Fire and Detection

A fairly common example:

A man approaches his house. He sees it is on fire. He is sure there are two other family members inside and he surmises that they cannot get out. The house is burning around all the foundation. It looks like the fire has been burning for nearly half an hour. The home is located far from any municipality, so there is no quick way to obtain aid as the house is enveloped.

Only a couple neighbors come to the property to gauge the fire. They say there is no way to get inside. One says the fire department has been contacted but it is over 6 miles away.

The man draws in breath and walks toward the house. He passes through a wall of burning flames taller than he. A couple minutes later he is seen pulling out a family member to safety beyond the flames. A siren wails in the distance. The man turns and goes in through the flames again. Shortly after he comes out with the other family member.

Two fire engines are now heard on the road still hundreds of feet from the long driveway to the house. They roar up the dirt road to the house, most firemen immediately take out hose and tools to fight the fire.

One departs from the crew to check on the family members. The two family members have some smoke inhalation and burned airway passages. The fireman asks the man how he is and he replies he feels fine, no complaint.

The fireman radios in for medical help for the family members then tries to get the story of the incident. The man tells him what he saw and did. The fireman turns to the neighbors to ask what they saw and they say they saw the house on fire and then the man came and walked through burning flames twice. The fireman asks them again and they say the same thing. The fireman makes a note of it. He asks for the name of the man and asks the neighbors if he is the person he says he is. The fireman asks the man how he feels and is told he feels fine. The fireman makes a call.

The family is given a place for disaster refuge in a local town near the firehouse. The next morning two people walk in to talk to the man, the fire captain and an investigator. They introduce themselves as such. They say they need to get more background on the incident. They ask who is his family and does he think he has a good, trouble free relationship with them. They ask if he knows how the fire started. He says he wasn't present at the beginning. They ask if the fire was deliberate. He answers no.

They ask him if he saved the family members. He said yes. They ask him how he could get into a burning house if he didn't already know it was aflame. He says he walked through the flames. They ask how he could know where to find the family members unless he knew about the fire and its settings from the beginning. How anyone could know where the family members were unless he was already inside the house. He says again that he first saw the fire from a number of yards away from the home. They ask how otherwise he could know where they were. He says again he simply walked through the flames both times. He felt priority to save the members first and then the house second if possible. The two confer with each other and then leave.

The next morning a car comes to the family and  the investigator asks the man to come with him.  He is taken to an office in the town and taken to a room with a chair and straps. First he is asked the same questions as before.  He gives the same responses.  He is asked how he saved the family if he was not already inside.  He says he walked through the fire. They respond that alone is not possible to walk through flames and be untouched. They conclude he is making up the answer and is withholding something. They ask the same again stressing a true response is required. He answers with the same response. They say it is impossible and not even remotely factual to walk through fire. They ask him to sit in the chair to monitor vitals during questioning. The results are inconclusive.

Exiting this hypothetical example, it is obvious that interrogation and lie detector tests are not reliable for detecting the actual impression of an event. What could be improved upon? With the above mention techniques, while not great in accuracy, they do reflect what the brain has stored. Now, what if there could be a better way to accurately obtain what the brain has stored?

So it is likely the brain will be the source for information. What way to get that out? One way is literal reenactment, in contrast to lie detector, etc. Much like a detailed EEG, one would tap into the parts of the brain that are involved in activity and recall and activate those waves and obtain a 3-D imaging. Then the subject, the man in the example, would be able to "act it out" again and this would be guided by what is teased out from the brain that has stored in its own memory. A virtual recreation.This method would very likely increase the accuracy and a much higher ascertainment of an activity. In the case of the above example, the man did walk through flames and other activity or rationales could be ruled out because this is retained in the subconscious of the brain and not other more peripheral reasons.

This style of recreating could even result from 3-D virtual or holographic products and could also be retained for storage.