Quote:Thus, Polygraph is used as a interrogation tool (could be done this way even if the machine is turned OFF) not a scientific test at all since the examiner has NO idea whether the examinee is lying, not until he actually confesses believing the scam, that the Polygraph machine will expose his lie or even what the examiner would consider a lie.
Many have failed telling the "examiner" what they though he wanted to hear due to berating pressure.
And if the machine really scientifically detected deception,
why the need for manipulative interrogation tricks IN BETWEEN chart readings? Why not just run the required number of chart readings, making sure the applicant understands the questions, then be done with it? After all, the machine DETECTS DECEPTION! Doesn't it? So run the charts (collect your ?scientific data samples), do the ?scientific? analysis, and come to a ?scientific? conclusion!
The answer of course is that it is NOT a test, but an interrogation cleverly disguised as a test. The machine doesn't
directly measure deception. If it did, and after several chart readings there is a definite pattern of "reaction", they'd have the incriminating evidence they need (as in DNA testing), and that would be that.
But that is not that! A pattern of reaction without the elicitation of self incriminating statements (goal of an interrogation) is worthless and will lead to an "inconclusive". But why inconclusive? I thought the machine can detect lies! You have a pattern of "REACTIONS"! They must be lying, right? What is "Inconclusive" about that?
TC