AntiPolygraph.org Message Board

(Moderator: Administrator)

‹ Previous Topic | Next Topic ›

Pages: 1 [2]

Add Poll

Send Topic

just a thought (Read 11343 times)

Canadian Crusader Senior User Offline Posts: 80 Joined: Jul 8^th, 2003	Re: just a thought Reply #15 - Jul 16^th, 2003 at 8:45pm	Mark & Quote Quote Print Post
	Most definatly there is going to be a bias. They want to get you in front of one of their interrogators. I think we can all conclude that the machine has no scientific validity when it comes to the actual testing or standards when it comes to administering the test. If polygraphy was scientific and standardized the DA would be off your back based on your submitted polygraph results. Correct me if I am wrong. For something to be considered scientific it has to be verifiable and the means of conducting the test have to be standardized in order for others to verify your results does it not? Through your own admissions Saidme you say the DA can not verify the third party results. Where is the science in polygraphy? Why should you have anyone of us put our fate in the hands of a technique with so many variations, outcomes, and ways for polygraphers to manipulate results? I am dying for a polygrapher on this site to admit the polygraph only works as a tool to extract admissions in the uninformed.


	IP Logged

Saidme Especially Senior User Offline Posts: 311 Joined: Jun 11^th, 2003	Re: just a thought Reply #16 - Jul 16^th, 2003 at 9:17pm	Mark & Quote Quote Print Post
	CC There are several acceptable testing techniques which are accepted by various agencies. I would imagine they would need to ensure the test was within acceptable standards. Much like a blood alcohol content test. If you ran a BAC through a hospital lab you can have some pretty good certainty of the results (although we know some labs have been tainted in the past - FBI, Oklahoma City). If you ran it through some fly by night operation it might be questionable. If you got John's roofing company to redo your roof after meeting them at your door, good chance something's going to go wrong. If you hired an established contractor with a good reputation then most likely he'll do it right. Although there would still be room for error. I wonder if there's a scientific study on roofing? You guys got any leaks?


	IP Logged

eric New User Offline Posts: 9 Joined: Jun 28^th, 2003	Re: just a thought Reply #17 - Jul 16^th, 2003 at 10:25pm	Mark & Quote Quote Print Post
	Somebody else has got himself into alot of trouble. In an effert to lighten his troubles he is apparently trying to put some of it on me. SaidMe, when I stated "they have no proof", thats exactly what I meant. You can read what you want into it. I'm just simply trying to clear my name. As far as quality control, I guess that makes sense, I would just like this to be over sometime soon.


	IP Logged

Saidme Especially Senior User Offline Posts: 311 Joined: Jun 11^th, 2003	Re: just a thought Reply #18 - Jul 16^th, 2003 at 11:09pm	Mark & Quote Quote Print Post
	Good luck!


	IP Logged

eric New User Offline Posts: 9 Joined: Jun 28^th, 2003	Re: just a thought Reply #19 - Jul 16^th, 2003 at 11:57pm	Mark & Quote Quote Print Post
	Saidme, I should add however, your input has been very helpful. I do appreciate it! Thanks, Eric


	IP Logged

Canadian Crusader Senior User Offline Posts: 80 Joined: Jul 8^th, 2003	Re: just a thought Reply #20 - Jul 17^th, 2003 at 12:14am	Mark & Quote Quote Print Post
	Not quite apples to apples here Saidme. Your analogy to BAC and the accompanying laboratory analysis as it relates to polygraphy is as full of holes as John's roof repair. Taking a control sample to various labs might result in varying detected BA concentrations yes. However, if you narrowed down the parameters to just have the labs state whether they detected or did not detect alcohol, most would probably pass. I would venture to guess in the 90 to 95% range if not more as a test for BAC is scientific, verifiable, and standardized by ASTM (I assume). The same type test in polygraphy where you simply ask polygraphers to tell you whether a test subject is answering truthful or deceptive to a certain question reveals results in the 50% range (am I close?). Take into account that the poly is far from being deemed verifiably scientific and I would have to say you are way off the mark. I would have to put more trust in a scientific study on roofing than your polygraph anyday.


	IP Logged

Saidme Especially Senior User Offline Posts: 311 Joined: Jun 11^th, 2003	Re: just a thought Reply #21 - Jul 17^th, 2003 at 1:57am	Mark & Quote Quote Print Post
	CC You wrote: "....would venture to guess in the 90 to 95% range if not more as a test for BAC is scientific, verifiable, and standardized by ASTM (I assume). " So what you're saying is anything with the human factor in it is not 100%? Even scientifically validated studies? Wow! I think you've enlightened us all. George are you getting this. Oh Caaannnaddaaaaaa


	IP Logged

Canadian Crusader Senior User Offline Posts: 80 Joined: Jul 8^th, 2003	Re: just a thought Reply #22 - Jul 17^th, 2003 at 2:33am	Mark & Quote Quote Print Post
	I have to agree with you Saidme. Anything with the human factor is never 100%. However if you could validate the polygraph as being scientifically accurate to within 90 to 95% I doubt we would be here debating this topic at all! What is 100%? Death and taxes!


	IP Logged

Ray Senior User Offline Posts: 78 Joined: Jan 10^th, 2003	Re: just a thought Reply #23 - Jul 18^th, 2003 at 1:22am	Mark & Quote Quote Print Post
	Quote: Saidme, Of what possible relevance do you believe Canadian Crusader's ethnic background to be? George, I think you're on to something here. Not only are all polygraph examiners scum of the earth liars but they are also bigots...and they can't stand the French! Your suggestion that Saidme's quote was anything but light humor makes you look desperate and very bitter. Please try to stay on the topic. It was an interesting discussion until your effort to take a shot at Saidme sidetracked it.


	IP Logged

Saidme Especially Senior User Offline Posts: 311 Joined: Jun 11^th, 2003	Re: just a thought Reply #24 - Jul 18^th, 2003 at 1:49am	Mark & Quote Quote Print Post
	Suethem Eureka!!! I think you're on to something.


	IP Logged

suethem Very Senior User Offline Posts: 196 Joined: Apr 29^th, 2003	Re: just a thought Reply #25 - Jul 18^th, 2003 at 4:08am	Mark & Quote Quote Print Post
	Saidme, huh?


	IP Logged

Saidme Especially Senior User Offline Posts: 311 Joined: Jun 11^th, 2003	Re: just a thought Reply #26 - Jul 18^th, 2003 at 4:15am	Mark & Quote Quote Print Post
	Cmon guys This thread is titled "just a thought." Let's kill this one and wish Eric the very best.


	IP Logged

Pages: 1 [2]

Add Poll

Send Topic

‹ Previous Topic | Next Topic ›

just a thought

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.