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:
Type the third word in this sentence: 'The quick brown fox jumps.' (answer in lowercase):
Shortcuts: ALT+S post or ALT+P preview

Topic summary

Posted by George W. Maschke
 - Dec 28, 2005, 06:08 PM
Mr. Ed,

Polygraphy has no scientific basis whatsoever. No matter how experienced the operator, no matter the questions asked, or the instrument used, polygraph chart readings are simply unreliable and are proof of nothing. You'll find the reasons for this explained in Chapter 1 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector and the sources cited there.

Moreover, because a party to a lawsuit can go from polygrapher to polygrapher until he/she "passes" one, while keeping the results of any "failures" secret under terms of attorney/client privilege, such party-submitted polygraph results actually have negative diagnosticity.
Posted by Mr._Ed
 - Dec 28, 2005, 05:04 PM
Civil Suit a party hired his own polygraph examiner to "prove" innocence.   What information and documents should be requested from the examinor i.e. machine used, questions asked etc. to better understand the procuedures used and relaibility.  
Thnks.