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 W. Maschke
 - Nov 06, 2004, 05:54 AM
Since voice voice stress analysis (whether "remote" or otherwise) is without validity as a method for the detection of deception, there is no reason for anyone to be concerned about it being used "against" him (execpt to the extent that another's misplaced reliance on this quackery may cause misapprehensions and sour relationships), or to rely on it himself for evaluating anyone's truthfulness.
Posted by DarkArt
 - Nov 05, 2004, 05:44 PM
The technology of remote voice analysis is on it's 40th year.  Most operatives rarely talk aloud and if communication in unsecured locations is necessitated, it's best to talk in hushed tones and or near a sink with water running.  Running water is still unpatternable and thus cannot be negated by filtering.

Many quiet interrogations are in settings where direct connections for galvanic or direct thermal data gathering cannot be accomplished.  Voice Stress Analysis becomes the consideration of choice in a controlled setting without notification of subject.

It's been the common practice to not place much confidence in RARVSA but used as a gateway for further probing.  The hardcore believers themselves run a lot of water.