View Full Version : New software comfirms Marcel testimony?
Here's an interesting article from Anthony Bragalia:
"LIE DETECTOR CONFIRMS KEY ROSWELL CRASH WITNESS TOLD THE TRUTH by Anthony Bragalia. Wednesday, December 14, 2011
To catch a liar is not easy. Our ability to detect a lie is 50/50. This “no better than chance” ability was improved upon with the advent of the polygraph in the early 1920s. This raised those odds to about 65%, though the polygraph remains “fluky” and the results it produces, controversial. But 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.
"Read more: http://bragalia.blogspot.com/2011/12/lie-detector-confirms-key-roswell-crash.html
That sounds like some very interesting software, doesn't it? Something like that could revolutionize the UFO research field.
I'd like to find out a lot more about it though, I can't help thinking that a single paragraph is probably not enough to draw any firm conclusions.
I found another article on the lie detector software. According to this one the recent white house response to PRG's petition was truthful. (Which could well be correct, IMO. )
http://www.mentalfloss.com/blogs/archives/85297
Software originator, Prof. Chandramouli's website:
http://www.ece.stevens-tech.edu/~mouli/
And here is the software used in Anthony's article above, I haven't tried it yet so I look forward to giving it a go and seeing what other people make of it:
http://www.stevens.edu/deception/
Anybody want to test Rick Doty, Bob Lazar, Raj, Clifford Stone, etc, etc?
Musado
12-17-2011, 01:12 AM
I entered the url of a single page from the Travis Walton website, the result is below :das
DECEPTIVE ANALYSIS WEB URL RESULTS
File Name: travis-walton.com/human.html
File Status: normal
No 'lie detection' scheme ought ever be relied upon to establish objective truth. And such faith in this sort of pseudo science is an Orwellian nightmare. There are no simple solutions to the problem of human deception. Critical thinking and judgement will have to suffice- as problematical as that may be.
That said- it is obvious to me, at least, that both Jesse Marcel Jr and Sr are honest witnesses. As is Travis Walton. As we're Betty and Barney Hill.... and on and on. These are articles of faith for any knowledgable Ufer.
Dragonfire
12-17-2011, 02:23 PM
No 'lie detection' scheme ought ever be relied upon to establish objective truth. And such faith in this sort of pseudo science is an Orwellian nightmare. There are no simple solutions to the problem of human deception. Critical thinking and judgement will have to suffice- as problematical as that may be.
That said- it is obvious to me, at least, that both Jesse Marcel Jr and Sr are honest witnesses. As is Travis Walton. As we're Betty and Barney Hill.... and on and on. These are articles of faith for any knowledgable Ufer.
You Nailed it:biggrin2:
Beware of shortcuts on the road to truth.
This software sounds too good to be true. An extensive test on known subjects in our area of interest would be absolutely esssetial before I would have any faith in it. That would not be a hard research project to design, either. There is a dissertation idea for somebody. Where is Suz? Maybe one of her students... :angel_not:
you shoulda stopped right here..
This software sounds too good to be true.
Judge for yourselves...
Jesse Sr-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pcONLgqe-RQ&feature=player_embedded
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/showthread.php?175-Clifford-Stone-EYES-ONLY-new-book&p=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!
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...
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."
"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.
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-tech.edu/createtext?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.) :cool:
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.
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.
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. :biggrin2:
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-tech.edu/createtext?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.) :cool:
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! :)
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.
124
Once I get going with this (this week is a busy one for me), another thread will be set up for the study that I'm doing on Clifford Stone using this online program.
I just wanted to add "Test 2" that I did a few minutes ago only this time I'm telling the truth. It's from a comment that I posted in another forum in a discussion about Robert Monroe's books... specifically a place that he called "The Park"... below is a screenshot of that post that I entered into the program where the results came back positive indicating that I was telling the truth... This will be the last "test" screenshots that I will show in this thread and will start up a new one later...
125
murmur
12-20-2011, 04:06 AM
Try that out on Dan Smith too.
:biggrin2:
Some have suggested that Smith is insane....but probably your test will show that he is telling the truth...because he really believes his insanity is the truth.
Like the part where he thinks he could be Jesus.
Stone, Marcel and or whoever maybe truthful....but it doesn't really imply that it is the truth
So if Dan speaks the truth....and passes the lie detector....would you believe he is Jesus?
Try that out on Dan Smith too.
:biggrin2:
Some have suggested that Smith is insane....but probably your test will show that he is telling the truth...because he really believes his insanity is the truth.
Like the part where he thinks he could be Jesus.
Stone, Marcel and or whoever maybe truthful....but it doesn't really imply that it is the truth
So if Dan speaks the truth....and passes the lie detector....would you believe he is Jesus?
I think Father Smith is speaking metaphorically. ...at least I hope that's the case. But if he wakes up some morning and finds his ass stapled to a stick I guess we'll know otherwise.
murmur
12-20-2011, 04:18 AM
I think Father Smith is speaking metaphorically. ...at least I hope that's the case.
Yeah...I used to believe that also.
Ask him
murmur
12-20-2011, 04:24 AM
So what good is a lie detector?
None. It's voodoo science at worst and wishful thinking at best.
murmur
12-20-2011, 04:30 AM
So we agree.
Now if I could just get you to register republican and vote for RP in a primary.
There is no reason you need to vote in a democrat primary.....this time anyway
I worked on Ron's campaign in 1988. That was enough for me.
Redbone
12-20-2011, 02:44 PM
I think Father Smith is speaking metaphorically. ...at least I hope that's the case. But if he wakes up some morning and finds his ass stapled to a stick I guess we'll know otherwise.\\
Will there goes my morning cup of joe. I just spewed it all over my desk. Noot I don't always agree with you but I have to hand it to you....that was funny!! :lmao:
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.