It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Can Anyone Possibly Debunk This Man?

page: 3
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in


posted on Nov, 24 2008 @ 11:13 AM
How about putting his voice through a lie detector software?

Lie Detector Software

Technology allows for many things these days including BS'n.

posted on Nov, 24 2008 @ 11:17 AM
reply to post by Realtruth

Will somebody do this please? I refuse to install freeware like this on Vista

posted on Nov, 24 2008 @ 12:14 PM
There is simply no way to get all the answers one wants to know about this story.

It could be real or it could be not ......

My bet is that it's a hoax. Why? Well because the guy phoned back, it's as simple as that.

Suppose you were the caller, or I, what would we do if we REALLY meant to get that message out?

Phone back under pressure? H*ll no!! I would know sooner or later 'they' (the evil ones
) would kill me anyway. So, it would be better NOT to call back at all.

Things action smells of:

1. Hoax on purpose by caller with the reason to get on national radio. Some ppl go through lenghts to do such things

Or is was done on purpose to confuse people, like a psch. test or something.

2. Hoax with knowledge by CtoC host because of raising the amount of listeners. One could ask Art Bell and he maybe will tell honestly how it went.

Don't forget: people can be very very easy manipulated!

It's been done before in a similar way, back in 1938. Remember? Halloween (Oct. 30) An American drama aired over the Columbia Broadcasting System radio network?? So called 'newsitems' about Martians that would inavde Earth??
YES, Orson Welles doing his version of of H. G. Wells' novel The War of the Worlds.

How MANY really BELIEVED the story back then? Humans do NOT change that much in 60 years, although many like to believe they do

Some people just keep on searching:

Whatever you choose: good luck!!

posted on Nov, 24 2008 @ 12:42 PM
Post 1 of 3:
I've listened to both calls, though I'd prefer to do a little more analysis. (I'm not an expert in this area, BTW.)

FWIW, I got no gut reaction the first call, but then I had been prepared to hear a disturbing call. The second call, I felt fear in my gut, but it could've been explained by the acting. (Or something else?)

This is my non-expert mini-analysis of the calls. Basically, I got the feeling the first call was genuine and the second call was a forced recantation of the first. However, in the interest of objectivity, I (along with others here) think it's possible that he had mental/emotional issues or simply felt really guilty about his prank call. So he was trying to come off as least threatening as possible while making the confession and apology. Keep in mind, I don't have time to analyze every bit of this. I think it would be helpful if someone could do a professional voice analysis of the audio to see if it's indeed the same person. An expert could also possibly tell if the fear is genuine in the respective audios.

The speech patterns make me think it's the same person, though I can't be absolutely sure. Speech patterns can be copied by a good actor, of course. And I will say I've only had a basic college linguistics course, so all I have is a little to go on but I do have a general idea of linguistic nuances (i.e., maybe I tend to listen for them).

In the first call, "Brian" sounds intelligent, or at least verbally conscientious, to me. He carefully enunciates what he says. He also pronounces "them" as "thum". I'm not sure what that means, but it sounds especially delicate to the ear, though I can't put my finger on why. And I don't know what group or dialect of English uses that style. In any case, contrast this overall style of speech with that of the second call, where he seems to try to dumb down the way he talks. Note: I'm not calling anyone who speaks like this "dumb". I'm just saying that he's using a different style and one not as intellectual or trying to sound intellectual. Seems to me the pattern is his own personality in the first call, unless he was a very studied actor who was going for that effect. If that were the case, though, I would think he would have pulled off the second call a little better, IMO.

So, in the second call, with this change of style, he addresses Art Bell as "ya" twice (versus "you). It's like he's trying to seem non-intimidating or folksy. He says "I always get nervous when I call ya", which may also be a way to explain away the natural franticness of the first call, too. You could possibly write off this drop in register (formality) of speech to a conciliatory tone where he is not wanting to alienate the host of his beloved talk show. Honestly, some of the speech seemed natural and believable to me in this second call, too, like where he says "I humbly apologize". Anyway, people *can* switch registers at times, so it might make sense that he'd naturally change this way when he's leveling with Art and the audience.

Here are other bits where it seems he's downplaying his intelligence or the register of his speech: "drivin' me bananas for months" [chops off the final 'g'] and the usage twice of "heebi-jeebies". Actually, he misused that term, as it means "the creeps" as in "gave me the creeps." So, "scared the heebi-jeebies out of me" sounds wrong right away to my ear. Either he is accustomed to trying too hard to mold how people see him (anyone can make the mistake of misusing an unfamiliar phrase) or he is not used to talking like that so he's fumbling with it in his attempt to sound relatable in his fake confession.

[edit on 24-11-2008 by wintermarches]

posted on Nov, 24 2008 @ 12:43 PM
Post 2 of 3:
For a confession, he really goes out of his way to make the first call sound frivolous, unless you explain this away as a natural aim of someone who may have upset how many viewers with "news" that the government is letting masses of us die in future disasters - a serious claim. This dismissal of the initial call's seriousness could be part of genuine remorse, or it could be a zealous calculated effort to discredit a real call. He says he has called as "different, eh know [approximation, as he jumbles that phrase up] wacky characters and that's all that one was supposed to be". Why so much emphasis if he's being real this time? Then he's all "what can I do to prove my claim here?" It sounds to me like he's trying too hard to be believed this time around that the first call was fake. Adding "here" makes it sound like his supposedly innocent good-natured attempt to make amends with the audience is more like a matter of business to him.

I also want to point out that the consciously-soft quality to his speech seems consistent in both calls, so I think it may be the same person. In the first call, he says "of the [he says it "thee"] um space [...]". There is also that delicate "thum" rendition of "them" that he uses. I can't think of more examples, because I only noted pieces of his speech and not an entire transcription (which may have been better to do). In the second call, this delicate yet conscientious (as in generally deliberate) quality peeks out at times, like when he says "that's all that one was supposed to be". The second 's' in "supposed" is soft as in the word "because", versus the 's' in "sand".

One thing I find odd is his laugh in the second call. It doesn't seem to go with the overall personality, from what I can tell. Not that I'm an expert on laughs, but it sounds like the laugh of someone older, grizzled, deceptive, or even a little nutty. Not that you must be any of those things to laugh like that, of course. I'm siding with deceptive or nutty. In any case, it doesn't seem to match the almost vaguely hipsterish (?) tone of the first guy and what is passed off as (and maybe truly is) the second guy. And it confuses me, because it would seem to indicate that the second guy, if the laugh is truly incongruous with the first personality, is a different caller. Or else a hoaxer, as he claims.

My main reason for not truly buying the "confession" is that it seems too planned and emphatic. If it was real, why try so hard to prove it? Why not be yourself if you are genuine? He says "Um everybody, [exhale] I am the Area 51 caller, [exhale] um that's, that's my statement and, and let you or whatever tear it apart". Art clarifies that he's the Area 51 caller, and he replies, "I, I am the man [exhale]". All this nervousness I could understand, I suppose, but it is so deliberate and he's making so sure people believe he's the one. Even if that isn't surprising, the way he says "that's all that one was supposed to be" makes me feel he's trying hard, along with his "what can I do to prove my claim here". The "here", the "all" thing, the "am the man" bit all sound like an agenda to me.

I'm sure others have more insight into the Area 51's caller's speech. I just went from the little bit I know of language and how I was affected by the way the caller spoke. Surely, there are geographical influences on the way the guy talks of which I'm unaware, too.

[edit on 24-11-2008 by wintermarches]

posted on Nov, 24 2008 @ 12:47 PM
Post 3 of 3:

[edited to add this first paragraph]

I forgot to add one big reason I almost believe the first call. The pitch of his voice rises on "we're" and "claim" (as in "claim to be"). His voice also squeaks when he says "now" at one point. These sounded like natural anxiety to me, rather than in the second call when he does an encore of his Area 51 caller's frantic ramblings. In the second call, his voice doesn't rise so naturally and sporadically like that. When he does his little act to "prove" to Art Bell that he's the same caller, it doesn't sound the same. It's more like a generic frantic rant that keeps the same pitch throughout. If this whole thing was acting, then the first call was the better effort. I'd think he'd try harder in the second call to prove it was the same acting if it was truly a hoax to begin with.

In conclusion, I think this was either a good actor in both calls or it was a genuine caller who got spooked or forced into taking back his story. My reasons are that the second caller tries too hard to lower his register to sound relatable, tries too hard emphasizing his wording to make the first call sound frivolous, tries too hard to emphasize that he's the same caller and that it was only a ruse, has a laugh that stands out and shows some kind of deception in the "confession" call (even if by virtue of the fact that the laugh is so different from even the second personality), and doesn't display the convincing natural anxiety of the first call in his reprise of it. The idea thrown out on this forum that he would've been killed if the story was true doesn't necessarily make the most sense to me. I say this because if the story was that believable, then maybe the government really wanted it discredited in an equally believable way. That all said, I could be totally wrong about all of this! And finally, even though this is what appears to be true to me, I don't pay much heed to this call. So maybe that means my logic isn't enough to prove to me that the call was real. ... Entertaining caller, anyhow.

As a side note, I find it very interesting that this call was made on a September 11th.

[Sorry this was so long! I may edit this soon to make my argument more concise and clear. I just wanted to put this out there for now.]

[edit on 24-11-2008 by wintermarches]

posted on Nov, 24 2008 @ 12:53 PM
In Finland we had night program where people who had problems called and asked help.

Every night there was fun calls or actor who try to show he/she can do that.

Very good actor can make phone call you cant say if it is real or not. This is problem also here. We have only one phone call. That's it.

posted on Nov, 24 2008 @ 12:56 PM
A lie detector program wouldn't prove anything 100%. Very strange. Even if he did take it back, maybe somebody forced him to? That was probably the case. I'm not sure, I'm going to do some research.

posted on Nov, 24 2008 @ 01:22 PM
I think whats relevant to consider as some have said already is that IF it was authentic or not is not confirmable by any deffinitive standard at this point in time and mayber never. Secondly, if it was authentic and someone high up wanted it you really think they couldnt do it? people say that theres the possibility that voice emulation technology was used in the cell phone calls made in high atmosphere during the 9/11 attack and if such was even a possibility. I think the same could be said here for the second call. Also I'd like to make the point that many people felt a sense of authenticity of fear and possibly paranoia in the first call, so much so that it disturbed some of us to an unusually influential amount, but then there will ALWAYS be skeptics and those of the readers paying attention to this thread whom are will not be swayed by any chance based possibilities. Lastly I's conclude with the very plausible situation that if it was genuine (as I tend to lean torwards), the gentleman in question would be the prime candidate to best abolish any faith in his original statements. Simply said, the best way to make this all go away would be either to give him a reason to denounce the truth in his statement or emulate his voice with such precision that no one would question the authenticity of his second call. This type of protocol makes sense. Once you turn believers into skeptics with the same tool used to originally make believers, they rarely revert.

posted on Nov, 24 2008 @ 01:29 PM
And in addition (I forgot about this point till just now), theres one troublesome loose end I keep going over finding less and less likelihood of being pure chance. The fact that the radio station lost its connection to the satellite. Yes I know it sounds like all sorts of things could have happened, all the tons of things miniscule and major could have disrupted the satellites feed at any time and yet it happened then, exactly then. Not only that, but sure yeah it hit 50 or so other stations. I dont think its likely that anyone trying to cut the line while the caller was spilling his guts about stuff that might have had relevance would have singled out that particular broadcast. I mean if you snuff his broadcast and ONLY his broadcast that makes it seem all the more authentic and suppressed, so cutting 50ish hides the real some extent, under the pretence that it was a genuine A51 employee. Further, how often do such broadcast interruptions occure? understandable if its a regular occurance....but at that particular point in time? seems fishy....

posted on Nov, 24 2008 @ 03:03 PM

Originally posted by Melyanna Tengwesta

Phone back under pressure? H*ll no!! I would know sooner or later 'they' (the evil ones
) would kill me anyway. So, it would be better NOT to call back at all.

For this line of thinking, you would be assuming that this caller has no one that he cares for in his life and that is assuming that the second caller is the same as the first. As so many of you have pointed out, just because he says so, does not make it so. Would it be better to not call back at all if the pressure they were putting on you was by threatening to torture and kill your loved ones?

posted on Nov, 24 2008 @ 03:07 PM
reply to post by hande

Good Actor can't power down the entire radio station with his voice.... I know... Smart butt comment.

This is one of those cases that sends chills down the bottom of my spine.

posted on Nov, 24 2008 @ 03:08 PM
Coast to Coast tends to pranked... a lot... and some of the prankers are very good and elaborate at what they do. As just a personal estimate, I'd say probably about 50% of the coverage on C2C is pure BS, with another 30-40% being BS people were told, lead to believe, or believe they experienced when they really didn't.

One of my favorite hoaxers... Now, granted, he doesn't sound very believable - but George seems to go along with it and doesn't call out or question the BS (which at the very least shows either gullibility at best, or at worst a willing compliance in the hoax) and even remarks on the wonders of portal technology. I wouldn't expect him to know the source, but there ARE people who believe this stuff, including the video I'll post below, and lap up anything he has on his show as fact of the matter. It's kind of sickening, yet hilarious in it's absurdity.

Without further adieu, Gordon Freeman speaks!

As for the radio station going down, it's just a coincidence. This is probably what really prompted the hoaxer to call back, likely feeling bad that this odd quirk of fate would add undue and unwarranted credibility to an already well polished story that he knows is going to scare the poop out of people - and considering the topic he speaks of, the actual repercussions of his "validified" call may have unforeseeable and undesirable outcomes. A prank that went too far.

Also, satellites are commonly misaligned or knocked out for periods of time to a variety of reasons. There's nothing really unusual about it, except for the timing. At best, it could only be considered circumstantial evidence.

[edit on 24-11-2008 by Lasheic]

posted on Nov, 24 2008 @ 03:12 PM

off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


posted on Nov, 24 2008 @ 04:07 PM
Here's what I'm thinking regarding the relevant responses since my last post.First again the coincidence happening at that particular time in particular with what was being said, and not to mention how the dude pretty much called it (that they were gonna cut the feed), smacks of more coincidence than usually applicable in even the best of setups. Two, you have to bear in mind that C2C is a show that derives more than most of its listeners from those whom either believe in the conspiracies and such or those who don't but tend to pay some attention to them for less than faithful reasons.So if he has people go on the air that are blatant bs'rs and he calls them out utterly, while some of us (including me) see it fully appropriate, you might pause to ponder how one is suppose to pull the real from the fake when everything is pretty much impossible to confirm on the spot.Dont get me wrong there is definitely a good host of callers with unspeakably sloppy pranks but if your one of those possible few with a solid story to tell and you need a show to leak it to that's where you go. Lastly, lets just remember that while ratings are dramatically important for all shows across the grid, these types are particularly in need because its so hard for it to be taken seriously the way everyone scoffs at the concepts discussed, not giving them an excuse to go out and fool us into believing particularly elaborate jokes, but just like the CARET drone thing, this made huge headlines for them and it was likely out of their sphere of influence to control so what they did is they used the information that fell in their lap to gain ratings. Its how its done. real or fake, if you cant confirm stuff that gets said or introduced live but it generates attention, you keep it fresh in all the listeners minds till it gets too stale to recycle....One last thing to add. I think the call back seemed to darn fishy. I mean really, it did sound like him for the most part as soon as he started with that panicked voice it smacked of the same man but stop and ask yourself why he would go and change all that when its no sweat off his back to let sleeping dogs lye? It makes more sense that someone would either force him to recant or emulate his voice to do so themselves whether independently or with some form of technology (voice masking perhaps?) to permanently damage the credibility of the caller and his claims as well as take a small chink of credibility from the hosting show.just like I'm sure there are dis'info agents lurking about here, there's likely some who would be focused on taking any valid credibility away from C2C....but all that requires a little bit of a willingness to believe and not all among us have such a desire....that's why everyone has a right to his/her own opinion. any feedback?

[edit on 24-11-2008 by Averysmallfoxx]

posted on Nov, 24 2008 @ 05:19 PM
I get a little feeling that Art was in on it. Then again i could be wrong. I listened to both radio call's and it's hard to tell they sound both alike. I doubt we will ever know!


posted on Nov, 24 2008 @ 06:14 PM
Is this the second latest thread on this? How come its so popular and unheard of all of a sudden. This has been around for a while. The guy did call back and say it was a hoax, and the show going off air was apparently a coincidence. But those two facts are a conspiracy of their own imo.

posted on Nov, 24 2008 @ 06:25 PM

Are we ATS or below the current norms of business in SECRETS lol?

Make ANY insurance claim in the UK or the USA today to your insurance company with a story that seems a bit of a falsehood and the following WILL happen (having seen and worked in an allied environment where this is the norm I know it is true!)

You will get a call from a "Claims Advisor/(insert job role here!)"

They will then over the phone ask you a series of questions about the claim etc.

Whilst they are doing that automatically on the screen in front of them software will analyse your voice for the liklihood of you telling the truth or not.

As you speak each word the display shows the Truth or False score of what you say.

If you are suspected then based on this of trying to commit fraud, a nice man in a suit will call out take some photos etc....

Then in the forensics dept of the company or usually outsourced, a recreation of the event you described i.e paint pot fell of step ladder and fell on Wide Screen TV and sound system 4 ft away etc etc. will reanact your description based on written, telephone testimony and follow up call by the man in the suit with a camera and breifcase and cynical attitude.

Now the software usually correlates the truth baseline like a lie detector test based on some "truth" responses first of all

Q Are you mr smith
A "Yes" correlation of voice stress and pitch etc when telling the truth, same with address and date of Birth.

Ok so we cant do this for the caller you may think BUT WE CAN as he describes the first call he made in the second call which WE KNOW IS THE TRUTH that he did make that call.

So there is a correlation of the TRUTH marker for such software to use.

Simple as.

Would be simple for ATS to do now?

1/1000th of the cost of Gilliand and a world exclusive.

Very surprised no one has done it yet already.

The truth is simple to find on this just need the right audio equipment, computers and software.......

3 Amigo's? and 2-3 hours all solved???

world exclusive before someone else?

Kind regards


[edit on 24-11-2008 by MischeviousElf]

posted on Nov, 24 2008 @ 09:40 PM
Or, someone could hunt the caller down.

Hack into Art Bell's archives, trace the sept 11 1997 call, find the phones the 2 calls were made from... and maybe find "Brian".

Anyone up to it?

And someone could test out how easy it is to crash the satellite involved.

[edit on 24-11-2008 by CommandoGeek]

posted on Nov, 25 2008 @ 04:49 AM
this is very intriguing to me

yes obviously a good actor can achieve anything so its very possible that part is fake

things dont add up

the timing of the feed cutting out is just really way too much of a coincidence

the timing of everything in the situation seems very eery

not sure if this is positive but i think this call was on 9/11/97?

thats wierd

then lets think about it

if this is a hoax

it makes NO sense in my mind as to why anyone who made a hoax like that would call back

if this was just a complete joke, whoever made the joke would probably forget about it and go on with this life,

this guy called back, and even when he called back it was extremely akward

even the sample he gave on the second call seemed way too weird

in my eyes the call seems real

now whether or not this is just a mentally disturbed person with psychological problems or whether or not its a real area 51 worker it definetly seems real

top topics

<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in