It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Forcing Disclosure with lie-detector tests? [About charlatans and truth]

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 01:22 AM
link   
Hey guys,

I was wondering, lately we've all seen fairly well known people in the "ufo & ET scene" come out with disclosure talk. Also there are lots of well known people with contactee story's and all, you all know what i mean. Because of the major Disclosure talk, with all those inaccurate dates that drives us crazy and steer us further and further from the truth, everything has gotten into a bit of a chaos in "ET Land".

Why is no-one using lie detector tests? Interviewers for example, why not use lie-detectors?

Why dont, like for example, Project Camelot say "Look, we will interview you, but only when your hooked up to a lie detector!"

Why doesnt Greer take his Disclosure Project members on camera hooked up to a lie detector?

Doesnt this make life way way easyer for all of us? We, the people searching for truth will not find instant truth about coverups and contactee's, but we sure as hell would lose a very very big amount of people that are lying, and making stuff up to earn some money. Like David WantsCock does with his new book contracts and even a movie.

We would loose 90 percent of the lying fantasizing charlatans and the people like Greer and PC and much more will gain a very big amount of credibility and trust because by using lie detectors tests they show us they have only good intentions .

Ofcourse, someone that really believes what he is saying wont fail those tests, but clearly there are way way more people who arent convinced that what they tell is true but are just consciously making things up. So they know they are talking poop and those people WILL fail these tests because they know they are talking crap.

Furthermore, i honestly believe that when you take thses people like from the Disclosure Project to the national press and you include lie-detector test results, those national press or national media outlets WILL put it on national television/newspapers/whatever.

Doesnt this help us achieve disclosure, or at least create some order in the chaos that has taken over the ET/UFO/Contactee/Insider scene?

I really dont understand why interviewers like those from Project Camelot for example have never thought of it. Lately they are being much critisized, but they can make life so much easier on themselves by showing good intentions and only interviewing people willing to do it while on a lie detector. At least then we cant accuse those interviewers anymore.

Just a thought

[edit on 21/12/09 by TheNetherlands]

[edit on 21/12/09 by TheNetherlands]

[edit on 21/12/09 by TheNetherlands]




posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 01:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheNetherlands

Why is no-one using lie detector tests? Interviewers for example, why not use lie-detectors?


Because they do not work - just ask Ames!



posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 02:52 AM
link   
I don't think lie detector tests are considered as reliable as before. You also have to remember that some of these kooks actually believe some of the things they say, so they will pass the test with flying colors.

I don't think anybody making claims will volunteer for any kind of lie detector test, truth serum, hypnotism, etc. because they have nothing to gain. They are selling books and making money, why would they put it on the line? Even though they are telling the truth, if one of those tests come back negative then that person will lose credibility.

If they pass all the tests with flying colors, I don't think they would get that much more customers/fans/followers. Most skeptics will always be skeptics no matter what kind of evidence is put in front of them.

By the way, didn't all of Greer's witnesses agree to stand in front of congress?



posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 03:02 AM
link   
It's easy to pass a lie detector test...I once had a handbook providing in depth detail on how they work and what you need to do to pass such a test...it's not all that hard and they are fairly unreliable...no one would believe any results derived from such tests for these reasons...




[edit on 21/12/09 by CHA0S]



posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 03:13 AM
link   
Maybe the truth should be beaten out these people, Robert De Niro style, baseball bat in hand.



Seriously though, I doubt these people would ever agree to such a thing in the first place. Their all in the scam together.

Project Camelot, Pete Peterson, David Wilcock, Jordan Maxwell etc etc - there all working together!!!



posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 03:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by jimmyjohen
I don't think lie detector tests are considered as reliable as before. You also have to remember that some of these kooks actually believe some of the things they say, so they will pass the test with flying colors.


This i already mentioned, but i also said that still there are numerous of people that DONT belive in what they are saying, because they know they made it all up to earn some easy bucks. All those people will fail and so its a good riddance. Then lots of people will run off to never be heard of again... creating some order in chaos.


Originally posted by jimmyjohen
I don't think anybody making claims will volunteer for any kind of lie detector test, truth serum, hypnotism, etc. because they have nothing to gain. They are selling books and making money, why would they put it on the line? Even though they are telling the truth, if one of those tests come back negative then that person will lose credibility.


That is exactly my point, they will lose credibility and we will know if someone is a charlatan. There would not be thousands of threads about one person who was proven to be a charlatan long ago. And like i said, if they dont want to undergo a lie detector test then just dont interview them. If they have info they want to share they need people to interview them, so its the interviewers way or the highway. By the way, why would someone who is telling the truth denie a lie detector test? If you are convinced your telling the truth wouldnt you want a lie detector test so it is proven you are NOT lying, or at least are convinced yourself it is the truth?.


Originally posted by jimmyjohen
If they pass all the tests with flying colors, I don't think they would get that much more customers/fans/followers. Most skeptics will always be skeptics no matter what kind of evidence is put in front of them.


You really think they would not get more followers? If i read a thread about someone with good info, and i see that he or she passed a lie detector i will start followingb that person, because he is at least way more credible then all those people which just talk great story's with absolutely nothing to back it up with.

And the point really is not about them getting more followers, the point is getting rid of those people that purposely make up fake story's for easy money. Those people will all FAIL, because they know they made it up. They are not convinced they are telling the truth, like someone with a mental disease is.

It isnt about finding out which people are telling the truth, because if they are convinced it is the truth they will pass, even if it isnt truth. The point is to get rid om people purposely faking and making up story's


Originally posted by jimmyjohenBy the way, didn't all of Greer's witnesses agree to stand in front of congress?


Yeah so? doesnt a murder suspect claim under oath he will tell truth and nothing but the truth and then say he did not kill someone, even tough he did it?

And this is a topic we cannot yet prove, so we can also never prove anybody wrong. If will tell congress i have been on a spaceship while im under oath, even tough i never was, because i know nobody can prove me wrong



posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 03:29 AM
link   
reply to post by TheNetherlands
 


I agree with most of your points; however, you fail to realize that you might not think as your "average Joe" would. I believe the average person would wait for a celebrity endorsement.

Also, what is wrong with the fakers? I think they provide entertainment. At least they contribute to society by opening up peoples' minds, just as someone like Carl Sagan has done.



posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 04:08 AM
link   
Lie detector test is a bad term and here is why. The test doesn't determine if one is lying about a specfic matter but rather it attempts to detemines if the person is being deceitful (by monitoring heart rates etc on the belief a persons body will give off indications that the person is not telling the truth.

As already pointed out above, these test can be beaten in many of ways. And some can do it natuarally.

The TEST is another tool for Law Enforcement to gauge/jugde a potential suspect etc. This is why the results are not admissable in any court of Law.

Good post though and I know what you are saying.....

Evidence is the best winner-over of any of ways to try to prove something.



posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 05:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by jimmyjohen
reply to post by TheNetherlands
 


I agree with most of your points; however, you fail to realize that you might not think as your "average Joe" would. I believe the average person would wait for a celebrity endorsement.

Also, what is wrong with the fakers? I think they provide entertainment. At least they contribute to society by opening up peoples' minds, just as someone like Carl Sagan has done.



What is wrong with people that purposely fake?
first off all, they create chaos, like we have a saying in holland, "because of all the tree's you cant see the forrests/woods anymore..

They give people false hope
They also make us all look like idiots even though ET life is more logical than being the only ones in the universe

They also take away media coverage from people who DO tell the truth, one interview by a faker means it is one more interview NOT GIVEN by someone who does tell the truth..

They also make it impossible to find truth, like a needle in a haystack where the needle is one person who tell the truth where the haystack are 100 person that make up story's...

They get us into being cynical, with every new info almost everyone says "Yeah right, been there done that, ive heard this crap before"

They make us loose our need to find the truth, because 90 percent of info has come out by fakers. Like with "predictions". Because of al the fakes one, people would brush off that one prediction that actually is true because the last 200 all were fake...

And last, you say they provide entertainment. Well, im not here for entertainment, im here because i want to know what is really going on. If i want entertainment id buy dvd-boxes of Star-Trek and Star-Wars.



posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 06:39 AM
link   
Explanation S&F!

If the traditional Lie detector tests [howstuffworks.com] are no longer accurate enough to discern the lying scum for who they really are, then I offer up these additinal methods to help assess their genuiness!

MRI scanners as Lie Detectors. [howstuffworks.com]

And They should be tested explicitly for this....

Recognition Memory [wiki]

And Maybe this technique would also prove very useful!

Brain Fingerprinting [brainwavescience.com]

Supporting web-news Source [venturebeat.com]

Personal Disclosure: I'd submit to it myself and without hesitation!


Edited for spelling and to add missing link info to 1st link. :shk: soz me a


[edit on 21-12-2009 by OmegaLogos]



posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 08:31 AM
link   
reply to post by OmegaLogos
 


Some good ideas there OmegaLogos! Who's gonna pay for this though? Maybe Greer could use some of the money he's pilfered with his Orion Project!

Mate... I'd love to get that guy into an MRI but no doubt he'd find some way to wriggle out of it using his snake oil as a lubricant. He'd explain away his bad results using some ooga booga!

IRM



posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 08:23 PM
link   
reply to post by InfaRedMan
 


Lol, i think you need to add David WantsCock to your signature..



posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 10:57 PM
link   
the answer tyo the question you seek is simple., they arent admissable in court because they arent completely reliable



posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 11:08 PM
link   
reply to post by stanlee
 


I will say this for the fifth time,..

It isnt about being used in court, or to find the absolute truth.

It is about getting rid of people that are hoaxing, making things up and lying.

For example, there are numerous David WantsCock threads, but all his predictions (which he stated as facts) have failed. If he was hooked up to a lie-detector test when he first came into public view, we would have known he just makes it all up to begin with, and so we never would have been in this debacle.

And i only use him for example, there are numerous of other people that are making things up to earn some cash but it damages the scene and pull us away from truth.

Ofcourse there will always be people that are convinced of what they say and they will pass, even tough their truth is not THE truth, but that isnt what its about. All those charlatans that are purposely lieing will clearly fail bigtime! and so its good riddance



posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 06:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheNetherlands
reply to post by InfaRedMan
 


Lol, i think you need to add David WantsCock to your signature..


WantsCock! ROFL!


I like the way you think TN! Too funny!

BTW... Wilcock is on my next Charlatans Signature. I downloaded a bad picture of him and a few other whack jobs last week. Just gotta get around to making it. It will be ready for 2010!

IRM


[edit on 23/12/09 by InfaRedMan]




top topics



 
3

log in

join