I found it funny that a lifer (about to retire) in the CIA had a confession forced out by a polygraph.  It amazes me that people in the intelligence community are too lazy/ignorant to realize that the polygraph machine is almost identical to the  device that 75% of all patients in the hospital are attached to.   

Out of sheer curiosity, I asked a cardiologist a few questions recently.  Most cath patients are attached to devices that monitor their oxygen saturation, bp, respiration, and heart...and I was wondering if he would be able to tell if someone lied (in his opinion) from the data on the monitors.  After explaining to him why I was asking, he told me it was common for patients to lie to him about their tobacco use (smoking).  Usually, he knows they are lying due to obvious physical indications.  But he has never seen a significant pattern that was any different from other people that are "nervous."  It was his conclusion that the polygraph machine was purely a scare technique.  He went as far as to laugh at me when I played devil's advocate...assuring me that anyone is capable of calming themself down or working themself up on demand.  He went as far as to reference some culture (or tribe...don't remember) that learn to control their heartbeat and push it as low as 20 beats per minute.

Cardiologist with 20 years experience >>> polygraph quacks.

Nonombre,

You write in part:
Quote:


I'm not sure we have any evidence to date of polygraph solving anything in this case.  But regardless, the story is on the home page of antipolygraph.org.  When was the last time you saw one of the continuing litany of polygraph failures on the home page of the American Polygraph Association?
 

Nonombre,

In your haste to  reply to  me, I believe you forgot to answer the question I posed to you in the non-quoted portion of my previous post.   lol

On another note and another thread, you allude to Mark Felt.  I can tell you from personal knowledge of Mr. Felt's (and others not known to the public through the telling by Bob Woodward) role, that his having not been selected as Director of the FBI was hardly his motivation for his role in the "Deep Throat" saga.

Nonombre,

You still seem unable to answer the question posed to you?  When was the last time you saw a polygraph failure reported on the home page of the American Polygraph Association's home page.  Obviously if all you do is pick positive stories, very little editorial comment is required on the part of the trade association's editorial staff.  

Nonombre,

Please cite your misrepresented victories so that George might comment.  As I have said to you before, no explanation is needed nor would be expected to be forthcoming from a trade organization that merely chooses stories for its website that are favorable to its practice.

Quote:


Sure, no problem:

I know there have been several cases where this website has put a negative spin on an incident where the polygraph technique had done its job well.  The first two that come to mind are this incident and the Virginia case where the convicted killer was put to death and the people on this website were wringing their hands in glee anxiously awaiting waiting for the DNA evidence to prove the murderer's DI polygraph results, wrong.

Only it didn't...

I know for sure there have been more, I just don't have the time to do the research right now...

Regards,

Nonombre

Nonombre,

You should have done the research before you made the comment.  Your points on this matter are weak.  George's characterization of both cited matters is appropriately guarded and conservative in view of the facts known at any given time.  George's perspective on any of the home-page issues is generally given with  the  unaltered and quite frequently with the complete original text.  The reader can thereby come to his own conclusion based on  the original material.  The only inexcusable editing is to falsify or deny the reader the ability to see the  material at all.  The later is what I have said the  mainstream (actually all to my knowledge) polygraph websites have done, i.e., deny the reader the ability to see all negative material about polygraphy by refusing to cover it.  The same of course is true for message boards.  Although you (and your colleagues) can freely discuss and express any viewpoint regarding polygraphy here , on which pro-polygraph site would  George be able to express his articulately-stated vieiwpoints?