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.

 

Lie Detecter Confirms Key Roswell Crash Witness Told The Truth.

page: 1
12
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 18 2011 @ 12:35 AM
link   
Source


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.



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.


Well the people that do not believe Roswell was an aliens craft will not change their beliefs because they have been so clouded with judgment that they do not look at the evidence properly. Same goes with the 'Believer's', but to look at this with acceptance for what it means is a big one.

The man that was on scene believes that this was an extraterrestrial craft.

All those things he mentioned about it being memory metal, if true, would be astounding.

I had to share this as this is some more credibility to the fact that the US military has a crashed disk somewhere in one of their bases.

Any thoughts?

Pred...




posted on Dec, 18 2011 @ 12:52 AM
link   
So if I'm understanding right, they just used something that analyzed previously-recorded statements he made for television programs? Honestly I don't really think this adds much credibility. Normal polygraphs, which have been around and been used for decades, still aren't permissible as evidence in court because they're not reliable. I would question the accuracy of this newly-developed technology. There's also the fact that Marcel's memory may be clouded after all of this time and tainted by claims that were made by other people later. He could, in fact, truly believe what he's saying, even if it's not true, which would obviously not show up as being deceitful.

If only he'd of had the foresight to hang on to just one piece of this debris. No one would have ever known.



posted on Dec, 18 2011 @ 12:58 AM
link   
Can you explain - did they retest this man (is he still living?) or did they use his recorded statements?



posted on Dec, 18 2011 @ 01:23 AM
link   
Lie detector spoiler magic pill:


Positive results guaranteed



posted on Dec, 18 2011 @ 01:37 AM
link   
I love when people ask questions, but nothing drives me crazier than seeing an answer to those questions by clicking a link provided by the OP.


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.


In any event, this is very interesting, but I am curious as to how they tested this technology and it's accuracy to come up with the 86%-99% success rate.



posted on Dec, 18 2011 @ 02:20 AM
link   
Very interesting, thought I add this:



A good skeptic's argument I've read on here before, "If the metal is indestructible then why was the ship broken into fragments spread out over a field?"

Good question, you tell me...



posted on Dec, 18 2011 @ 03:57 AM
link   


A good skeptic's argument I've read on here before, "If the metal is indestructible then why was the ship broken into fragments spread out over a field?"

Good question, you tell me...


Not a good argument.
the word 'indestructible' was not mentioned in the video. For the material in question, I have only ever heard that you couldn't bend it, burn it or break it with a sledgehammer. I don't think that qualifies as indestructible. This only describes the properties of the material and that it was unusual. I think a better question would be 'how unusual was this stuff?'



posted on Dec, 18 2011 @ 04:29 AM
link   
The video embedded below contains some more information on the relevant software.



I remain to be convinced that such an analysis of limited amounts of text can really have a high level of success in indicating that the person BELIEVED they were telling the truth.

Even if a person BELIEVED they were telling the truth, it perhaps goes without saying that this software does not indicate whether that belief represented the REALITY of events - rather than a belief based on bias, mistakes, misperceptions, misrecollections or delusions.
edit on 18-12-2011 by IsaacKoi because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 18 2011 @ 04:49 AM
link   
reply to post by predator0187
 


There was a video that was made regarding SETI and what would happen if contact was made......

And just incase the embed hasnt worked? Contact

Also did you know that Nikola Tesla believed that in 1899 he intercepted radio signal/communication from mars?



Nikola Tesla ~ While Nikola Tesla was conducting experiments with his Magnifying Transmitter at Colorado Springs in 1899, he detected coherent signals which he determined had originated on Mars. Tesla was widely criticized for his astounding claims, yet no one could seriously dispute him, for he was a solo pioneer without peer. No one since then has reported constructing a Magnifying Transmitter or otherwise replicated his experiment, so the issue remains unresolved and the mystery unsolved. Tesla revealed no technical details in his pronouncements and publications of that period, other than the pertinent patents. His Colorado Springs notebooks were published in the 1980s, but they make no mention of his alleged contact with Mars.

Need to read
TESLA'S Communication with Mars

In regard to the situation in Japan



Drop LIQUID NITROGEN & DRY ICE CO2 on your Fukushima nuke reactors NOW, Already, Please, Thank you. Why ? Shock cooling -- Smothering -- Formation of solid nitrides, nitrates, carbonates, &c... Duhhh... It worked @ Chernobyl ( Tons of Dry Ice CO2 dropped by helicopter ). Still can't figure it out ? Ask "Red" Adair : He used liquid nitrogen to extinguish oil well fires in Kuwait ( Pop. Sci., Jan 1991 )



edit on 18-12-2011 by Lee78 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 18 2011 @ 10:48 AM
link   
We can positively say two things about Roswell 1947: 1) We know "something" crashed and 2) There is a cover up and conspiracy.

We also know the USAF has changed their story about 4 or 5 times.

Was it alien? Was it borrowed Nazi technology? If it was alien, perhaps it was just hardware from a probe?

Someone knows....I have a feeling we will never know.....



posted on Dec, 18 2011 @ 12:24 PM
link   
reply to post by pianopraze
 


Tamazepan works too I think.

edit on 18/12/11 by Pimander because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 18 2011 @ 12:37 PM
link   

The U.S. Air Force, on the existence of alien remains at Roswell

The research indicated absolutely no evidence of any kind that a spaceship crashed near Roswell or that any alien occupants were recovered therefrom, in some secret military operation or otherwise. … All the records … indicated that the focus of the concern was not on aliens, hostile or otherwise.

The Software Says: Truth

Source


Somewhat contradictory, I'd say!



posted on Dec, 18 2011 @ 12:51 PM
link   
i think the army changed its' story a few too many times, for there not to have been something not-of-this-world to have crashed, near Roswell.....Mac Brazel was intimidated by the military to change his story...when asked "what about the little green men", he replied "they weren't green"......i'm still searching for audio archives of that interview...i know.....it's just like looking for a needle in a haystack....however....if they archived the War Of The Worlds broadcast, in 1939...they damn well had the technology to archive that interview with Brazel, in 1947....someone, somewhere...has that tape...and they're not letting it out of their sight...as for polygraph testing.....Travis Walton took...and passed..yet another polygraph, not too long ago.....all of this talk about how the laws of physics prove that there's no way ET's could possibly travel vast distances, on a short amount of time, to reach earth, and land...make contact, etc....who's to say that the laws of physics are applicable to ETs from other parts of the universe??? i'm going with they're real...despite all the cgi crap that's floating around, out there...Betty and Barney Hill's case was never debunked...the Aurora, Texas incident was never debunked..the Travis Walton incident..never debunked......only claimed to have been debunked by a few royal jackasses, that have nothing better to do...as my signature says: We Are Not Alone



posted on Dec, 18 2011 @ 01:23 PM
link   
Too much smoke to not be true.

This pic tells me all I need to know.




posted on Dec, 18 2011 @ 02:36 PM
link   
reply to post by VoidHawk
 


amen......after all....truth is stranger than fiction



posted on Dec, 18 2011 @ 03:56 PM
link   
Maybe i'd believe his statements if he underwent a Voight-Kampf...this is not to say that I don't believe the crash happened, because I totally do.

edit on 12/18/2011 by GoldenObserver because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 18 2011 @ 04:34 PM
link   
reply to post by ZetaRediculian
 


Well in this video, I guess upon high impact the material could be shredded apart. Here the Roswell craft is reversed engineered, some of you may have seen this video before.



I guess if the alien crash information is correct, then the next step would be to talk about the EBE's? Anyone have an original source for the EBEs?


Even more controversial than the debris descriptions were stories to emerge later of an intact "disc" and even alien bodies being recovered, primarily second-hand accounts from friends and family members of those involved, such as the Wilcox family. Not surprisingly, no mention of bodies was made in newspaper accounts from 1947. If anything, Gen. Ramey made a big point that the object was "too lightly constructed to have carried anyone" and "scoffed at the possibility that the object could have been piloted." However, it is pointed out that another of Ramey's 1947 statements of the foil-covered "box kite" (or radar target) being about 25 feet across if reconstructed would be consistent with later testimony from two eyewitnesses of seeing a damaged craft about 25 feet in size.


Source



posted on Dec, 18 2011 @ 04:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by pianopraze
Lie detector spoiler magic pill:


Positive results guaranteed



Ya think...?!

Side effects:

Less Common: Anxiety; confusion (may be more common in the elderly); fast, pounding, or irregular heartbeat; lack of memory of events taking place after benzodiazepine is taken (may be more common with triazolam) ; mental depression

Rare: Abnormal thinking, including disorientation, delusions (holding false beliefs that cannot be changed by facts), or loss of sense of reality; agitation; behavior changes, including aggressive behavior, bizarre behavior, decreased inhibition, or outbursts of anger; convulsions (seizures); hallucinations (seeing, hearing, or feeling things that are not there); hypotension (low blood pressure); muscle weakness; skin rash or itching; sore throat, fever, and chills; trouble in sleeping; ulcers or sores in mouth or throat (continuing); uncontrolled movements of body, including the eyes; unusual bleeding or bruising; unusual excitement, nervousness, or irritability; unusual tiredness or weakness (severe); yellow eyes or skin



posted on Dec, 18 2011 @ 05:23 PM
link   
reply to post by predator0187
 


Lie detector tests are not scientific at all and can be easily passed and give false results, this means nothing.



posted on Dec, 18 2011 @ 05:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnmcandiez
reply to post by predator0187
 


Lie detector tests are not scientific at all and can be easily passed and give false results, this means nothing.


I would just like to add to this that lie detector results cannot be used as evidence in court. So obviously they arent reliable.




top topics



 
12
<<   2 >>

log in

join