- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by George W. Maschke
- May 14, 2019, 04:18 PMApart from passing or failing, an "inconclusive" outcome is also possible. See Chapter 3 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector for more on polygraph procedure.
Posted by David
- May 14, 2019, 03:43 PMIf a Examiner tells you that you did not pass the polygraph, and you say I told the truth I have no idea I could failed the polygraph. Then the examiner say's. I did not say you failed the polygraph, I said you did not pass the polygraph. What is the difference. Thank you!
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Jul 19, 2018, 06:02 AMAll 33 index pages (comprising 1,306 message threads) of the Polygraph Place Bulletin Board private forum archive are now browsable:
https://antipolygraph.org/articles/article-055.shtml
https://antipolygraph.org/articles/article-055.shtml
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Jul 13, 2018, 05:32 AMAt this time, a little more than half of the Polygraph Place Bulletin Board Private Forum has been made available for direct browsing. 18 of the 33 index pages, comprising 720 message threads from 13 February 2008 to 20 May 2013 are now available for review:
https://antipolygraph.org/articles/article-055.shtml
https://antipolygraph.org/articles/article-055.shtml
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Jul 01, 2018, 03:12 PMThe Mozilla Archive File Format (MAFF) used by Ex-Examiner to archive the Polygraph Place private forum has been deprecated, that is, it is no longer supported in Mozilla Firefox. Therefore, AntiPolygraph.org is undertaking a project to make this archive readable with any browser. The process is labor intensive and will take time. For now, you can review the most recent 80 message threads here:
https://antipolygraph.org/articles/article-055.shtml
https://antipolygraph.org/articles/article-055.shtml
Posted by Drew Richardson
- Aug 28, 2013, 07:48 AMA Peak of Tension (POT) test is a poorly designed concealed information test (CIT). Unlike David Lykken's Guilty Knowledge Test (GKT) format, the POT involves QUESTION presentation in KNOWN (to the examinee) SEQUENCES, which renders the individual test items NOT independent of one another and therefore having the test results not being amenable to the normal statistical analysis of a properly designed CIT.
A GKT can be poorly constructed and confounded as well by asking questions as opposed to presenting subject areas and alternative answers which are repeated by the examinee. If a GKT is constructed to involve questions answered with alternative answers repeated by the examinee, in effect, one has created and confounded a CIT with a lie detection test (something which has no validity in its own right and is not made better by confusing/confounding with a CIT).
A GKT can be poorly constructed and confounded as well by asking questions as opposed to presenting subject areas and alternative answers which are repeated by the examinee. If a GKT is constructed to involve questions answered with alternative answers repeated by the examinee, in effect, one has created and confounded a CIT with a lie detection test (something which has no validity in its own right and is not made better by confusing/confounding with a CIT).
Posted by Ex Member
- Aug 28, 2013, 01:19 AMI think "Peak of Tension" is a more apt name. "Guilty Knowledge" is an implication; POT more correctly describes some shift in psychological stress, the root cause of which cannot be precisely determined.
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Aug 27, 2013, 01:53 PMAlthough it's not without weaknesses and vulnerabilities, I don't think the GKT is quackery.
Posted by pailryder
- Aug 27, 2013, 01:30 PMDr Maschke
With respect to my last post, I did not refer to Lykken's GKT as a lie detection technique, but simply as a polygraph technique. So, Dr Maschke perhaps you would be so kind as to my answer, is Lykken's GKT a valid scientific test or is it too quackery?
With respect to my last post, I did not refer to Lykken's GKT as a lie detection technique, but simply as a polygraph technique. So, Dr Maschke perhaps you would be so kind as to my answer, is Lykken's GKT a valid scientific test or is it too quackery?
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Aug 26, 2013, 07:53 AMPailryder,
With respect to Getrealalready's last post, note that Lykken's Guilty Knowledge Test (GKT) is not a lie detection test.
With respect to Getrealalready's last post, note that Lykken's Guilty Knowledge Test (GKT) is not a lie detection test.
Posted by pailryder
- Aug 26, 2013, 07:16 AMgetrealalready
Are you arguing that all polygraph techniques are quackery? Do you evaluate David Lykken's GKT as quackery as well?
Are you arguing that all polygraph techniques are quackery? Do you evaluate David Lykken's GKT as quackery as well?
Posted by getrealalready
- Aug 25, 2013, 09:42 AMPailryder,
Your words on this board may be true or false, relevant or irrelevant, meaningful or not, etc., but in the end they are just words. Your (or anybody else's) practice of lie detection and the representation of same as a valid diagnostic test is unadulterated quackery.
Your words on this board may be true or false, relevant or irrelevant, meaningful or not, etc., but in the end they are just words. Your (or anybody else's) practice of lie detection and the representation of same as a valid diagnostic test is unadulterated quackery.
Posted by pailryder
- Aug 25, 2013, 08:08 AMgetrealalready
So, I've practiced crude quackery for more than thirty years, but my posts don't quack? How could that be?
So, I've practiced crude quackery for more than thirty years, but my posts don't quack? How could that be?
Posted by getrealalready
- Aug 24, 2013, 08:40 PMPailryder,
My reference to quackery has nothing to do with your posts but with the practice of polygraphy (lie detection) which is nothing but quackery in your hands or any other...
My reference to quackery has nothing to do with your posts but with the practice of polygraphy (lie detection) which is nothing but quackery in your hands or any other...
Posted by pailryder
- Aug 24, 2013, 07:15 AMgetrealalready
I take your point. Dr Maschke has never, to my knowledge, prevented anyone on the anti side from posting whatever they wished and I did not intend to imply otherwise. But Dr Maschke has always, it seems to me, taken pride in maintaining the site as source of free information for all, and thus avoided the charge, often made against other sites, that they are all about self promotion and money.
I challenge you to review my postings and cite specific examples where you feel I have engaged in quackery.
I take your point. Dr Maschke has never, to my knowledge, prevented anyone on the anti side from posting whatever they wished and I did not intend to imply otherwise. But Dr Maschke has always, it seems to me, taken pride in maintaining the site as source of free information for all, and thus avoided the charge, often made against other sites, that they are all about self promotion and money.
I challenge you to review my postings and cite specific examples where you feel I have engaged in quackery.