light “metal with plastic properties.” He also described other odd material that was impervious to the heat of an applied torch and that would not dent or scratch even from the blows of a sledgehammer. Marcel also mentioned very strange “parchment” material and longer curved metal-like pieces. He said that this sky-fallen debris covered a very large area and that there appeared to have been an explosion in the air. He insisted it was not the debris from any kind of weather balloon or plane, that is was some sort of aircraft not of earth.
Here is a video of Major Marcel confessing to his ET debris discovery in one of his only televised appearances:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pcONLgqe-RQ
THE TRUTH
Dr Chandramouli provided this author use of the software to test for falsehood the testimony of Major Marcel. The conversion of key testimony by Marcel was transcribed and the results are in!
To the statement by Marcel:
“One thing that impressed us about the debris was the fact that a lot of it looked like parchment. It had little numbers with symbols that we had to call hieroglyphics because I could not understand them. They could not be read, they were just like symbols, something that meant something, and they were not all the same, but the same general pattern I would say.”
Dr. Chandramouli’s deceptive analysis results indicate: NORMAL, NO DECEPTION
To the statement by Marcel:
“This particular piece of metal was, I would say, about two feet long and perhaps a foot wide. See, that stuff weighs nothing, it’s so thin, it isn’t any thicker that the tinfoil in a pack of cigarettes. So I tried to bend the stuff, it wouldn’t bend. We even tried to make a dent in it with a 16 pound sledge hammer, and there was no dent in it.”
Dr. Chadramouli’s deceptive analysis results indicate: NORMAL, NO DECEPTION
To the statement by Marcel:
“There were small beams about three-eighths of a half inch square with some sort of hieroglyphics on them that nobody could decipher. These looked something like balsa-wood, and were about the same weight, except that they were not wood at all. They were very hard, although flexible, and would not burn.”
Dr. Chadramouli’s deceptive analysis results indicate: NORMAL, NO DECEPTION
CONCLUSIONS
The Stevens Institute technology analysis indicates with certainty that Major Marcel did indeed accurately relate in transcribed interviews the truth as he believed it to be:
Marcel said that there was a crash in the summer of 1947. The debris from that crash included varying types: 1) Parchment-like material with strange, indecipherable symbols 2) beams made of material that was like wood, but “not wood at all” that also had hieroglyphics and that, remarkably, would not burn and 3) unusually thin and unusually light metal-like material that would not even dent to the force of a pounding sledgehammer.
This author is continuing to work through the testimony of Major Marcel, as found in various interview transcripts and films to apply the psycholinguistic lie-catching technology. Comparison to other testimony (such as that of Officer Bill Rickett and Officer Sheridan Cavitt, who were also at the crash scene with Marcel) will be conducted as well and reported on at a later date.
I do not ascribe 100% certainty to anything. It is for this reason that I do not offer a “firm endorsement” of the findings of the Stevens Institute analysis. That qualified, I do believe that it is the best-available technology to ascertain honesty.
Half of writing history is hiding the truth. Hopefully technology will one day free us, at last, to uncover the truth, the whole truth, and to correct history.
Having said this though, I do agree with Garuda that polygraph tests and other kinds of "truthfulness" technology is not a good option for abductee's and contactee's in regards to administering tests to qualify their statements on their 'encounters'. He gave reasons on why that is and, for the most part, I think he's right about that.
But for more tangible things like UFO crash retrievals and so on...
Below is a wiki quote on the use of Polygraph tests in a court of law in the US
"Admissibility of polygraphs in court
[edit]United States
In 2007, polygraph testimony was admitted by stipulation in 19 states, and was subject to the discretion of the trial judge in federal court. The use of polygraph in court testimony remains controversial, although it is used extensively in post-conviction supervision, particularly of sex offenders. In Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals (1993),[50] the old Frye standard was lifted and all forensic evidence, including polygraph, had to meet the new Daubert standard in which "underlying reasoning or methodology is scientifically valid and properly can be applied to the facts at issue." While polygraph tests are commonly used in police investigations in the US, no defendant or witness can be forced to undergo the test. In United States v. Scheffer (1998), the U.S. Supreme Court left it up to individual jurisdictions whether polygraph results could be admitted as evidence in court cases. Nevertheless, it is used extensively by prosecutors, defense attorneys, and law enforcement agencies.
In the United States, the State of New Mexico admits polygraph testing in front of juries under certain circumstances. In many other states, polygraph examiners are permitted to testify in front of judges in various types of hearings (Motion to Revoke Probation, Motion to Adjudicate Guilt).
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygraph
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by noot
