Raymond,

I think I understand the point you're trying to make, and I recognize that the Silent Answer Test, which is discussed in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector, is administered without the examinee speaking a word during the in-test phase. But even in this latter case, the examinee has verbally answered the questions aloud during the pre-test phase, and the overarching objective of the "test" is still to determine whether the examinee has or has not spoken the truth. To argue otherwise is to split hairs, or in more colorful language, to pick fly shit out of pepper.

raymond.nelson wrote on Jan 16^th, 2008 at 9:21pm:


In light of your comments, (above) and your comments to George, I find it preposterous that a member of the American Polygraph Association, an association with a motto "Dedicated to Truth" would be making these claims.

And if that wasn't enough, the Mission Statement of the American Polygraph Association, of which you are a member, (according to their web site, makes reference to "the truth" at least three times, as indicated below:

Mission
Established in 1966, the American Polygraph Association (APA) consists of over 2500 members dedicated to providing a valid and reliable means to verify the truth and establish the highest standards of moral, ethical, and professional conduct in the polygraph field. 

The American Polygraph Association continues to be the leading polygraph professional association, establishing standards of ethical practices, techniques, instrumentation, research, and advanced training and continuing educational programs.

Goals
The goal of the American Polygraph Association is to provide mankind with a valid and reliable means to verify the truth of the matter asserted by: 

Serving the cause of truth with integrity, objectivity and fairness to all persons 
Encouraging and supporting research, training and education to benefit members of the Association as well as those who support its purpose and by providing a forum for the presentation and exchange of information derived from such research, training and education 
Establishing and enforcing standards for admission to membership and continued membership in the Association 
Governing the conduct of members of the Association by requiring adherence to a Code of Ethics and a set of Standards and Principles of Practice 

raymond.nelson wrote on Jan 17^th, 2008 at 4:01am:


whatever 

raymond.nelson wrote on Jan 16^th, 2008 at 11:02pm:


I'm afraid that several others on this forum are quite correct Raymond.
Bullshit covered in high falutin' techno-babble is still bullshit.
You can make up as many multi-sylabbled words for the polygraph as your technical dictionary allows - but ultimately that is not going to transform a con-job into a scientific test.

EJohnson wrote on Jan 16^th, 2008 at 4:35pm:


EJ, It has subsequently been proven that my brother did tell the truth and was not and is not a thief. He has been fully exonerated by a follow up test; a confession made by the thief; the recovery of stolen merchandise and cash from the thiefs home.

Pray tell for what reason do you think I should be tested ?

candy wrote on Jan 17^th, 2008 at 12:54pm:


Candy, I was not saying that I thought YOU should be tested, it's just that your story isn't in fact your story, it's your brother's story. "Trust capital" on online forums isn't handed out whilly nilly, and such is even less so when people are speaking for someone other than themselves over "ground truth."
When it comes to testing people on the issue of criminal behavior say for example theft, it is not uncommon that if an individual has stolen something within or very near the target time frame, such words as "while at Joe's, did you steal..." can have much penetrating relevance. This is one reason why I have always shyed away from certain testing modalities----for instance food workers, who "steal food" and other items in extremely high statistical numbers. It is critical that the examiner work very hard at differentiating between the relevant theft, and other recent thefts. Perhaps your cherubesque brother brought more secrets to his test than he cared to tell his "budinski", controlling, co-dependent sister.

Last night, it occurred to me what this forum is really all about for so many people. It's not about debate, discussion, or change. This site is actually a Rogerian Counseling Group for people unable to move past their life circumstances. It is a place were people come, not to develope tools to move on with their lives happily, but to bask in the pain and rehearse the Overextensionism (inability to distinguish different things from one another.) This is a place of masochism, where individuals can chew on their own mouth sores, not because it feels good, but because the pain feels good. Take a look at Mr. Maschke, a man who clings and relishes his professional setback so much, it actually makes him happy reliving the era. Sarge adds nothing of educational value here, but he , like a senior AA group member shows up, tells his story, and gains pleasure from self-perpetuating victimhood. All the times I felt that people screwed me over, or I didn't get a fair shake, could never justify such exhaustive and repeated long term self-injury. To endure a polygraph error should never be confused with being raped, any more than being discriminated against by age or race or disability (just talk with a rape victim, and you won't compare the victimology.) But I must tell you, Rape and Molest victims who have unlimited resources do not require treatment for as many years as the posters here seem to believe they need by virtue of their "formals." 

candy wrote on Jan 17^th, 2008 at 4:30pm:

Very poetic. Due to us not having ;
a. The charts
b. The precise questions
c. The investigative facts
d. A physiological and psychological profile of your bro
e. Your brothrs first hand acount

....we can only look at alternatives. Sure the examiner might have really screwed up. It happens. My Mom's doctor made her permanently blind because he prescribed her the wrong medication. Aweful shit happens. She still has an albeit suspicious belief in modern medicine, but she understands that people make enormous mistakes, but that doesn't altogether impune the validity of modern medical testing. Absent facts regarding Mom's previous moron doctor's notes and testing procedures,, her second physician inquired Mom about what sorts of pre-existing conditions SHE might have had and not disclosed. It was painful for her, but she had far less righteous indignation than you people. Does this manner of analysis sound familiar Candy?