Материал: Uchebnik_dlya_sud_expertov

2.Articulation of problem (research problem and statement of hypotheses).

3.Upfront statement of opinion (usually at the end of an academic paper).

4.Previous work: Linguistic studies related to identified variables or legal precedents related to problem or variation (often best handled by attorney).

5.Method. Outline the research tasks that match the specified problem; data collection and organization; data analysis.

6.Findings.

7.Discussion.

8.Conclusion:

(9.) Identification

(8.) Highly probably did write

(7.) Probably did write

(6.) Indications did write

(5.) Inconclusive

(4.) Indications did not write

(3.) Probably did not write

(2.) Highly probably did not write

(1.) Elimination

Glossary

A glossary may be included with the report to assist the reader in understanding any technical terms used. Use a generally accepted source for the definition of the terms and include appropriate references.

2. , & . & !' $ # -

$ ! # #-

. + -

. ( # ,

4.

361

1.Use block style - do not indent paragraphs.

2.Include address of the person you are writing to at the top of the letter, below your company address.

3.After the address, double space and include date.

4.Double space (or as much as you need to put the body of the letter in the center) and include the salutation. Include Mr. for men or Ms for women, unless the recipient has a title such as Dr.

5.State a reference reason for your letter (i.e. 'With reference to our telephone conversation...'

6.Give the reason for writing (i.e. 'I am writing to you to confirm our order...')

7.Make any request you may have (i.e. 'I would be grateful if you could include a brochure...'

8.If there is to be further contact, refer to this contact (i.e. 'I look forward to meeting you at...')

9.Close the letter with a thank you (i.e. 'Thank you for your prompt help...')

10.Finish the letter with a salutation (i.e. 'Yours sincerely,')

11.Include 4 spaces and type your full name and title.

12.Sign the letter between the salutation and the typed name and title.

Tips:

1)Keep the letter brief and to the point

2)Do not use shortened verb forms - write them out (i.e. 'don't instead of do not')

3)Always keep a copy of correspondence for future reference.

3.# , -

!.

362

The Majestic Documents:

A Forensic Linguistic Report

Michael S. Heiser, PhD

June 2007

1. Introduction

1.1. What Are the Majestic Documents?

The term “Majestic documents” refers generally to thousands of pages of purportedly classified government documents that prove the existence of a Top Secret group of scientists and military per- sonnel—Majestic 12—formed in 1947 under President Harry Truman, and charged with investigating crashed extraterrestrial spacecraft and their occupants. Majestic 12 personnel allegedly included a number of noteworthy political, scientific, and military figures, including: Rear Admiral Roscoe Hillenkoetter, the first CIA Director; Dr. Vannevar Bush, wartime chair of the Office of Scientific Research; James Forrestal, Secretary of the Navy and first Secretary of Defense; General Nathan Twining, and Dr. Donald Menzel, an astronomer at Harvard University.

More specifically, the Majestic documents refer to a series allegedly classified documents leaked from 1981 to the present day by unidentified sources concerning Majestic 12 and the United States government’s knowledge of intelligent extraterrestrials and their technology.

The documents date from 1942 to 1999. Due to the explosive nature of their content, the Majestic documents are considered by many to be the core evidence for a genuine extraterrestrial reality and alien visitation of planet Earth in the 20th century. United States government personnel have denied their authenticity, primarily on an opinion rendered by AFOSI, the U.S. Air Force counterintelligence office.

1.2. Previous Research on the Majestic Documents

The Majestic documents have undergone thorough forensic authentication with respect to nonlinguistic issues and methods. The researchers have tested the documents in the following ways:

1.Physical dating of the ink, pencil and paper

2.Dating by matching the reproductive process (typography) of the typewriter, printer, copy machine, or mimeographic machine

3.Dating by use of language of the period

4.Watermarks and chemical composition of paper

5.Comparison of handwriting

6.Comparison with known events of record

7.Comparison with known styles for government memoranda and correspondence

8.Comparison with known or expected security procedures

9.Logic of content

10.Records of provenance

11.Eyewitness testimony of individuals mentioned in documents.

1.3. Nature and Objectives of the Current Study

This study fills the existing research void created by the absence of strictly linguistic approaches to the problem of authenticating the Majestic documents. The goal of the research presented in this study was to determine whether the Majestic documents that carry a signature were indeed written by the people to whom authorship is attributed.

Toward achieving this goal, the study employed state-of-the-art computational linguistic methods of authorship attribution. In some cases, these techniques have been pioneered by Dr. Carol Chaski, a recognized leader in this type of linguistic research. These methods have been employed, validated, and approved numerous times in various courts of law. It is the opinion of the authors that the utili-

364

zation of these methods is the most reliable and testable means of authenticating or refuting the authorship attribution of those Majestic documents that bear the name of an author.

The focus of this study, as noted, is validation or falsification of the authorship attributions of the Majestic documents. As such, the scientific methods employed for this study cannot be used to validate the content of any of the Majestic documents whose authorship proves genuine. The computational methods of the research cannot determine the truth of written content. It can only determine whether or not that content was written by the attributed author

The remainder of this paper details the application of computational linguistic methods to determine the authenticity of authorship attributions of the Majestic documents. The paper is divided into the following sections:

•Description of the Majestic documents included and excluded in the study

•Overview of the linguistic testing methods used in the study

•Explanation and interpretation of the test results

•Overview of how these same methods have held up in courts of law

•Suggestions for future linguistic research of the Majestic documents

2. Authorship Attribution Study of the Majestic Documents

2.1. Source of the Majestic Documents for Testing

The Majestic documents tested were obtained online via www….com 2.2. Selection of the Majestic Documents for Testing

For authorship attribution testing to be undertaken, the document under question must have been attributed to some author. As such, only those documents among the Majestic documents that specifically bear the name of a signatory author were considered for testing.

Any document that appeared important for validating the extraterrestrial hypothesis (ETH) as an explanation to UFOs was included in the testing. For example, a document that mentioned the retrieval or transport of wreckage from Roswell or some other event famous for its connection to the UFO question.

2.3. Overview of the Linguistic Testing Methods Used in the Study

The material in this section draws heavily upon the peer-reviewed article by Dr. Chaski. Dr. Chaski explains that, when it comes to document attribution in the legal world, methods for determining authorship “must work in conjunction with the standard investigative and forensic techniques which are currently available.” Determining authorship of a typewritten document, whether originally or subsequently put into electronic form, can be approached three ways: “. . . biometric analysis of the computer user; qualitative analysis of ‘idiosyncrasies’ in the language in questioned and known documents; and quantitative, computational stylometric analysis of the language in questioned and known documents.”

With respect to the Majestic documents, the first method is not possible—there is no way to analyze actual keystroke pattern dynamics. This method is technically non-linguistic. The second method “assesses errors and “idiosyncrasies” based on the examiner’s experience.” This method also has the disadvantage of requiring the pre-existence of a stylistic database against which to measure presumed idiosyncrasies.

The third approach, stylometry, “is quantitative and computational, focusing on readily computable and countable language features, e.g. word length, phrase length, sentence length, vocabulary frequency, distribution of words of different lengths.” Stylometric analysis also may include analysis of function word frequency and punctuation.

As one of the leaders in the field of the development of authorship attribution techniques that meet legal standards for evidence, Dr. Chaski has developed “a computational, stylometric method which has obtained 95% accuracy and has been successfully used in investigating and adjudicating several crimes involving digital evidence.”

One final word on the testing enterprise is necessary. It is acknowledged that many of the Majestic documents were not handwritten or even typed by the author to whom they are attributed. The typical practice, especially for presidents, would be to verbally dictate the content of correspondence to a secretary who would type and reproduce the content. This reality is not at odds with Dr. Chaski’s

365