Twoblock wrote on Mar 19^th, 2008 at 4:32pm:


Twoblock,

the analog instrument refers to the mechanical/electrical instrument used in the past (like the one in "Meet the Parents").  Many "older" examiners prefer it to the computer based programs, usually due to fear/ignorance of the computer itself, lack of computer ability (i.e. comfortability) or not wanting to spend the money.

There is little difference in the tracings and there is nothing related to test technques (referring to your reducing of false positives statement or trade secrets), as it relates to the analog vs computerized process. They are simply different methods to record the same information.  

The computerized polygraph has the ability to modify the tracings after the test for evaluation purposes.  For example, if a tracing is too big or too small, it can be reduced or enhanced for evaluation purposes.  Or, if a tracing goes off the screen during the exam, it can be returned, electronically after the test for evaluation reasons since there are no pen limits in the computer.  

Once a computerized test has been recorded and saved to a file, it can not be altered, except for temporary evaluation purposes; however, the original is never altered.  The analog produces paper charts and, for example, if the examinee eats a portion (actually saw that happen), it can not be reproduced, since the paper chart is the original.

I find interesting, your report of the examiner's comment that the computer background noise bothered him.  I found, back in the day, the scratching of pens on the paper was more anoying than any computer noise...especially the cardio tracing, since when BP/volume increased, you could actually hear the pen speed up.

Thanks for the intelligent question. Hope that answered it sufficiently.

Sackett

Twoblock wrote on Mar 19^th, 2008 at 7:25pm:


To begin, anything you actually see on TV is entertainment.  Nothing more, nothing less.  The examiner you mentioned stated he disliked the computer due to, "computer background noise."  I can only assume that means actual audible noise, not frequency channel noise.

Secondly and for the record, the analog and computerized polygraph record the same information, just differently.

Sackett

"notguilty1",

first off, if only you were intelligent enough to know and understood, there is an art of "statement analysis", of which you are oviously igorant of.  This of course, had nothing to do with polygraph but gave you a supposed entrance to attacking it blindly, once again.  

Secondly, for having the opinion, that polygraph, my statements and opinions (by connection), etc are "a joke", then why do you spend so much time replying to them and giving them credibility?  

BTW, a "one man, judge, jury and executioner?"  How bizare?  Of course, this is the exact reason polygraph is not blindly admitted into court (also, a decision, I agree with).

Sackett

Quote:


It is a scientific art, or if you prefer, an artful science.

I can be whatever you want it to be.  Just cooperate, they're there to help.  They WANT you to get this job!  So just open up.  It will be good for you.  Trust me.  Now, are you relaxed?  Shall we proceed?  Okay, good then:

WHY WOULD YOU BE HAVING TROUBLE WITH THAT QUESTION!!!

WHY ARE YOU LYING!   

OF COURSE YOU ARE LYING!  THE MACHINE SAYS SO!

IT'S 95% ACCURATE!

notguilty1 wrote on Mar 22^nd, 2008 at 2:46am:


You wrote, "ART???  That's what you use to JUDGE someone? ART??"

No, not judge someone.  Statement analysis is an art form used to help investigators (and others), provide indicators of guilt or guilty knowledge otherwise concealed.  It is a "flag" in the investigative  process designed to help guide investigative efforts.

Sure! I agree that a polygraph CAN be "rigged" against an examinee by the examiner.  But why would we?  It is easier to call someone truthful and kick them out or pass them than to call them DI and have to post-test interview them (or what you cann the interrogation).   

Many examiners who have lost their confidence have in fact simply relegated themselves to running NDI charts (in their minds) and miss concealed or untruthful information via responses.  So, I guess it would be fair to say that having an older examiner is a lot easier to pass than a young, relatively new examiner who still is trying hard to do it right.   

This is the reason why many professional polygraph examiners are trying hard to standardize the profession.

Sackett

No, wrong again!  I simply indicated the possibility of his guilt, based on statement analysis, but nothing more.

If that, in an of itself is "psychobabble", you're right, it is amazing...

Sackett