Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: Deception Detection Through Statement Analysis: Astronaut Interviews

  1. #1
    Retired Member United States
    Join Date
    8th November 2015
    Posts
    1,264
    Thanks
    1,691
    Thanked 7,661 Times in 1,264 Posts

    Deception Detection Through Statement Analysis: Astronaut Interviews

    I think Richard Hall of Richplanet TV is a definite "go to" source for analysis of current events. Here he uses clips from interviews of astronauts who purportedly walked on the moon. The video transcripts were submitted to Peter Hyatt who is an expert in statement analysis. This field uses the way that subjects speak to explore how they are sharing information. There are specific patterns that reveal tension, distancing, defensive posture and other tells indicating truth versus falsehood.

    Peter Hyatt is a Statement Analyst and instructor who teaches statement analysis and analytical interviewing to law enforcement and corporate America. He has authored the investigator training manual for DHHS, State of Maine, as well as the book Wise As a Serpent; Gentle as a Dove. He has been interviewed extensively on radio and television, including ABC’s “20/20”, the nationally televised program, “Crime Watch Daily” and “Taken Too Soon: The Katelyn Markham Story” documentary.

    Mr. Hyatt leads an elite team of professional investigators from across the nation in solving both live and cold cases. He’s written the certification training program for investigators, HR professionals, psychologists, attorneys and other professionals from around the nation, the UK and Canada. He authored two training manuals in Statement Analysis, totally more than 700 pages of analysis, analytical interviewing, psychological profiling, and Anonymous Author Identification.http://www.hyattanalysis.com/about-hyatt-analysis/
    These videos are interesting in several ways..... I learned a lot.


    Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wfTapJhp_Qw



    Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qqrnRBEiKsY



    Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ZwMPFXwJLU
    Last edited by Maggie, 19th February 2018 at 17:19.

  2. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Maggie For This Useful Post:

    Aragorn (19th February 2018), Dreamtimer (20th February 2018), Dumpster Diver (20th February 2018), Elen (20th February 2018), Emil El Zapato (23rd February 2018), Juniper (21st February 2018)

  3. #2
    Administrator Aragorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    17th March 2015
    Location
    Middle-Earth
    Posts
    20,240
    Thanks
    88,437
    Thanked 80,968 Times in 20,254 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by Maggie View Post


    Okay, I've just watched 15 minutes of that first video, and I am absolutely convinced that this guy's analysis sucks big time, and that Richard Hall should be asking his money back from that guy.

    First of all, Armstrong is a scientist, and he speaks in terms of what is common scientific knowledge among himself and his colleagues at NASA. Therefore he will of course not testify in the same first-person manner as someone who has just witnessed a shooting.

    A shooting is an event, like an accident. Armstrong on the other hand is relaying scientific information of a much broader and documenting nature, and he's doing it exactly as a scientist would. I can perfectly relate to how he speaks, and I don't consider myself a liar, nor am I someone who would be guarding any government secrets.

    More disinformation from the talking heads, I'm afraid. Keeps the conspiracy-hungry "alternative community" happy. (I'm not talking of you here, Maggie. )
    = DEATH BEFORE DISHONOR =

  4. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Aragorn For This Useful Post:

    Dreamtimer (20th February 2018), Dumpster Diver (20th February 2018), Elen (20th February 2018), Emil El Zapato (23rd February 2018), Juniper (21st February 2018), Maggie (19th February 2018)

  5. #3
    Retired Member United States
    Join Date
    8th November 2015
    Posts
    1,264
    Thanks
    1,691
    Thanked 7,661 Times in 1,264 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by Aragorn View Post
    Okay, I've just watched 15 minutes of that first video, and I am absolutely convinced that this guy's analysis sucks big time, and that Richard Hall should ask his money back from that guy.

    First of all, Armstrong is a scientist, and he speaks in terms of what is common scientific knowledge among himself and his colleagues at NASA. Therefore he will of course not testify in the same first-person manner as someone who has just witnessed a shooting.

    A shooting is an event, like an accident. Armstrong on the other hand is relaying scientific information of a much broader and documenting nature, and he's doing it exactly as a scientist would. I can perfectly relate to how he speaks, and I don't consider myself a liar, nor am I someone who would be guarding any government secrets.

    More disinformation from the talking heads, I'm afraid. Keeps the conspiracy-hungry "alternative community" happy. (I'm not talking of you here, Maggie. )
    I hear what you are saying. Speech patterns may be "cultural" as in the science culture. It was pointed out for instance later that using "we" as contrasted to "I" could connote a team ethos and avoidance of "personal glory". It was a bit clear however in the choice of words that he distanced himself. So what you are saying is that we don't know "why" he was so detached.

  6. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Maggie For This Useful Post:

    Aragorn (19th February 2018), Dreamtimer (20th February 2018), Dumpster Diver (20th February 2018), Elen (20th February 2018), Emil El Zapato (19th February 2018), Juniper (21st February 2018)

  7. #4
    Administrator Aragorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    17th March 2015
    Location
    Middle-Earth
    Posts
    20,240
    Thanks
    88,437
    Thanked 80,968 Times in 20,254 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by Maggie View Post
    I hear what you are saying. Speech patterns may be "cultural" as in the science culture. It was pointed out for instance later that using "we" as contrasted to "I" could connote a team ethos and avoidance of "personal glory". It was a bit clear however in the choice of words that he distanced himself. So what you are saying is that we don't know "why" he was so detached.
    Well, I think I have an idea on why he was "detached", apart from his scientific background. The voyage to and short stay on the moon had made a profound impact on him, and seeing Earth from afar had humbled him. He wrote about it in his autobiography.
    = DEATH BEFORE DISHONOR =

  8. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Aragorn For This Useful Post:

    Dreamtimer (20th February 2018), Dumpster Diver (20th February 2018), Elen (20th February 2018), Emil El Zapato (23rd February 2018), Juniper (21st February 2018), Maggie (19th February 2018)

  9. #5
    Retired Member United States
    Join Date
    8th November 2015
    Posts
    1,264
    Thanks
    1,691
    Thanked 7,661 Times in 1,264 Posts
    I don't know much about statement analysis but from the little I have read, there is not a definitive science there. IMO it would be useful to approach what words people choose when asked open ended questions? IMO it would give a basic platform to investigate further and yes, I think it is telling. To make it the be all and end all would be misguided.

    One of the ways that some people speak that rubs me wrong is for a person to speak of himself or herself in THIRD person (saying he and she in self reference or saying "Maggie" rather than "I" for instance when speaking about me.) I read soemwhere that that may be a tip off of self aggrandizement? Not sure, but it just is grating IMO.

    I think there would be differences when people are speaking that are not attempts to be evasive or lie. Also there will be differences between when writing and speaking IMO. I already picked out discrepancies in philosophy by users of the "technique" of statement analysis, I think (HA to say think could mean something...hehe).

    One is that adding extraneous details was said to possibly indicate lying by Peter Hyatt. Yet according to Tony Lesce

    The reason is that the deceptive person is working from imagination, according to Sapir, and the truthful person is working from memory. In reality, there are many unimportant details that coexist with critical facts, and these often find their way into truthful narratives. The result is that a deceptive statement will be a "stripped-down" version, while the truthful statement also contains tangential or irrelevant information. http://www.lsiscan.com/id37.htm

  10. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Maggie For This Useful Post:

    Aragorn (19th February 2018), Dreamtimer (20th February 2018), Dumpster Diver (20th February 2018), Elen (20th February 2018), Emil El Zapato (23rd February 2018), Juniper (21st February 2018)

  11. #6
    Senior Member Emil El Zapato's Avatar
    Join Date
    3rd April 2017
    Location
    Earth I
    Posts
    12,191
    Thanks
    36,640
    Thanked 43,100 Times in 11,915 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by Maggie View Post
    I hear what you are saying. Speech patterns may be "cultural" as in the science culture. It was pointed out for instance later that using "we" as contrasted to "I" could connote a team ethos and avoidance of "personal glory". It was a bit clear however in the choice of words that he distanced himself. So what you are saying is that we don't know "why" he was so detached.
    Not to mention he had a nervous breakdown after returning. He was also under 'need to know' cpmstraints. Nasa was DOD in those days. He had to be very careful about what he said. Especially, he didn't want to trip over any references to the Zeta Reticulans.
    “El revolucionario: te meteré la bota en el culo"

  12. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Emil El Zapato For This Useful Post:

    Aragorn (20th February 2018), Dreamtimer (20th February 2018), Dumpster Diver (20th February 2018), Elen (20th February 2018), Juniper (21st February 2018)

  13. #7
    Retired Member Norway
    Join Date
    2nd July 2015
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    5,065
    Thanks
    73,935
    Thanked 23,318 Times in 5,067 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by Maggie View Post
    I think Richard Hall of Richplanet TV is a definite "go to" source for analysis of current events. Here he uses clips from interviews of astronauts who purportedly walked on the moon. The video transcripts were submitted to Peter Hyatt who is an expert in statement analysis. This field uses the way that subjects speak to explore how they are sharing information. There are specific patterns that reveal tension, distancing, defensive posture and other tells indicating truth versus falsehood.
    These videos are interesting in several ways..... I learned a lot.
    This is very interesting Maggie...there is cause for concern for sure. I'm sure they were on the Moon, but how is another story.

  14. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Elen For This Useful Post:

    Aragorn (20th February 2018), Dreamtimer (20th February 2018), Dumpster Diver (20th February 2018), Emil El Zapato (20th February 2018), Juniper (21st February 2018), Orbs (23rd February 2018)

  15. #8
    Retired Member
    Join Date
    8th May 2016
    Posts
    2,106
    Thanks
    474
    Thanked 5,204 Times in 1,932 Posts
    I have no idea how my browser landed here. You folks get around quite a bit.

    The moon program. Apollo bottle rockets. Actors. Fraud. Video and pictures vanished. Roswell. SSP. Stanley Kubrick. Free lobster. Kennedy/Roosevelt. Nixon. A Coke bottle. Hasleblad. Mind control. Treason...

    Advanced technology existed not long after 1947. They were going to the moon prior to Apollo. I have no clue if some of these liars/actors actually did walk on the moon. If they did it wasn't done using a bottle rocket.

    Some of you are not from the USA. My family paid for this. We pay to this day. We all were duped but paying for it is different. Some of us want people charged with treason.

    I take a particular interest to advanced technology. NASA deception is a motivating factor.

    In case some of you don't know the latest school shooting which happened while Ed Chiarini is allegedly in jail has a new twist. They allegedly busted a crisis actor rehearsing his lines the day BEFORE the event. Folks, first "fake news" gets leaked out by Mrs. Partridge/Shirley Jones/Killary.

    After 90 years suddenly its fake news? The Trumpet repeating it? Why now?

    Now, suddenly actors are being accused for shootings? Why now?

    It really seems to be a pattern. They want people to find out they have been duped. Why?

    Motivation to act out. Expect more of it. More taunting to come get them. Why? Because they are ready for it.

    I want my money back. Ha ha ha

    Sorry folks. I'll go back to sleep. Nothing to see here. Please move along...

  16. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Orbs For This Useful Post:

    Aragorn (23rd February 2018), Dreamtimer (23rd February 2018), Dumpster Diver (23rd February 2018), Elen (23rd February 2018), Emil El Zapato (23rd February 2018), enjoy being (23rd February 2018)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •