- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by furedy
- Sep 25, 2005, 08:06 PMRegarding George's initial post on this topoic that referred to my email to Dr. Phil, I wanted to note that this email was sent several times both to his "we welcome your feedback" and to his assistant, but it was neither acknowledged nor put on the "feedback". Apparently he only posts feedback that support his prejudices. For most such prejudices, that's no problem, but this particular prejudice, backed by his great public guru-like authority, supports the second most serious social disease in North America after AIDS.
All the best, John
All the best, John
Posted by JunkMan
- Sep 19, 2005, 08:01 PMPhilly Boy is not the only guy that sensationalizes the use of the polygraph. Montel Williams and Maury Polvic have had their go at it too.
Posted by CATX
- Sep 19, 2005, 05:20 PMIt never ceases to amaze me that people watch his show. He does no research on anything. Check out his ramblings on gun control using "facts" pulled from thin air.
Posted by ILGA_RITA
- Sep 19, 2005, 03:44 PMI JUST HAPPENED TO BE HOME AND SAW THE PROGRAM. IT'S FRIGHTENING TO KNOW THAT SOMEONE AS POWERFUL AS DR. PHIL IS PERPETRATING THE MYTH. I HAVE ALREADY WRITTEN THE SHOW AND CHALLENGED DR. PHIL'S STAFF TO DO SOME RESEARCH ON ANTIPOLYGRAPH.ORG AND PRESENT A SHOW WITH SOME OF THE PEOPLE WHO CONTRIBUTE TO THIS SITE. I ENCOURAGE ALL OTHER PEOPLE ON THIS SITE TO DO THE SAME.
Posted by Sergeant1107
- Sep 19, 2005, 12:39 PMMy wife had the show recorded on our DVR and I watched it.
The polygraph was given through a translator, which is something I've never heard of before. The examiner would ask the question, the translator would relay it, the subject would answer, and the translator would relay that. It seemed ridiculous to me that they could even pretend it was going to get to the truth.
I sent him an email asking him to please do his own research on the accuracy of the polygraph rather than call up the APA and ask them if the polygraph works. It never ceases to amaze me when someone will contact a polygrapher in order to find out if the polygraph is a useful tool in determining truth or deception. Isn't that like calling Big Tobacco and asking them if cigarettes are okay to smoke?
The polygraph was given through a translator, which is something I've never heard of before. The examiner would ask the question, the translator would relay it, the subject would answer, and the translator would relay that. It seemed ridiculous to me that they could even pretend it was going to get to the truth.
I sent him an email asking him to please do his own research on the accuracy of the polygraph rather than call up the APA and ask them if the polygraph works. It never ceases to amaze me when someone will contact a polygrapher in order to find out if the polygraph is a useful tool in determining truth or deception. Isn't that like calling Big Tobacco and asking them if cigarettes are okay to smoke?
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Sep 16, 2005, 09:53 AMShame on Dr. Phil McGraw, who yesterday (15 September 2005) falsely told viewers of his Dr. Phil show that polygraphs "are highly scientific." The opposite is true. While polygraphs may be profitable to daytime television talk show hosts seeking a ratings-boosting gimmick, there is broad consensus amongst scientists that polygraph lie detection has no scientific basis. Dr. Phil should know better.
Yesterday's installment of the Dr. Phil show was about the disappearance of Natalee Holloway, an American teenager who went missing in Aruba earlier this year. The following web page provides a summary of the show, including, among other things, an account of a "test" conducted by Dr. Phil's hired polygraph operator, Jamie Skeeters, of a witness in the case:
http://www.drphil.com/shows/show/575
Dr. Phil has previously been advised regarding polygraphy's lack of scientific underpinnings:
http://antipolygraph.org/articles/article-045.shtml
I think Dr. Phil's continued promotion of pseudoscience for entertainment purposes is despicable. You can send Dr. Phil your opinion here:
http://www.drphil.com/plugger/respond/?plugID=9164
Yesterday's installment of the Dr. Phil show was about the disappearance of Natalee Holloway, an American teenager who went missing in Aruba earlier this year. The following web page provides a summary of the show, including, among other things, an account of a "test" conducted by Dr. Phil's hired polygraph operator, Jamie Skeeters, of a witness in the case:
http://www.drphil.com/shows/show/575
Dr. Phil has previously been advised regarding polygraphy's lack of scientific underpinnings:
http://antipolygraph.org/articles/article-045.shtml
I think Dr. Phil's continued promotion of pseudoscience for entertainment purposes is despicable. You can send Dr. Phil your opinion here:
http://www.drphil.com/plugger/respond/?plugID=9164