Quote:


I think they should be forced to spend the day reading, and rereading your idiotic posts.   

nopolycop wrote on Mar 22^nd, 2008 at 1:46pm:


Shall we also enact legislation, in that any doctor, psychologist or psychiatrist also be penalized when rendering an innacurate diagnosis?  BTW, I read a research report about 5-6 years ago that overall, polygraph was more accurate than any of the above (read it, can't quote the citation).  How do we handle that? And we're all a bunch of uneducated bumpkins...

Sackett

sackett wrote on Mar 22^nd, 2008 at 2:13pm:


SACKETT!!! News flash..... You are NOT a Doctor, Psycologist or a Psychiatrist your also NOT a Lawyer or Judge.
It's amazing to me how high you put yourself and your "chosen profession"
One that the legal field itself has deemed to be unreliable at best.
Come back to earth man.

notguilty1 wrote on Mar 22^nd, 2008 at 9:04pm:


You're right!  I'm not a doctor, psychologist, etc.  But according to the research I read (public information), I'm more accurate.  That's not pompous, it's just the truth.  An ellusive concept, at many levels, to many on this board...

Sackett

you do, it's just called something different...

malpractice insurance...


Sackett

         Hello NotGuilty1,

WOW you really do compare yourself to accual medical professionals.
Let me SLOWLY explain the difference  Your slow answer would appear to be a reflection on how YOUR brain works, and not an evaluation of Sackett's   

1) When a Doctor sees a patient there are usually signs and symptoms.
With Polys ...... NOT  Wrong Grasshopper, When a Polygraph Examiner sees a test subject there are good and valid reasons for which they are either a suspect (criminal case) or wherein the respective government employer(s) are making an investment in the applicant.  The "Signs" or "Concerns" are universal in catagories that Dept. of Labor states may be covered.  Got It ? Let's move on !!


2) The doctor follows up with a diagnosis and possible tests to confirm the suspected problem. These tests ARE scientifically proven i.e. blood tests for diabetes or MRI's for tumors.
With polys' ....... NOT   Grasshopper, now snatch this information from my writing !!!   The Examiner follows up after a review of the chart to consistentcy of reaction.  The test was done in an environment free of artificial stimuli, therefore the reason for the reaction is based on the internal processing of the subject's (sometimes slow like yours) brain.  There are hundreds of thousands of confirmed charts from which the examiners training is derived.  Further, the computer scoring algorithms mathamatically rate the test in regard to the mean, median, and mode averages (scientific enough for you ?) in interpreting the data from which an evaluation is made. The truth or deception is clearly present in the mind of the examinee prior to the first chart ever being run as all questions are reviewed. 


3) The doctor will prescribe a treatment that may include surgery and or medication. This ususally will lead to a resolution to the problem if not there usually is a good reason it wasen't resolved i.e. cancer treatment that can only prolong a patients life or the patient not following through with doctors orders.
With Poly's ......... NOT

   The Examiner, after making a determination of No Deception Indicated thanks the Examinee for their participation which are the majority of cases.  If there is a finding of Deception Indicated then the examinee is confronted and this will usually lead to the WHY which validates the chart event reactions aka the known deception.  Sometimes, as in posters I read here, the childlike stance of standing by the lie is maintained and the examinee is frozen in the process while better, more cooperative, and Truthful applicants move forward.  End result ?  The job gets filled and the employer's needs met------------ as it is NOT only about YOU.   

Your claims of accuacy is a joke since I know you can't ( unless there is other supporting evidence) know if a positive test or a negative test is accurate. Your "industry" simply relies on the test results to make those claims. Isn't that true Sackett?

  What would appear to be the joke is the relativism being spouted about here on this site.  You believe that if you repeat your mantras long enough, loud enough, and strong enough; that you can create a new reality.  You have still NOT accounted for the hundreds of thousands of charts which were mathamatically scored as Truthful or Deceptive in where later other evidence clearly showed the same thing---------- are they all just an accident ?  Are we really to believe that the FBI,CIA,NSA, DoD, and a list of other alphabet soup organizations ALL got it wrong, and that only YOU the disgruntled have it right.  That would really be evidence of a slow brain !!

Your comparisson between a proven profession that can be always documented as realiable and the level of education that those providers need to do what they do and YOU and the poigraph industry is laughable at best.

   Your argument is an apples and oranges one !!! Even Forest Gump (Slow Brain) could see through that !!!  Besides, even medicine or aviation offer no guarantees of being proven each and every time, or you would not have so many lawyers taking them to task.  Did you know that polygraph insurance is much cheaper than their insurance ?  Shoud we derive from that that we do it better and are rated as a lower risk ?  No, rather that there are few lawsuits filed as there are standards which are followed and little grounds from which a suit could be successful.   

Keep talking though I am sure your educating lots of curious people reading your posts.     You really can NOT educate a close minded slow brain like yours who is stuck in the rut of celebrating their own claimed victimization.  The real education would come to you if and when you give credit where credit is due, as the polygraph community has reached out and more than met you half way in stating they are NOT perfect, but do make a valued contribution in the investigative and intelligence field.   

TheNoLieGuy4U wrote on Mar 26^th, 2008 at 11:38pm:



Hey your questioning my intelligence is "the mantra"
You know damed well that Poliygraphs do NOT detect lies and there is ample evidence to show that.
So much so that THEY ARE STILL NOT ADMISSABLE IN COURT because they are deemd unreliable by experts and the court system.

You guys still have to apparantly waste your time to defend your "science" against,  in your words "slow minded folks" like myself and TM Cullen Oh! and I guess George would qualify as one of us to in your book.
Your defense of Sackett's comparing the Polygraph industry and the Medical industry is continuing to show the pompous attitude that examiners have.
BTW I don't care who uses Polygraph's and for what reason they are "unreliable" in ALL those applications in detecting lies and only used to force a confession in those that take the snake oil.