Lie Detector confirms key Roswell crash witness told the truth

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 TRUTH

Dr Chandramouli provided this author use of the software to test for falsehood the testimony of Major Marcel. The conversion of key testimony by Marcel was transcribed and the results are in!

To the statement by Marcel:

“One thing that impressed us about the debris was the fact that a lot of it looked like parchment. It had little numbers with symbols that we had to call hieroglyphics because I could not understand them. They could not be read, they were just like symbols, something that meant something, and they were not all the same, but the same general pattern I would say.”

Dr. Chandramouli’s deceptive analysis results indicate: NORMAL, NO DECEPTION

To the statement by Marcel:

“This particular piece of metal was, I would say, about two feet long and perhaps a foot wide. See, that stuff weighs nothing, it’s so thin, it isn’t any thicker that the tinfoil in a pack of cigarettes. So I tried to bend the stuff, it wouldn’t bend. We even tried to make a dent in it with a 16 pound sledge hammer, and there was no dent in it.”

Dr. Chadramouli’s deceptive analysis results indicate: NORMAL, NO DECEPTION

To the statement by Marcel:

“There were small beams about three-eighths of a half inch square with some sort of hieroglyphics on them that nobody could decipher. These looked something like balsa-wood, and were about the same weight, except that they were not wood at all. They were very hard, although flexible, and would not burn.”

Dr. Chadramouli’s deceptive analysis results indicate: NORMAL, NO DECEPTION

Read more >>

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s