Dr. Maschke,  would you kindly tie this maladroit buffoon to a hitching post while I attempt to find answers to poly-ana's question?  

notguilty1 wrote on Oct 11^th, 2008 at 2:28am:


Notguilty1 wrote
Quote:



Thank you
Sancho Panza

Polyanna,

Did you have the same thing for breakfast prior to each of the four polygraphs?

Perhaps the stars were not aligned properly.  What was the level of sunspot activity on those days?

I just can't understand it.  Ordinarily, the test is 98% accurate.  That is what was reported on the Dr. Phil Show, and in the tabloids.  Former top FBI polygrapher Mr. Demarco  reported a 98% accuracy rate on the "O'Reilly Factor" on FNN.  Are you calling him a liar!

Maybe YOU ARE THE LIAR!  Maybe you've just come here to smear an entire industry.  Who put you up to this?  Al Qaeda?

Of course you realize I am being sarcastic.

TC

Quote:


But it is good he comes and posts here for all the many lurkers to see.

TC

Sergeant, Who was the poster here today who first claimed to have the definitive answer to a question he wasn’t asked and then in his  very next post admits he is unqualified to provide a definitive answer? 
Hint: {identify the author of the following quotes}

Quote:


Quote:



Let me put your polygraph qualifications in a different context. You are highly trained, and very experienced in traffic collision reconstruction are you not?

Perhaps you attended the Northwestern University Center for Public Safety Courses 
Accident Investigation I  - 10 days 
Accident Investigation II -20 days
Or perhaps you received your basic accident investigation training from the Connecticut State Police. I’m not familiar with their specific training, but I would imagine it is at least the best in the state and easily more than enough to prepare you for Northwestern University Center for Public Safety Courses 
Accident Reconstruction I  - 5 days 
Accident Reconstruction II -10 days

Between your basic instruction and reconstruction training I’m betting you had several years on the road working wrecks and gaining experience. You must have displayed a certain aptitude for collision investigation and reconstruction because I’m betting that everybody in your agency doesn’t get to attend reconstruction training. 

If you did all your training at Northwestern, you could start calling yourself an accident reconstruction specialist and some might refer to you as the new department expert after 9 weeks training.  (Side note:  most basic polygraph schools are running 10-11 weeks now) Of course your training doesn’t stop there, you surely attend continuing education course specific to accident reconstruction every year i.e. pedestrian accidents, black box analysis, vehicle/train, etc to supplement your knowledge and improve your skills. 

So here you are an authority on accident reconstruction with the credentials to back it up and you are discussing a fatality collision and stating that in your expert opinion the equations and observations used to determine vehicle velocity before and at the point of impact are an accurate means of determining speed and that in the accident under discussion the defendant was traveling at approximately 30 mph over the speed limit at point of impact when he T-boned a van full of kids on their way home from day care. 

In rebuttal, a guy stands up to dispute your findings and he makes the following statement. “I have never been to accident investigation training, but I read a book about it once. I have personally been involved in four fatality collisions. In 3 of those collisions the accident reconstruction expert claimed that I was speeding but I wasn’t. In the 4th collision the expert said I wasn’t speeding and he was right. Still being right once and wrong three times proves that all of this accident reconstruction stuff is voodoo. If it was any good it would have proved that I wasn’t speeding every time I said I wasn’t speeding because I WASN”T SPEEDING. Besides, this guy who is supposed to be an expert (referring to you) said that the defendant was traveling approximately 30 mph over the speed limit. If his science was valid he would be able to tell the difference between 29, 30, and 31 mph. I have heard of cases where the speed estimates have been off by more than 20 mph. This proves his tests are not accurate. Besides I heard those accident reconstruction guys cannot specifically determine a driver’s Perception Reaction Time in a particular collision and this introduces a variable that prevents anyone from knowing exactly how fast he was going. Oh, and I stayed at a Holiday Inn express last night

Sergeant, Based on the above scenario, the question before you is; do you really believe that anyone with genuine knowledge or training in accident investigation is going to accept this guy as a credible authority on collisions?

Sancho Panza   

SanchoPanza wrote on Oct 11^th, 2008 at 12:37pm:

 
Sancho, let's assume you have attended a bigfoot training course carried out by the International Bigfoot Society 

http://www.internationalbigfootsociety.com/

(Sorry, but I don't know how to insert embedded links on this board).  Now comes Sancho riding his donkey Rucío, who claims bigfoot exists and that he has definite evidence bigfoot exists.

It's not necessary that I attend any training anywhere to tell you with 100% certainty bigfoot is a myth.  Then, when someone challenges the bigfoot myth Sancho rides away on Rucío and states, "I'll contact someone else in the "International Bigfoot Society" to prove there is a bigfoot!  

An accurate lie detector = bigfoot.  Both are a myth and do not exist.

SanchoPanza wrote on Oct 11^th, 2008 at 5:00pm:


The best scientific minds have no confidence that this the case. Indeed, polygraphy is inherently biased against the truthful in that the more candidly one answers the so-called control questions, and as a consequence exhibits less anxiety when answering them, the more likely one is to wrongly fail.

Quote:


On the basis of precisely what evidence do you assert this to be true?

Dr. Maschke, for the sake of this discussion I base this assertion on the statement of Kpminam. He described using the countermeasure that you teach in your book, he got caught, confronted and failed which cost him a career opportunity. It provides exactly the same quantity and quality of evidence that you provide to support your statement that you told the truth and failed one polygraph and that you didn't attempt countermeasures on another test. 

Your only real response was that the examiner made a lucky guess. I can certainly see why you would hope that was the case beause you hate to be wrong, but that argument is pretty untenable.

Are you somehow claiming that his statement is a lie? If so I would ask what evidence you might have to support that assertion. 

Sancho Panza

Let me add this modification to this post.

Dr. Maschke, just because you agree with them or they support your point of view does NOT mean they they are automatically "The Best Scientific Minds" it just means you like what they say. I'm sure you are aware that even election to the prestigeous National Academy of Sciences is a subjective process and allows ballots to be submitted by members completely outside the discipline for which the candidate is being considered. 

SP