- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by T.M. Cullen
- Jun 25, 2008, 11:12 PMQuoteI think one fact about the polygraph test is that it is a machine,
the machine is not doing the thinking, it is mearly reporting on what it is being fed. The element that makes the test accurate is the person creating the testing questions and how skillfully they ask the same questions in different contexts.
Just reporting on what it is being fed?
The machine simply measures F3 reactions to questions, which the examiner then falsely claim to be an indication of "deception". It's like saying a high temperature and cough automatically equate to the flu.
QuoteThe polygraph machine is to the polygrapher as an Xray machine is to the radiologist.
That's a false comparison.
If an Xray film show that there is a broken collar bone, for instance, then it's a broken collar bone, not a broken ankle bone or heart murmur. The result is unequivocal. And the result will be followed up with an appropriate treatment based on the Xray.
If a polygraph machine shows consistent autonomic nervous system "reaction" to a question, it could be due to deception, anger, a repressed memory...etc. The result is NOT unequivocal, but speculative and subjective. And in the case of preemployment polygraphs, isn't even follow-up for accuracy.
Others have tried to compare the polygraph test with the medical or scientific fields. But it is all based on the following FALSE SYLLOGISM:
In the field of science, devices are used to measure scientific data.
Polygraphers use a device which measures scientific (physiological) data.
Polygraphers are therefore scientists.
Which is like saying:
Mobsters use fire arms to kill people.
Soldiers use fire arms to kill people.
Soldiers are therefore mobsters.
TC
Posted by JBS
- Jun 25, 2008, 10:09 PMWell said MSlatt and SJH! You are wasting your time on these knuckleheads though. The people on this site are there because they have an axe to grind. Either they were exposed as deceptive and are ranting and raging in frustration or they are victims of an inept examiner. Either way it is probably a waste of time and energy to try and convince them of the level of expertise and professionalism that George Slattery brought to his profession. It is true that polygraphy is more of an art than a science and he was one of the best. While he was able to persuade hundreds of deceptive people/criminals to confess to their crimes and transgressions (from theft and forgery to murder and rape) I know that he was far more proud of the many innocents that he helped to exonerate.
He will be missed and the world is a better place because of the work he did while he was with us.
Semper Fi and good bye George Slattery.
He will be missed and the world is a better place because of the work he did while he was with us.
Semper Fi and good bye George Slattery.
Posted by tsidMSlatt
- Jun 25, 2008, 08:39 PMBoy oh Boy, like I said,,,,
I ran across the challenge to GBS and I am now bored with this uninteresting nonsense~
If You get bored you can go back and reread the comments and then see if your last statement was substancial* Good luck to you~
With respect*Im outta here~ 8-)
I ran across the challenge to GBS and I am now bored with this uninteresting nonsense~
If You get bored you can go back and reread the comments and then see if your last statement was substancial* Good luck to you~
With respect*Im outta here~ 8-)
Posted by SJH
- Jun 25, 2008, 08:39 PMMSlatt's response was accurate.
The polygraph machine is to the polygrapher as an Xray machine is to the radiologist.
It is the skilled human who knows how to get the best out of the machine, who accurately targets the problem, takes the best possible 'picture', has the talent to correctly interpret the results produced, then finally intelligently confirms the diagnosis.
George Slattery was a highly skilled and very professional polygrapher.
The polygraph machine is to the polygrapher as an Xray machine is to the radiologist.
It is the skilled human who knows how to get the best out of the machine, who accurately targets the problem, takes the best possible 'picture', has the talent to correctly interpret the results produced, then finally intelligently confirms the diagnosis.
George Slattery was a highly skilled and very professional polygrapher.
Posted by Sergeant1107
- Jun 25, 2008, 08:09 PMQuote from: George_Maschke on Jun 25, 2008, 08:01 PMMy 'non-response ' isn't obvious?
Both responses to my comment seem to support my thoughts.
How many scientists have made claims to something they never experienced and later their 'theory' was 'proven' incorrect?
I think one fact about the polygraph test is that it is a machine,
the machine is not doing the thinking, it is mearly reporting on what it is being fed. The element that makes the test accurate is the person creating the testing questions and how skillfully they ask the same questions in different contexts. Doing this with intelligence and skill is how George Slattery's important work he did came to be amicable as evidence in a court of law on so many national cases*
GBS has been quoted many times in his life, unless you had a face to face conversation with GBS it makes you a bit small to judge him*
You are supported by others that have limited knowledge of the wide range of actual facts on this matter and I dont expect to suddenly enlighten any of you* My best to all of you*
You wrote that the people who say the polygraph is not reliable are the ones who have been hooked up to it and had their lies revealed. Cullen and I offered examples of people who say the polygraph is not reliable and who have not been "hooked up" and have not "had their lies revealed". These examples refuted your statement, yet your follow up post indicated we had proved your point for you.
Your response did not make sense.
Posted by MSlatt
- Jun 25, 2008, 08:01 PMMy 'non-response ' isn't obvious?
Both responses to my comment seem to support my thoughts.
How many scientists have made claims to something they never experienced and later their 'theory' was 'proven' incorrect?
I think one fact about the polygraph test is that it is a machine,
the machine is not doing the thinking, it is mearly reporting on what it is being fed. The element that makes the test accurate is the person creating the testing questions and how skillfully they ask the same questions in different contexts. Doing this with intelligence and skill is how George Slattery's important work he did came to be amicable as evidence in a court of law on so many national cases*
GBS has been quoted many times in his life, unless you had a face to face conversation with GBS it makes you a bit small to judge him*
You are supported by others that have limited knowledge of the wide range of actual facts on this matter and I dont expect to suddenly enlighten any of you* My best to all of you*
Both responses to my comment seem to support my thoughts.
How many scientists have made claims to something they never experienced and later their 'theory' was 'proven' incorrect?
I think one fact about the polygraph test is that it is a machine,
the machine is not doing the thinking, it is mearly reporting on what it is being fed. The element that makes the test accurate is the person creating the testing questions and how skillfully they ask the same questions in different contexts. Doing this with intelligence and skill is how George Slattery's important work he did came to be amicable as evidence in a court of law on so many national cases*
GBS has been quoted many times in his life, unless you had a face to face conversation with GBS it makes you a bit small to judge him*
You are supported by others that have limited knowledge of the wide range of actual facts on this matter and I dont expect to suddenly enlighten any of you* My best to all of you*
Posted by Sergeant1107
- Jun 24, 2008, 02:53 AMQuote from: George_Maschke on Jun 23, 2008, 09:43 PMexactly~
Nice non-sequitur response.
Posted by MSlatt
- Jun 23, 2008, 09:43 PMexactly~
Posted by T.M. Cullen
- Jun 23, 2008, 02:09 PMQuoteThe people that say a polygraph is not reliable are the ones that have been hooked up and had their lie revealed*
To my knowledge, the folks from the National Academy of Sciences who reported the polygraph to be NOT reliable, have NEVER been hooked up to a polygraph.
Posted by Sergeant1107
- Jun 22, 2008, 08:55 PMQuote from: George_Maschke on Jun 22, 2008, 08:07 PMThe people that say a polygraph is not reliable are the ones that have been hooked up and had their lie revealed* Here is an idea, Lets hook up this dork from this site in front of his loved ones, friends, past and present bosses and co-workers and ask him his deepest truths and deceptions and then debate this*I say the polygraph is not reliable and I never had my lies revealed for the simple reason that I didn't tell any lies. Despite that, I failed three out of four polygraphs.
If the polygraph was reliable I would have passed all four tests because I was telling the truth on all of them and my answers didn't change on any of them.
Posted by MSlatt
- Jun 22, 2008, 08:07 PMThe people that say a polygraph is not reliable are the ones that have been hooked up and had their lie revealed* Here is an idea, Lets hook up this dork from this site in front of his loved ones, friends, past and present bosses and co-workers and ask him his deepest truths and deceptions and then debate this*
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Oct 31, 2002, 03:16 AMA week has passed without a word from Mr. Slattery regarding his claim that polygraphs are nearly 100 percent reliable. It seems he's prepared to take a place in the Polygraph Hall of Shame, where he'll be joining other polygraphers who have misled the media:
Milton O. "Skip" Webb, Jr. (President, American Polygraph Association)
Frank Horvath (Past President, American Polygraph Association)
Harry Reed (President, Illinois Polygraph Society)
Milton O. "Skip" Webb, Jr. (President, American Polygraph Association)
Frank Horvath (Past President, American Polygraph Association)
Harry Reed (President, Illinois Polygraph Society)
Posted by beech trees
- Oct 29, 2002, 04:20 PMMr. Slattery, if you're out there, ponder this:
A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep.-- Saul Bellow
A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep.-- Saul Bellow
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Oct 28, 2002, 05:13 AMsie,
To date, I have not received any response from Mr. Slattery or the South Florida Sun Herald.
To date, I have not received any response from Mr. Slattery or the South Florida Sun Herald.
Posted by sie
- Oct 28, 2002, 05:06 AMOh, by the way Mr Slattery will not as much as respond to your e-mail. 