Post reply

The message has the following error or errors that must be corrected before continuing:
Warning: this topic has not been posted in for at least 120 days.
Unless you're sure you want to reply, please consider starting a new topic.
Attachments: (Clear attachments)
Restrictions: 4 per post (4 remaining), maximum total size 192 KB, maximum individual size 64.00 MB
Uncheck the attachments you no longer want attached
Click or drag files here to attach them.
(Clear attachments)
Other options
Verification:
Please leave this box empty:
Type the letters shown in the picture
Listen to the letters / Request another image

Type the letters shown in the picture:
Shortcuts: ALT+S post or ALT+P preview

Topic summary

Posted by George Maschke (Guest)
 - Mar 21, 2001, 07:44 AM
FP,

I think the motion picture industry has played a very important role in promoting popular belief in the lie detector. While I don't recall seeing any posts about the movie Traffic, (which I haven't seen), you may have read my earlier post about the use of lie detectors on The Jenny Jones Show:

https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=28.msg79#msg79

I think that the motion picture and television industries could also play an important role in exposing polygraphy for the fraud that it is.

You also wrote:
QuoteI'm almost fearful that the polygraph situation is going to get much much worse before someone high up in government comes to their senses and orders a comprehensive analysis of polygraph research to date, and sees it has no genuine scientific basis.

Such a research review was done by the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment in 1983, and it concluded that the use of polygraphy for screening purposes is not supported by scientific research. While this study helped in getting the 1988 Employee Polygraph Protection Act passed, the Congress (quite cynically, in my view) exempted federal, state, and local governments from the law's restrictions.

A new research review is currently underway under the auspices of the National Academy of Sciences' National Research Council. For more details, see AntiPolygraph.org's NAS Polygraph Review page:

http://antipolygraph.org/nas.shtml

Last modification: George Maschke - 03/21/01 at 04:44:55
Posted by George Maschke (Guest)
 - Mar 21, 2001, 12:27 AM
Lone Ranger,

You wrote:
QuoteYou've got it all wrong, Federal examiners only badger and abuse subjects who LIE.
On what basis do you make this assertion?
Posted by Lone Ranger
 - Mar 21, 2001, 12:15 AM
FP,

You've got it all wrong, Federal examiners only badger and abuse subjects who LIE.  
Posted by FP (Guest)
 - Mar 20, 2001, 08:09 PM
I think this issue was mentioned in a previous post some time back. At any rate, I saw the movie Traffic over the weekend. In the movie, a member of a powerful Mexican drug cartel betrays his boss and goes to the US DEA to divulge damaging information about the cartel. There is a scene where the DEA polygraphs this guy to "see if he's truthful".

I was just utterly disgusted with the message this sends to the public about polygraphs. That specific scene had no elements of the examiners badgering and abusing the subject, which is typical in federal polygraphs. Also, this guy passing the poly in the movie is consistent with reality, because this character is basically a scumbag. Duplicitous scumbags are the ones with the best chances of passing a poly in reality.

I'm almost fearful that the polygraph situation is going to get much much worse before someone high up in government comes to their senses and orders a comprehensive analysis of polygraph research to date, and sees it has no genuine scientific basis.