Quote:
.

WHAT?  But according to Mr. Ed Earl (AKA Sancho Panza, Phil Queeg, Anonymous too), board polygrapher, they don't use that term for specific questions.  Are you sure the polygraph operator used that term?  I was accused of "overgeneralizing" when I suggested that polygraphers rroutinely use that term in describing reactions to specific questions, and therefore, tacitly claim the machine detects deception, which is doesn't.  IOW, they (polygraphers) lie.

Yes she specifically said "deception indicated". I then asked what questions showed reaction for my own knowledge and she said....All questions even the "known truth" questions. So.......if all questions were smiliar as for sensitivity wouldnt that still be considered "inconclusive" because technically you cant tell whether im lying or telling truth when the meter jumps on EVERY question. I know im not a polygraph expert but i dont understand.

Quote:


What?  Did the polygraph operator actually use the term "deception indicated".  Polygraphers on this board have stated repeatedly that the machine does not directly measure "deception"!  Then how can they get away with using that phrase?  Why don't they use "reaction indicated"?

How bogus!

TC

pailryder,

Then see the studies cited in Iacono's article.

Mr Masche

You have cited "a critical overview of the scientific status of the CQT", Dr Iacono's review of existing studies.  I am asking to be directed to peer reviewed research studies conducted by anti's to support their opinions.

pailryder,

Sure. See, for example, Professor William G. Iacono's article, "Forensic 'Lie Detection': Procedures Without Scientific Basis."

Mr Maschke

In a recent thread you provided a cite to a study that confirms, to my mind anyway, that CVSA is indeed junk science.  Would you provide a similar peer reviewed study on polygraph to support your statement or are you merely stating your personal opinion?

You need to understand that polygraph testing is junk science. You can get different results from different polygraphers the same way you can get different fortune-tellings from different palm readers.

That said, it's worth noting that polygrapher bias and expectations can also influence polygraph outcomes. The NCIS polygraphers had every incentive to reach a finding that supports your command's position. Think about it: the NCIS polygraphers must realize that had they passed you, their results would likely have been questioned and subjected to scrutiny. But by flunking you, they had nothing to lose.

Im in the United States Navy. i was accused of using illegal drugs. Cocaine to be exact. The navy aimed for admin seperation but i decided to fight it because i never used cocaine. I payed a examiner to give me a polygraph so i could present the results to my command and have my hearing dropped.I passed the test with flying colors says the examiner. After my lawyer presents it to the command they reported that they could not review a outside polygraph and that if i would consent to taking another polygraph by a NCIS agent and pass they would drop it. So of course i know i never done anything wrong. So i take this test. The 3 round test of the same questions mixed around....it comes back inconclusive....i consent to taking another so that results can be taken properly. The 2nd time it comes back deception indicated. How is it that i pass a Polygraph from a FBI agent that has had 20 years of experience but i cant pass one from a NCIS agent...im not understanding this and quite frankly it is very fustrating..PLEASE HELP!!!!