UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2007 > Jul > Jul 25

Re: Leaked 'Top Secret' UFO Documents Frauds

From: David Rudiak <drudiak.nul>
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 19:01:32 -0700
Archived: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 12:42:19 -0400
Subject: Re: Leaked 'Top Secret' UFO Documents Frauds

>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

>The documents were tested by Dr. Carol Chaski of Georgetown, DE,
>who was hired by Dr. Michael Heiser, a biblical scholar with an
>interest in the UFO phenomenon. Dr. Chaski is a leading expert
>in the linguistic science of authorship attribution, a
>discipline that uses computers to extract and define stylistic
>patterns in a given author's writings - a 'linguistic
>fingerprint'. Dr. Chaski pioneered her own computational
>document authentication software program, ALIAS, for such
>testing, and is currently the president of ALIAS Technology,
>LLC. Among the stylistic patterns detected by Dr. Chaski's
>specially-developed computer program are patterns in sentence
>structure, word order in parts of speech and use of

>A total of 17 documents were tested, allegedly written by nine
>different authors. Dr. Heiser typed the prose text of the
>disputed Majestic Documents and a set of undisputed control
>documents for each author for Dr. Chaski's testing. Of the 17
>documents tested, only one can be scientifically validated as
>having been written by the author who is named. Dr. Heiser's
>assessment: "Anyone basing any claims of alien existence or an
>alien crash at Roswell on these documents would be foolish to
>do so; they just don't stand up to cutting edge scientific

>A complete copy of the report on the testing procedures and
>results can be obtained at:


This is also being discussed over on one of the Above Top Secret


The same points are being made there as I'm making here plus a
few others.

Something written by somebody's secretary and then signed by the
boss would test "fraudulent" even if the document were
completely real.

How reliable is the linguistic testing? Bureaucratic style is
much more constrained and won't be the same as somebody's normal
writing style. Is the testing program capable of discerning
somebody's style in such different situations?

The computer code doing the linguistic analysis is proprietory,
by a for-profit company, and not subject to independent testing.
What assumptions are being made in doing the analysis? Different
linguistic software have different results depending on these
underlying assumptions and methods of analysis. Just because a
computer spits out a result doesn't necessarily make it
reliable. (An example is given how computers also cast very
authoritative looking astrological charts.)

Linguistic testing is far from absolute. It can give you some
idea whether a document was written _personally_ by somebody,
but can't prove one way or another whether it is actually
fraudulent, as Heiser seems to be claiming.

Heiser is badly overreaching on his conclusions.

David Rudiak

Listen to 'Strange Days... Indeed' - The PodCast



[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |

UFO UpDates Main Index

UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp

Archive programming by Glenn Campbell at Glenn-Campbell.com