AntiPolygraph.org Message Board - James Randi on Polygraphy

James Randi on Polygraphy

Name:
E-mail:
Your Verification Code is:	Please type the characters that appear in the image. The characters must be typed in the same order, and they are case-sensitive.
Verification Code:
Preview

Message Icon:

Subject:

Message:
You can resize the textbox by dragging the right or bottom border.

Max 200000 characters. Remaining characters:

Text size: pt

More Smilies

View All Smilies

Collapse/Expand additional features

Attachments More Attachments

Allowed file types: txt doc docx ics psd pdf bmp jpe jpg jpeg gif png swf zip rar tar gz 7z odt ods mp3 mp4 wav avi mov 3gp html maff pgp gpg
Maximum Attachment size: 500000 KB

Attachment 1:

Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:

Attachment 4:

Attachment 5:

Attachment 6:

Attachment 7:

Attachment 8:

Attachment 9:

Attachment 10:

Disable UBBC and Smilies:

Check this if you wish to disable parsing of ubbc tags and smilies.

Return To:

Select where you would like to return to after posting.

George W. Maschke Global Moderator Offline Make-believe science yields make-believe security. Posts: 6230 Joined: Sep 29^th, 2000	James Randi on Polygraphy Oct 21^st, 2002 at 9:11am	Mark & Quote Quote Print Post
	James Randi comments on polygraphy in his weekly commentary dated 18 October 2002 (scroll to the end): http://www.randi.org/jr/101802.html

	George W. Maschke I am generally available in the chat room from 3 AM to 3 PM Eastern time. Tel/SMS: 1-202-810-2105 (Please use Signal Private Messenger or WhatsApp to text or call.) E-mail/iMessage/FaceTime: antipolygraph.org@protonmail.com Wire: @ap_org Threema: A4PYDD5S Personal Statement: "Too Hot of a Potato"
	WWW Twitter YouTube IP Logged

Skeptic God Member Offline Posts: 549 Joined: Jun 24^th, 2002	Re: James Randi on Polygraphy Reply #1 - Oct 21^st, 2002 at 10:20am	Mark & Quote Quote Print Post
	I'm going to be laughing for quite awhile about that one. "The polygraph is . . . a highly reliable detector of orgasms. But does it detect lies? Only if you're lying about having an orgasm." Now that's funny. Skeptic


	IP Logged

Seeker Very Senior User Offline "There are only two sins: The first is to interfere with the growth of another human being, and the second is to interfere with one's own growth." Anonymous Posts: 128 Location: Roanoke, VA Joined: Oct 19^th, 2002 Gender:	Re: James Randi on Polygraphy Reply #2 - Oct 21^st, 2002 at 12:04pm	Mark & Quote Quote Print Post
	I suppose this would be an inappropriate quote to include in my statement for refusal of the polygraph. I wonder if under those circumstances one could claim lack of evidence? That is indeed the funniest thing yet!


	YIM AIM IP Logged

Anonymous Guest	Re: James Randi on Polygraphy Reply #3 - Oct 21^st, 2002 at 2:56pm	Mark & Quote Quote Print Post
	Quote: ...The polygraph is . . . a highly reliable detector of orgasms. But does it detect lies? Only if you're lying about having an orgasm... from James Randi comments on polygraphy in his weekly commentary dated 18 October 2002 As Flounder of Animal House fame would say, "This is Greeeeeeaaaaaaaaaat!!!" I can just see it now....."Did she or didn't she??" A detection of deception application for the polygraph that the polygraph circus clowns of entertainment TV, organized polygraphy, and the NAS panel on polygraphy might jointly agree has promise. Keep the faith, you charlatans of the polygraph screening world,...there may be future employment for you yet Even you clowns doing post conviction sex testing may be able to bring your skills to bear as you figure out how to conduct a polygraph exam during sex. I think the APA should jump on this one…


	IP Logged

Skeptic God Member Offline Posts: 549 Joined: Jun 24^th, 2002	Re: James Randi on Polygraphy Reply #4 - Oct 22^nd, 2002 at 1:29am	Mark & Quote Quote Print Post
	The problem, of course, is the nature of this lie. To be found truthful, one would want to demonstrate physiological reactions. Thus, countermeasures might be highly effective. That, and there are some things most people (in this case, husbands, boyfriends, etc.) really don't want to know the truth about. If the lie is good enough that one would need a polygraph to tell the difference, then it's probably good enough for most purposes Skeptic


	IP Logged

Fair Chance God Member Offline Posts: 551 Joined: Oct 10^th, 2002	Re: James Randi on Polygraphy Reply #5 - Oct 22^nd, 2002 at 1:34am	Mark & Quote Quote Print Post
	This site is starting to remind of a sailing craft stuck in a ocean without wind. You guys are starting to get cabin fever. Would a pro-polygraph person please start a thread to keep these guys occupied.


	IP Logged

Marty Especially Senior User Offline Posts: 499 Joined: Sep 27^th, 2002	Re: James Randi on Polygraphy Reply #7 - Oct 22^nd, 2002 at 4:18am	Mark & Quote Quote Print Post
	Skeptic, Skeptic wrote on Oct 21^st, 2002 at 10:20am: I'm going to be laughing for quite awhile about that one. "The polygraph is . . . a highly reliable detector of orgasms. But does it detect lies? Only if you're lying about having an orgasm." This can not go unexamined. Exactly what studies have show the polygraph a highly reliable detector of orgasms? Sure it may seem that it may be effective, but do we know for certain? Where can I apply for a grant......? -Marty

	Leaf my Philodenrons alone.
	IP Logged