- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Oct 31, 2008, 02:10 PMFor more on the alleged plot to assassinate U.S. Senator and Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, see RawStory.com reporter Brad Jacobson's article, "Legal experts question US Attorney's decision not to prosecute Obama 'assassination plot'." The matter of the polygraph "tests" administered to Nathan Johnson and Shawn Adolf is not, however, mentioned:
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Legal_experts_question_Colorado_US_Attorneys_1031.html
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Legal_experts_question_Colorado_US_Attorneys_1031.html
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Sep 06, 2008, 11:28 AMQuote from: polytek on Sep 06, 2008, 10:10 AMWhy should I address any of your questions when you choose to ignore mine?Quote"Deceptions for the average examiner would include..."
It is very clear that Dr. Richardson's choice of the word "would" is a statement of possibility.
If it were probable why didn't he say so?
If he believed that all polygraphers lie, why didn't he say so?
If he I and other scientists believed that there is a role for the use of polygraph to support criminal investigations, why didn't he say so? OH WAIT A MINUTE, HE DID SAY THAT. Didn't he?
Sancho Panza,
I cannot presume to speak for Dr. Richardson, but I think it's reasonably clear from the context of his remarks that the examiner deceptions associated with polygraphic lie tests that he enumerates are commonplace.
To the extent that Dr. Richardson may agree that there is a legitimate role for the use of polygraphs in criminal investigations, I think you'd find such a role constrained to concealed information tests, although based on past discussions I think that he'd agree -- as I do -- that admissions/confessions obtained in the course of traditional lie "tests" (such as the CQT or I&R techniques) may have probative value to the extent that they can be independently corroborated.
QuoteAlso, has Dr. Zelicoff's monograph ever been published in a peer reviewed scientific journal or did he write it just for his web site and yours?
No. And to the best of my knowledge, Dr. Zelicoff has not submitted this article to any journal for publication, either. However, he has had his statistical analysis reviewed by a well qualified statistician. Again, if you have any substantive disagreement with his analysis, please feel free to explain.
QuoteDo you deny that if Nazario had been convicted you would have used that conviction to support your contention that polygraph doesn't work?
That polygraph testing doesn't work is already about as well established as it could possibly be. There's no raging debate amongst scientists. The only ones claiming 90+ percentile accuracy rates for polygraphy are those with vested interests in this pseudoscience.
Posted by SanchoPanza
- Sep 06, 2008, 10:10 AMWhy should I address any of your questions when you choose to ignore mine?
Also, has Dr. Zelicoff's monograph ever been published in a peer reviewed scientific journal or did he write it just for his web site and yours?
Do you deny that if Nazario had been convicted you would have used that conviction to support your contention that polygraph doesn't work?
Sancho Panza
Quote"Deceptions for the average examiner would include..."
It is very clear that Dr. Richardson's choice of the word "would" is a statement of possibility.
If it were probable why didn't he say so?
If he believed that all polygraphers lie, why didn't he say so?
If he I and other scientists believed that there is a role for the use of polygraph to support criminal investigations, why didn't he say so? OH WAIT A MINUTE, HE DID SAY THAT. Didn't he?
Also, has Dr. Zelicoff's monograph ever been published in a peer reviewed scientific journal or did he write it just for his web site and yours?
Do you deny that if Nazario had been convicted you would have used that conviction to support your contention that polygraph doesn't work?
Sancho Panza
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Sep 06, 2008, 09:19 AMQuote from: polytek on Sep 06, 2008, 08:05 AMQuoteDeceptions for the average examiner would includeIt is very clear that Dr. Richardson's choice of the word "would" is a statement of possibility.
If it were probable why didn't he say so?
If he believed that all polygraphers lie, why didn't he say so?
If he I and other scientists believed that there is a role for the use of polygraph to support criminal investigations, why didn't he say so? OH WAIT A MINUTE, HE DID SAY THAT. Didn't he?
Sancho Panza,
You're being argumentative. That polygraphic lie detection tests involve examiner deception is a well-documented fact -- a fact documented by the polygraph literature itself (which again is explained at length in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector). Your unwillingness to acknowledge this fact betrays a lack of intellectual honesty.
Do you disagree? If so, please explain how to administer a probable-lie control question test (CQT) without lying to or otherwise deceiving the examinee.
QuoteI see that Dr. Zellicoff is a physician, board certified in internal medicine, and a physicist. This makes him only slightly more qualified to discuss polygraph and statistical analysis that you are. His marginally researched monograph cites YOU as an authority on polygraph.
Dr. Zelicoff is well qualified to discuss the statistical analysis he presents in his paper, "Positive and Negative Predictive Values of Polygraphs: Results from published 'field' studies." If you have any substantive disagreement with his conclusions, please feel free to explain.
QuoteYou're trying to make me laugh aren't you?
No. I'm trying to make you think.
Posted by SanchoPanza
- Sep 06, 2008, 08:05 AMQuoteDeceptions for the average examiner would includeIt is very clear that Dr. Richardson's choice of the word "would" is a statement of possibility.
If it were probable why didn't he say so?
If he believed that all polygraphers lie, why didn't he say so?
If he I and other scientists believed that there is a role for the use of polygraph to support criminal investigations, why didn't he say so? OH WAIT A MINUTE, HE DID SAY THAT. Didn't he?
I see that Dr. Zellicoff is a physician, board certified in internal medicine, and a physicist. This makes him only slightly more qualified to discuss polygraph and statistical analysis that you are. His marginally researched monograph cites YOU as an authority on polygraph.
You're trying to make me laugh aren't you?
Sancho Panza
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Sep 06, 2008, 03:47 AMQuote from: polytek on Sep 05, 2008, 08:41 PMNotguilty1
Your question is actually a poorly disguised statement that presumes unsupportable generalizations' such as #1 polygraphers lie and #2 there are not any research studies that support a claim of 98% accuracy.
You cannot support either of those generalizations because, as generalizations, they fail if there is a single truthful polygrapher or a single study that supports 98% accuracy. Frankly, you lack the motivation to do the reading involved to support your claims. You don't seem to be very clever either.
Get real! Polygraph "testing" is fundamentally dependent upon the examiner lying to and otherwise deceiving the person being "tested" (and the naivety and gullibility of the latter). It's no stretch to say that polygraphers lie. As Dr. Richardson pointed out in an earlier thread:
Quote...Deceptions for the average examiner would include (but not necessarily be limited to) intentional oversimplification, confuscation, misrepresentation, misstatement, exaggeration, and known false statement. Amongst the areas and activities that such deceptions will occur within a given polygraph exam and on a continual basis are the following:
(1) A discussion of the autonomic nervous system, its anatomy and physiology, its role in the conduct of a polygraph examination, and the examiner's background as it supports his pontifications regarding said subjects. In general, an examiner has no or little educational background that would qualify him to lead such a discussion and his discussion contains the likely error that gross oversimplification often leads to.
(2) The discussion, conduct of, and post-test explanations of the "stim" test, more recently referred to as an "acquaintance" test.
(3) Examiner representations about the function of irrelevant questions in a control question test (CQT) polygraph exam.
(4) Examiner representations about the function of control questions and their relationship to relevant questions in a CQT exam.
(5) Examiner representations about any recognized validity of the CQT (or other exam formats) in a screening application and about what conclusions can reasonably be drawn from the exam at hand, i.e. the one principally of concern to the examinee.
(6) A host of misrepresentations that are made as "themes" and spun to examinees during a post-test interrogation.
(7) The notion that polygraphy merits consideration as a scientific discipline, forensic psychophysiology or other...
The deceptions involved in polygraph "testing" are also outlined, using primary source materials, in Chapter 3 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector.
The polygraph community's claim that polygraphy has a 98% (or thereabouts) accuracy rate doesn't pass the giggle test. Polygraph "testing" has no scientific basis to begin with. Not surprisingly, it hasn't been proven through peer-reviewed research to reliably operate at better-than-chance levels under field conditions. On the contrary as Dr. Alan Zelicoff has shown, the polygraph community's best field studies suggest that under field conditions, a truthful person has roughly a 50-50 chance of failing a polygraph.
Posted by notguilty1
- Sep 05, 2008, 09:48 PMQuote from: polytek on Sep 05, 2008, 08:41 PMNotguilty1
Your question is actually a poorly disguised statement that presumes unsupportable generalizations' such as #1 polygraphers lie and #2 there are not any research studies that support a claim of 98% accuracy.
You cannot support either of those generalizations because, as generalizations, they fail if there is a single truthful polygrapher or a single study that supports 98% accuracy. Frankly, you lack the motivation to do the reading involved to support your claims. You don't seem to be very clever either.
By the way Sgt. Nazario was found innocent. That makes him just one MORE guy with more proof that his polygraph was accurate than you have that yours was an error.
Sancho Panza
Sancho,
I will pass on responding in like to your personal assaults.
The only reason that my claim is "unsupported" in my persoanl case, is because Poligraphers like mine a former police officer mind you, tells his lies behind close doors and "off the record" but I am not the only one reporting that this claim has been made. There is ample public claims by the Polygraph industry that these are the accuracy rates.
Besides I have all the "proof" I need.
I took the test, told the truth and failed. I was told that the machine is 95-98% accurate and it detects deception.
THESE ARE ALL LIES!!
If they are not, I would love to have you direct me to the proven scientific literature that substantiates the accuracy claims and the claim that Polygraph detects deception.
THERE ARE NONE!
Posted by SanchoPanza
- Sep 05, 2008, 08:41 PMNotguilty1
Your question is actually a poorly disguised statement that presumes unsupportable generalizations' such as #1 polygraphers lie and #2 there are not any research studies that support a claim of 98% accuracy.
You cannot support either of those generalizations because, as generalizations, they fail if there is a single truthful polygrapher or a single study that supports 98% accuracy. Frankly, you lack the motivation to do the reading involved to support your claims. You don't seem to be very clever either.
By the way Sgt. Nazario was found innocent. That makes him just one MORE guy with more proof that his polygraph was accurate than you have that yours was an error.
Sancho Panza
Your question is actually a poorly disguised statement that presumes unsupportable generalizations' such as #1 polygraphers lie and #2 there are not any research studies that support a claim of 98% accuracy.
You cannot support either of those generalizations because, as generalizations, they fail if there is a single truthful polygrapher or a single study that supports 98% accuracy. Frankly, you lack the motivation to do the reading involved to support your claims. You don't seem to be very clever either.
By the way Sgt. Nazario was found innocent. That makes him just one MORE guy with more proof that his polygraph was accurate than you have that yours was an error.
Sancho Panza
Posted by notguilty1
- Sep 05, 2008, 06:45 PMQuote from: polytek on Sep 05, 2008, 04:44 PMLethe WroteQuoteSanchoPanza is a hypocrite. He criticizes George for telling people how to lie on the polygraph
Lethe, Until you catch me in a lie, or catch me telling someone it is OK to lie, or quote from a book where I repeatedly tell the reader it is OK lie as well as offer advice on how to tell lies, or find some other material basis for your portentous claim concerning my hypocrisy, you should really just shut up.
Your application of the word hypocrite pertaining to me is a deliberate ad hominum attack as well as a mischaracterization.
But I'm not surprised at all. Many people, like yourself, who perpetuate wrongdoing, endorse and encourage amoral behavior, seem to always resort to the "everybody else does it" justification.
But thank you for finally admitting that George (Dr. Maschke) tells people how to lie.
Dr. Maschke is still in denial regarding that fact.
Sancho Panza
Hey Sancho Panza welcome back! Was wondering where you've been.
Let me ask. So it is your opinion that it is OK for Poligraphers to lie like telling people that Polygraph is 98% accurate when they know that it is a lie?
Posted by SanchoPanza
- Sep 05, 2008, 04:44 PMLethe Wrote
Lethe, Until you catch me in a lie, or catch me telling someone it is OK to lie, or quote from a book where I repeatedly tell the reader it is OK lie as well as offer advice on how to tell lies, or find some other material basis for your portentous claim concerning my hypocrisy, you should really just shut up.
Your application of the word hypocrite pertaining to me is a deliberate ad hominum attack as well as a mischaracterization.
But I'm not surprised at all. Many people, like yourself, who perpetuate wrongdoing, endorse and encourage amoral behavior, seem to always resort to the "everybody else does it" justification.
But thank you for finally admitting that George (Dr. Maschke) tells people how to lie.
Dr. Maschke is still in denial regarding that fact.
Sancho Panza
QuoteSanchoPanza is a hypocrite. He criticizes George for telling people how to lie on the polygraph
Lethe, Until you catch me in a lie, or catch me telling someone it is OK to lie, or quote from a book where I repeatedly tell the reader it is OK lie as well as offer advice on how to tell lies, or find some other material basis for your portentous claim concerning my hypocrisy, you should really just shut up.
Your application of the word hypocrite pertaining to me is a deliberate ad hominum attack as well as a mischaracterization.
But I'm not surprised at all. Many people, like yourself, who perpetuate wrongdoing, endorse and encourage amoral behavior, seem to always resort to the "everybody else does it" justification.
But thank you for finally admitting that George (Dr. Maschke) tells people how to lie.
Dr. Maschke is still in denial regarding that fact.
Sancho Panza
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Sep 04, 2008, 04:58 PMDavid Neiwert, managing editor of the left-leaning blog, FireDogLake.com, writes that the FBI wanted more serious charges filed against the alleged Obama assassination plotters. See
FBI Wanted Obama Plotters Charged, But A Rove Appointee Said No.
FBI Wanted Obama Plotters Charged, But A Rove Appointee Said No.
Posted by Lethe
- Sep 04, 2008, 04:32 PMIn addition to many other things that he is, SanchoPanza is a hypocrite. He criticizes George for telling people how to lie on the polygraph but SanchoPanza knows that (1) one is supposed to lie on the polygraph; (2) Former APA President Skip Webb said that a person who refused to lie would be considered to be refusing the polygraph; and, most importantly, (3) most of the instructions that Polygraphers give to subjects are deliberate lies.
So, lying is good when SanchoPanza and Co. do it, but bad when others do it. This is hypocrisy and special pleading. Could we expect anything else?
BTW, I'm glad to see that some polygraphers are joining us again here! I thought I'd scarred all of you off.
So, lying is good when SanchoPanza and Co. do it, but bad when others do it. This is hypocrisy and special pleading. Could we expect anything else?
BTW, I'm glad to see that some polygraphers are joining us again here! I thought I'd scarred all of you off.
Posted by notguilty1
- Sep 01, 2008, 12:36 PMQuote from: polytek on Sep 01, 2008, 11:20 AMQuote from: George_Maschke on Aug 30, 2008, 10:37 AMNotguilty1 Choose to believe the APA if you want, OR Choose to believe the NAS findings. It doesn't really matter,but if you choose toi accept the NAS finding ACCEPT them read the whole thing get someone to explain it to you if you don't understand it and stop mis-interpreting their findings.Sancho Panza
Huh ?
Still trying to decipher the above..
Anyone else got a clue ?
I can explain. Watch any shell game operator and you'll understand, cleaver yes, but informed educated people can see past the scam.
Posted by polytek
- Sep 01, 2008, 11:20 AMQuote from: George_Maschke on Aug 30, 2008, 10:37 AMNotguilty1 Choose to believe the APA if you want, OR Choose to believe the NAS findings. It doesn't really matter,but if you choose toi accept the NAS finding ACCEPT them read the whole thing get someone to explain it to you if you don't understand it and stop mis-interpreting their findings.Sancho Panza
Huh ?
Still trying to decipher the above..
Anyone else got a clue ?
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Sep 01, 2008, 07:39 AMSergeant1107,
I'd be interested if SanchoPanza (or anyone else who shares his viewpoint) would be so kind as to provide citations and abstracts for, say, just five scientific articles that he believes were improperly excluded from consideration by the National Research Counsel's Committee to Review the Scientific Evidence on the Polygraph.
I'd be interested if SanchoPanza (or anyone else who shares his viewpoint) would be so kind as to provide citations and abstracts for, say, just five scientific articles that he believes were improperly excluded from consideration by the National Research Counsel's Committee to Review the Scientific Evidence on the Polygraph.