Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 [2] 3 4  ReplyAdd Poll Send TopicPrint
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) Failed twice (Read 55937 times)
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Ex Member
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 710
Joined: Dec 9th, 2012
Re: Failed twice
Reply #15 - Mar 28th, 2014 at 8:06pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Quickie, tell us how polygraphy has "advanced" in the last few decades.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box quickfix
Especially Senior User
*****
Offline



Posts: 371
Joined: Jan 15th, 2006
Re: Failed twice
Reply #16 - Mar 28th, 2014 at 8:50pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
hmmm, let's see:  computerized polygraph instruments, ability to zip polygraph charts which can be emailed as an attachment;  far better and vastly more sensitive countermeasure cushion components;  built-in audio and video recording capability, no more cassette tapes needed.

The methodology is far more improved as well, but I certainly am not going to share the details of that on this site.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Ex Member
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 710
Joined: Dec 9th, 2012
Re: Failed twice
Reply #17 - Mar 28th, 2014 at 9:00pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
What you refer to is gadgetry enhancement not advancements in polygraphy. The truth is, there have been no advancements.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box quickfix
Especially Senior User
*****
Offline



Posts: 371
Joined: Jan 15th, 2006
Re: Failed twice
Reply #18 - Mar 28th, 2014 at 9:58pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Gadgetry?  Really?  You sound just like the kind of person who would have called automobile seat belts "gadgetry" in the 1960s until research showed they saved more lives of occupants using them then those not wearing them.  Even then, research continued, and seat belt technology improved with the development of the shoulder harness.  Then research was started on another "gadget"- airbag technology.  

You can call it what you like, it's still advancement in any language.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Ex Member
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 710
Joined: Dec 9th, 2012
Re: Failed twice
Reply #19 - Mar 28th, 2014 at 11:10pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
The gadgetry of seatbelts has been enhanced, but the basic concept of "if you restrain the passenger, injuries are reduced" has not been improved upon. Your fascination with your toys distracts you from the fact that there have been no advancements in detection of deception.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Doug Williams
Especially Senior User
*****
Offline



Posts: 284
Joined: Feb 15th, 2007
Gender: Male
Re: Failed twice
Reply #20 - Mar 29th, 2014 at 12:28am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
quickfix wrote on Mar 28th, 2014 at 8:50pm:
hmmm, let's see:  computerized polygraph instruments, ability to zip polygraph charts which can be emailed as an attachment;  far better and vastly more sensitive countermeasure cushion components;  built-in audio and video recording capability, no more cassette tapes needed.

The methodology is far more improved as well, but I certainly am not going to share the details of that on this site.



It is irrelevant how "improved" your "methodology" or your polygraph "instrument" may be - it is still not a "lie detector".  There is no such thing as a reaction that indicates deception!
  

I have been fighting the thugs and charlatans in the polygraph industry for forty years.  I tell about my crusade against the insidious Orwellian polygraph industry in my book FALSE CONFESSIONS - THE TRUE STORY OF DOUG WILLIAMS' CRUSADE AGAINST THE ORWELLIAN POLYGRAPH INDUSTRY.  Please visit my website POLYGRAPH.COM and follow me on TWITTER @DougWilliams_PG


Doug Williams
Back to top
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Aunty Agony
Very Senior User
****
Offline



Posts: 143
Joined: Aug 15th, 2011
Re: Failed twice
Reply #21 - Mar 29th, 2014 at 5:02pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
quickfix wrote on Mar 28th, 2014 at 8:50pm:
hmmm, let's see:  computerized polygraph instruments, ability to zip polygraph charts which can be emailed as an attachment;  far better and vastly more sensitive countermeasure cushion components;  built-in audio and video recording capability, no more cassette tapes needed.

It's such a shame that we didn't have all this advanced lie-detection technology in 1955, when John Anthony Walker was allowed access to navy secrets, or in 1960, when David Henry Barnett was hired by the CIA, or in 1967, when Aldrich Ames was hired by the CIA, or in 1976, when Robert Hanssen was hired by the FBI, or in 1977, when William Kampiles had access to the CIA's KH-11 spy satellite manual, or in 1980, when Harold Nicholson was hired by the CIA, or in 1986, when U. S. Army warrant officer James Hall III was investigated while he had already been selling codes to East Germany and the Soviet Union for three years, or in 1987, when FBI agent Earl Pitts was providing Top Secret documents to the Soviet Union, or in 1991, when Pitts had to find a new market in Russia because his former customer had imploded, or even in 2006, when Edward Snowden was engaged by the CIA and the NSA.

But don't be completely discouraged by all those failures: we did have enough gagetry in 1983 to falsely accuse Edward Lee Howard of drug abuse, causing him to be unjustly fired and driving him into the embrace of Soviet Union recruiters where he betrayed his entire former network.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box pailryder
Especially Senior User
*****
Offline



Posts: 441
Joined: Jun 5th, 2006
Re: Failed twice
Reply #22 - Mar 29th, 2014 at 7:27pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  

so quickfix, you are still here trying to have intelligent discussion with antis who don't believe computerization can be counted as an advancement.  Good luck brother!
  

No good social purpose can be served by inventing ways of beating the lie detector or deceiving polygraphers.   David Thoreson Lykken
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Ex Member
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 710
Joined: Dec 9th, 2012
Re: Failed twice
Reply #23 - Mar 29th, 2014 at 11:32pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
pailryder wrote on Mar 29th, 2014 at 7:27pm:
you are still here trying to have intelligent discussion with antis who don't believe computerization can be counted as an advancement. 

Please tell us how computerization has made polygraphy more able to detect deception.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Doug Williams
Especially Senior User
*****
Offline



Posts: 284
Joined: Feb 15th, 2007
Gender: Male
Re: Failed twice
Reply #24 - Mar 29th, 2014 at 11:33pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
pailryder wrote on Mar 29th, 2014 at 7:27pm:

so quickfix, you are still here trying to have intelligent discussion with antis who don't believe computerization can be counted as an advancement.  Good luck brother!


A computerized Ouija board is an "advancement" over the old wooden one, but it is still unable to communicate with the spirits of the dead.  And, by the same token, a computerized "lie detector" is an "advancement" over the old analog one, but it is still unable to detect deception!

The old Ouija board, and the computerized Ouija board - the old "lie detector", and the computerized "lie detector" are ALL still just BULLSHIT!
  

I have been fighting the thugs and charlatans in the polygraph industry for forty years.  I tell about my crusade against the insidious Orwellian polygraph industry in my book FALSE CONFESSIONS - THE TRUE STORY OF DOUG WILLIAMS' CRUSADE AGAINST THE ORWELLIAN POLYGRAPH INDUSTRY.  Please visit my website POLYGRAPH.COM and follow me on TWITTER @DougWilliams_PG


Doug Williams
Back to top
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Aunty Agony
Very Senior User
****
Offline



Posts: 143
Joined: Aug 15th, 2011
Re: Failed twice
Reply #25 - Mar 30th, 2014 at 2:59am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
quickfix wrote on Mar 28th, 2014 at 8:50pm:
hmmm, let's see:  computerized polygraph instruments, ability to zip polygraph charts which can be emailed as an attachment;  far better and vastly more sensitive countermeasure cushion components;  built-in audio and video recording capability, no more cassette tapes needed.

The 2003 NAS study The polygraph and lie detection concluded in part "Computerized polygraph scoring procedures have the theoretical potential to increase the accuracy of polygraph interpretation..."

Has this potential been even partially realized since 2003? Are any polygraphers using computer algorithms or automated expert systems to interpret or score charts?

The study continues "The polygraph as currently used has extremely serious limitations for use in security screening to identify security risks and to clear valued employees. In populations with extremely low base rates of major security violations, such an application requires greater accuracy than polygraph testing achieves."

Has this greater accuracy been demonstrated since 2003? Has any polygrapher even cited a significant increase in accuracy since the damn thing was invented?

I have asked you in all seriousness whether anything in the NAS study has been refuted yet, and you can only bloviate about converting a poly chart to a zip file or by eliminating the cassette tapes. Frankly, sir, this is just more of your argument-like noise.

quickfix wrote on Mar 28th, 2014 at 8:50pm:
The methodology is far more improved as well, but I certainly am not going to share the details of that on this site.

Well I suppose we should be thankful to be spared at least that much bullshit.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Ex Member
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 710
Joined: Dec 9th, 2012
Re: Failed twice
Reply #26 - Mar 30th, 2014 at 6:44pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
pailryder,
I will try to give a serious response to your comment. Beyond having drop down menus and radio buttons which make Quickfix feel like Buzz Lightyear, computerization does nothing to enhance your ability to detect deception. Digital is not superior to analog. Analog to Digital Converters (ADC) simply sample the analog signal and convert these samples to numbers which can be stored. Computer software can then perform various mathematical manipulation of these sampled data to relieve the polygraph operator of the task of scoring the charts; the most common is a statistical approach using discriminant analysis. I suppose there could be some utililty to this if there were dozens of charts to be read as in a study, but beyond that it does nothing more than what you are already supposed to know how to do. Digitization may have made housekeeping less tedious, but it hasn't advanced your ability to detect deception one iota.
« Last Edit: Mar 30th, 2014 at 9:57pm by Ex Member »  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box pailryder
Especially Senior User
*****
Offline



Posts: 441
Joined: Jun 5th, 2006
Re: Failed twice
Reply #27 - Apr 2nd, 2014 at 11:41am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Aunty Agony wrote on Mar 30th, 2014 at 2:59am:
Are any polygraphers using computer algorithms or automated expert systems to interpret or score charts?



Aunty Agony

The short answer to your question is yes, practically all are.  In addition to a numerical hand score, I have scored every chart I have run since 1995, almost twenty years now, with computer software.  Using software calls as a backup has alerted me to potential mistakes and most certainly has improved my accuracy.
« Last Edit: Apr 2nd, 2014 at 12:02pm by pailryder »  

No good social purpose can be served by inventing ways of beating the lie detector or deceiving polygraphers.   David Thoreson Lykken
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Doug Williams
Especially Senior User
*****
Offline



Posts: 284
Joined: Feb 15th, 2007
Gender: Male
Re: Failed twice
Reply #28 - Apr 2nd, 2014 at 4:41pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
pailryder wrote on Apr 2nd, 2014 at 11:41am:
Aunty Agony wrote on Mar 30th, 2014 at 2:59am:
Are any polygraphers using computer algorithms or automated expert systems to interpret or score charts?



Aunty Agony

The short answer to your question is yes, practically all are.  In addition to a numerical hand score, I have scored every chart I have run since 1995, almost twenty years now, with computer software.  Using software calls as a backup has alerted me to potential mistakes and most certainly has improved my accuracy.



Accuracy?  Seriously?  What "accuracy"?  Are you trying to tell us that you can accurately detect deception - that there is a reaction that ALWAYS indicates deception?


  

I have been fighting the thugs and charlatans in the polygraph industry for forty years.  I tell about my crusade against the insidious Orwellian polygraph industry in my book FALSE CONFESSIONS - THE TRUE STORY OF DOUG WILLIAMS' CRUSADE AGAINST THE ORWELLIAN POLYGRAPH INDUSTRY.  Please visit my website POLYGRAPH.COM and follow me on TWITTER @DougWilliams_PG


Doug Williams
Back to top
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Ex Member
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 710
Joined: Dec 9th, 2012
Re: Failed twice
Reply #29 - Apr 2nd, 2014 at 5:55pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
pailryder wrote on Apr 2nd, 2014 at 11:41am:
Using software calls as a backup has alerted me to potential mistakes

As I said, computerization has not advanced your ability to detect deception; it is just a crutch for your rusty chart reading skills.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 
ReplyAdd Poll Send TopicPrint
Failed twice

Please type the characters that appear in the image. The characters must be typed in the same order, and they are case-sensitive.
Open Preview Preview

You can resize the textbox by dragging the right or bottom border.
Insert Hyperlink Insert FTP Link Insert Image Insert E-mail Insert Media Insert Table Insert Table Row Insert Table Column Insert Horizontal Rule Insert Teletype Insert Code Insert Quote Edited Superscript Subscript Insert List /me - my name Insert Marquee Insert Timestamp No Parse
Bold Italicized Underline Insert Strikethrough Highlight
                       
Change Text Color
Insert Preformatted Text Left Align Centered Right Align
resize_wb
resize_hb







Max 200000 characters. Remaining characters:
Text size: pt
More Smilies
View All Smilies
Collapse additional features Collapse/Expand additional features Smiley Wink Cheesy Grin Angry Sad Shocked Cool Huh Roll Eyes Tongue Embarrassed Lips Sealed Undecided Kiss Cry
Attachments More Attachments Allowed file types: txt doc docx ics psd pdf bmp jpe jpg jpeg gif png swf zip rar tar gz 7z odt ods mp3 mp4 wav avi mov 3gp html maff pgp gpg
Maximum Attachment size: 500000 KB
Attachment 1:
X