Материал: Uchebnik_dlya_sud_expertov

testing methods since memoranda and correspondence are not be produced by distinct psycholinguistic processes. In other words, there is no significant linguistic difference between dictating a letter as one would desire it be written and the mental connection to the act of typing those thoughts oneself.

2.4. Explanation of the Test Results

In testing the Majestic documents, the first step involved taking the KNOWN documents undisputedly authored by the person whose authorship is attributed to them, and combining them together to get a “stylistic pool” of data for each author.

The second step was to run computational stylistic comparisons between each UNVERIFIED document to its corresponding set of KNOWN.

The third step was to compare each KNOWN document pool to all the other KNOWN document pools for similarity scores. The purpose of this step was to detect how similar or dissimilar one KNOWN document pool was to another KNOWN document pool.

The fourth step was to rank all of the resulting similarity scores. The similarity score of the UNVERIFIED document to its corresponding KNOWN document pool was ranked alongside the similarity scores of the KNOWN document pools compared to each other. That would be a “match” with respect to linguistic authorship validation.

2.5. Results

The results are illustrated below in the next several pages. …

3. Commentary on the Test Results

3.1. A Positive Contribution to Ufology

Although some readers might quickly conclude that this preliminary report severely damages the validity of the UFO phenomenon, such a conclusion would be misguided. The genuineness of the UFO phenomenon, whatever its true nature might be, does not depend on the Majestic documents. It would be far more accurate to say that the test results cast significant doubt on the wisdom of using the Majestic documents tested by Dr. Chaski to draw any conclusions about UFOs. Since the documents are very likely fraudulent, no arguments should be based on them. They cannot be held up by researchers as valid evidence for anything associated with UFOs, except perhaps a will to deceive on the part of someone, or a desire to move people to a certain conclusion about UFOs. So how do the test results make a positive contribution to Ufology? I believe this is the case in several respects.

First, the report ought to encourage researchers and interested amateurs to focus on the demonstrably real abundance of physical evidence that stands behind the thousands of people who have seen things in the sky that defy precise scientific identification. This abundance includes a great deal of documentary evidence from official government agencies that existed prior to the appearance of the Majestic documents.32 If nothing else, perhaps this study will help researchers not be unnecessarily distracted by data that is unreliable.

Second, the test results validate the persistent work of Stanton Friedman, including his positions on the fraudulence of certain Majestic documents. Friedman’s stance on the fraudulence of several Majestic documents has not been embraced by some important UFO researchers, namely Dr. Robert and Ryan Wood. Dr. Chaski’s testing ought to compel Friedman’s opponents on these documents to concede the point, at least with respect to those fraudulent documents included in our testing.

Third, the test results represent the application of genuine science to UFO studies. This in turn argues for continued testing. The question still exists as to whether some of the Majestic documents lacking a named author—and thus not included in this round of testing—may be genuine. While authorship attribution testing cannot be applied directly to these documents, now that such testing has been conducted on documents bearing author names, the results of those tests can potentially be applied to testing the other Majestic documents (see Section 4 below).

Lastly, since Dr. Chaski’s methods have met the standards of peer review within her profession and the standards of evidence in the legal profession, the document that has passed linguistic testing— and any documents that pass subsequent testing—should be considered very likely of genuine authorship.

3.2. Unfavorable Implications for the Extraterrestrial Explanation for UFOs

366

First, it must be observed that none of the author-bearing Majestic documents that refer to the recovery of alien bodies or contact with extraterrestrials passed the computational linguistic testing. This being the case, it would be fair to say that, as far as those Majestic documents which bear an author name, the alien hypothesis has been noticeably weakened.

However, the reader is reminded that: (a) other Majestic documents that have no author name and so could not be tested do contain such dramatic references; and (b) other UFO related documents outside the Majestic cache (but which are themselves unprovenanced) occasionally contain such language.33 That such language is present in other documents of course does not prove that there are extraterrestrials and that extraterrestrial visitations to earth have occurred. Obviously, just because an opinion is expressed in writing does not make that opinion a reality, and just because the author of a document suspected or believed a particular idea does not make that idea a reality.

Second, the test results cast a shadow over the Majestic documents as reliable data en toto. It seems quite obvious, given the work of Friedman and Dr. Chaski that a concerted disinformation attempt was in play with respect to the leaks of the Majestic documents. Such a state of affairs calls to remembrance Greg Bishop’s recent expose on the deliberate manipulation of Dr. Paul Bennewitz by the U.S. government to both perpetuate UFO mythology and penetrate UFO groups.

Third, it is possible that further testing will succeed in linking the stylistics of other Majestic documents that do not bear author names with certain Majestic documents which have failed the linguistic testing already conducted. That is, it might be that the stylistics of a forged or faked Majestic document could be matched to other Majestic documents which were not tested. If such matching emerges, even more Majestic documents will be tainted by the association and thus come under suspicion as forgeries or fakes.

4. Prospects for Future Testing

If funding is obtained, much more work could be done by Dr. Chaski on the Majestic documents. Basically, the additional work would fall into two areas:

1)Additional language features could be added to the testing. Dr. Chaski has already used methods that have been validated over 90% of the time. The results obtained thus far could be assured to an even higher degree by further testing. New testing will not reverse the results already obtained, but can make the results even more assured and allow the researcher to make specific statements (in terms of probabilities) about the documents.

2)Perhaps more importantly, more nuanced testing would produce data that would allow Dr. Chaski to compare the stylistics of those Majestic documents that were tested against those that were not, particularly those that lack author attribution. Comparison of stylistics might allow the researcher to arrive at a statistical likelihood that certain documents might have been written by the same hand.

Conclusion

In drawing this report to a close, readers are again reminded of the preliminary nature of the report. Only a portion of the Majestic documents were tested, for the reasons given in Section 2.2. To move linguistic research of the Majestic documents beyond the preliminary status, more research must be undertaken. The major obstacle to this progress is funding.

Hopefully the value of this research will be apparent to those interested in applying scientific methods to the study of UFOs, and appropriate funding will be found.

5. ! - «* ».

Topic: Positive and Negative Implications for the Extraterrestrial Explanation for UFOs.

8 & - !, , . * -

# , , #-

; $ , . ( '

367

, ! ! . ( -

.

-

368

UNIT 6. TEST YOUSELF

1. ( ! .

1. …. is focused on author identification of questioned writings.

a)semiotics

b)semantics

c)forensic stylistics

d)auditory phonetics

2. Stylistics is the scientific study of ….

a)handwriting

b)idiolect and linguistic characteristics

c)communication and language as systems of signs and symbols

d)psychology

3. …. is a language usage pattern unique to a person.

a)dialect

b)idiom

c)vocabulary

d)idiolect

4. The primary application of forensic stylistics is in the area of ….

a)questioned authorship

b)questioned documents

c)questioned speech

d)questioned programs

5. Linguistic stylistics uses two approaches to authorship identification: ….

a)semantic and pragmatic

b)qualitative and quantitative

c)modern and the old one

d)computing and writing

6. …. is the "use or close imitation of the language and thoughts of another author and the representation of them as one's own original work."

a)computer crime

b)copying

c)plagiarism

d)copyright

7. The two ways of plagiarism detection are ….

a)reading and comparing

b)searching and analyzing

c)oral and writing

d)manual and computer-assisted

369