EJohnson wrote on Dec 20^th, 2007 at 2:47pm:


Sir Johnson,

I do believe that more innocent and truthful people will pass the polygrapf test after reading the TLBTLD than if they did not.

It iss distressful that innocents and truthful people need a form of protection from the cursed test.

In Europe, some drivers use the Road Angel gps device. Statistiks prove that drivers using roadangel device are having 70% less accidents. They did not ever start their journeys to have accidents, but with protection like the roadangel they had a 70% better chance of 'passing' or not having an accident.

The TLBTLD is like the roadangel. It will give you a 70% better chance to pass the polygrapf test.

Respectfully,
JP

Hunter wrote on Dec 20^th, 2007 at 2:50pm:


Why was it necessary, then, to invent and implement the anal sphincter muscle squeeze detection pad?  Seems like it can't get much more artificial than that.

Don't get me wrong, JP, I was not supporting you., although if my question bolstered your argument, then perhaps that is a benefical result.

I was asking an honest question.  If it is so easy for a poly examiner to tell the difference between natural reactions and artificially induced reactions, then there was no need to develop this piece of hardware, was there?

Third, you might consider implementing a natural gas emmision butt plug, that is designed to release slowly when a certain amount of pressure builds up.  That way, you would not risk a false positive countermeasure detection opinion. 

Lastly, don't make any assumptions as to my gender, please.

[quote author=505F7A7D7B667A7B150 link=1198050218/30#35 date=1198165432I think you have stumbled upon a great research project JP. You should "spear-head" such a project---and start with experiments on yourself.
You impress me more and more with that insight of yours.
E [/quote]

A research project such as this would require peer review, and in order to gain that, he would have to attend a 10 week trade school and purchase a Ph.d on line.  Then the project would have some semblance of validity.

Sir Hunter,

You are deceiving us.
Please explain what this specific markers looks like and how is they different to normal markers.

The polygrapf is very basic equipment. It cannot read minds or make determinations. it does not know the differents between data inputs. It can only record from basic electric (digital) signals.

There is not one signal (electric current ) for a fahrt and another for pinching buttocks. There is no differents at all between input signals
for fear or pain. 

There iss no additional Muscle movement of tongue biting when it is done at same time as closing the mouth after speaking.

You will not respond to me because you can not do so. You have shot past the target and missed. 

The polygrapf belongs in a museum to wasted endeavors.

Respectfully,
JP

Hunter wrote on Dec 20^th, 2007 at 4:19pm:


It appears from your remarks that one can train himself to successfully use countermeasures if they practice on a polygraph.  Is this true?

You also say that "induced reactions have some specific markers".  But isn't that exactly what a polygrapher is doing when he questions, inducing reactions"  Perhaps you meant inducing reactions by physical means, please clarify.

So far though, you have limited yourself to commenting on physical countermeasures.  What about mental countermeasures?  Do these also have "specific markers"?

For example, all it takes for me to raise my pulse rate and blood pressure is to visualize standing on a high bridge (fear of heights) or getting a blood test, (fear of needles).   

nomegusto wrote on Dec 20^th, 2007 at 5:24pm:


Good points nomegusto.

To clarify or extend a couple of things. Final judgments are always made using the totality of available information. Policies and standards of practice are increasingly clear about that. Also, the adjudicators about someone's job status, filing status, guilty status, are most often not the polygraph examiner. This is a reflection of the use and meaning of test data. In psychological testing, an MMPI result itself is never enough to warrant a clinical diagnosis, nor is an IQ test score enough to pronounce someone retarded. People have criticized polygraphy for both sides of the discussion - basing results on test scores, or using extrapolygraphic information - they simply want to criticize. Tests simply give information. Decisions and diagnostic opinions are made by professionals - who sometimes use test results and other information.

I know that some readers of this site would prefer to oversimplify things and reduce the matter to "squiggly lines." But people will fail to learn anything if we leave it at that. Remember. Tests simply give information. In the case of polygraph, that information pertains to how well an individual's test result fits a known model or models, for deceptive or truthful persons. For another example, take a 7th grade spelling test. What we're interested in is how well each student's test score fits our known model for 7th grade spelling scores. So, while test results are a matter of how well a persons responses fit a known model, final grades are often a matter of a lot more information than a single test.


r

Hunter wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2007 at 12:43pm:


But, at least you are honest, which is refreshing and a step forward.  Thank-you for your comments.