- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by Bill_Brown
- May 27, 2011, 03:26 PMWhy don't you poly and anti poly guys check into the U of Az and request studies? The polygraph is about yrs100 old, final reporting time takes too long, can be beaten by amateurs, foreign agents train to beat it, and way too many ambient stressors involved with the poly and CVSA to be reliable.
Does U of A have any studies that support your supposition? I would be interested in reading them.
Does U of A have any studies that support your supposition? I would be interested in reading them.
Posted by Trampus Gilly
- May 27, 2011, 03:06 PMWhy don't you poly and anti poly guys check into the U of Az and request studies? The polygraph is about yrs100 old, final reporting time takes too long, can be beaten by amateurs, foreign agents train to beat it, and way too many ambient stressors involved with the poly and CVSA to be reliable.
Why do the people of the USA continue to allow the government's 'Gate Keepers' to use antiquated technology that only has been proven to be 50 – 50, "Like flipping a coin." These facts have been known for years, going all the way back to Kubark.
Yeah, I'm an old fart too.
Sounds like there is too much money channeled to Lafayette Polygraph that's encouraged by bureaucratic thinking that resists change 'Cool Aide drinkers'.
I agree the "Charlatan" is a part of the problem with the government, financial system, and our society. The poly allows people to get away with deception, and then the innocent are scapegoated by the same flawed technology. Wow, what a democracy we live in.
Why do the people of the USA continue to allow the government's 'Gate Keepers' to use antiquated technology that only has been proven to be 50 – 50, "Like flipping a coin." These facts have been known for years, going all the way back to Kubark.
Yeah, I'm an old fart too.
Sounds like there is too much money channeled to Lafayette Polygraph that's encouraged by bureaucratic thinking that resists change 'Cool Aide drinkers'.
I agree the "Charlatan" is a part of the problem with the government, financial system, and our society. The poly allows people to get away with deception, and then the innocent are scapegoated by the same flawed technology. Wow, what a democracy we live in.
Posted by polyvsa
- May 27, 2011, 09:06 AMTwo Block,
Thank you for a balanced reply. I agree with your sentiments 100%.
Thank you for a balanced reply. I agree with your sentiments 100%.
Posted by stefano
- May 26, 2011, 10:47 PMQuoteRe: Voice Stress and BOARDERSCan I suggest you just get a crystal ball? At least then you can wear a cool earring in one ear.
Reply #46 - Today at 3:38am Here is both the original article that I mentioned plus the list referenced in the video.
How To Spot A Liar
Posted by Its An Academic Discourse
- May 26, 2011, 10:38 PMHere is both the original article that I mentioned plus the list referenced in the video.
How To Spot A Liar
POSTED: 3:15 pm CDT May 20, 2008
http://www.koco.com/news/16341919/detail.html
Original article:
http://www.koco.com/news/16343960/detail.html
How To Spot A Liar
POSTED: 3:15 pm CDT May 20, 2008
http://www.koco.com/news/16341919/detail.html
Original article:
http://www.koco.com/news/16343960/detail.html
Posted by Its An Academic Discourse
- May 26, 2011, 08:44 PMBill,
Sorry about any misquotes that I attributed to you.
Sorry about any misquotes that I attributed to you.
Posted by Bill_Brown
- May 26, 2011, 07:48 PMStefano,
Thank you for your courtesy. And you may be correct in winning me over. I have observed several polygraph examiners that totally believe polygraph is 100% accurate. I do not.
I always inform persons using my services of the fallacy of taking polygraph as a "lie detector". It does not detect lies. We are in agreement in this area. My personal opinion: use it as a tool, nothing more or less. Only a tool.
Thank you for your courtesy. And you may be correct in winning me over. I have observed several polygraph examiners that totally believe polygraph is 100% accurate. I do not.
I always inform persons using my services of the fallacy of taking polygraph as a "lie detector". It does not detect lies. We are in agreement in this area. My personal opinion: use it as a tool, nothing more or less. Only a tool.
Posted by stefano
- May 26, 2011, 07:09 PMBill_Brown,
I think it may be an exercise in futility to debate it further because it seems to unfold into an ethical issue. For myself, I firmly believe that the polygraph technique is not based on science. The only science is in the design of the instrument. Those on the other side believe that there is enough anecdotal evidence to associate response patterns to deception.
I perceive that you have dedicated many years to this endeavor and thus feel defensive when your profession is under attack--this is normal as I would as well. Those in law enforcement and other investigative realms believe they are doing society a great service in search of the truth.
I, conversely, believe that the potential for devastating collateral damage outweighs this perceived service to society. I have met and helped people whose lives were torn apart by being labeled a liar by a technique which doesn't muster up to science.
You are a smart guy and a gentleman (compared to others who have presented themselves as the low brows that they are), and I have a hunch one day we will win you over.
I think it may be an exercise in futility to debate it further because it seems to unfold into an ethical issue. For myself, I firmly believe that the polygraph technique is not based on science. The only science is in the design of the instrument. Those on the other side believe that there is enough anecdotal evidence to associate response patterns to deception.
I perceive that you have dedicated many years to this endeavor and thus feel defensive when your profession is under attack--this is normal as I would as well. Those in law enforcement and other investigative realms believe they are doing society a great service in search of the truth.
I, conversely, believe that the potential for devastating collateral damage outweighs this perceived service to society. I have met and helped people whose lives were torn apart by being labeled a liar by a technique which doesn't muster up to science.
You are a smart guy and a gentleman (compared to others who have presented themselves as the low brows that they are), and I have a hunch one day we will win you over.
Posted by Bill_Brown
- May 26, 2011, 06:48 PMAcademic,
I think you have me confused with the author of that film. I am not him. Sorry
I think you have me confused with the author of that film. I am not him. Sorry
Posted by Its An Academic Discourse
- May 26, 2011, 06:27 PMFrom KOC.com, here is the video that I referenced. It's entitled, "FBI Agent Explains How To Spot Liars." It was uploaded to youtube on May 23, 2008.
The eyes are the windows to the sole.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3PAW7zjgPw&NR=1&feature=fvwp
The eyes are the windows to the sole.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3PAW7zjgPw&NR=1&feature=fvwp
Posted by Bill_Brown
- May 26, 2011, 06:06 PMStefano,
This is not a scientific forum by any stretch of the imagination. There are arguments being made that have scientific basis, however this is a chat forum based on "debunking" use of polygraph.
I am not a victim by any means, I do attempt to stay civil in all postings and not engage in name calling or other infractions of the stated posting policies.
I am familiar with the paper by Ben-Shakhar and other studies that are "anti-polygraph". I would suggest you read the newer studies by the Department of Defense, Raskin/Kircher, Barland, and other persons involved in polygraph.
To decide a study is not valid because it was conducted by persons involved in the use of polygraph is not valid. Studies on affects of medications on pregnant women are conducted by doctors and drug manufactures. Some of the studies are not good studies, many are.
Your posts are filled with meaningful information and valid points which I consider and reflect on. I do respect your opinions, I do not agree with many of them. You are an educated individual and a wealth of information.
This is not a scientific forum by any stretch of the imagination. There are arguments being made that have scientific basis, however this is a chat forum based on "debunking" use of polygraph.
I am not a victim by any means, I do attempt to stay civil in all postings and not engage in name calling or other infractions of the stated posting policies.
I am familiar with the paper by Ben-Shakhar and other studies that are "anti-polygraph". I would suggest you read the newer studies by the Department of Defense, Raskin/Kircher, Barland, and other persons involved in polygraph.
To decide a study is not valid because it was conducted by persons involved in the use of polygraph is not valid. Studies on affects of medications on pregnant women are conducted by doctors and drug manufactures. Some of the studies are not good studies, many are.
Your posts are filled with meaningful information and valid points which I consider and reflect on. I do respect your opinions, I do not agree with many of them. You are an educated individual and a wealth of information.
Posted by Its An Academic Discourse
- May 26, 2011, 03:01 PMBill, can you recommend any (easy to read) books on how to detect liars without using the polygraph.
I saw a video of you on youtube. There you talked about watching eye movements (dependent on right or left handedness), shifting eyes, rubbing your neck, tapping fingers, looking at watch, creating barriers, leaning back in chair, keeping arms crossed, hands clasped in lap, trying to switch conversation, changing their voice, and combinations.
Question: Should polygraphees be conscious of this aspect of the polygraph.
I saw a video of you on youtube. There you talked about watching eye movements (dependent on right or left handedness), shifting eyes, rubbing your neck, tapping fingers, looking at watch, creating barriers, leaning back in chair, keeping arms crossed, hands clasped in lap, trying to switch conversation, changing their voice, and combinations.
Question: Should polygraphees be conscious of this aspect of the polygraph.
Posted by stefano
- May 25, 2011, 11:15 PMQuote from: Bill_Brown on May 25, 2011, 03:23 PMPlease do not be condescending in your reply's to meI don't see anything condescending in his post at all. He did not try to come off as being superior to you. He stated that the "fear parameter" is totally unscientific and it is.
When chuckles suggested that you step up to the countermeasure challenge, you stated that you don't have to prove anything to anyone and you are confident in your abilities.
Forgive me, but what I see is you taking the victim posture when your point is close to impeachment.
This is a scientific forum in a way as the scientific method is the true way to debunk the tomfoolery. There are certain requirements for a scientific test which the polygraph technique cannot meet: Repeatability and Reproducibility.
Reproducibility is different from repeatability, which measures the success rate in successive experiments, possibly conducted by the same experimenters. Reproducibility relates to the agreement of test results with different operators, test apparatus, and laboratory locations. It is often reported as a standard deviation.
If I may defer to Gershon Ben-Shakhar, there is also a lack of objective quantification of the physiological responses, inadequate standardization and also a severe risk of contamination and bias.
This is not condescending--just facts.
Posted by Fair Chance
- May 25, 2011, 09:36 PMDear Bill_Brown,
If my posting seemed condescending, it was not my intent. I just take exception to any type of "science" being involved when you talk polygraph exams. I can agree with you that human action is not scientific. You are taking purely physical reactions with a machine and there is no science involved except for the creation of the machine to measure physical reactions.
The LBTD has generalities of how reactions are "scored." The score is not scientific, I think we agree on that (and you can correct me if you do not agree on that). It is all subjective. I just can not seem to fathom how anyone can say it is so accurate without valid test performed in a repeatable scientific manner.
The polygraph community just cannot make public statements about its accuracy without some type of controlled tests. I do not believe that any quality controlled tests have been performed by an independent entity who does not have an interest in the outcome.
I guess we will have to agree to disagree. I absolutely think that any Voice Analyzers combined with body language analysis will have just as good an outcome in predicting deception as the polygraph. I personally would not like to have my tax money spent on either but if the computerized version was cheaper to perform without an operator, I would go for the cheapest and lowest bid. I think Congress will think that way if they believe it to secure the borders more efficiently.
If my posting seemed condescending, it was not my intent. I just take exception to any type of "science" being involved when you talk polygraph exams. I can agree with you that human action is not scientific. You are taking purely physical reactions with a machine and there is no science involved except for the creation of the machine to measure physical reactions.
The LBTD has generalities of how reactions are "scored." The score is not scientific, I think we agree on that (and you can correct me if you do not agree on that). It is all subjective. I just can not seem to fathom how anyone can say it is so accurate without valid test performed in a repeatable scientific manner.
The polygraph community just cannot make public statements about its accuracy without some type of controlled tests. I do not believe that any quality controlled tests have been performed by an independent entity who does not have an interest in the outcome.
I guess we will have to agree to disagree. I absolutely think that any Voice Analyzers combined with body language analysis will have just as good an outcome in predicting deception as the polygraph. I personally would not like to have my tax money spent on either but if the computerized version was cheaper to perform without an operator, I would go for the cheapest and lowest bid. I think Congress will think that way if they believe it to secure the borders more efficiently.
Posted by stefano
- May 25, 2011, 04:14 PMQuote from: Bill_Brown on May 25, 2011, 03:32 PMI do understand fear of detection is the common thought regarding how Fight/Flight activates during polygraph examinations.I would suggest it is actually a Cognitive Conflict.Cognitive Conflict and its associated paradigms: Belief Disconfirmation, Induced-Compliance, Free-Choice and Effort-Justification surely come into play in the autonomous central nervous system and the associated psycho-physiological responses. You may want to read up on research into mental work currently being done by Aldert Vrij. However, until this research can link specific neurological mechanisms to deception, I will remain unconvinced.