Wednesday, December 14, 2011

LIE DETECTOR CONFIRMS KEY ROSWELL CRASH WITNESS TOLD THE TRUTH by Anthony Bragalia

Copyright 2011, InterAmerica, Inc.

lie14.jpg

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.

THE WITNESS

marcel14.jpg
Rare Photo of Major Jesse Marcel in 1947

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.

Here is a video of Major Marcel confessing to his ET debris discovery in one of his only televised appearances:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pcONLgqe-RQ

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

CONCLUSIONS

The Stevens Institute technology analysis indicates with certainty that Major Marcel did indeed accurately relate in transcribed interviews the truth as he believed it to be:

Marcel said that there was a crash in the summer of 1947. The debris from that crash included varying types: 1) Parchment-like material with strange, indecipherable symbols 2) beams made of material that was like wood, but “not wood at all” that also had hieroglyphics and that, remarkably, would not burn and 3) unusually thin and unusually light metal-like material that would not even dent to the force of a pounding sledgehammer.

This author is continuing to work through the testimony of Major Marcel, as found in various interview transcripts and films to apply the psycholinguistic lie-catching technology. Comparison to other testimony (such as that of Officer Bill Rickett and Officer Sheridan Cavitt, who were also at the crash scene with Marcel) will be conducted as well and reported on at a later date.

I do not ascribe 100% certainty to anything. It is for this reason that I do not offer a “firm endorsement” of the findings of the Stevens Institute analysis. That qualified, I do believe that it is the best-available technology to ascertain honesty.

Half of writing history is hiding the truth. Hopefully technology will one day free us, at last, to uncover the truth, the whole truth, and to correct history.

AB

21 comments:

  1. Interesting new tool. I assume the two scientists have validated their method to satisfy themselves it is sufficiently accurate (by using it, say, on people known to be liars, or on statements known to be false).

    How do other scientists react to this new methodology?

    It would be better if these two, or one of them, were to do the tests on Marcel, rather than yourself since, as you would admit, your own views are somewhat biased.

    Statisticians always attach confidence limits to tests such as these. What confidence limits would you attach to them?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hi Tony.

    This article demonstrates one of the things I appreciate about you: you make an effort to travel roads others should, but don't, or haven't.

    Also, I appreciate your honesty in representing why you are presenting this new information, and your take on reliability factors.

    Thank you for your efforts.

    Best Regards,
    Bob

    ReplyDelete
  3. Thanks CDA.

    The use of psycholinguistic tools for these types of applications is still in it's infancy. Rather than the obvious flaws found in the physical measurements used in traditional polygraphs and VSA's, these newer tools instead rely on the "psychological constants" that are found in the formulation of language itself. By examining hundreds of thousands of utterances of known lies and known truths, the scientists have found that certain key vocabulary, chosen words, grammatical structures and syntax emerge when someone is "covering up."

    CDA is referring to the scientists' "confidence level" which is a statistical concept in which "likely" is usually taken to be "95% of the time" and the range is called the 95% confidence interval. The values at each end of the interval are called the confidence limits. I do not know them, and I intend on learning much more from the folks at Stevens.

    This technology announcement is relatively new so that the "scientific community" has yet to respond to it as a whole in any considered way.

    But one psychology professor, James Pennebaker (who consults w/ the Department of Homeland Security) said that the technology could be useful- but only when combined with other types of evidence. Pennebaker believes that the there exist "limits to certainty" about the ability of any individual or technology to detect lies. He estimates that that limit is 75% accuracy of any lie catching method.

    Anthony Bragalia

    ReplyDelete
  4. Thanks CDA and Bob...

    The psycholinguistics approach to validating truthful statements is still an emerging one. But grammatical structure, the specific phrases and words chosen, sytax, context and other elements of language reveal much about the truth of what we say.

    CDA is referring to 'confidence limits' which is a statistical concept where a claim to "95% confidence" simply means that the researcher has seen something occur that happens only one time in 20 or less. I do not know the Stevens' scientists confidence limits or intervals, etc. but will find out.

    Anthony Bragalia
    AJB

    ReplyDelete
  5. While maybe the best lie detection system is only 75% accurate, such a number applies only to individuals, not to to multiple witnesses.

    Thus maybe Marcel still had a 1 in 4 chance of lying, yet he passed their test. But what if multiple "pro-Roswell" witnesses pass the same test? Then the odds of ALL of the lying goes down exponentially.

    E.g., suppose we apply the test to the statements of other key witnesses, like Brazel Jr., Gen. Dubose, Gen. Exon, Marcel Jr., etc., etc. and ALL of them pass the test. The odds that ALL could lie and pass is 1/4x1/4x1/4x(number of such witnesses).

    I have also applied this argument over on Randle's blog to the multiple witnesses saying Brazel was coerced, detained by the military, in the company of military officers, admitting to being coerced, etc. There are about 10-12 such known witnesses. What are the odds that ALL would be lying about this? Very low indeed. E.g., suppose 10 such witnesses all passing this new statistical test with a confidence level of 75%. The odds of ALL deliberately lying and getting away with it drops to 1/4^10, or one in a million.

    This caused CDA and Gilles F. to fume and sputter that I was misusing statistics, didn't take into account ALLEGED witness "contamination" (this is always one of their favorite denial mechanisms) by each other and biased researchers, i.e. they are only saying what they thought to be true because they were told as such by others, believe it to be true, but it ain't necessarily true. But really, ALL of them being "contaminated" and "unreliable".

    What's rather unique about Roswell are the huge number of witnesses who directly or indirectly know something about the debris, the bodies, the coercion, the cover-up, etc. For every one denying something unusual happening there are probably 10 saying they know or were told something highly unusual happened.

    It would be interesting to see the test applied to Sheridan Cavitt's AF interview statements, as Tony indicates he will do. I'll wager it indicates a lot of lying going on. But we'll wait and see.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I propose that we try it on some known hoaxers, to establish a baseline for how the software deals with UFO related testimony. Is there some video or audio kicking around of Billy Meier, for example?

    My personal feeling is that Marcel (and perhaps Meier) believe what they are saying is true. That is not the same thing as proving that the materials Marcel handled were of ET origin.

    On a slightly related note, have you read the book "Aliens in America"by Jodi Dean? This seems like a good example of what she describes as ufology's attempt to refute mainstream science by appropriating the tools of scientific and juridical discourse.

    ReplyDelete
  7. In response to David Rudiak, I claimed that you could not multiply these (assumed) probabilities together and rely on the result since there was no way of knowing:

    1. if the witnesses were truly independent, i.e. had never heard of the other's testimony or, more important, had never read or seen or heard anything about the case in books, TV etc. before being interviewed.

    2. Whether the witnesses were 'led' (using a loaded question) by the interviewer to a desired assertion or conclusion.

    This is the fundamental weakness of applying the 'multiplication of probabilities' method. And it is a serious weakness. It cannot be ignored.

    Also concerning this new tool AJB is talking about, how do you deal with statements by people such as Marcel where he asserts words to the effect that "there is no doubt that what landed was a craft from another world". Since nothing of this nature exists, or is known to science, do we assume this new tool has failed, or do we assume Marcel is still telling the truth as he believes it to be? Or is he lying at this point?

    (I am not saying any witness used those exact words but some came pretty close).

    ReplyDelete
  8. Tony,

    You wonder why people laugh at you and your work.

    One reason is that you are so disingenuous in the way you present things.

    Like, for instance, using Pennebaker above to support your position.

    Here is what Pennebaker actually said:

    "It’s a great idea, but anybody who claims they can detect lies at a rate better than 70 percent I don’t believe. It’s impossible."

    Lance

    ReplyDelete
  9. Lance-

    Are you again in one of your self-admitted sour moods again? It's holiday time, Lance, chill.

    I do not wonder "why people laugh at me" - and I did not realize that they did. Your mean-spirited attack deserves no response.

    Anthony Bragalia

    ReplyDelete
  10. Part 1 of 2:

    I see manifold problems with simply using the text of recorded statements and running them through some software application in order to attempt to determine the degree of truthfulness of the statements being analyzed.

    First and foremost, what are the real criteria being used to determine truthful statements from either false ones or those which have the flavor of "truthiness" (thank you, Mr. Colbert), or which simply reflect what the speaker may believe personally, but may still not be "the truth," per se?

    The conflation between what a speaker may honestly _believe_ is the truth about an issue, and what the _actual facts_ of the matter are is also problematical.

    This, other than essential unreliability, and difficulty in discerning "the truth" vs. actual facts based on statements using technological means, is one reason why polygraphs, VSA's, and the kind of software employed here in analyzing Marcel's statements, are not permitted to be used or their findings introduced into court proceedings like trials.

    I mean, what if the speaker, and his related statements converted into text for analysis, truly believes what he's saying, but his statements do not reflect the actual facts or truth of the matter in question?

    An example might be a psychopath or a con-man or other even "normal" persons with either psychologically anomalous or even just strongly vested beliefs about something that, regardless of the person's statements otherwise, turns out to be factually and provably untrue? What then?

    There also those individuals whose intellectual, social, and/or language skills are so sophisticated or practiced that they may be seen or their statements determined by such software (or other technical means) as telling the truth, when in fact they are not, and _know_ they are not.

    The two worst security lapses in modern times, the double agents Robert Hanssen of the FBI and Aldrich Ames of the CIA come to mind--they repeatedly passed very sophisticated polygraph and interrogatory tests as to their loyalties, and it took almost 20 years in each case for them to finally be found out to be lying, and working for the Soviet KGB and GRU.

    Examples like these should give anyone pause before accepting claims of up to "99%" accuracy in lie-detection from written statements since, on its face, that cannot be true, so why make such an extreme claim in the first place? I can think of a few reasons, including false belief, ego, and money, among others.

    I'd like this textual analysis process to be applied to the statements to some alleged Roswell witnesses whose statements were initially believed by many as true, but who were found belatedly to have fabricated aspects of their stories, like Frank Kaufmann or the Roswell mortician, Glenn Dennis, etc., to see how "truthful" their initial statements about their supposed knowledge and accounts regarding their involvement in the Roswell incident fare when tested by textual software analysis.

    If it's determined even some statements are considered true by the software, when later admissions and investigations have found those same statements were factually false, then the software involved and cited here used on Marcel's statements cannot in any way be considered either reliable, statistically objective, or scientifically valid, and so such "false findings" or "false positives" would be a very strong indicator that even Marcel's statements, etc., cannot be considered as either necessarily truthful as to the facts, or accuracy of later recall, and only measure (to some unknown degree) belief in what is true, not what is actually true or factual.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Part 2 of 2:

    Even then, I truly wonder about the ethics and objectivity of the researchers whose commercial product supposedly has "an astounding 86% -- 99% rate of success in lie detection" -- whose stats are those? Theirs?

    Has this finding or degree of accuracy been peer-reviewed or published in any scientific journal of merit? Have other scientists, uncompensated and not involved in any aspect of the Instream Media corporation, been able to derive similar results? If so, can they be cited for further review and verification of the extraordinary claims the partners in Instream Media state? If not, why not?

    These are all quite valid questions needing honest and full answers before anyone can or should just assume the software in question can be trusted to be in any way reliable or accurate in its findings.

    Currently, fMRI brain scanning technologies are being studied to try to come up with a "truth machine" to separate truth from lies, by analyzing where and how certain areas of the brain become active and in what way or pattern as a means to determine truth from lies, via pre-testing with questions whose answers are known as either true or untrue, and studying the tested subjects brain activity patterns on various baselines when questioned, and some entrepreneurs have already started firms claiming with the use of fMRI tech to have had similar rates of success, and have even petitioned to have these results used in court proceedings. In one or two cases overseas, this has even resulted in convictions.

    So far, in the U.S., these claims have not been proven, the use of the tech in legal proceedings has been rejected on substantive legal and technical bases, and I wonder about the use of the Instream Media product by insurance companies to detect falsehoods in damage or insurance claims by those companies vested in paying out the minimum possible for such insured damage claims. It would seem a certain amount of confirmation bias combined with test results supporting such non-objective inclinations could be a very dangerous and fraudulent means to make determinations whose basis is, in fact, suspect at least and in other cases wholly unfounded, depending on the details and circumstances in each case so subjected to these new, but still not sufficiently verified technical processes. A very slippery slope, indeed.

    Bottom line: there are a whole host of problems, legally, technically, ethically, and otherwise which would have to be resolved, peer-reviewed, and very thoroughly tested in order for me to think that this new software tool has sufficient merit or utility to do what is claimed at this point.

    As Pierre-Simon Laplace once originally said, and as paraphrased and popularized by Carl Sagan, I really do think that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence," and that nothing less in attempting to verify claims such as these, or technologies for determining truth from lies, is adequate, IMHO.

    We still have a very long way to go before the capabilities and quirks of the human mind regarding the degree of truth or falsehood presented can be so technically established or deterministically proven to the necessary and required measure to truly be able to find what is the truth and what is a lie.

    For some insight into these issues, check out:

    http://antipolygraph.org

    ReplyDelete
  12. Steve-

    Thanks for this. And yes, I did state in a previous reply that this is a limitation.

    "Truth" is only what people believe it to be- not what it "actually" is, necessarily.

    For instance, I grant that Jesse may have genuinely "believed" that the debris was "not of earth" but that in and of itself does not make it "true."

    And such is the limitation of all testimony -with 'lie-catcher' software applied or not. It only reflects what the speaker thinks is real- not always what is.

    Best,
    Tony

    ReplyDelete
  13. A few things on this software....

    Love to see it being affordable or accessible for everyone. I know of a bunch of people located in a place called Washington, DC, and scattered in 50 state capitols that really require its presence whenever they open their mouths!

    Love to see it adapted to real time audio input for speeches/courtrooms/etc or transcript scanning...or even as an app on your iPhone or laptop! Imagine watching/listening to a live speech with red/green lying/truth flashing on the screen...maybe yellow for unsure (nothing's perfect!)

    ReplyDelete
  14. Regardless, even though this
    technology is a breaktrough,
    the fact that Jesse Marcel was
    a serious military officer, not
    prone to fabricating any matter
    is enough for me to believe him.

    Mr. Marcel, never profited from
    his assertions, never made any
    money, never changed his statements.

    He was had a serious military
    career, he told the truth as
    simple as he could state the
    truth. He was forced into
    fabricating a weather balloon
    story for the Roswell crash by
    military brass. He would have
    lost his career and job if he
    had refused to follow orders.

    In spite of all this technology
    nothing deters or refutes the
    fact that Mr. Marcel was an
    honest, hard working, truthful
    and mindful individual which
    related facts as they were, when
    it occurred, how it occurred, why
    it occurred and who was involved.

    Mr. Marcel does not need to be
    analysed by lie detectors or else.

    He stands unimpeached in my
    opinion and many others. His
    legacy will stand and one day
    he will be VINDICATED when
    we finally reveal the presence
    of other wordly beings that have
    been visiting our planet for
    many many thousands or years.

    The evidence is overwhelming.

    The cosmic watergate or lie
    does not reside in Mr. Marcel's
    story. The lie is perpetuated
    by the military industrial complex
    in the USA Government. A cover-up
    a lie... This technology should
    be applied to Government agencies
    individuals which have constantly
    lied about the fact of extraterrestrial visitors for
    many decades..

    Thank you,

    Norman Rapin
    Canada.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Regardless of this new technology,
    Mafor J. Marcel was absolutely
    honest in his statements.

    This was a man of integrity,
    honesty and not prone to
    sensationalism. He never ever
    profited from his assertions.

    Others have...

    It would be interesting to
    apply this new technology
    to military personnel who
    troughout the years have
    said ....there is nothing to hide.
    there is nothing to ufos..

    The truth NOW will be finally
    divulged. Although Mr. Marcel
    has always said the truth..

    This was an honest, brave,
    truthful man who many have
    ridiculed for his honest
    statements.

    norman.rapin@forces.gc.ca

    ReplyDelete
  16. A much stronger indication that Marcel wasn't lying is in his actual military record. On my website I have his military evaluations from his superior officers, some of whom knew very much what happened at Roswell, such as Generals Ramey, Dubose, and Blanchard. Marcel universally got excellent and superior marks before and after Roswell. If anything, they went up after the event:

    http://www.roswellproof.com/marcel_evaluations.html

    1. Blanchard upped his rating to the superior level afterward.
    2. At the same time, Dubose recommended him for command officer training.
    3. Blanchard and Dubose recommended him for promotion in the AF Reserve (Marcel became a Lt. Col., his retirement rank)
    4. He was recommissioned the following Spring at a time when it was very hard to get a commission because the military was trying to drastically downsize following WWII.
    5. He was kept on as head intelligence officer at Roswell for another year.
    6. The Pentagon and SAC fought over his services a year later. Marcel eventually ended up chief briefing officer for the very top secret Special Weapons Project in Washington D.C., trying to discover if the Russians had developed an A-bomb.
    7. Future AF Chief of Staff and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, John Ryan a year later called Marcel's career "most outstanding" and "most exemplary". (Ryan was Ramey's Operations Officer at Fort Worth during the Roswell Incident and Blanchard's replacement at Roswell)
    8. Gen. Ramey likewise termed Marcel's services to his command "outstanding", like Dubose thought he was command officer material, and registered a mild protest over his transfer, saying he had nobody to replace him.

    This is the actual career of the man the debunkers have tried to portray as an incompetent and a liar. But his evaluations from the high-ranking officers that knew him say otherwise.

    ReplyDelete
  17. We are slightly off track in that we were discussing the value of this new technology, not whether Jesse Marcel told the truth or not.

    However, in response to Norman Rapin, Marcel did make some money in later years as he appeared on TV and also in a movie "UFOs Are Real" in which Stanton Friedman was a consultant. This in no way detracts from the value of his testimony, which I certainly take as entirely honest. The real point is this: How important did the Roswell affair appear to Marcel at the time, or in succeeding years?
    He kept no records of it such as press reports or photos. He could not remember the date. He seems to have entirely ignored it until he told a radio station manager many years later that he had once handled pieces of a 'flying saucer'. Soon after this, Stan Friedman came along and the rest followed.

    As to David Rudiak's 8 points in favor of Marcel and the highlights of his subsequent career, nothing therein points to his being in possession of 'top secret' knowledge of ET visits to earth. It merely tells us that he was a good military guy, deserved his promotions, and so on. If anything, it supports the notion that Marcel never attached any importance to the incident, and neither did his superiors, either at the time or thereafter. Marcel had identified the object or objects with, shall we say, 80 - 90 per cent certainty back in 1947 and no, it was NOT a craft from another planet. Once Friedman 'got' at him, he became a bit more open to the idea of ET visits. Can you imagine Marcel ever appearing in a documentary movie on UFOs (with STF a pro-ET consultant) while still sticking rigidly to the balloon answer?

    ReplyDelete
  18. As to David Rudiak's 8 points in favor of Marcel and the highlights of his subsequent career, nothing therein points to his being in possession of 'top secret' knowledge of ET visits to earth.

    I love how CDA loves to spin things. What Marcel's post-Roswell reviews tell us is that the usual debunker story has no basis in fact, namely Marcel misidentified common balloon wreckage, thus leading to the infamous base press release that they had a flying disc,

    It merely tells us that he was a good military guy, deserved his promotions, and so on. If anything, it supports the notion that Marcel never attached any importance to the incident, and neither did his superiors, either at the time or thereafter. Marcel had identified the object or objects with, shall we say, 80 - 90 per cent certainty back in 1947...

    Then why did Blanchard put out a press release that they had an actual "flying disc" in their possession instead of recovering balloon material? Thanks again for trying to rewrite history.

    And in case CDA tries to use the usual skeptical semantic argument that nobody knew what a "flying disc" was, they most certainly knew what characterized them. Everybody agreed they were generally disc-like and metallic in form, showed unusual maneuvers, and flew at extremely high speeds. (This wasn't just the newspapers--Gen. Shulgen's air intelligence estimate just 3 weeks later said exactly that and that they were quite real, as did Gen. Twining's famous Air Materiel Command memo 3 months later recommending a broad investigation into the flying discs.)

    Not only that, just before Roswell issued their flying disc press release on July 8, the Pentagon was specifically denying they were "space ships." (See UP story in my collection of extraterrestrial speculation about the saucers from the newspapers in June/July 1947: http://www.roswellproof.com/ETH-in-1947.html)

    and no, it was NOT a craft from another planet.

    Just because CDA asserts this as a fact instead of his usual personal opinion.

    Once Friedman 'got' at him, he became a bit more open to the idea of ET visits.

    More rewriting of history and the usual CDA idiocy about Friedman's svengali-like powers to convince witnesses of things that never happened.

    In the real world, the only reason Friedman spoke to Marcel was because a shortwave buddy of his tipped off Friedman Marcel had been the intel officer at Roswell and had told him he actually handled the pieces of a real saucer.

    Thus Marcel had already been relating the story well BEFORE ever meeting Friedman, not the way CDA represents it.

    Furthermore, Marcel Jr. has never wavered from his story of his father returning home from the field, waking up his mother and himself in the middle of the night to show them the wreckage of what his dad thought was a flying saucer.

    But CDA asserts Marcel had identified the object with "80 or 90% certainty" in 1947, so it must be so. Just forget about the contradictory base press release, the Schulgen and Twining studies, and all the rest that contradicts some mundane, nothing event of no importance. CDA always forgets about it, so can you.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Rather than debating the pros and cons ad nauseam, let us concentrate on Marcel, AJB's initial subject for discussion (his testimony having been subjected to this new methodology).

    I agree that Marcel told the truth about his discovery and about what he could recall. I also agree that Marcel opined some 35 years after the event that the debris did, or may have, come from another planet.
    Do we know his exact words or not?

    What we really want to know, but which is almost certainly beyond our reach now, is:

    1. What did Marcel think the debris was in July '47?
    2. If he thought it was something mundane, when and why did he get converted and become a UFO believer (in the ETH sense)?
    3. When did he first suspect, if he ever did, that the debris he handled was from a crashed ET craft?
    4. Was his thinking influenced by attitudes prevalent in the late 1970s, in that he slowly veered towards the ET hypothesis, or was it well before then?
    5. Was he influenced even more by his contacts with Stan Friedman in 1978-79?

    DR insists Marcel knew the ET truth from the beginning, but was forbidden to say so. Other ET believers say the same. Hence his silence during the great saucer waves of the early 1950s. Skeptics such as me disagree and say Marcel did not, after the initial flurry, have any further interest in the case until the mid to late 1970s when UFOs got back into the news and into movies and TV.

    Marcel recounted the original story as best as he could, but there seems no way to give a definitive answer to any of the above 5 questions. Obviously if you claim the answer to 1 is "an ET craft" then questions 2 to 5 become redundant.

    I do not expect the 'dream team' to bother as all members, bar one, have already made their minds up about question 1. But we shall see.

    ReplyDelete
  20. OK.. I guess this is as good a place as any.. so here goes.

    I knew George and Inez Wilcox intimately. They were almost like second parents to me. As a small child growing up in Roswell, I suppose I spent as much time with "Big Mom" and George as did their own kids.

    We would often take trips out to the Coe Ranch - a prominent family in the area - and spend time with Inez and George's closest friend, Louise Coe.

    My family was one of the most prominent pillars of the community going back to the 1800s.

    As a small child, George Wilcox was litle more than a curiosity to me - an old man mumbling to himself while transfixed in a recliner chair. George had become a vegetable.

    Yes.. the story goes a lot deeper than any of you know. They began experimenting with the bodies found that very bizarre day long erased from history.

    And I'm one of the products of it.

    I don't even want to get into it, as I've been carrying these secrets all my life.

    But, frankly, I don't care anymore.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Hi Anonymous-

    Your mention of the Coe Ranch is very "telling." I wonder if you knew the Proctor or the Sultemeierer families? Or perhaps the Cordes family (Rogene and Harry?)

    I would very much like to communicate with you privately, would you be open to that? If so I will post an email for you to contact me.

    AJB

    ReplyDelete