- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by antant00
- Mar 31, 2002, 11:46 PMyep pay $ 40.00 bucks just for the fun of it....and would hope it works...lol 
Posted by Rescue_Ranger
- Mar 08, 2002, 02:31 AMF+, you're correct. Whether they're using FFT, IFT or DFT, the bottom line is it's pretty easy to look at and for additional 'stress' components. I also think they're susceptible to high Signal to Noise, another interesting alternative.
Question to future CVSA subjects: Would you pay $40 for small device that lets you control the output of a CVSA?
(need ~ 100 interested parties, or lower price for more units)
RR
Posted by: False +
I recently had occasion to observe a CVSA operator conduct an examination and I was able to view the screen of the CVSA laptop.
Question to future CVSA subjects: Would you pay $40 for small device that lets you control the output of a CVSA?
(need ~ 100 interested parties, or lower price for more units)
RR
Posted by: False +
I recently had occasion to observe a CVSA operator conduct an examination and I was able to view the screen of the CVSA laptop.
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Mar 06, 2002, 06:46 AMThe CVSA is an overpriced prop for interrogations. To my knowledge, there is no peer-reviewed research available regarding CVSA, and the only studies purporting to support its validity as a lie detector come from the manufacturer.
The best source I could refer you to is David T. Lykken's book, A Tremor in the Blood: Uses and Abuses of the Lie Detector (2nd ed., 1998). Chapter 11 deals with voice stress analysis.
On the Internet, you'll find details of some studies conducted by the Department of Defense Polygraph Institute on the following website:
http://www.voicestress.com
It's amusing that the operator of the above site promotes the competing pseudoscience of polygraphy.
I'd be interested to hear how your presentation goes!
The best source I could refer you to is David T. Lykken's book, A Tremor in the Blood: Uses and Abuses of the Lie Detector (2nd ed., 1998). Chapter 11 deals with voice stress analysis.
On the Internet, you'll find details of some studies conducted by the Department of Defense Polygraph Institute on the following website:
http://www.voicestress.com
It's amusing that the operator of the above site promotes the competing pseudoscience of polygraphy.
I'd be interested to hear how your presentation goes!
Posted by Darrel
- Mar 06, 2002, 01:13 AMPosted by Darrel
- Mar 06, 2002, 01:10 AMI am the founder of a small, vocal, Freethinker/skeptical group here in the South and our local police station (city population 55,000), have purchased one or more of these CVSA programs. From what I have seen so far it appears to be nonsense. I am researching an article for our local paper and for a lecture I am giving this weekend. I hope to interview the police about the device, perhaps tomorrow. I need some really good, the best, info roasting this stuff so I can do a good job of drawing attention to this waste of money.
I emailed the "National Center for Truth Verification" who I think they bought them from ($10,000 a pop plus $1,600 per person per week for training). I asked them for any scientific, peer-reviewed evidence that their devices work, and asked them what they claim for accuracy. They have not responded. Our city is having a bit of a budget crisis and I am a little pissed that all this money has been spent on this nonsense.
Any help is appreciated. Thanks, Darrel
ph. 479-442-6738
I emailed the "National Center for Truth Verification" who I think they bought them from ($10,000 a pop plus $1,600 per person per week for training). I asked them for any scientific, peer-reviewed evidence that their devices work, and asked them what they claim for accuracy. They have not responded. Our city is having a bit of a budget crisis and I am a little pissed that all this money has been spent on this nonsense.
Any help is appreciated. Thanks, Darrel
ph. 479-442-6738
Posted by False +
- Feb 10, 2002, 08:58 AMRescue_Ranger,
I recently had occasion to observe a CVSA operator conduct an examination and I was able to view the screen of the CVSA laptop.
After each answer given, a graph appeared that bore many similar features to a frequency-domain representation of a voice signal. Is it simply an FFT (or FFT plus some added filtering) of the voice signal? I ask because you made reference to an HP Spectrum Analyzer in your post, so I assume you must have some signal analysis background (as do I).
If the backbone of CVSA is indeed the FFT, the CVSA industry is even more back-handed that the polygraph industry. It would then mean that a truthful "yes" or "no" is assumed to appear more sinusoidal, like a "pure tone", and not have any additional frequency components. There's absolutely no reason at all to believe that a truthful response couldn't have these additional components. WHAT A SHAM ALL THIS IS!!!!
I recently had occasion to observe a CVSA operator conduct an examination and I was able to view the screen of the CVSA laptop.
After each answer given, a graph appeared that bore many similar features to a frequency-domain representation of a voice signal. Is it simply an FFT (or FFT plus some added filtering) of the voice signal? I ask because you made reference to an HP Spectrum Analyzer in your post, so I assume you must have some signal analysis background (as do I).
If the backbone of CVSA is indeed the FFT, the CVSA industry is even more back-handed that the polygraph industry. It would then mean that a truthful "yes" or "no" is assumed to appear more sinusoidal, like a "pure tone", and not have any additional frequency components. There's absolutely no reason at all to believe that a truthful response couldn't have these additional components. WHAT A SHAM ALL THIS IS!!!!
Posted by Rescue_Ranger
- Feb 10, 2002, 03:31 AMQuote from: Gino J. Scalabrini on Jun 01, 2001, 10:57 PM
BINGO. . .
2) Susceptibility to Countermeasures: There are no known reliable ways in which an examinee can manipulate the results of CVSA to create a favorable outcome. Polygraphy, on the other hand, is easily defeated by simple countermeasures.
We have no CVSA unit, but we're playing with an HP 4395 Spectrum Analyzer and PC DSP card, and see clear artifacts for stressed and unstressed subjects saying Yes and No. We've digitally recorded a person artifically stressed saying "Yes" and "No", and that same person relaxed saying the same thing. Using a PC for playback and 4 separate keys, we can play back any of the 4 answers at will. There's no reason we can't put it in a key fob (car door opener sized audio player) and sell them.
The 4395 can also see the higher frequencies / stress elements over a regular telephone circuit. As long as you're doing this over the telephone, no one is going to know whether it's you or the key fob answering. We can also get the DSP card to output just the higher frequencies, or to provide a minimum noise level of the higher frequencies to provide a lower S/N for CVSA machines. There's also no reason we can't add the higher frequencies in a key fob to activate at will.
RR
Posted by john richards
- Jan 20, 2002, 09:31 PM yes I am a god! hahahah
Posted by John Richards
- Jan 03, 2002, 04:11 PMYes your right I passed the CVSA test! Thanks for all your info. You guys are right, this site works Maybe i'm not confident with myself, but I bet a lot of people fail the CVSA and the background detective fails you because of your background not the CVSA to not have a lawsuit. Heres what did help for the CVSA::
1) be polite and confident
2) never say anything negative
3) after you take the test relax and read a newspaper or something, I bet they watch your demeanor after the test.
4) bottom line, if the examiner does not like you you fail. End of story.
5) never disagree with the examiner they are gods when you are in there. If she asks you to bark like a dog, then you bark like a dog.
6) The examiner kept talking about her stamp collection. So I was a instant stamp collector.
Maybe i'm not confident with myself, but I bet a lot of people fail the CVSA and the background detective fails you because of your background not the CVSA to not have a lawsuit. Heres what did help for the CVSA::1) be polite and confident
2) never say anything negative
3) after you take the test relax and read a newspaper or something, I bet they watch your demeanor after the test.
4) bottom line, if the examiner does not like you you fail. End of story.
5) never disagree with the examiner they are gods when you are in there. If she asks you to bark like a dog, then you bark like a dog.
6) The examiner kept talking about her stamp collection. So I was a instant stamp collector.
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Jan 01, 2002, 11:33 PMJohn,
In both CVSA and polygraph "tests," a post-test interrogation is standard procedure if the examiner believes that the subject has answered the relevant questions deceptively. The absence of a post-test interrogation in your case is a good indication that you passed your CVSA "test."
In both CVSA and polygraph "tests," a post-test interrogation is standard procedure if the examiner believes that the subject has answered the relevant questions deceptively. The absence of a post-test interrogation in your case is a good indication that you passed your CVSA "test."
Posted by John Richards
- Jan 01, 2002, 11:24 PM Does the CVSA have a post-test interrigation like the polygraph? I had a CVSA a few weeks ago and they was no post-test.thanks!
Posted by G Scalabr
- Aug 30, 2001, 08:42 PMCalifmike,
I was actually unaware of this fact. Thank you for pointing this out. At the bottom of the article, Palmatier is described as a "polygraph researcher," but not as a practicing examiner. I wouldn't be surprised if this was left out on purpose (to obscure the apparent conflict of interest).
I suppose I was fooled by the absence of the usual rhetoric touting the superiority of polygraphy.
I was actually unaware of this fact. Thank you for pointing this out. At the bottom of the article, Palmatier is described as a "polygraph researcher," but not as a practicing examiner. I wouldn't be surprised if this was left out on purpose (to obscure the apparent conflict of interest).
I suppose I was fooled by the absence of the usual rhetoric touting the superiority of polygraphy.
Posted by CalifMike
- Aug 29, 2001, 06:18 PM
Gino, Are you aware that the article, "CVSA: Modern Technological Invention or 'The Emperor's New Clothes'?", is written by a polygraph examiner?http://www.polygraphplace.com/docs/florida.htm
Quote
Verity Consulting
PO Box 14425
Tampa, FL. 33690
Contact: Dr. John J. Palmatier
813.493.3403
School - Canadian Police College (RCMP) '83
email: palmatie@pilot.msu.edu
Nevertheless, the information is useful and helps build confidence for those facing a CVSA exam.
Posted by Fred F.
- Jul 27, 2001, 10:58 PMQuote from: fred on Jul 26, 2001, 02:45 PM
The internal affairs are the very people on the witch hunt of me. They are called the inspector generals office. The female captain I wrote about is a former inspector who dated the inspector on my case.
Fred,
This situation has so much conflict of interest, I concur with Gino. In addition to securing legal assistance, you also need to contact the director's office IMMEDIATELY!. Do you have documentation to back your statements? You already have said your "jacket" is clean after 10 years on the job.
If there are fellow officers to collaborate what is occurring you need to obtain written statements from them. Remember that documentation goes a long way in defending yourself.
Good Luck
Fred F.
Posted by G Scalabr
- Jul 27, 2001, 08:18 AMQuoteIf you have any information on studies questioning the validity of these tests, please advise.
Fred, you will want to check out the following article from the American Bar Association's General Practice, Solo, and Small Firm Section Magazine.
CVSA: Modern Technological Invention or "The Emperor's New Clothes"?
As this article and Fred F point out, CVSA has never shown better than coin-flip accuracy in any study other than the ones done by the manufacturer of the device. Any reliance on CVSA results is simply foolish. End of story.
You should contact an attorney in your area knowledgeable in labor law and consider taking legal action against this department.