• NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

Leaked 'Top Secret' MJ12 Government UFO Documents Proven Frauds

Forums New posts

Free episodes:

Miah

Miah

Skilled Investigator
Leaked 'Top Secret' Government UFO Documents Proven Frauds

"Long thought to be the "smoking gun" of UFO and conspiracy theorists -- top secret documents alleged to have been written by high ranking government and military officials, including three U.S. presidents, and leaked to the public in the early 1980s, have now been proven fraudulent by forensic linguistic testing."

I wonder what Stanton Friedman thinks of this.
 
Miah said:
Leaked 'Top Secret' Government UFO Documents Proven Frauds

"Long thought to be the "smoking gun" of UFO and conspiracy theorists -- top secret documents alleged to have been written by high ranking government and military officials, including three U.S. presidents, and leaked to the public in the early 1980s, have now been proven fraudulent by forensic linguistic testing."

I wonder what Stanton Friedman thinks of this.
Click to expand...

I think Stanton said on the show that he was convinced that the majority (no pun) of the documents were fraudulent, but that two or three of them might be authentic.

Hang on a minute - the article says that only 1 of 17 documents appears to be written by the author it's accredited to. So at least one of the documents appears to be genuine, using that method.

Oh and you *have to pay* to see the final analysis....what a surprise. And guess what, there's also a book being promoted...
 
Don't take this linguistic analysis as definitive. First, you have to pay to see it. That's not peer reviewed science; these guys want dollars. That makes it suspect right there. Secondly, you need to see just what 'linguistic analysis' is and how valid the conclusions are. Just because the analysis uses a computer doesn't mean it's valid. In fact, using a computer constrains the study. Third, you've got a bunch of memos written in governmentese, which is a strict idiolect that does not allow real expression and tends to make people sound alike. There's a thread here: Majestic Documents Proven Frauds, page 1 where I have made more extended comments. (I hope it's okay to post this in this manner. If not, my apologies in advance.
 
Seems like there is a link to the book "Facade". Reading the user comments in Amazon's reviews section, I'm not quite sure what to make of it.
Amazon.com: Customer Reviews: The Facade

Perhaps the author might be a potential future guest? BE interesting to hear his answers to some "tough" questions too.
 
Schuyler said:
Secondly, you need to see just what 'linguistic analysis' is and how valid the conclusions are. Just because the analysis uses a computer doesn't mean it's valid. In fact, using a computer constrains the study. Third, you've got a bunch of memos written in governmentese, which is a strict idiolect that does not allow real expression and tends to make people sound alike.
Click to expand...

Yep, I looked at linguistic analysis last year - it's all about interpretation of percentages and indexes. It's very hit and miss - it doesn't take into account the fact that people's writing styles can change over time. It can also be confused by the nature of the subject matter - people have different styles when writing about different subjects. For example, writing a love letter versus a letter to your bank manager (although, I do understand they could be the same thing :) ).

My point is, that it's not an exact science - a bit like climate models; lots and lots of tweakable variables means you can tune the algorithm until you get the answer that you were looking for and then present it as 'conclusive'.
 
Okay, there's more. The guy who is promoting this is also promoting the sale of his fiction book which first came out in 2004 and didn't sell well. He also believes that UFOs are satanic, and this is the subject of his book. His conclusions about the papers are sweeping and not shared by the person who actually did the analysis. The profit motive appears to be the biggest thing here. This debunker is himself debunked.
 
Schuyler said:
Okay, there's more. The guy who is promoting this is also promoting the sale of his fiction book which first came out in 2004 and didn't sell well. He also believes that UFOs are satanic, and this is the subject of his book. His conclusions about the papers are sweeping and not shared by the person who actually did the analysis. The profit motive appears to be the biggest thing here. This debunker is himself debunked.
Click to expand...

Where did you get this information? Can you post some links about this?
 
Rick Deckard said:
Oh and you *have to pay* to see the final analysis....what a surprise. And guess what, there's also a book being promoted...
Click to expand...

You have to pay because the person who payed for the study wants to raise money to have the rest of the documents tested. It's expensive.
 
Back
Top