Methinks you just want to argue.  You seem to be all (erroneous) talk and no substance.  Why is that?


Quote:

Computerised polys were in the lab circa 1992. Not prior. So how did your scientists use CPS together with analogue polygraphs ?

That is one of the reasons I asked if you were educated.  You can transform analog data into digital form.  Moreover, they used computers prior to the date you stated, but you I can't help you in your denial of reality.

George,

Why the double standard?  When pro-polygraphers get a little obnoxious they are instantly banned, but this guy seems to speak with impunity.  There's noting in his posts but insults and errors, but you, by your silence, appear to support it.

I have knowledge of polygraph that many here do not.  I'm willing to have an open and honest discussion, but I don't have time to waste.


Quote:

Yadda Yadda Yadda. Dont you ever get tired of that boring old refrain. You wouldnt / couldnt detect a good CM if it bit you in the ass.

There's no way you could know that, and experience speaks against it.  The beauty is, even if true, the research shows it doesn't matter if I can spot them or not as the guilty still fail in spite of their attempts.