A case for FACS

[boomerang]

UFO researchers naturally spend a lot of time offering opinions regarding the sincerity and veracity of witnesses of UFO related events. Many such opinions are offered up after viewing witness testimony on video only.

I've suggested this here before here and received mostly negative feedback. But here goes again.

I sincerely believe current scientific methods of analyzing speech patterns and body language, such as the Facial Action Coding System,

Psychological sleuths--Detecting deception

This is not voodoo or a crowd of peasants with lanterns and pitchforks.

This has a degree of proven validity. Like the lie detector test, such methods are hardly infallible. But they are shown to be more accurate than subjective opinions by untrained individuals.

The drawback most cited here previously: Using these methods to render judgement regarding the testimony of living witnesses is guaranteed to stir up lots of "stuff". No one likes being called a liar. But there is an alternative.

How about having trained experts in video analysis view and rate testimony of those now deceased? This could apply to both witnesses and to public officials commenting on well known cases. Everyone wants to bring the application of scientific methodology to the study of UFO's. This might be a way.

 

[DaveM]

Who exactly is going to pay for trained video analysis?

 

[boomerang]

Who exactly is going to pay for trained video analysis?

That's a good question. I suspect the better analysts work for federal or state law enforcement and their services for moonlighting would no doubt be priced accordingly.

A grant perhaps?

 

[Christopher O'Brien]

How about having trained experts in video analysis view and rate testimony of those now deceased? This could apply to both witnesses and to public officials commenting on well known cases. Everyone wants to bring the application of scientific methodology to the study of UFO's. This might be a way.

Good idea. Nothing wrong w/ becoming proficient w/ the tools in the kit and applying their use to ascertain the veracity of witnesses and the quality of their evidence.

 

[DaveM]

That's a good question. I suspect the better analysts work for federal or state law enforcement and their services for moonlighting would no doubt be priced accordingly.

A grant perhaps?

Again, a government grant to pay for analysis in deciding if someone is telling the truth about witnessing UFOs sightings? I don't see that happening.

 

[AlienEsq]

How about having trained experts in video analysis view and rate testimony of those now deceased? This could apply to both witnesses and to public officials commenting on well known cases. Everyone wants to bring the application of scientific methodology to the study of UFO's. This might be a way.

This may be a valid tool used in analyzing testimony; however, a ufologist's best tool is his toolbox. I don't believe it's wise to narrow your research down to any one avenue, even if this technique would prove helpful.

Also, I personally would hate to have to wait for someone to die in order to verify the accuracy of their story.

 

[boomerang]

This may be a valid tool used in analyzing testimony; however, a ufologist's best tool is his toolbox. I don't believe it's wise to narrow your research down to any one avenue, even if this technique would prove helpful.

Also, I personally would hate to have to wait for someone to die in order to verify the accuracy of their story.

My answer would be: What scientific tools have we so far that have gotten us much if any closer to this mystery? Very few. Nor am I suggesting this as a sole avenue of inquiry. With the exception of scant trace evidence and documentation that has a frustrating way of becoming 'misplaced' over time, the only lasting evidence left to us by the UFO phenomenon has been the witness himself of herself.

We now have collected, over the decades, a substantial backlog of video accounts and official claims regarding those accounts, by those who have since passed on. Many of these are in the category of so called "best cases" . There is plenty to analyze.

Assume, for the sake of argument, that such truth assessment techniques have been proven to yield a relatively high rate of accuracy. Then imagine analyzing (let's say) 100 on camera accounts. One would think that if even half of such witnesses were indicated to be truthfully relating high strangeness incidents as they perceived them, this should make someone in the scientific community sit up and take notice. Even if those so intrigued are psychologists or neurobiologists rather than physicists or cosmologists.

 

[tha_soda_punk]

UFO researchers naturally spend a lot of time offering opinions regarding the sincerity and veracity of witnesses of UFO related events. Many such opinions are offered up after viewing witness testimony on video only.

I've suggested this here before here and received mostly negative feedback. But here goes again.

I sincerely believe current scientific methods of analyzing speech patterns and body language, such as the Facial Action Coding System,

Psychological sleuths--Detecting deception

This is not voodoo or a crowd of peasants with lanterns and pitchforks.

This has a degree of proven validity. Like the lie detector test, such methods are hardly infallible. But they are shown to be more accurate than subjective opinions by untrained individuals.

The drawback most cited here previously: Using these methods to render judgement regarding the testimony of living witnesses is guaranteed to stir up lots of "stuff". No one likes being called a liar. But there is an alternative.

How about having trained experts in video analysis view and rate testimony of those now deceased? This could apply to both witnesses and to public officials commenting on well known cases. Everyone wants to bring the application of scientific methodology to the study of UFO's. This might be a way.

I agree, there can be a number of different tests (like this) that can be conducted in order to at least break down the so-called evidence being presented. The one big problem with this is going to be the lack of "physical evidence" that would be needed to convince most hardcore researchers.

At this point, I feel it would bring my frustration down a little when I hear the wild stories from experiencers and witnesses like Phil Schneider, Simon Parkes, and Charles Hall, to only name a few, get a good video analysis done.

I say lets encourage an expert to donate his time and present the analysis. But then again, we would probably just get another conspiracy to muddy the water.

 

[smcder]

UFO researchers naturally spend a lot of time offering opinions regarding the sincerity and veracity of witnesses of UFO related events. Many such opinions are offered up after viewing witness testimony on video only.

I've suggested this here before here and received mostly negative feedback. But here goes again.

I sincerely believe current scientific methods of analyzing speech patterns and body language, such as the Facial Action Coding System,

Psychological sleuths--Detecting deception

This is not voodoo or a crowd of peasants with lanterns and pitchforks.

This has a degree of proven validity. Like the lie detector test, such methods are hardly infallible. But they are shown to be more accurate than subjective opinions by untrained individuals.

The drawback most cited here previously: Using these methods to render judgement regarding the testimony of living witnesses is guaranteed to stir up lots of "stuff". No one likes being called a liar. But there is an alternative.

How about having trained experts in video analysis view and rate testimony of those now deceased? This could apply to both witnesses and to public officials commenting on well known cases. Everyone wants to bring the application of scientific methodology to the study of UFO's. This might be a way.

I don' think this has been mentioned:

FACS and METT don't tell you someone is lying, you have to correlate a particular emotion to deception, right?

Of course, there is a huge danger in parsing complex distinctions and emotions into simple facial expressions. Eyebrows might rise and knit together when a subject talks about a particular convenience store, for example, but it may not be because the subject robbed the store. Perhaps the store was the site of another event — a first kiss, or a fight, for example — that triggered an emotional reaction. And that reaction — not lying — could light up a hot spot.

Same for METT:

Ekman, through close study, learned that "micro-expressions" lasting less than one-fifth of a second may leak emotions someone wants to conceal, such as anger or guilt. At the same time, signs of emotion aren't necessarily signs of guilt. An innocent person may be apprehensive and appear guilty, Ekman points out.
He says, "You must use lying as a last interpretation and rule out everything else that's possible."

But in this case, the innocent person is dead.

The drawback most cited here previously: Using these methods to render judgement regarding the testimony of living witnesses is guaranteed to stir up lots of "stuff". No one likes being called a liar. But there is an alternative.
How about having trained experts in video analysis view and rate testimony of those now deceased?

Rendering judgment on the dead stirs up stuff too.

 

[smcder]

I was thinking of this too:

Ekman said he won't reveal all of the cues for METT because it would compromise the system and that's an instant problem for justice, criminal or otherwise and different from withholding (temporarily) a material piece of evidence or applying a technology such as a lie detector that is completely understood ... and as an investigator who hires an analyst, you will want to know why he says the subject is lying at this point on the video but it's a trade secret ... also, if I'm a UFO witness and someone does an analysis on me - I too will want to know exactly why you say I'm registering at a certain point, I'll want it on video, then we'll sit down together and you'll say, for a micro second there you expressed disgust when you talked about the corner drugstore which is contrary to what you should feel at that moment in your story (now maybe that's enough to just tell me the emotion, but I'll see the cues for myself on the video when we slow it down or stop it) and then I can explain oh, sure but the drugstore reminded me to get jellybeans for my wife when I leave here but I hate jellybeans myself ... and again, the deceased can't do this ... you don't know what they were thinking when they told their story on video and maybe for the 100th time ...

 

[boomerang]

I don' think this has been mentioned:

FACS and METT don't tell you someone is lying, you have to correlate a particular emotion to deception, right?

Of course, there is a huge danger in parsing complex distinctions and emotions into simple facial expressions. Eyebrows might rise and knit together when a subject talks about a particular convenience store, for example, but it may not be because the subject robbed the store. Perhaps the store was the site of another event — a first kiss, or a fight, for example — that triggered an emotional reaction. And that reaction — not lying — could light up a hot spot.

Same for METT:

Ekman, through close study, learned that "micro-expressions" lasting less than one-fifth of a second may leak emotions someone wants to conceal, such as anger or guilt. At the same time, signs of emotion aren't necessarily signs of guilt. An innocent person may be apprehensive and appear guilty, Ekman points out.
He says, "You must use lying as a last interpretation and rule out everything else that's possible."

But in this case, the innocent person is dead.

The drawback most cited here previously: Using these methods to render judgement regarding the testimony of living witnesses is guaranteed to stir up lots of "stuff". No one likes being called a liar. But there is an alternative.
How about having trained experts in video analysis view and rate testimony of those now deceased?

Rendering judgment on the dead stirs up stuff too.

The case for utilizing these methods is certainly contingent on how reliable they have been shown to be. And here I would defer to agencies of intel and law enforcement. In other words: I really don't know. One would expect any physiological measure of veracity to be less than 100 percent accurate. The question (to my mind anyway) is whether the degree of accuracy demonstrated justifies this technology as a useful tool--or not.

It's my understanding that (micro)expressions assessed with FACS and METT must be skillfully correlated in context of the subject's narrative. If for example, we parse out an especially poignant sentence in the witness dialogue such as "The thing was glowing green and the size of an aircraft carrier and I had to bank sharply to avoid it", one would think (intuitively anyway) that physiological responses presented during such an utterance should be specifically meaningful. To further your example, one sees convenience stores on an almost daily basis. Not so with huge glowing objects buzzing aircraft.

But--this is where I think we are reliant on whoever may have done well structured research. I hadn't read that some of the "tools" used are proprietary secrets, and this is on the negative side of the ledger.

As far as offending anyone with an evaluation of untruthful testimony, I see nothing wrong with mildly ruffling a few feathers. As long as we are respectfully up front about the purpose and accuracy of our methods. And Oh Yeah---I could foresee a kind of viral "witch hunt" happening by malicious intent with this stuff. It's not hard to imagine a popular version of this analogous to those ghost-taunting bozos filmed holding EMF meters in the dark so popular on TV.

Legal ramifications? Another valid reservation. But, as we know all too well, UFO witnesses and research groups are rarely taken all that seriously anyway.

All again, assuming these techniques can be shown as valid tools.

 

[smcder]

The case for utilizing these methods is certainly contingent on how reliable they have been shown to be. And here I would defer to agencies of intel and law enforcement. In other words: I really don't know. One would expect any physiological measure of veracity to be less than 100 percent accurate. The question (to my mind anyway) is whether the degree of accuracy demonstrated justifies this technology as a useful tool--or not.

It's my understanding that (micro)expressions assessed with FACS and METT must be skillfully correlated in context of the subject's narrative. If for example, we parse out an especially poignant sentence in the witness dialogue such as "The thing was glowing green and the size of an aircraft carrier and I had to bank sharply to avoid it", one would think (intuitively anyway) that physiological responses presented during such an utterance should be specifically meaningful. To further your example, one sees convenience stores on an almost daily basis. Not so with huge glowing objects buzzing aircraft.

But--this is where I think we are reliant on whoever may have done well structured research. I hadn't read that some of the "tools" used are proprietary secrets, and this is on the negative side of the ledger.

As far as offending anyone with an evaluation of untruthful testimony, I see nothing wrong with mildly ruffling a few feathers. As long as we are respectfully up front about the purpose and accuracy of our methods. And Oh Yeah---I could foresee a kind of viral "witch hunt" happening by malicious intent with this stuff. It's not hard to imagine a popular version of this analogous to those ghost-taunting bozos filmed holding EMF meters in the dark so popular on TV.

Legal ramifications? Another valid reservation. But, as we know all too well, UFO witnesses and research groups are rarely taken all that seriously anyway.

All again, assuming these techniques can be shown as valid tools.

It's my understanding that (micro)expressions assessed with FACS and METT must be skillfully correlated in context of the subject's narrative. If for example, we parse out an especially poignant sentence in the witness dialogue such as "The thing was glowing green and the size of an aircraft carrier and I had to bank sharply to avoid it", one would think (intuitively anyway) that physiological responses presented during such an utterance should be specifically meaningful. To further your example, one sees convenience stores on an almost daily basis. Not so with huge glowing objects buzzing aircraft.

That's a good point - but I think my argument might still apply ... again, a micro-expression might capture (I don't know) but it might capture an instantaneous irrelevant thought - I'm sure you've been in extremely stressful situations and had irrelevant thoughts pop-up ... funerals are a great example, getting the giggles perversely or some other bizarre thought (or maybe it is just me!) and if it's the 100th time the person gave testimony or even the fifth (by the time it was video-taped) then this is more and more likely ... and again, the individual is deceased so we can't sit down and ask them what was going through their mind (that too is problematic, right?)

Here's the thing, I did a year in law school (before escaping) and this is just scratching the surface of what would happen (and I'm sure has in a court room) I imagine lots and lots of this stuff gets thrown out of court for any kind of flawed application ... and I think that's as much a problem here even if UFO witnesses aren't taken seriously - they do take their reputations seriously and those that have the means can seek legal redress for perceived or real harm.

But, I do think it's an interesting idea (especially looking back at video of the deceased - just have to get around the specific problem above) and none of these objections are fatal, I don't think - if as you say the tools are valid and folks are aware of the pitfalls.

 

[Constance]

With the exception of scant trace evidence and documentation that has a frustrating way of becoming 'misplaced' over time, the only lasting evidence left to us by the UFO phenomenon has been the witness himself or herself.

A well-crafted sentence but, based on my reading of ufo history and research, an unsupportable claim.

 

[boomerang]

A well-crafted sentence but, based on my reading of ufo history and research, an unsupportable claim.

Constance, Are you referring to the possibility of evidence withheld from the public by covert insiders, or what is known to be in the pubic domain? The best hard evidence that comes to mind and might be in the pubic domain would be recordings of UFOs on radar, such as the object tracked during the well known Japan Airlines incident over Alaska. Although I don't know what is available or how it might be accessed.

 

[Constance]

Constance, Are you referring to the possibility of evidence withheld from the public by covert insiders, or what is known to be in the pubic domain? The best hard evidence that comes to mind and might be in the pubic domain would be recordings of UFOs on radar, such as the object tracked during the well known Japan Airlines incident over Alaska. Although I don't know what is available or how it might be accessed.

I'm referring to both of those categories of 'information' we have to work with. The 'truth embargo' has been very leaky because of accidental disclosures and intentional leaks by military witnesses at all levels in many countries, and also because of information shared among scientists involved in black programs with scientific colleagues working outside of those programs -- for example Bernard Haisch (see his ufoskeptic website) and Edgar Mitchell. As major ufo researchers have observed, and I agree, the evidence of the 65-year governmental coverup of ufo encounters and events in the US and other countries is in itself evidence of the reality of many ufos recognized as very high technology that is "not ours" and thus taken very seriously by governments and militaries around the planet. The case for ufo reality has been built through the contributions made by a great many ufo researchers over these last six decades and rests on many types of evidence and their coherence -- not just in details but in what can be reasoned from the publicly available databases gathering those details.

I think that waiting for comprehensive disclosure from the US government in particular is futile (as futile as waiting for Walter Chronkite (sp?) to be straight with the public about what he knew concerning the US war in Vietnam, and indeed about ufo sightings he himself witnessed during atomic and nuclear tests in this country and elsewhere in the 60s and 70s.) Uncle Walter had the gall to say at the conclusion of his news broadcasts for many years: "And that's the way it is. Tune in tomorrow for more news of the world." When I realized how little he was telling us, I stopped listening to the mass media in the US.

 

[Constance]

. . .The best hard evidence that comes to mind and might be in the pubic domain would be recordings of UFOs on radar, such as the object tracked during the well known Japan Airlines incident over Alaska. Although I don't know what is available or how it might be accessed.

A great deal of information is available even in the public domain concerning the JAL event, including the disclosure by an FAA administrator, John Callahan, of the high-level effort to cover it up. If you haven't heard his testimony, you can link to it here, about half-way down this page linking to 'best evidence' videos on the ufo subject.

http://www.hyper.net/ufo/video-documentaries.html

This website, which covers a broad spectrum of ufo research and evidence, probably also has links in one of its other sections to written compilations concerning the JAL event.

 

[boomerang]

I'm referring to both of those categories of 'information' we have to work with. The 'truth embargo' has been very leaky because of accidental disclosures and intentional leaks by military witnesses at all levels in many countries, and also because of information shared among scientists involved in black programs with scientific colleagues working outside of those programs -- for example Bernard Haisch (see his ufoskeptic website) and Edgar Mitchell. As major ufo researchers have observed, and I agree, the evidence of the 65-year governmental coverup of ufo encounters and events in the US and other countries is in itself evidence of the reality of many ufos recognized as very high technology that is "not ours" and thus taken very seriously by governments and militaries around the planet. The case for ufo reality has been built through the contributions made by a great many ufo researchers over these last six decades and rests on many types of evidence and their coherence -- not just in details but in what can be reasoned from the publicly available databases gathering those details.

I think that waiting for comprehensive disclosure from the US government in particular is futile (as futile as waiting for Walter Chronkite (sp?) to be straight with the public about what he knew concerning the US war in Vietnam, and indeed about ufo sightings he himself witnessed during atomic and nuclear tests in this country and elsewhere in the 60s and 70s.) Uncle Walter had the gall to say at the conclusion of his news broadcasts for many years: "And that's the way it is. Tune in tomorrow for more news of the world." When I realized how little he was telling us, I stopped listening to the mass media in the US.

I guess I am confining this part of my argument to "hard evidence" as defined by something physically tangible, available to any member of the public and, ideally, having its own chain of custody as verified by credible individuals or agencies who may have obtained or handled it. Indeed some such does exist. Outside of that, we are again in the arena of psychology, politics and sociology. Regardless of how solid our witnesses may be. And so many are. And yes--I agree there has been a very fishy odor surrounding our governmental and civilian leadership re this and other topics of major import.

I happened to run across a shockingly frank evaluation of our "free press" and elected government as something of a Potemkin village in an interview of former CIA analyst, turned whistle blower, Ray McGovern on the website "London Real". Very enlightening.

 

[Constance]

I guess I am confining this part of my argument to "hard evidence" as defined by something physically tangible, available to any member of the public and, ideally, having its own chain of custody as verified by credible individuals or agencies who may have obtained or handled it. Indeed some such does exist. Outside of that, we are again in the arena of psychology, politics and sociology.

Looks like we'll have to agree to disagree. But if I felt compelled to that conclusion, I wouldn't waste another minute of my time on this subject. I don't think there are grounds for feeling compelled to that conclusion. If there are, if someone has argued the case for it persuasively, would you link me to that source?

 

[boomerang]

Looks like we'll have to agree to disagree. But if I felt compelled to that conclusion, I wouldn't waste another minute of my time on this subject. I don't think there are grounds for feeling compelled to that conclusion. If there are, if someone has argued the case for it persuasively, would you link me to that source?

Constance--Help me out on this one. Are your views based on the assumption that physical evidence is sequestered away somewhere by a small group of insiders ? I'm not sure where else we might look.

 

[Constance]

In my opinion there is evidence enough of the physical-material reality of some ufos (and of their technological advancement) in the radar data, the ground trace evidence (e.g., anomalous effects in soil and plants, the indicated weight of some ufos that have bent railroad ties), the observed and measured velocities and gravity-defying maneuvres of many ufos, the demonstrated ability of some ufos to remotely disengage the electronics of military aircraft in their vicinity, to turn off their missile systems, the many cases of SAC missile shut-downs in the presence of ufos, and the eyewitness reports of 3-4,000 pilots (mostly military but also civilians) describing purposeful behavior of ufos during interactions with them. In addition there are the reports by physicists (made to Haisch and Mitchell) of back-engineering of crashed ufos they have worked on/are working on in black projects of the US military-industrial complex, and recent public remarks by several people high up in civilian aerospace corporations divulging their knowledge and implementation of such back-engineering. Besides which we have 65 years of investigative reports of sightings and landings around the world that correspond in major details. The recent theory discussed here by several Paracast guests and listeners proposing that all of the above can be explained as a massive ufo delusion perpetrated on the public [and indeed the militaries of the world] since the 1940s for some never-identified purpose strikes me as impossible and thus as absurd. Yes, there are 'insiders' but they do not have the power to mislead half or more of the planet with a 'meme'.