Twoblock wrote on Sep 25^th, 2008 at 2:05am:


Two block, unfortunately, Sancho loves nothing more than getting us all away from the facts about Polygraph. He will talk about his mom's underwear if it means talking your eye off his scam.
Thanks for suggesting we get back to topic =)

Sancho Panza

I did not do research for the post I made. I spoke from hands on experience in my own lab. And the purpose was to try to show you real scientific information as compared to the non-scientific information of the polygraph.

I am fairly familiar with particle accelerators. The Van De Graff accelerator, the linear accelerator at Lawrence Livermore, Fermi Lab., the SSCL in Texas that was closed by an idiot N.Y. senator and Cern.

The purpose of today's accelerators is to determine the basic building blocks of matter, not "transmutate" one element into another which was the goal of alchemists. That was not science like polygraphy is not science.

It would appear that this thread has transmutated into a discussion of electrons , protons, fig newtons and morons. We both have shown how smart we arn't so let's try to turn it back to the original topic of the thread.

Twoblock, you need to do a bit more research Nuclear Transmutation and Nucleosynthesis.

Lead was first successfully transmutated into gold in 1980 although there is some evidence that Soviet physicists did it accidently as early as 1972. We're probably not going to see routine transmutation of lead in to gold in our lifetimes because the cost of the energy required to get lead to turn loose of 3 protons is worth more than the gold it would produce. The resulting gold in this process would probably be radioactively unstable decaying quickly into other elements.

Today particle accelerators routinely transmute elements. A charged particle is accelerated using electrical and/or magnetic fields. In a linear accelerator, the charged particles drift through a series of charged tubes separated by gaps. Every time the particle emerges between gaps, it is accelerated by the potential difference between adjacent segments. In a circular accelerator, magnetic fields accelerate particles moving in circular paths. In either case, the accelerated particle impacts a target material, potentially knocking free protons or neutrons and making a new element or isotope. 
A Transmutation that tranforms gold into lead is possible in a nuclear reactor because the way a buclear reactor creates energy is by removing protons from atoms.

By the way before one gets too critical of alchemy remember that modern chemistry as well as the periodic table are direct descendants of alchemy. 

Sancho Panza

SanchoPanza wrote on Sep 24^th, 2008 at 4:35am:


I am completely aware that, the obvious is lost on you Sancho since you still feel the need to further your cause but, 2 card was obviously a typo as usual just like a trained con you move the focus away from the statement and on to your typo discovery.

The fact still remains, as Sergeant pointed out that the connection is there.

You keep saying that our "only" experience in Polygraph is our failed tests. I cannot see how direct experience is null and void in the validity of your claim of  valid test. Especially when the overwhelming evidence is that Polygraph does not work as used.
The fact that the police as well as other agencies demand it's use is that polygraph, many times results in confessions and admissions because of the examinees belief that the machine will reveal their deception. 
That is not evidence that Polygraph works, it is only evidence that interrogation works "sometimes" since there are folks that will confess to be allowed to leave even if the confession was a lie. But, that's another argument.
I am aware that this, as all the other overwhelming information regarding the lack of validity of the polygraph is lost on you. However we have many that come here and elsewhere on the net to learn the truth about this scam and so these messages go to them.

Sancho Panza

The molucular weight of a substance is the sum of the weights of the atoms that compose the molecule. Therefore Hg is closer to Au than Pb. Also the only thing that Astrology changes are some people's minds.
                        Atomic No.   Atomic weight
               Au          79               197.2
               Hg          80               200.61
               Pb          82               207.21

If the molecular structure of Hg could be changed by fusion, there's no telling what would be the results. It can't be done because Hg evaporates before any phase transformation occurs. There are scientific facts.

Since polygraph results connot reach close to this level of scientific fact, then it's nothing but alchemy.

Are you sure you guys aren't meeting in the bathroom? I ask Notgulty1 a question and get responses from Mr. Cullen, the sergeant and Dr. Maschke.

First:  Sergeant, in People v Vasquez in addition to the probably perjured hearsay testimony against Vasquez there was also evidence presented from the crime scene that the victim was was accosted as she entered her apartment, after which she was dragged to her bedroom, handcuffed, blindfolded, and gagged, and then shot twice in the head, through two pillows that were placed over her. Sounds to me like the evidence presented at the trial probably at least included crime scene photos, blood analysis, firearms trace, ballistics, and a medical examiners report. Have you EVER taken a case to court with just ONE piece of evidence?       The point regarding 3 card monte is that your buddy notguilty1 was trying to use it as an analogy when he didn't even know the name. The real scam here is that you guys who claim that you failed a polygraph even though you told the truth think that your unsubstantiated assertions somehow prove that polygraph doesn't work. Anecdote does not equal data.

Mr. Cullen. I didn't defend bloodletting, I just pointed out that you were wrong about it not being a scientifically validated medical practice and you are indeed wrong. The practice is in use today, it is now better understood than it was 200 years ago and the process has been refined, but it is still in use. 

8 or 9 pints in 24 hours even in a man of George Washingtons considerable stature such an amount would represent over 50% of his blood volume. In modern terms that would constitute a class IV ( and there is no class V) Hemorrhage which is immediately life threatening even if you're laying on the table in a modern surgcial theatre. Even in the olden days, taking over half of a patients blood wasn't common nor was it an accepted medical practice. His Doctors goofed. His throat infection caused a swelling of the epiglottis. The tracheotomy that was recomended and not performed might have saved his life. It certainly would have improved his breathing, but it was rejected because it was a radical new procedure that was not considered scientifically validated or medically accepted. Now it is performed when needed under battlefield conditions. It isn't exactly the same as it was then. It is now better understood than it was 200 years ago and the process has been refined, but it is still in use.

Dr. Mashcke.  Alchemy, has no direct lineage to nuclear transmutation because there is no evidence that changing lead into gold using astrology was ever achieved the desired result. That isn't the case with bloodletting and you know it. But since you're here anyway, please review Notguilty1's posts for ad hominim attacks. 

Does Notguilty1 know that you 3 don't think he is sufficiently competent to answer his own post?

Sancho Panza

T.M. Cullen wrote on Sep 24^th, 2008 at 8:05am:


Perhaps our friend Sancho Panza, after drawing a connection between traditional bloodletting and the contemporary medical use of leeches, would have us believe that alchemy is really a science because, after all, particle accelerators now make nuclear transmutation (including lead into gold) possible (if not profitable).

Sancho,

It doesn't surprise me that you would defend such an archaic practice as blood letting.  At any rate, both phlebotiomists and polygraphers are pretty much blood suckers.

Actually, it was called Phlebotomy, and, like polygraphy, was quack pseudo-science.

Bloodletting came to the U. S. on the Mayflower. The practice reached unbelievable heights in the 18th and early 19th centuries. The first U.S. president, George Washington, died from a throat infection in 1799 after being drained of nine pints of blood within 24 hours. The draining of 16-30 ounces (one to four pints) of blood was typical. Blood was often caught in a shallow bowl. When the patient became faint, the "treatment" was stopped. Bleeding was often encouraged over large areas of the body by multiple incisions. By the end of the 19th century (1875-1900), phlebotomy was declared quackery.

http://www.museumofquackery.com/devices/phlebo.htm

What are your views on alchemy?

TC

With regards to three card monte, the red queen may be there “in plain sight” all the time, but you will never win.

As any magician, con artist, or experienced cop can tell you, no one ever wins at three card monte.  Anyone who appears to win money is part of the monte gang – there are no exceptions.

I can see the parallel with the polygraph.  In three card monte, you have the illusion that a skillful player can find the queen and win the money, but the reality is that the dealer will only accept winning bets from members of his own gang.  The “player” has no real chance regardless of his skill.

With the polygraph, there is the illusion that a truthful subject has nothing to worry about and will surely pass, but the reality is that the operator is going to do nothing more than take a guess as to the truth or deception in the subject’s answers.  The subject has no assurance whatsoever that truthful answers and complete disclosure will result in a “passing” score.

SanchoPanza wrote on Sep 24^th, 2008 at 4:35am:

In New York: People v. Israel Vasquez.  Vasquez was convicted of 1995 second degree murder despite no eyewitnesses and no forensic evidence.  The sole piece of evidence against him was a hearsay statement, later retracted, by a teenaged woman who claimed she had heard Vasquez claim he'd eaten a sandwich in the victim's kitchen.

The conviction was overturned on appeal in 2007, but you can hardly deny that a conviction was obtained.

It took me all of about ten seconds to find that case.  I'm sure it is not the only conviction in U.S. history based on a sole piece of evidence.

Notguilty1

First the red card is always there and in plain sight, you just can't follow what is happening. You really don't know which is the correct name for the game you are trying to use as an example, do you?  

Second, I defy you to find a criminal case ANYWHERE in the United States where a conviction was obtained based solely on a SINGLE piece of evidence of any kind. Are you really that naive, or are you just conveniently dense?

Sancho Panza

SanchoPanza wrote on Sep 24^th, 2008 at 1:06am:



Spoken like a true con man. It doesn't matter if it is 2 or 3 card in the card scam. When you pick a card, the red card is never there. 
Just like Polygraph, what you think is going on is not and that is how the scammer needs it to be. Glad to see your true to your ilk, Sancho

Polygraph has NEVER resulted in someone's conviction based solely on the charts and not the confession or information gained from the interrogation.

Mr Cullen tsk tsk tsk  first off I was responding to a post from notguilty1 in which he stated
Quote:


My statement was accurate; Quote:
If you think my statement is incorrect PROVE IT if you have the intelligence, education, ability or literacy just PROVE IT. 

I am perfectly satisfied that I can come up with sufficient examples to prove its accuracy. The fact that my statement is accurate is further proved by YOU and this board, because if it WASN'T still being used by scientists, judges, courts, and many respected people in the science world, not to mention police departments and being ordered by Congress. You wouldn't be here because you wouldn't have a cause to rant about at all, NOW WOULD YOU? 

Don't ask me to do your research for you because I used my research time this evening to show you how wrong you are about bloodletting.

You wrote Quote:


The first recorded use of medicinal leeches was about 2500 years ago, although there is some evidence that the ancient Egyptians and Aztecs may have used these little blood-sucking creatures to help people that were having medical problems. Back then, leeches were used to remove the “bad blood” from patients that were suffering from things as basic as a headache. 

The practice of “bloodletting”, which is removing blood from the human body, was very common in the mid 1800’s. In fact, the practice of “bloodletting” was so common that in 1833 alone, France imported over 42 million leeches. Other methods of “bloodletting” were also widely used during this time, but none were as efficient, predictable, and painless as the leeches. Leech harvesting also became a very popular and lucrative activity during this time. People would walk around in leech infested waters (leeches live in warm, shallow, sheltered water areas) and then remove the leeches that had attached themselves to their legs and feet. The popularity of “bloodletting” using leeches, however, was soon to end. 

The practice of “bloodletting” lost its popular in the early 1900’s. It was seen as an old and outdated procedure that had no benefit to the patient. By the early 1920’s, the practice of “bloodletting” was almost never used. It was not until the mid 1980’s that we would see the return of these small blood-sucking creatures.

The use of leeches in medicine, otherwise known as Hirudotherapy, made its comeback in the 1980s after years of decline, with the advent of microsurgery such as plastic and reconstructive surgeries. In operations such as these, one of the biggest problems that arises is venous congestion due to inefficient venous drainage. This condition is known as venous insufficiency. If this congestion is not cleared up quickly, the blood will clot and arteries that bring the tissues their necessary nourishment will become plugged and the tissues will die. It is here where the leeches come in handy. After being applied to the required site, they suck the excess blood, reducing the swelling in the tissues and promoting healing by allowing fresh, oxygenated blood to reach the area until normal circulation can be restored. The leeches also secrete an anticoagulant (known as hirudin) that prevents the clotting of the blood.

What happened to George Washington occurred because of a failed attempt to stop the swelling in the president's throat that was inhhibiting his breathing and preventing him from swallowing. A natural aversion to placing leeches on the human body as well as insufficient understanding about why  leeches worked to reduce swelling led to the practice of mechanical venesection. It George Washington's case it was actually a last ditch effort to prevent his suffocation. A tracheotomy was suggested but over ruled. They removed over 8 pints of blood from his body in less than 24 hours and that was never an "acceptable" or common practice.  Basically his doctors knew bloodletting worked, they were just wrong about why and how much. 

Other medical procedures that were once common, fell out of favor, and then returned include the use of maggots in infected wounds and trepanation or the burring of holes in the skull to relieve swelling on the brain caused by the accumulation of fluid. 

So contrary to your opinion, Bloodletting, Trepanation and the use of maggots in infected woulds are ALL THREE, MEDICALLY ACCEPTED,  SCIENTIFICALLY VALID PROCEDURES today. 

It really isn't correct to say that bloodletting NEVER was a scientifically valid procedure, because it is. Not just in the past, Right Now it is

Find a better analogy

Sancho Panza

Quote:


One of the main reasons George Washington died was because doctors "bled" him repeatedly.  That was an acceptable medical practice back then.  You'll probably say, "well, that was then, we now have better medical procedures to use."  But "bleeding" a patient NEVER was a scientifically valid procedure, whether used in the past by doctors or not.

So there is yet another fallacious argument you've made.

Many people in the scientific world?  Not the scientific community in general, and certainly not the NAS in particular.

The courts?  Can you point out a case in which polygraph results contributed to a conviction based SOLEY ON THE CHARTS, and not from information volunteered, or confessions elicited from the guilty party during a polygraphic interrogation?   In cases of the latter, that just proves the polygraph is capable of eliciting confessions, or self-incriminating info, not that the machine actually scientifically DETECTS LIES.

OTOH, the results of DNA testing are accepted in court precisely because IT ACTUALLY IS a scientifically valid test, unlike polygraphy.
TC

Notguilty1, I would never call you crazy, because that would be an ad hominum attack and Dr. Mashke only tolerates that from people who agree with him. However, I certainly can't disagree with your self assessment.

Quote:

Quote:

Which is it?  You don't seem to know any more about monte scams than you do polygraph. 

You forget that scientists, judges, courts, and many respected people in the science world, not to mention police departments use the polygraph every day. Not to mention that Congress commands it certain circumstances.

Sancho Panza

SanchoPanza wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2008 at 9:32pm:



Yep, having been told I failed a Polygraph when I was truthful is ALL the "experience" I need to see there was something wrong, ( call me crazy).
If one falls for the 2 card monte scam on a street corner once and gets taken and then figures out that it was a scam after all does the fact that he was only scammed once belittle the fact he was in fact scammed?
Then, if he goes and researches the scam (and in the case of Polygraph finds that scientists, judges, courts, and many respected people in the science world, not to mention the very police dept. that didn't charge me with a crime all confirm that it is at best unreliable).

That all should be irrelevant because Sancho says so and I should just believe in the 3 card monte scam, after all I cannot really know any thing about it since I have never perpetrated the scam on others. What a joke!!

Quote:


Notguilty1, Mr. Cullen, Sergeant, and even Dr. Maschke.

Let us not ever forget, according to your own statements,  that your only real experience with polygraph comes from your problems with passing one. With the exception of Dr. Maschke your information is simply regurgitation of things you have read right here or referenced on this site.

Frogs at the bottom of a well see only a small part of the sky. 

Sancho Panza

Mr. Sancho Sackett,

You are an embarassment to your own profession.   

Unable to argue the facts, you resort to childish name calling.

I can only imagine what games you must play in your polygraph INTERROGATION room with naive, gullible people you probably take advantage of.

Well, your tactics don't work here.  Toto has pulled open the curtain which hides your pseudo-scientific witchcraft!  You have been exposed for all lurkers like Green Earth to see.  And they are NOT IDIOTS!

GreenEarth wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2008 at 2:29pm:



Thank you Green well said!

SanchoPanza wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2008 at 1:51pm:


It is so vital Sancho, for you to diminish our statements and the experiences and information we bring to this issue. 
If I sound like a fool and the others here are the "peanut gallery" then I consider myself in good company if it is opposing the scam you continue poorly to perpetuate. 
What Sarge and TC posted here in their last posts is true but that seems to go over your head so, you dismiss it as foolish and misguided.
I wonder where YOUR "peanut gallery" is? 
I know, .... they are enjoying the fact that most have bought into the idea that Polygraph does detect lies and even know the test by it's better known name "lie detector test".
That of course is a lie in itself but very convenient, for those like you who proclaim the machine to do just that at a accuracy rate of about 95% to boot, when you know none of that is not true.

Sancho, you say that we the "anti's" provide aid and comfort to criminals and enemies of our country. 
I ask you, what do you consider people that perpetuate a lie and allow criminals and enemies of our country ( Gary Ridgeway come to mind as one but certainly not the only that passed a Polygraph) or honest people that would otherwise contribute well to our country but have been denied the opportunity because of a test that has no scientific validity just to further their industry. How is that not giving aid and comfort to the enemies of our country?

You can, if you'd like bunch us all together as one foolish group, that is your right. The message we have is common and growing.

The Peanut Gallery had already been identified...The rest of the world is watching and we are not idiots.

Another comment from Dr. Maschke's Peanut Gallery.

Notguilty1 is sounding like a fool here comes Mr. Cullen to quote NAS. 
NAS counter-quote, send in Sergeant.
Where's Dr. Maschke with his canned response?

Do you guys all go to the bathroom together too?

I sometimes wonder if you all aren't really the multiple online personalities of some disgruntled guy in the Netherlands.

Sancho Panza

Two things you definitely need to be skeptical about:

1.  Atheists quoting the Bible.

2.  Polygraph examiners quoting the NAS Report.

TC

SanchoPanza wrote on Sep 22^nd, 2008 at 9:29pm:


I don’t think the passage you quoted above really has the impact you seem to think it has.

I could pick up a random rock from my backyard and call it an elephant repellant.  Then I could cite the lack of elephants in my backyard as proof my rock works.  I could also accurately claim that no other rock in my backyard has shown it is a more effective elephant repellant than the rock I originally chose, and it is unlikely that my rock will be supplanted as an elephant repellant in the near term.

None of that, of course, means that my original rock does anything useful in the field of elephant-repelling.  

The above-quoted passage does not indicate that the polygraph is an effective method of detecting truth or deception; the passage merely states that no other alternatives to the polygraph have shown they can outperform the polygraph.  It goes on to state that no other alternatives are likely to supplant the polygraph for screening purposes in the near term.

If the authors of the quoted passage believed the polygraph is roughly as accurate as random chance it would be completely accurate for them to write that they haven’t found anything else more accurate, and, because of the polygraph operator’s ability to sometimes elicit a damaging admission during the test, they don’t foresee any of the other random-chance-compatible methods of truth-detection as likely to supplant the polygraph in the near term.

In other words, the passage you cited is hardly an endorsement of the accuracy of the polygraph.  It is simply a statement that they haven’t found anything better.  You may choose to interpret that to mean the polygraph is very good and there isn’t anything better, but I think the majority of people who read the NAS research study would conclude that the authors meant that the polygraph is not very effective and they haven’t found anything else to be very effective, either.

Offe, Heinz ; Offe, Susan; The Comparison Question Test: Does It Work and If So How? Law and Human Behavior, Volume 31, Number 3 / June, 2007, pp 291-303 (13)


SP

PS not included in the NAS study