New software comfirms Marcel testimony?

[A99]

Whoops! Sorry, I didn't see this thread that you started up on this new kind of "Lie Detector Test" when I posted comments in the thread below on it and how Clifford Stone would benefit from taking it to prove that he's telling the truth about his military job in UFO crash retrieval.
http://www.theoutpostforum.com/tof/s...=2375#post2375
It seems like this new kind of lie detector software may be a breakthrough in this area which is one that I think is desperately needed in the field of Ufology!

[noot]

What bothers me about this 'science' is that it is premised on the amoral principle that one's body ought to be compelled to betray one's mind. Such schemes are inhumane, invasive and necessarily unethical- not to mention that the results are unreliable. Deception is a part of life for which there is no simple cure. Unfortunate, but true...

[A99]

Noot, If you read the excerpt from that article, this new technology does not have anything to do with detecting truthfulness via "one's body" in order to "betray one's mind", instead it analyzes "psycholinguistic cues that indicate whether an individual is “covering up” or speaking the truth as he or she understands and believes it to be."
It says:
"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."

[noot]

"Psycholinguistic" is the key here. "Linguistic" indicates a physical expression while "psycho" refers to mind. What is 'measured' is physical regardless that it has nothing to do with sweat and pulse. The method still relies on the proposition that bodily function (in this case 'speech) betrays some sort of underlying deception-motive. I don't buy it.

[Lee]

I've had a play around with the software over the past few days and I'm not very impressed. Results were hit and miss at best.

It could be that the online version is not as accurate as the one Anthony Bragalia used for his article, or maybe it is more accurate with a larger body of text. Either way it seems that the claim of "86%-99%" accuracy is something of an exaggeration. At best any work involving this software should really include a very large reference base on controlled tests to before the results can be considered meaningful.

Here is a direct link to the online software tool, you can just copy and paste any text into the box and get instant results:

http://stealthserver01.ece.stevens-t...xt?count=18736

Agent99, if you wanted you could now easily start your own study on Clifford Stone. (If you do, be sure to include control tests and post your results here.)

[noot]

Any investigation of Stone should be based on a thorough examinination of whatever evidence he provides and a critical analysis of his claims. The are no voodoo shortcuts. Sorry.

[Lee]

I wouldn't disagree with that, toon. I think it's obvious to most people, even more so for those that have tried the software for themselves.

[noot]

I wouldn't disagree with that, toon. I think it's obvious to most people, even more so for those that have tried the software for themselves.

No-one ever promised us that it would be easy being human. But best we avail ourselves of human tools in deriving truth.

[A99]

I've had a play around with the software over the past few days and I'm not very impressed. Results were hit and miss at best.

It could be that the online version is not as accurate as the one Anthony Bragalia used for his article, or maybe it is more accurate with a larger body of text. Either way it seems that the claim of "86%-99%" accuracy is something of an exaggeration. At best any work involving this software should really include a very large reference base on controlled tests to before the results can be considered meaningful.

Here is a direct link to the online software tool, you can just copy and paste any text into the box and get instant results:

http://stealthserver01.ece.stevens-t...xt?count=18736

Agent99, if you wanted you could now easily start your own study on Clifford Stone. (If you do, be sure to include control tests and post your results here.)

Wow! Thanks for that link Lee and will check it out! I would love to do a study on Clifford Stone ... thanks to Traynor, I have read a couple of books on Neuro-linguistic Programming just to be able to understand more of what he's been talking about in his posts. I'm hoping that information from those books may turn out to be useful. This should be fun!

[A99]

Here's test 1. Just wanted to see how it works so I made up a story about myself and then clicked on "analyze" and the results were correct... the story was a complete fabrication.

Attachment 124