The Polygraph Place

Thanks for stopping by our bulletin board.
Please take just a moment to register so you can post your own questions
and reply to topics. It is free and takes only a minute to register. Just click on the register link


††Polygraph Place Bulletin Board
††Professional Issues - Private Forum for Examiners ONLY
††mythbusters

Post New Topic††Post A Reply
profile | register | preferences | faq | search

next newest topic | next oldest topic
Author Topic:†† mythbusters
Tom Wheeler
Member
posted 12-06-2007 09:00 AM ††† Click Here to See the Profile for Tom Wheeler † ††Edit/Delete Message
A guy I work with told me he watched Mythbusters last night. They did a polygraph segment and declared it 99% accurate. My friend was very impressed about the examiner catching countermeasures. Did anybody see this show?

IP: Logged

stat
Member
posted 12-06-2007 09:24 AM ††† Click Here to See the Profile for stat ††Click Here to Email stat†† ††Edit/Delete Message
I am juggling kids and store and homework right now----let's race to see who can find the segment online first and I will post a link and seperate topic on antipolygraph---provided that it really was a positive show.

cool---some good news

IP: Logged

Taylor
Member
posted 12-06-2007 09:52 AM ††† Click Here to See the Profile for Taylor ††Click Here to Email Taylor†† ††Edit/Delete Message
I just watched the 3 minute version on the web page and it is definately PRO polygraph. I wish I could have watched the entire segment. Taylor

IP: Logged

Barry C
Member
posted 12-06-2007 09:54 AM ††† Click Here to See the Profile for Barry C ††Click Here to Email Barry C†† ††Edit/Delete Message
I didn't see it, but the examiner who told me about it said it will run again on Saturday. I'll have to check and post it as an alert on George's site.

(I think I recorded it, so I'll probably watch it first.)

IP: Logged

stat
Member
posted 12-06-2007 10:18 AM ††† Click Here to See the Profile for stat ††Click Here to Email stat†† ††Edit/Delete Message
Barry, please do that. I am covered today----too unfocused for surgical antipoly posting. I got sloppy with my last "urinalysis" comparison and Sarge pounced---and you recovered. Thanks for that too.

Eric

[This message has been edited by stat (edited 12-06-2007).]

IP: Logged

Buster
Member
posted 12-06-2007 12:12 PM ††† Click Here to See the Profile for Buster ††Click Here to Email Buster†† ††Edit/Delete Message
For you East Coast guys/girls, it's on at 12:00 P.M. on Saturday.

The seminar this week just had a four hour block on countermeaures. Good Stuff.

[This message has been edited by Buster (edited 12-06-2007).]

IP: Logged

Barry C
Member
posted 12-06-2007 01:26 PM ††† Click Here to See the Profile for Barry C ††Click Here to Email Barry C†† ††Edit/Delete Message
I'm watching now, but we're in for trouble. "Dr." Michael Martin is the polygraph expert. More later.

IP: Logged

Barry C
Member
posted 12-06-2007 01:48 PM ††† Click Here to See the Profile for Barry C ††Click Here to Email Barry C†† ††Edit/Delete Message
First, the good news: The naive will see the show and come away believing that CM attempts are a waste of time.

However, George will beat us up over the "doctor" issue as well as the statement that the two liars only used CMs on the questions to which they were being truthful, which means the neutrals.

They didn't show much of the charts, so I couldn't see where physical CMs were being done. Does anybody know Michael Martin to ask if they knew to try CMs on the CQs?

One liar tried physical CMs (tack in the foot tongue biting - the former was quickly abandoned when Michael told him he was moving) and the other used mental CMs.

They didn't say polygraph was 99% accurate, but rather showed the Polyscore results for the three people tested. The two liars showed a 99% probability of deception, and the truthful showed a less than 1% probability of deception.

Overall, it was a win for polygraph, but a debate with the anti-crowd. If somebody can find out if CMs were used on the CQs we'll be armed and ready for the AP site attacks. We could use this to our favor if we dot our i's and cross our t's.

IP: Logged

rnelson
Member
posted 12-06-2007 02:00 PM ††† Click Here to See the Profile for rnelson ††Click Here to Email rnelson†† ††Edit/Delete Message
Interesting.

I could not find a clip, but here is a forum at discovery.com
http://community.discovery.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/9401967776/m/6611962049

There is a user called Chris Rhoades who claims to be a co-founder of the anti site.

------------------
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here. This is the war room."
--(Stanley Kubrick/Peter Sellers - Dr. Strangelove, 1964)

IP: Logged

Barry C
Member
posted 12-06-2007 02:12 PM ††† Click Here to See the Profile for Barry C ††Click Here to Email Barry C†† ††Edit/Delete Message
I've never heard of him. Does anybody have a login to see his profile? If it's true, I'd think George would confirm it. If not, I'd think he's egotistical enough to deny it.

IP: Logged

stat
Member
posted 12-06-2007 03:20 PM ††† Click Here to See the Profile for stat ††Click Here to Email stat†† ††Edit/Delete Message
gee, another forum. I think I have enough forums---poly place, antipoly, and 2 hot rod forums, and Asian Vixons. (ok, kidding about the Asian site.)

IP: Logged

Taylor
Member
posted 12-06-2007 04:05 PM ††† Click Here to See the Profile for Taylor ††Click Here to Email Taylor†† ††Edit/Delete Message
I obtained a log in and I still can't get into his profile....could be operator error. Taylor

IP: Logged

rnelson
Member
posted 12-07-2007 10:30 AM ††† Click Here to See the Profile for rnelson ††Click Here to Email rnelson†† ††Edit/Delete Message
Well, George is on it.

I'm a little bugged that Martin would create this exposure (as if I've never done foolish things at anti).

We should deafen them with silence on this.

That twit, nopoly is a full blown rabble-rowser. The less we interact with him the better.

Do you suppose its possible to increase the dialog on other topics, perhaps soon would be a good day for another discussion about some very interesting research - that would re-expose their bias against data and fill the void a little.

r

------------------
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here. This is the war room."
--(Stanley Kubrick/Peter Sellers - Dr. Strangelove, 1964)

IP: Logged

stat
Member
posted 12-07-2007 12:20 PM ††† Click Here to See the Profile for stat ††Click Here to Email stat†† ††Edit/Delete Message
Cheeeese n Rice. You mean to tell me out of all the talented and credentialed examiners they picked a man with a phoney phd?
I am just sick over this stupidity. We take 3 steps forward and four steps back. Thanks Mr. Martin. You are a first class deuche bag. Way to bring the worse aspect of our profession to Front Street.

IP: Logged

LouRovner
Administrator
posted 12-07-2007 12:32 PM ††† Click Here to See the Profile for LouRovner ††Click Here to Email LouRovner†† ††Edit/Delete Message
There is now absolutely no doubt that Maschke is a narcissistic, obsessive-compulsive crank. (More diagnostic comments are included at the end of this post)

An examiner on a TV show correctly demonstrates that two people who are using countermeasures are being deceptive, and Georgie uses that as an indictment of polygraph.

A polygraph test of the defendant in a criminal trial in Ohio is admitted in open court, the innocent defendant goes free, and Georgie uses that as an indictment of polygraph.

There are two psychological diagnoses that adequately describe Georgie's problem:

1. He's not playing with a full deck.

2. He's one taco shy of a combination plate.

Dr. Lou

IP: Logged

stat
Member
posted 12-07-2007 12:43 PM ††† Click Here to See the Profile for stat ††Click Here to Email stat†† ††Edit/Delete Message
Please, ladies and gentleman forgive my brashness. Sometimes it seems that if cohorts resorted to such degradation, the field as a whole would not get in trouble with such sophomoric fraud attempts.

We can debate scoring and question formats and formulation as gentleman/ladies, but when a colleague jeopardizes ever aspect of credibility with selfish and fraudelent ordainment, we need to call a spade a spade,
and stop chumming with chum.

IP: Logged

LouRovner
Administrator
posted 12-07-2007 01:05 PM ††† Click Here to See the Profile for LouRovner ††Click Here to Email LouRovner†† ††Edit/Delete Message
stat,

With all due respect (and I mean that), I don't think it does us any good to take Georgie's side on ANYTHING.

There's no point in eating our own, especially when the Jackass In The Netherlands is being fed information from this board.

Lou

IP: Logged

Barry C
Member
posted 12-07-2007 04:38 PM ††† Click Here to See the Profile for Barry C ††Click Here to Email Barry C†† ††Edit/Delete Message
Okay, you forced me to take a painful look over there. I only stopped banging my head against the wall to post here.

Nopoly is regurgitating George's drivel. (What a tasty concoction that must be!) Sarge has lost his mind. The NAS was "neutral"? Give me a break. How many of them hated us before they got paid by the anti crowd employees to make their conclusions?

The beautiful thing is, George was so predictable. It's as if he read my post - or did he?

I'm too lazy to post in the right place, but good job on the Wiki site. Maybe I'll get there this weekend.

IP: Logged

LouRovner
Administrator
posted 12-07-2007 04:42 PM ††† Click Here to See the Profile for LouRovner ††Click Here to Email LouRovner†† ††Edit/Delete Message
Did anyone here read Chapter 5 of the NAS report, the one about specific issue testing?

Lou

IP: Logged

stat
Member
posted 12-07-2007 05:36 PM ††† Click Here to See the Profile for stat ††Click Here to Email stat†† ††Edit/Delete Message
Lou, didn't you once write an article detailing why the scientific community has little if any regard for the polygraph field? I can't find it online, and I have shamefully abused my archived copies of polygraph periodicals. I was wondering if a revisit to that piece might hold some good talking posts at the viperpit. Gotta go to my class---I'll log on late tonight.

------------------
".....cause it has electrolites" --Idiocracy

IP: Logged

Barry C
Member
posted 12-07-2007 05:53 PM ††† Click Here to See the Profile for Barry C ††Click Here to Email Barry C†† ††Edit/Delete Message
It must have killed them to pen that portion, but yes, this should be a dead issue. We won that fight, so why do we act as if we lost?

IP: Logged

LouRovner
Administrator
posted 12-07-2007 06:16 PM ††† Click Here to See the Profile for LouRovner ††Click Here to Email LouRovner†† ††Edit/Delete Message
Stat,

I think the article that you were referring to is "Informed Scientists Support Polygraph Testing." This was a column I wrote for the APA Magazine, July/August, 2007 issue. I cited several surveys in the article.

The reality is that scientists who have read some of the research literature have a very favorable view of polygraph testing.

Lou

IP: Logged

stat
Member
posted 12-07-2007 10:37 PM ††† Click Here to See the Profile for stat ††Click Here to Email stat†† ††Edit/Delete Message
No Lou, the article was called "Why Some Scientists Just Donít Get It" (or something to that effect). It might make some good talking points.

------------------
".....cause it has electrolites" --Idiocracy

IP: Logged

stat
Member
posted 12-07-2007 10:45 PM ††† Click Here to See the Profile for stat ††Click Here to Email stat†† ††Edit/Delete Message
On the issue of phony PHD's. We all know that there are nearly infinite ways that we can make mistakes running polygraph tests, marketing polygraph tests, and educating the public about polygraph testing. It is a perilous field indeed. However, as a minority profession, when we become known as frauds, it negates everything that we do, say, and write. Come to think of it, I cannot think of a better (or worse) insult than to be called a "fraud." A fraud is someone who lies, cheats, and steals from the ignorant or weak. Mr. Martin must be a great guy to evoke such loyalty from friends----friends who apparently are too respectful to pull him aside and emphatically ask "what the F are you doing man?!

[This message has been edited by stat (edited 12-07-2007).]

[This message has been edited by stat (edited 12-07-2007).]

IP: Logged

Buster
Member
posted 12-08-2007 07:46 AM ††† Click Here to See the Profile for Buster ††Click Here to Email Buster†† ††Edit/Delete Message
Stat, I was going to post something a little similar.

I don't know Mike, he may be a good guy and a quality examiner. He does come to the New Jersey seminars.

However, he would make it easier on himself and all of us if he dropped the Dr. title. Especially after all of the mileage George got out of the last one(Maybe Gelb?). Mike does admit that his Phd is honorable on his site.

I am surprised he(Mike) doesn't come to this board.

Nate has a 20/20 about voice stress and one of the first things the reporter does is attack the VSA owner's Phd. He admitted he went to 6 hours of classes for his Phd. Six hours? That was one night of my Masters classes. 6 hours is hilarious.

6 hours? I have had sex longer then that. Ok, not even close but still. He definitely lost credibility with the audience on that stunt.

[This message has been edited by Buster (edited 12-08-2007).]

IP: Logged

Barry C
Member
posted 12-11-2007 05:30 PM ††† Click Here to See the Profile for Barry C ††Click Here to Email Barry C†† ††Edit/Delete Message
I talked to Mike (via email). He believes they tried CMs on the neutrals and CQs alike. He encouraged them to read whatever they wanted to read to learn how to "beat" him - just like real life. It didn't work.

IP: Logged

BrunswickT
Member
posted 01-03-2008 07:57 PM ††† Click Here to See the Profile for BrunswickT ††Click Here to Email BrunswickT†† ††Edit/Delete Message
I felt that an interesting point on this segment was when the Myth-Busters went to the research lab in Florida.
The myth that the MRI is 100% accurate was busted.
One of the three was truthful, yet the MRI reading determined him DI.

------------------
TGB

IP: Logged

All times are PT (US)

next newest topic | next oldest topic

Administrative Options: Close Topic | Archive/Move | Delete Topic
Post New Topic††Post A Reply
Hop to:

Contact Us | The Polygraph Place

copyright 1999-2003. WordNet Solutions. All Rights Reserved

Powered by: Ultimate Bulletin Board, Version 5.39c
© Infopop Corporation (formerly Madrona Park, Inc.), 1998 - 1999.