pailryder wrote on May 26^th, 2008 at 10:27pm:


Hello, Pailryder,

That was good.  But, of course you don't need any wires to equal the performance of some polygraph exams (speaking from experience).

Please don't be offended.  I have another purpose in joining the conversation.  I see a lot of talent and knowledge on this board.  Probably more than in the average professional conference.  My thought is wouldn't it be great if we put our heads together and could solve this conflict over accuracy.  Somebody is going to find a solution, I think.  It could be as simple as a better protocol than the CQT.

In this vein, I was mulling over a possible solution.  I admit it's not very good, and maybe folks here can improve the idea.

Suppose we have a subject that is so nervous the machine will surely say he is lying on the relevant question.  Could we construct a list of equally threatening questions, so many that he couldn't possibly be guilty on all of them.  Then we could watch to see if the machine knows which question is the relevant question.  Or, if it accuses him of lying on an implausible number of questions.

This is targeted to stopping false positives.  I think if that were its only virtue, it should still be a valuable addition.

Mr Maschke

Trust a polygraph examiner on this one, for true professional realism you need at least one wire running from the colander to the copier.

sackett wrote on May 25^th, 2008 at 4:54pm:


WOW! We finally got a winner!! 
Sackett, this is what George is pointig out with this site and how the collender relates well to Polygraph. It is nothing more than a way to get people to confess (all be it sometimes falsely)
I am glad that once again you see what Polygraph is all about!

If you replace polygraph with collender in your post you have it.

notguilty1 wrote on May 25^th, 2008 at 4:32pm:


I'm not here to argue, just point out deficiencies in the information presented here.  As for the colander, was it legal to use?  Yes.  Did it obtain information in the case George mentioned and help resolve the criminal issue?  Probably. 

So if somebody allowed themselves to be conned by some inventive detectives, then so be it.  Those aren't the type that sit around on the computer reading your insightful opinions anyway...

Sackett

sackett wrote on May 25^th, 2008 at 2:44pm:


Yet, you come here daily to make petty arguments. 
The collender analogy is an accurate one based on the known results that polygraph yeild, not the lie that the polygraph industry continues to try to perpetuate that polygraphs are 95-98% accurate, of course Sackett thats only if the hundreds of "variables" that you claim are in order. Variables, that BTW cannot be found anywhere. 

George W. Maschke wrote on May 25^th, 2008 at 3:20pm:


George,

I'm just trying to fit in here... 

Sackett

sackett wrote on May 25^th, 2008 at 2:44pm:


Indeed, Jim. I think you're picking fly shit out of black pepper.

A movie is for entertainment; like your clip, entertaining, but hardly accurate.  Just because it features a "real" examiner and instrument does not mean his actions (in the movie) were a proper application of the polygraph process.  It was not accurate.

I suppose you could argue this is petty, I agree, but most of the arguments on this board are petty.  However, in the name of accuracy and truth, it has to be brought to the attention of the readers.

Sackett

sackett wrote on May 25^th, 2008 at 5:23am:


The scene used to illustrate the polygraph, from the movie Harsh Times, which has been previously discussed on this message board, features a real polygraph instrument with a real polygraph operator (Barry Colvert) behind it. That which is "fake" about the polygraph is the notion that it can detect lies -- a falsehood marketed to the public by those who make a living giving these bogus tests.

I agree!  George, you look great with a colander on your head, natural even.  Of course, using a clip from a fake polygraph was well beneath you...

Sackett

George,
That was a great video clip! 

A new video is available on AntiPolygraph.org's YouTube channel: