Quote:


The polygraph is highly touted as an important part of national security programs.  Yet the testing has not caught one known spy.  The main reason for pre-screening use has no history of success.

The stockholders of any business would be up in arms about the money wasted on a business procedure that did not produce any results and cost so much money.

I am a taxpayer and I am allowed to discuss and bring attention to what I believe is a waste of resources.  The government law enforcement computer systems are ancient.  Use this money to hire more computer specialist and equipment.  Let's go into the 21st century instead of staying in the Dark Ages.

Beech,

I think I've picked up on the prevailing modus operandi here...lacking any intelligent thought, logic, and reason for existence (following the NAS report), the polygraph-screening community has decided to unleash all that remains--illiteracy, lack of diction and a serious dearth of writing ability.  Does there exist some super secret requirement in that community not to have scored over 400 on the verbal portion of the SAT??   Admittedly, reading this tripe has become quite painful   I suppose to that extent, they have succeeded… 

Beech Trees,

Ironically, the unintellectual "noise" being made by our pro-polygraph friends is sending a very powerful "signal" that critically thinking visitors to this site won't fail to recognize.

Polyman2002 wrote on Nov 1^st, 2002 at 4:14pm:


The NAS report stated that prescreening and screening Federal Employees serves no security purpose (and thus should be considered a waste of taxpayer money as far as I am concerned).  

The NAS report stated that using such test will falsely accuse many innocent people.

The test has no validity.  I would not let the results taint my opinion of anyone who passes or fails the test.

If I can wire patches to a subject's forehead, connect it to a box with lights and paper, and convince thousands of test subjects that it works and can detect lies, I am bound to have some great confessions and success stories.  When people find out that it is nothing but an empty box, it stops working.

The NAS report confirms what many of this webpage have believed:  the box is empty and so is the "truth" of many who believe that they can use it to tell fact from fiction.

Skeptic wrote on Nov 1^st, 2002 at 7:10pm:


I admit.  I did make a posting pleading for polygraph proponents to throw us some bones before all of the loonies came out of the shadows.  That was only in response to multiple threads on using the polygraph for orgasm verification.  You guys were getting cabin fever.  

That's why I like your quotes Skeptic, you are an equal opportunity skeptical person.  

If I could come up with some of these ideas that have been appearing than I could be making big money writing for MAD Magazine.

Let's not become cannibalistic just because the polygraph proponents seem to be giving up.

Polyman2002, 

Do you guys actually believe that polygraph testing is the “only” answer to solving crime? 

You wrote:
“Without the polygraph, not only would child molesters go free to exploit other children; but murderer's, robbers, and other scum of the earth would continue to reap havoc in our society.”

Do you not support other methods of crime solving such as: standard police work, detective work, visual surveillance, electronic surveillance, undercover work, undercover agents, confidential informants, common street snitches, interrogations, co-defendant confessions to cut a deal, neighborhood watch, crime stoppers, eyewitnesses, stake-outs, police line-ups, victims descriptions, etc, etc… 

You guys seem to signify in your posts that polygraph is the answer to all crime. In actuality, polygraph testing catches very few criminals and/or suspects? The threat of a polygraph may bluff a “confession” from a criminal that already has significant overwhelming evidence incriminating them. But to think, believe, or suggest that polygraph testing alone bluffs countless confessions is overstated.

With regard to the many claimed confessions gained by all of the “pro-polygraph” guys on this board; that is merely a “personal and anonymous” unsupported claim. 

If I were a professional polygrapher working for any of the many federal agencies, and I openly claimed to be able to detect and identify polygraph countermeasures with unquestionable accuracy, I would identify myself, the agency I worked for, and I would also accept the public challenge posed by Drew Richardson and prove him wrong. I would not hide behind an anonymous message board identity.

I would be very proud to be able to prove my ability to bluff confessions of employed polygraph countermeasures. I would also inform my superiors of my exceptional ability, and further openly challenge anyone to try-me. 

Just imagine all of the national publicity, notoriety, fame, admiration from your peers that you would gain… if I was truly capable of doing what many polygrapher’s claim to be capable of doing on this board, I would be on 20/20, Dateline, 60 Minutes, 60 Minutes II proving my case. 

I would lend some credence to the recent NAS report on polygraph as reliable documented support of our belief on this site that polygraph testing is inaccurate and should not be relied on. 

Please point-out or reference any source of reliable proof supported by documented scientific study supporting the diminishing reliability of polygraphy testing.


Respectfully,
Triple_x