UFO Conjecture(s)

Wednesday, December 14, 2011

Jesse Marcel passes "Truth Test"

Anthony Bragalia employed an innovative "lie detection" program that ascertained Jesse Marcel Sr's statements about The Roswell crash and its debris were truthful.

Click HERE for Mr. Bragalia's account of the technology employed and the results.


  • I suppose we ought to congratulate AJB on presenting something new to the case. I wonder how Kevin Randle and the rest of the 'dream team' will react.

    By Blogger cda, at Wednesday, December 14, 2011  

  • Christopher:

    It's interesting that you note Bragalia's innovative approach to the Roswell mess.

    He's looking at the material in new ways, whereas I get the impression, from Kevin Randle's blog, that the rest of the "dream team" is reworking the old stuff in the old way(s).

    I could be wrong, but I'm not seeing anything coming forth that is refreshing, in the evidentiary sense.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Wednesday, December 14, 2011  

  • What concerns me is AJB's final sentence: "Hopefully technology will one day free us, at last, to uncover the truth, the whole truth, and to correct history."

    This is exactly what David Rudiak and others were saying when they 'deciphered' the memo in Gen Ramey's hand. The technology had done it! (Except it hadn't)

    By Blogger cda, at Wednesday, December 14, 2011  

  • I can assure you, Christopher, that Tony Bragalia is an eternal optimist...but I suppose you've guessed that already.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Wednesday, December 14, 2011  

  • I've almost no interest in Roswell beyond reading how the various parties express their views in the adversarial tradition. There's a video of Marcel that convinces me that he believed what he said, but that's the extent of my opinion on the case.

    Instead, what caught my eye was the alarming statistical claim that Instream Media, and the good doctors, can yield an '86%-99% rate of success in lie detection.'

    If this was substantiated, they'd be reaping massive success with market opportunities across the world. It's easy to imagine at least one of the major agencies (FBI and suchlike) securing the software in a multi-million dollar 'golden handcuffs' contract.

    Instead, when I look for headlines about this software, there's not much to see. A quick check of the doctors gleans similar results. Where they show up is in a circular link-fest to obscure sites and no news sites at all.

    Googling phrases about the stats, names and business names doesn't increase my confidence.

    I don't mean to offend AJB, it's not my style at all, however, I wonder why a company with such emphatic claims is approaching a UFO researcher? Without wishing to offend ufology, it's a niche market with little or no funding.

    They could hardly be expected to use the association with Roswell as a means of attracting investment.

    Although my education in psychology was abortive (quit during 2nd year of BSc), lecturers tended to refer to Freud in historical terms. He wasn't taken seriously. As such, my experience leads me to be dubious of 'algorithms' based on the 'Freudian Slip.'

    I could be jumping the gun, but these are my first impressions of AJB's article and are open to correction.

    By Blogger Kandinsky, at Wednesday, December 14, 2011  

  • Hi Kadinsky-

    No offense taken. Simply Google Chadramouli “Stevens Institute” to see over 8,600 search results on him. His bio is also on the Stevens site as well as on LinkedIn. Similarly, Google Subbalakshmi “Stevens Institute” for over 3,500 citations on him on the Net.

    Perhaps you misspelled their last names? Or confused them with others of the same surname?

    And they by no means ever contacted me! I want to make that abundantly clear. I simply introduced myself to Raj (actually Rajarathnam) by email. That is all!

    Anthony Bragalia

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Wednesday, December 14, 2011  

  • I have a very simple sentence that I would like the test to analyze:

    "This statement is false."

    By Blogger Parakletos, at Thursday, December 15, 2011  

  • Somehow I can't help but feel that if we could utilize just one more psuedoscience that we would really be cooking with gas!


    By Blogger Lance, at Thursday, December 15, 2011  

  • Greetings,

    No offense, but if this team of researchers really have scientificaly validated a tool/test obtaining a 86%-99% rate of success in lie detection, that's a REVOLUTION for psychology and criminoly! Sarcasms inside, sorry, but frankly.

    And this, only by "text and words" analysis/inputs and/or regarding some Freudian notions? Haheeem...

    Seriously, I never heard of them in my modest experience as psychologist and psychometrician. But well, why not. I'm open mind!

    So Tony, do you have please an academical reference to point/argue with? I mean a mainstream AND peer-reviewed psychological or criminological article, review or journal please, where the team have presented this tool/test?
    Just to humblely and honnestly see how this tool/test have a predictive validity, a reliability, a construct validity, etc. as we have as "standards" in psychometry or in the academic psychological/criminological test/tool area of investigations in the University.

    To be honnest, it sounds like than such fast and rapid tools used in business/assurance areaes, having in reality no one real robust validities as we mean/measure in psychometry/psychology/criminology...


    PS: You ignore all of me. So, do you want to test me and this tool regarding a sample of your questions/ my statments, ie. ?

    Gilles Fernandez.

    By Blogger Gilles. F., at Thursday, December 15, 2011  

  • Over at Tony's site, in a comment, Tony makes the following claim:

    "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."

    That is Pennebaker as seen through the bizarro world of Tony Bragalia. Hilariously, 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"

    Such a sad circus we have here.


    Here is a link for my source:


    By Blogger Lance, at Thursday, December 15, 2011  

  • Gilles and Lance:

    I like Tony's posting as it resuscitates, or tries to, the great Sigmund Freud, whom I still find relevant: human beings are cursed with sexual proclivities that they try to hide or use, often badly (as in rapes and power struggles).

    That Freudian slips might be the underpinnings of a "lie detection" methodology is peachy with me.

    Also, catching lies at something near 70 percent is not a bad thing either....somewhat iffy when it comes to criminal accusations, but for ufology it's fine with me.

    It's goofy on top of goofy.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Thursday, December 15, 2011  

  • Lance-

    Your mean-spirited comment left on my blog shows that you are in a sour mood (again) despite the holiday season.

    I am rather certain that in Pennebaker's 400 page tome "The Secret Life of Pronouns" he alludes to 70%-75%.

    But to denigrate me for trying to explain to CDA that many question the Stevens scientists work (which is what I was trying to do) by 'calling me out' on this 5% variance is just plain rude.

    Chill, Lance. And Happy Holidays.

    Anthony Bragalia

    By Blogger Anthony Bragalia, at Thursday, December 15, 2011  

  • @Tony,

    You really don't get it do you.

    This isn't about a 5% difference (by the way, Tony mentions a success rate of 86%-99% so it's really a 16-29% difference!)

    This is about Pennebaker saying that that the claim itself is bullshit and that he wouldn't believe any such claim. AND he was referring DIRECTLY to the software in question.


    By Blogger Lance, at Thursday, December 15, 2011  

  • OMG : I have tested several more 50 words statements/extracts in the on-line software and I'm obtaining the "normal" status" : An example ? Trie it Tony ;)
    I'm married with Ursulla Andress. My mother have been abducted. It was in 1947, at Roswell. She saw extraterrestrial bodies and memory-form strange materials. She signed an affidavit, but it have been ignored by the Roswell dream team investigators. Despite I'm the only witness still alive regarding this strange event, none investigator have interviewed me. That's a shame.
    I must say that all I wrote here is the true and I'm not testing this tool.
    Jean Valjean"

    Thats an awesome tool for the ufology... No comments, or ?

    Gilles Fernandez

    By Blogger Gilles. F., at Thursday, December 15, 2011  

  • This comment has been removed by the author.

    By Blogger Paul Kimball, at Thursday, December 15, 2011  

  • Oops... Marcel, Sr. Sigh... I should read these things a bit more closely.

    Having said that, everything I said re: Junior applies to Senior. I've never really doubted that the essence of his story was true, so the "lie detector" doesn't mean anything to me. It's still just fluff, designed to keep the story spinning.


    By Blogger Paul Kimball, at Thursday, December 15, 2011  

  • My only comment to Gilles' excellent post is to please ask him to stay away from my wife, Ursula!


    By Blogger Lance, at Thursday, December 15, 2011  

  • I think there is an important factor here that many are missing: even if Marcel was (A) telling the truth; or (B) telling the truth as he recalled it, it doesn't in any way help us to resolve Roswell.

    It doesn't matter who comes forward, or how credible they are, because 64 years later, testimony (even very credible testimony) doesn't resolve the mystery.

    If there is a big secret behind Roswell (which I believe there is - but whether ET or not is debatable), then we surely need to get away from studying every nuance of every witness, and find a way to take things to the next level, if there is a next level.

    By this, I mean we have analyzed, and re-analyzed, and again-analyzed just about everything of a Roswell nature - who said what; the time-line; whether or not a Mogul balloon could have made the debris field; the list goes on and on and on.

    Aside from noting he's not a liar, in my view there's no point trying to interpret Marcel's words any more. Same with Easley - he told Kevin Randle some interesting things, which - with him dead - we can debate on, but which at the end of the day will resolve nothing.

    If there is a Roswell cover-up, it's time to move on from the testimony and endless debates about endless theories, and instead find a way to penetrate the wall of secrecy and expose it.

    Witness testimony is vital, but in an old case it can never PROVE anything. The focus now should be on finding where that proof is, if it exists, and finding a way to getting it into the public domain.

    That's the only way Roswell will progress from the testimony/theories/debate stage we are stuck in now.

    By Blogger Nick Redfern, at Friday, December 16, 2011  

  • Nick:

    Your position on Roswell is exactly the same as mine, and I think Paul Kimball's (among others).

    The Roswell "crash" (or whatever it was) can't be proven by testimony or extraneous data.

    There has to be another approach.

    What that approach may be is beyond me, but UFO buffs have got to come up with a way to get at the event that clarifies exactly what happened.

    Dancing with what has been culled over the years produces nothing substantive; never has, never will.

    That said, Bragalia's research, like yours, and Randles. et al. adds to the Roswell mythology, which, in itself, is interesting as a sociological matter.

    (I think Kimball feels the same way.)

    What Roswell has become goes beyond the essence of the incident.

    It's now a part of a mythos, which is extremely interesting to psychologists, fictionalists, and other human disciplines.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Friday, December 16, 2011  

  • My approach would be to face the fact that we have pretty much exhausted what the 1947 witnesses can tell us, and now - instead - pursue every post-47 lead.

    But, even that may just result in more testimony, but nothing solid.

    Really, there's only one way to fully resolve it - we need to find where the bodies and material are stored (if it even exists of course!), and access it.

    But, how that could be done, I have no idea.

    By Blogger Nick Redfern, at Friday, December 16, 2011  

  • Well, Nick, I have to say that Bragalia is closing in on, with his usual dogged research, some solid leads as to the bodies and debris.

    I'm not one to go for the "solution" scenarios of others, but I really do think Tony is on to something -- something concrete and final.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Friday, December 16, 2011  

  • That would be excellent if it happens. Ideally, it would lead to us being able to acces something physical, rather than something along the lines of someone just telling us where the material is held today.

    Don't get me wrong, as i think what Tony is doing is very valauble, but even if we get info on the current whereabouts of the Roswell "stuff" then just testimony will not be enough.

    We have to get beyond just replacing 1947 witness words with 2012 witness words.

    Maybe that can be done. But, from a legal perspective how do we penetrate the inner sanctum? I just dont know.

    By Blogger Nick Redfern, at Friday, December 16, 2011  

  • Hi Nick and Rich-

    I would be the first one to admit that witness testimony is (in and of itself) simply "words."

    I would also agree (and I made this point w/ Steve Sawyer on my blog) that witnesses relate what they believe to be the truth- not what is necessarily "the truth." It is indeed an important distinction.

    It is evident in both the filmed interview/s of Marcel and in the application of this technology that he is telling the truth as he believes it to be. And he said it was not of earth. Truth is found in simplicity. And this simple man is simply telling the truth. Intuition always told me this (I interview people for a living) but now science may as well.

    May I suggest that you read "The Witnesses to Roswell: Testimony and Truth" archived on this site (September 12, 2010) where I go in to some real detail about the value of testimony and its help to us in determining truth?

    Rich and I have had long dialogues about the inherent issues of "testimony." Rich (correct me if I am wrong) does not ascribe much to what people "say." He wants more. He does not like to base his beliefs on anything based solely on say-so. I, on the other hand, am a bit more optimistic. I believe that most people are good people and tell the truth as best as they can as often as they can. When a loved one says, "I love you" I do not need any other support for that. Others do.

    This "testimony and truth" issue is a much larger one than can be addressed here...

    That said, I have completed now the analysis of over 4,000 words that Jesse Marcel has uttered about the event- and there is simply no sign of deception whatsoever. On the other hand (you are reading this here first) I have now completed the analysis of hundred of words uttered by Sheridan Cavitt (also at the site w/ Marcel.) Cavitt exhibits deception at extremely high levels on several key points about his involvement in the event.

    And Rich makes the point that I am assembling other forms of evidence to finally prove the ET case. Though I believe that I have done a fairly decent job over the years in 1)uncovering and vetting credible Roswell testimony 2) establishing scientific "paper trails" on the memory metal and 3)"connecting the dots" of circumstantial evidence- what is still lacking is physical evidence.

    Though credible testimony, paper trails and circumstantial evidence are certainly supportive- they are not "tangible."

    Providing the "tangible" and "physical" is the type of evidence that we all seek- and that I may have found.

    Anthony Bragalia

    By Blogger Anthony Bragalia, at Friday, December 16, 2011  

  • Also, catching lies at something near 70 percent is not a bad thing either....somewhat iffy when it comes to criminal accusations, but for ufology it's fine with me.

    It's better than the odds in blackjack! Except when it's not.

    There are some people for whom such tests will simply not work. If someone knows enough about Freud, might that not skew any 'Freudian-based Test' as applied to that someone?

    And may God help you if you know quite a bit about all such 'tests'...

    By Blogger Parakletos, at Friday, December 16, 2011  

  • Maybe that can be done. But, from a legal perspective how do we penetrate the inner sanctum? I just dont know.


    Even if we can't figure out which one is Thomas, we can agree that we need the red girdle...

    By Blogger Parakletos, at Friday, December 16, 2011  

  • When a loved one says, "I love you" I do not need any other support for that. Others do.

    Is that a fair example, though? If you presume the love, aren't you also presuming a pre-existing relationship in which data was being collected as to 'truthfulness'?

    I know that my mother loves me, for example. But I also know that she'd tell me that 'everything is alright, you're going to be fine' if she knew I was about to die.

    Or are those not really lies?

    By Blogger Parakletos, at Friday, December 16, 2011  

  • Tony

    If it turns out you have indeed found it, or on the way to, that's very cool. I'm presuming you're limited in what you can say on this.

    But are you saying that you have it on good authority (testimony) as to where it is? Or that it will be accessible to us?

    Either is a step forward (the latter a big step!), but if its found in terms of someone saying where it, rather than us having access to it, is that any different to where we are now?

    Regardless, it will be interesting to see these new developments when they surface!

    By Blogger Nick Redfern, at Friday, December 16, 2011  

  • It will be interesting indeed to see what Tony Bragalia turns up in the way of hard evidence, and by this I mean hard evidence that is acceptable to science, not just to
    ETHers among the UFO fraternity.

    There are many scientists, I conjecture, who would give 5 years of their lives to get a glimpse of, or to actually handle, a true alien body or the remains of an alien craft.

    So why does Tony have to resort to hints and little scerets? The reason, I opine, is that he is in reality dubious of his discovery or potential discovery.

    Yes, I know these discoveries take time to be verified and proved. This particular one (if it is valid) has so far taken a mere 64 years! So I am not, as they say, holding my breath.

    By Blogger cda, at Saturday, December 17, 2011  

  • CDA-


    "Yes, I know these discoveries take time to be verified and proved."


    By Blogger Anthony Bragalia, at Saturday, December 17, 2011  

Post a Comment

<< Home