Hello,
I failed a pre-employment polygraph for a federal agency last year (the reason was because I didn't feel the slightest bit guilty about the trick control question -- cheating in school -- because I have never cheated before!) Obviously, I felt way more guilty about being accused of serious matters, and failed the test.
Unfortuantely, I did not have ANY idea at the time what kind of trickery and deception was going on, and made the fatal mistake of trying to explain my responses.
Now I am feeling uneasy because I applied to work in a daycare which requires a national criminal background check and I had to be fingerprinted, etc. I have no criminal record (not even any speeding tickets!) but I am terrified that my polygraphy nightmare is going to come up. Will my employers find out about that, and if so, will they disqualify me from working at a daycare because flunking a polygraph makes me seem like a criminal?
I'm scared because I have volunteered for these people and they love me and I don't want them to think I'm a criminal!
Does anyone know what I can expect? If it does come up, what can I do about this in order to clear my name for my employers?
Scared and Innocent
Since the polygraph is against the law in private sector employment, it would seem to me that releasing polygraph results (pass or fail) by a federal agency to a private sector employer would be unlawful. It could be, if the private sector employer requested the charts, they could be held accountable also. I don't have any statutes or case law on this issue to back up my statements so you might want to check with legal counsel.
Thanks for the reply.
That puts my mind at ease somewhat!
I hope you're right about that.
QuoteI failed a pre-employment polygraph for a federal agency last year (the reason was because I didn't feel the slightest bit guilty about the trick control question -- cheating in school -- because I have never cheated before!) Obviously, I felt way more guilty about being accused of serious matters, and failed the test.
Unfortuantely, I did not have ANY idea at the time what kind of trickery and deception was going on, and made the fatal mistake of trying to explain my responses.
Polygraphers have come here on numerous occasions claiming the test is highly accurate and all have to do is be cooperative and tell the truth, and you will pass. They admit that there are "false positives", but claim they are very rare, even though we get a steady stream of people like yourselves posting here. Also, somewhere around half of FBI applicants fail their preemployment polygraphs. There just can't be that many liars and potential spies applying for employment with the FBI.
TC
T.M. Cullen wrote
Quote
Polygraphers have come here on numerous occasions claiming the test is highly accurate and all have to do is be cooperative and tell the truth, and you will pass. They admit that there are "false positives", but claim they are very rare, even though we get a steady stream of people like yourselves posting here. Also, somewhere around half of FBI applicants fail their preemployment polygraphs. There just can't be that many liars and potential spies applying for employment with the FBI.
TC
Mr. Cullen: This steady stream of people that you talk about; what exactly would you calculate as the percentage the members of this "steady stream" represent of the total number of polygraph examinations given?
Can you establish by any means of responsible calculation that your "steady stream" represents more than an infinitesimal fraction of a percentage of the total number of polygraph examinations given either in the entire 8 years this site has existed or in any year you might select?
If you can't then you should reconsider your broad insinuation that the number of people coming here to complain about their exams constitutes anything resembling evidence of a high false positive rate.
IT DOESN'T.
There is research that addresses false positives but counting complainers isn't part of it. Also, how exactly did you reach your conclusion concerning how many FBI applicants might be liars or spies?
Dr. Maschke. A simple Yes or No will suffice. Would you attempt to publish a study for peer review that attempted to draw conclusions concerning error rate based only on complaints of false positives without addressing how many tests were given?
Sancho Panza
P.S. I won't be the least bit surprised if the only response to my questions constitutes almost anything but a concise answer or evidence of calculation.
S.P.
Scared and Innocent,
As a general rule, failing a pre-employment polygraph examination does not result in the opening of a criminal investigation. Information associated with your application falls under the Privacy Act, and I don't think you need to be worried about your false positive results being reported to your prospective private sector employer.
Sancho Panza,
Of course, statistical inferences cannot be safely drawn from postings on a message board. But given polygraphy's lack of scientific underpinnings (https://antipolygraph.org/articles/article-018.shtml), it is clear that when a polygraph screening program has a failure rate on the order of 50% (as with agencies such as the FBI and CIA), many of those who "fail" will be false positives. The numerous reports of false positives on this message board are symptomatic, not diagnostic, of the false positive problem.
"Polygraph screening protocols that can identify a large fraction of serious security violators can be expected to incorrectly implicate at least hundreds, and perhaps thousands, of innocent employees for each spy or other serious security violator correctly identified." (NAS Report p. 218)
Do the math. "False positives" are rare, Yeah right!
TC
Quote from: Scared and Innocent on Sep 19, 2008, 02:08 AM"Polygraph screening protocols that can identify a large fraction of serious security violators can be expected to incorrectly implicate at least hundreds, and perhaps thousands, of innocent employees for each spy or other serious security violator correctly identified." (NAS Report p. 218)
Do the math.
TC
The excerpt you quoted, while subject to debate on another question, has no corelation to the ratio of complainers on this site to the total number of examinations given or this ratios value in pointing to a conclusion regarding whether or not false positive rates are high. It also does not address how you arrived at your conclusion concerning how many FBI applicants might be liars or spies.
Let me give you a hint. Count every separate complaint on this board since its inception, shucks even count every famous spy case in GM's archives even though most of those guys showed deception on their tests, count all of the signatures on the petition minus the blank lines, joke names, duplicates and links to porn sites, and divide it by the number of polygraph examinations given in the same time period.
YOU DO THE MATH I'm betting you'll find that this "steady stream" you speak of couldn't even be counted as a trickle not even a slow drip.
If you can't do the math you should stop insinuating that the number of complaints on this site have any significant bearing on false positive rates or constitute real proof of anything other than "Some people aren't happy with their test results."
THEY DON'T
Sancho Panza
"The polygraph as currently used has extremely serious limitations for use in security screening to identify security risks and to clear valued employees." (NAS report p.218)
Yet polygraphers continue to claim that "false positives" are rare, and routinely compare polygraphs to Xray exams and DNA testing. :D
"This test is totally scientific and 98% accurate". This is what one of the NSA's top polygraphers told me during the pretest as he childishly scribbled a bogus pie chart on a legal pad he put in front of me. "Ya got about a 2% chance of fooling me Tom", he said, repeatedly tracing over a tiny slice of this stupid pie chart, assuming I'd actually believe such a preposterous claim! :o
Little did he know my anus was primed and ready to pucker! ::)
TC
Quote from: Scared and Innocent on Sep 19, 2008, 04:12 AM"The polygraph as currently used has extremely serious limitations for use in security screening to identify security risks and to clear valued employees." (NAS report p.218)
Yet polygraphers continue to claim that "false positives" are rare, and routinely compare polygraphs to Xray exams and DNA testing. :D
"This test is totally scientific and 98% accurate". This is what one of the NSA's top polygraphers told me during the pretest as he childishly scribbled a bogus pie chart on a legal pad he put in front of me. "Ya got about a 2% chance of fooling me Tom", he said, repeatedly tracing over a tiny slice of this stupid pie chart, assuming I'd actually believe such a preposterous claim! :o
Little did he know my anus was primed and ready to pucker! ::)
TC
After two responses I guess we can conclude that you are unable to establish by any means of responsible calculation that your "steady stream" represents more than an infinitesimal fraction of a percentage of the total number of polygraph examinations given either in the entire 8 years this site has existed or in any year you might select.
You keep quoting from the NAS report trying to deflect attention away from your unsupportable contention because you know you are wrong.
You couldn't even do the math after I gave you the equation. The reason the math won't work is because complainers have no reliable mathmatical relationship to polygraph error rates.
You also don't seem to have an answer regarding how you determined that there "can't be that many liars and potential spies applying for employment with the FBI.
May I suggest that as you keep your anus primed and ready to pucker, you really should be more careful that you don't accidentally compress your carotid artery.
It's what I call the Antipolygraph.org Sleeper Hold.
Sancho Panza
Quote from: Scared and Innocent on Sep 19, 2008, 02:40 AMQuote from: Scared and Innocent on Sep 19, 2008, 02:08 AM"Polygraph screening protocols that can identify a large fraction of serious security violators can be expected to incorrectly implicate at least hundreds, and perhaps thousands, of innocent employees for each spy or other serious security violator correctly identified." (NAS Report p. 218)
Do the math.
TC
The excerpt you quoted, while subject to debate on another question, has no corelation to the ratio of complainers on this site to the total number of examinations given or this ratios value in pointing to a conclusion regarding whether or not false positive rates are high. It also does not address how you arrived at your conclusion concerning how many FBI applicants might be liars or spies.
Let me give you a hint. Count every separate complaint on this board since its inception, shucks even count every famous spy case in GM's archives even though most of those guys showed deception on their tests, count all of the signatures on the petition minus the blank lines, joke names, duplicates and links to porn sites, and divide it by the number of polygraph examinations given in the same time period.
YOU DO THE MATH I'm betting you'll find that this "steady stream" you speak of couldn't even be counted as a trickle not even a slow drip.
If you can't do the math you should stop insinuating that the number of complaints on this site have any significant bearing on false positive rates or constitute real proof of anything other than "Some people aren't happy with their test results."
THEY DON'T
Sancho Panza
Sancho as usual you resort to using information to suit your silly test.
Let's say you did do the math and your calculations were in fact correct.
TC and George's contention is that this site does not represent ALL false positives in the field of Polygraph.
Of course you fail to mention that the same "math" would hold true to your side in the representation of examiners.
There have been only a "few" since I have been here that have been vocal about it. You would think with a 98% effective science that, either, this site would be irrelevant ( judging by the zeal of people like you Sackett and others thats not the case) or that you would have the facts to present both here and in the public arena that would seal that validity of Polygraph. You have neither.
Also Sancho, you use the term "complainers" to describe some that are against Polygraph.
What are complainers Sancho? If they are those of us who took the test, told the truth and FAILED then, count me in, but don't call me a complainer just because I have taken the time and effort to try to right a wrong that has been going on for way too long.
I understand however, that labeling me and others as complainers makes you feel better about your position of defending your livelihood.
I only hope that some day the test will be turned on you and you get to feel the cold hand of false accusation by un unscientific test. But, something tells me that if that day came you would conveniently opt out of taking it. Just my opinion.
"Almost a century of research in scientific psychology and physiology provides little basis for the expectation that a polygraph test could have extremely high accuracy. The physiological responses measured by the polygraph are not uniquely related to deception. " (NAS Report P. 212)
Poppycock! Consider the source! What do they know? They're just a bunch of complainers! Polygraphers know better! :o
NotGuilty1, Mr. Cullen's insinuation was clear in his previous post that a so called "steady stream" of people alleging polygraph errors on this site somehow invalidated the statement that false positives are a rare occurrence. He can't back that up with anything and neither can you.
Dr. Maschke didn't even try because he knew my comment was factually correct.
He Wrote:
Quotestatistical inferences cannot be safely drawn from postings on a message board
Mr. Cullen keeps trying to avoid the question by quoting a document that completely fails to address any relationship between the number of complainers on this site and a measurable or even estimable false positive rate.
As to definitions let's use thesecom•plain (kəm-plān') Pronunciation Key
intr.v. com•plained, com•plain•ing, com•plains
1. To express feelings of pain, dissatisfaction, or resentment.
2. To make a formal accusation or bring a formal charge.
[Middle English compleinen, from Old French complaindre, complaign-, from Vulgar Latin *complangere : Latin com-, intensive pref.; see com- + Latin plangere, to lament; see plāk-2 in Indo-European roots.]
com•plain'er n.
SOURCE: complainer. (n.d.). The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Retrieved September 19, 2008, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/complainer
You however seem to be more of a whiner (see definition 2 below)
whine (hwīn, wīn) Pronunciation Key
v. intr.
1. To utter a plaintive, high-pitched, protracted sound, as in pain, fear, supplication, or complaint.
2.
To complain or protest in a childish fashion.3. To produce a sustained noise of relatively high pitch: jet engines whining.
v.tr.
To utter with a whine.
[Middle English whinen, from Old English hwīnan, to make a whizzing sound.]
whin'er n., whin'ing•ly adv., whin'y, whin'ey adj.
SOURCE: whiner. (n.d.). The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Retrieved September 19, 2008, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/whiner
The only reason that this site is relevant or worthy of comment is my belief that this site provides aid and comfort to criminals and the enemies of our country, and my disagreement with the founder for co-writing a book that repeatedly tells the reader it is OK to lie and deliberately conceal information as well as offering suggestions regarding ways and means to attempt conceal criminal activity. I also believe that Dr. Maschke fails to give proper weight to recent information that seems to indicate that the
procedures he teaches may cause innocent people (like you claim you are) to fail polygraph tests.
If you want to change the subject, change it, but don't pretend your are responding to my post when you do it.
SanchoPanza
Quote from: Scared and Innocent on Sep 19, 2008, 02:50 PMNotGuilty1, Mr. Cullen's insinuation was clear in his previous post that a so called "steady stream" of people alleging polygraph errors on this site somehow invalidated the statement that false positives are a rare occurrence. He can't back that up with anything and neither can you.
Dr. Maschke didn't even try because he knew my comment was factually correct.
He Wrote: Quotestatistical inferences cannot be safely drawn from postings on a message board
Mr. Cullen keeps trying to avoid the question by quoting a document that completely fails to address any relationship between the number of complainers on this site and a measurable or even estimable false positive rate.
As to definitions let's use these
com•plain (kəm-plān') Pronunciation Key
intr.v. com•plained, com•plain•ing, com•plains
1. To express feelings of pain, dissatisfaction, or resentment.
2. To make a formal accusation or bring a formal charge.
[Middle English compleinen, from Old French complaindre, complaign-, from Vulgar Latin *complangere : Latin com-, intensive pref.; see com- + Latin plangere, to lament; see plāk-2 in Indo-European roots.]
com•plain'er n.
SOURCE: complainer. (n.d.). The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Retrieved September 19, 2008, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/complainer
You however seem to be more of a whiner (see definition 2 below)
whine (hwīn, wīn) Pronunciation Key
v. intr.
1. To utter a plaintive, high-pitched, protracted sound, as in pain, fear, supplication, or complaint.
2. To complain or protest in a childish fashion.
3. To produce a sustained noise of relatively high pitch: jet engines whining.
v.tr.
To utter with a whine.
[Middle English whinen, from Old English hwīnan, to make a whizzing sound.]
whin'er n., whin'ing•ly adv., whin'y, whin'ey adj.
SOURCE: whiner. (n.d.). The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Retrieved September 19, 2008, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/whiner
The only reason that this site is relevant or worthy of comment is my belief that this site provides aid and comfort to criminals and the enemies of our country, and my disagreement with the founder for co-writing a book that repeatedly tells the reader it is OK to lie and deliberately conceal information as well as offering suggestions regarding ways and means to attempt conceal criminal activity. I also believe that Dr. Maschke fails to give proper weight to recent information that seems to indicate that the procedures he teaches may cause innocent people (like you claim you are) to fail polygraph tests.
If you want to change the subject, change it, but don't pretend your are responding to my post when you do it.
SanchoPanza
Sancho, I respond to you to inform others not to get you educated since you have shown yourself time and time again to be a complete Idiot ( look that up )
The fact (though lost on Sancho ) is that this site cannot possibly account for all the thousands of victims of Polygraph and no one here to my knowledge has claimed that this site has a record of every false positive out there.
I cannot speak for TC however the "steady stream" he may be referring to is indicative of the people that like me come to get informed on how one could possibly tell the truth and fail a Polygraph ( so I was told any way with no right to access to a chart )
that is supposed to be 98% accurate. Once here, you encounter IDIOTS like Sancho and his ilk that NEED to perpetuate their scam to keep their jobs ( not defend the security of our country as Sancho would have you believe. I am quite sure if our national security was at stake Super Sancho would not be needed but the FBI would intervene) that are gonna tell me that I am nothing but a whiner and that I must be lying and now have a bone to pick so I come here.
Sancho, Again your test is NONSENSE when it come to detecting anything more than some one squeezing their ass hole. No more accurate than tarrot cards and far less entertaining!
Many, many respected people in science and law have attested to the inaccuracy of the Polygraph.
BTW I never used any of the "procedures" that Gorge teaches in his book..............AND FAILED TELLING THE TRUTH.
What you Sancho bring to this fine site however is more proof that your industry is a scam and needs to be exposed.
Notguilty1... You're really quite emotional aren't you?
Temper Temper Temper
:D ;D ::) ::) ;D :D :D ;D ::)
Sancho Panza
Hi Sancho,
I'm new to this site. I am a scientist (of sorts) and am interested in the science behind the polygraph. I was hoping you could point me in the direction of some scholarly papers (preferably peer reviewed) relating to the polygraph. I tried a google search but nothing satisfactory came up.
Thanks!
Quote from: CuriousSci on Sep 20, 2008, 04:09 PMHi Sancho,
I'm new to this site. I am a scientist (of sorts) and am interested in the science behind the polygraph. I was hoping you could point me in the direction of some scholarly papers (preferably peer reviewed) relating to the polygraph. I tried a google search but nothing satisfactory came up.
Thanks!
I'd love to see tha answer to this..... Sancho?? :)
check the research publications at the Univeristy of Utah..dr raskin, kircher and dozen of others have published dozens of peer reviewed studies
gary
Curious Sci: I see Gary Davis has answered your question, but, in all fairness, you should also ask Dr. Maschke if he can provide you with some scholarly papers (preferably peer reviewed) relating to the effectivness of the countermeasures he teaches in the book that he co-wrote regarding ways and means to attempt conceal criminal activity in order to cheat the testing process.
Sancho Panza
Quote from: CuriousSci on Sep 20, 2008, 09:51 PMCurious Sci: I see Gary Davis has answered your question, but, in all fairness, you should also ask Dr. Maschke if he can provide you with some scholarly papers (preferably peer reviewed) relating to the effectivness of the countermeasures he teaches in the book that he co-wrote regarding ways and means to attempt conceal criminal activity in order to cheat the testing process.
Sancho Panza
Expecting useful, "scholarly papers" that are "peer reviewed"on Polygraph is unfortunately akin to asking for "scholarly papers" that are "peer reviewed" from the Mafia on law enforcement.
Hmmmmm, I wonder if that would be unbiased?
Void of any accurate information in favor of promoting self serving information of the industry.
I mean ... why would Polygraph industry peers find any thing but positives in Polygraph? It would be self defeating.
And please don't tell me that the industry is devoted to truth. ;D ;D
Notguilty1
You obviously have very little knowledge of the definition of "peer review" or it's process.
Sancho Panza
Quote from: CuriousSci on Sep 22, 2008, 10:18 AMNotguilty1
You obviously have very little knowledge of the definition of "peer review" or it's process.
Sancho Panza
I know Sancho your the "expert" on all things Polygraph.
So unfortunate that your own industry doesn't even have "expertise" in Polygraph since to date it is still unproven and even barred or illegal to use in many applications.
I am sure your right though, "peer review", when it come to Polygraph is probably full of assumptions, half truths and miss leading information to bolster the "validity" of the test because they have yet to show any actual "scientific" proof that it does what they say and at the accuracy rate that they claim which even most Polygraphers even here have admitted that 98% is wrong ( or a LIE in other words).
I am sure Sancho we are all waiting with baited breath for your next enlightening expert opinion on this modern day shell game. ;D ;D
Notguilty1
You are not only wrong on every point, anyone who has failed 2 polygraph tests would have exactly twice as much expertise as you regarding anything concerning polygraph.
You continue to criticize something you not only don't understand, you haven't even tried to learn.
Instead you resort to repeating the same claims over and over again and the only thing that you have to support your position is the unsubstantiated claim that you failed an exam while telling the truth.
The peer review process is not exclusive to polygraph and your continued comments about something you know so little about continues to magnify your lack of knowledge.
so keep going
SanchoPanza
QuoteInstead you resort to repeating the same claims over and over again and the only thing that you have to support your position is the unsubstantiated claim that you failed an exam while telling the truth.
"Almost a century of research in scientific psychology and physiology provides little basis for the expectation that a polygraph test could have extremely high accuracy. The physiological responses measured by the polygraph are not uniquely related to deception. That is, the responses measured by the polygraph do not all reflect a single underlying process: a variety of psychological and physiological processes, including some that can be consciously controlled, can affect polygraph measures and test" (NAS Report p. 212)
Quote from: CuriousSci on Sep 22, 2008, 02:02 PMQuoteInstead you resort to repeating the same claims over and over again and the only thing that you have to support your position is the unsubstantiated claim that you failed an exam while telling the truth.
"Almost a century of research in scientific psychology and physiology provides little basis for the expectation that a polygraph test could have extremely high accuracy. The physiological responses measured by the polygraph are not uniquely related to deception. That is, the responses measured by the polygraph do not all reflect a single underlying process: a variety of psychological and physiological processes, including some that can be consciously controlled, can affect polygraph measures and test" (NAS Report p. 212)
HOWS THAT FOR PEER REVIEW SANCHO??
I'll tell you what's "unsubstantiated" the results of the Polygraph since.
A) I WAS TELLING THE TRUTH AND TOLD I FAILED
B) I WAS NEVER ALLOWED TO SEE ANY OF THE CHARTS
C) THERE IS NO SCIENTIFIC SUBSTANTIATED EVIDENCE THAT YOUR MACHINE DOES ANYTHING IN THE REALM OF DETECTING DECEPTION
D) THE "TEST" EVEN IF ADMINISTERED PROPERLY WAS NO MORE THAN A INTERROGATION TOOL IN MY CASE AND SINCE I TOLD THE TRUTH THEY GOT NOTHING ELSE FROM ME THAN A "FAILED" TEST AND SUBSEQUENTLY COULD DO NOTHING WITH IT SINCE I WAS NEVER CHARGED WITH ANYTHING. I WONDER WHY THAT WOULD BE SINCE I WAS TOLD THAT THE TEST IS 95-98 ACCURATE AND MY EXAMINER HAD 35 YRS EXPERIENCE AS A CON ARTIST. BECAUSE NO ONE INCLUDING THE POLICE PUT ANY WEIGHT ON THE POLY RESULTS IF THEY DID I WOULD HAVE BEEN CHARGED.
Here's what my answer would be if, while taking a polygraph as a INNOCENT criminal suspect with no REAL evidence against me, and the examiner gave me this "You've failed this test horribly, the machine indicates you are lying.....blah, blah, blah" horseshit:
"Okay then why don't you arrest me?" Keep asking them that. Most detectives know there are some people who are just not going to play the game, and who are ON to the game. Ironically, usually REAL streetwise criminals. It's the innocent, naive, and gullible ones who play along.
The only way they could hurt you with just a polygraph chart, without a confession or real evidence would be if they wrapped it around a baseball bat and clobbered you over the head with it!
How many polygraph test results make it to court based solely on the chart versus what comes out in the INTERROGATION?
TC
Notguilty1. Typing in all uppercase letters does not make you any less wrong.
You relying on Mr. Cullen coming to your aid so you could have some kind of AHA moment just proves my statement that "you continue to criticize something you not only don't understand, you haven't even tried to learn".
(a) Saying you told the truth 10,000 times doesn't prove you didn't lie, EVEN IF YOU TYPE IT IN CAPITAL LETTERS.
(b)If the polygraph examiner had given you the charts you would be unable to distinguish them from a letter from your maiden aunt because you don't understand, and you haven't even tried to learn.
(c) There is plenty of evidence if you would read the research
(d) See (a) and based on your earlier posts, you have never asked why you weren't charged so you are just guessing.
"Some potential alternatives to the polygraph show promise, but none has yet been shown to outperform the polygraph. None shows any promise of supplanting the polygraph for screening purposes in the near term." (NAS Report p. 217)
SanchoPanza
Quote"Some potential alternatives to the polygraph show promise, but none has yet been shown to outperform the polygraph. None shows any promise of supplanting the polygraph for screening purposes in the near term." (NAS Report p. 217)
SanchoPanza
"
.....However, research is at a very early stage with the most promising techniques, and many methodological, theoretical, and practical problems would have to be solved for these techniques to yield improvements on the polygraph. Not enough is known to tell whether it will ever be possible in practice to identify deception in real time through brain measurements." (NAS Report same para)"Computerized analysis of polygraph records may be able, in theory, to improve test accuracy. This potential has not yet been demonstrated, however, either in research or in practice, and it is likely to be only modest." (NAS Report same page)
Back to the "here and now", and referring to the NAS report quotes I posted above, the polygraph, as is, tain't accurate nor scientific neither, Rufus! They's still a fish'n an a burn'n dem witches!
TC
Quote from: CuriousSci on Sep 22, 2008, 05:29 PMNotguilty1. Typing in all uppercase letters does not make you any less wrong.
You relying on Mr. Cullen coming to your aid so you could have some kind of AHA moment just proves my statement that "you continue to criticize something you not only don't understand, you haven't even tried to learn".
(a) Saying you told the truth 10,000 times doesn't prove you didn't lie, EVEN IF YOU TYPE IT IN CAPITAL LETTERS.
(b)If the polygraph examiner had given you the charts you would be unable to distinguish them from a letter from your maiden aunt because you don't understand, and you haven't even tried to learn.
(c) There is plenty of evidence if you would read the research
(d) See (a) and based on your earlier posts, you have never asked why you weren't charged so you are just guessing.
"Some potential alternatives to the polygraph show promise, but none has yet been shown to outperform the polygraph. None shows any promise of supplanting the polygraph for screening purposes in the near term." (NAS Report p. 217)
SanchoPanza
Sancho you obviously are so clouded by you need to make a living you don't even understand the way our justice system works.
a) saying 10,000 times I told the truth may not prove to you I didn't lie.
However the police obviously didn't put ANY weight on the Poly or I would have been charged. Because, if they had any possibility of finding me guilty with just the Poly they would have. Truth is that you are one of few that puts any validity in the Polygraph. The police had their shot with me and their silly machine and they needed a confession which they didn't get cause I had nothing to confess.
In our country ( don't know about yours) THEY HAVE TO PROVE I LIED !! and have to do it with valid means not pseudo-scientific non-sense.
b) If I had the charts I could have had them read by some one who could. Your doctor would give you your MRI charts even though the average person would not know what they are looking at. I had no right to the charts that labeled me a lier, wonder why? maybe because the charts mean nothing or maybe because the machine wasn't even on and they just were going for what they needed a confession.
c) There are tarrot card readers, Psychics, people that talk to the dead and ghost hunters that claim that they have "evidence" too, but do I buy it ? NOT
d) I don't care why I wasn't charged the fact is that I wasn't and that's all I am interested in.
I have been told by my attorney that I was not charged because they had NO proof I committed a crime regardless of the Poly because that's no proof. I know all you need is the machine..... how easy things must be in your little world.
I am not interested in contacting the very people who perpetrated the scam to find out why their scam didn't work. I already know why.
"Potential alternatives that show promise" but cannot out perform Polygraph does NOT mean that Polygraph is accurate or even preforms well or at all other than what it is a interrogation tool. ;D
Offe, Heinz ; Offe, Susan; The Comparison Question Test: Does It Work and If So How? Law and Human Behavior, Volume 31, Number 3 / June, 2007, pp 291-303 (13)
SP
PS not included in the NAS study
Quote from: CuriousSci on Sep 22, 2008, 05:29 PM
"Some potential alternatives to the polygraph show promise, but none has yet been shown to outperform the polygraph. None shows any promise of supplanting the polygraph for screening purposes in the near term." (NAS Report p. 217)
SanchoPanza
I don't think the passage you quoted above really has the impact you seem to think it has.
I could pick up a random rock from my backyard and call it an elephant repellant. Then I could cite the lack of elephants in my backyard as proof my rock works. I could also accurately claim that no other rock in my backyard has shown it is a more effective elephant repellant than the rock I originally chose, and it is unlikely that my rock will be supplanted as an elephant repellant in the near term.
None of that, of course, means that my original rock does anything useful in the field of elephant-repelling.
The above-quoted passage does not indicate that the polygraph is an effective method of detecting truth or deception; the passage merely states that no other alternatives to the polygraph have shown they can outperform the polygraph. It goes on to state that no other alternatives are likely to supplant the polygraph for screening purposes in the near term.
If the authors of the quoted passage believed the polygraph is roughly as accurate as random chance it would be completely accurate for them to write that they haven't found anything else more accurate, and, because of the polygraph operator's ability to sometimes elicit a damaging admission during the test, they don't foresee any of the other random-chance-compatible methods of truth-detection as likely to supplant the polygraph in the near term.
In other words, the passage you cited is hardly an endorsement of the accuracy of the polygraph. It is simply a statement that they haven't found anything better. You may choose to interpret that to mean the polygraph is very good and there isn't anything better, but I think the majority of people who read the NAS research study would conclude that the authors meant that the polygraph is not very effective and they haven't found anything else to be very effective, either.
Two things you definitely need to be skeptical about:
1. Atheists quoting the Bible.
2. Polygraph examiners quoting the NAS Report.
TC
Another comment from Dr. Maschke's Peanut Gallery.
Notguilty1 is sounding like a fool here comes Mr. Cullen to quote NAS.
NAS counter-quote, send in Sergeant.
Where's Dr. Maschke with his canned response?
Do you guys all go to the bathroom together too?
I sometimes wonder if you all aren't really the multiple online personalities of some disgruntled guy in the Netherlands.
Sancho Panza
The Peanut Gallery had already been identified...The rest of the world is watching and we are not idiots.
Quote from: Sergeant1107 on Sep 23, 2008, 09:51 AMAnother comment from Dr. Maschke's Peanut Gallery.
Notguilty1 is sounding like a fool here comes Mr. Cullen to quote NAS.
NAS counter-quote, send in Sergeant.
Where's Dr. Maschke with his canned response?
Do you guys all go to the bathroom together too?
I sometimes wonder if you all aren't really the multiple online personalities of some disgruntled guy in the Netherlands.
Sancho Panza
It is so vital Sancho, for you to diminish our statements and the experiences and information we bring to this issue.
If I sound like a fool and the others here are the "peanut gallery" then I consider myself in good company if it is opposing the scam you continue poorly to perpetuate.
What Sarge and TC posted here in their last posts is true but that seems to go over your head so, you dismiss it as foolish and misguided.
I wonder where YOUR "peanut gallery" is?
I know, .... they are enjoying the fact that most have bought into the idea that Polygraph does detect lies and even know the test by it's better known name "lie detector test".
That of course is a lie in itself but very convenient, for those like you who proclaim the machine to do just that at a accuracy rate of about 95% to boot, when you know none of that is not true.
Sancho, you say that we the "anti's" provide aid and comfort to criminals and enemies of our country.
I ask you, what do you consider people that perpetuate a lie and allow criminals and enemies of our country ( Gary Ridgeway come to mind as one but certainly not the only that passed a Polygraph) or honest people that would otherwise contribute well to our country but have been denied the opportunity because of a test that has no scientific validity just to further their industry. How is that not giving aid and comfort to the enemies of our country?
You can, if you'd like bunch us all together as one foolish group, that is your right. The message we have is common and growing.
Quote from: Sergeant1107 on Sep 23, 2008, 10:29 AMThe Peanut Gallery had already been identified...The rest of the world is watching and we are not idiots.
Thank you Green well said!
Mr. Sancho Sackett,
You are an embarassment to your own profession.
Unable to argue the facts, you resort to childish name calling.
I can only imagine what games you must play in your polygraph INTERROGATION room with naive, gullible people you probably take advantage of.
Well, your tactics don't work here. Toto has pulled open the curtain which hides your pseudo-scientific witchcraft! You have been exposed for all lurkers like Green Earth to see. And they are NOT IDIOTS!
QuoteIt is so vital Sancho, for you to diminish our statements and the experiences and information we bring to this issue.
[/b]
Notguilty1, Mr. Cullen, Sergeant, and even Dr. Maschke.
Let us not ever forget, according to your own statements, that your only real
experience with polygraph comes from your problems with passing one. With the exception of Dr. Maschke your
information is simply regurgitation of things you have read right here or referenced on this site.
Frogs at the bottom of a well see only a small part of the sky.
Sancho Panza
Quote from: Sergeant1107 on Sep 23, 2008, 05:32 PMQuoteIt is so vital Sancho, for you to diminish our statements and the experiences and information we bring to this issue.
[/b]
Notguilty1, Mr. Cullen, Sergeant, and even Dr. Maschke.
Let us not ever forget, according to your own statements, that your only real experience with polygraph comes from your problems with passing one. With the exception of Dr. Maschke your information is simply regurgitation of things you have read right here or referenced on this site.
Frogs at the bottom of a well see only a small part of the sky.
Sancho Panza
Yep, having been told I failed a Polygraph when I was truthful is ALL the "experience" I need to see there was something wrong, ( call me crazy).
If one falls for the 2 card monte scam on a street corner once and gets taken and then figures out that it was a scam after all does the fact that he was only scammed once belittle the fact he was in fact scammed?
Then, if he goes and researches the scam (and in the case of Polygraph finds that scientists, judges, courts, and many respected people in the science world, not to mention the very police dept. that didn't charge me with a crime all confirm that it is at best unreliable).
That all should be irrelevant because Sancho says so and I should just believe in the 3 card monte scam, after all I cannot really know any thing about it since I have never perpetrated the scam on others. What a joke!!
Notguilty1, I would never call you crazy, because that would be an ad hominum attack and Dr. Mashke only tolerates that from people who agree with him. However, I certainly can't disagree with your self assessment.
Quote2 card monte scam
Quote3 card monte scam
Which is it? You don't seem to know any more about monte scams than you do polygraph.
You forget that scientists, judges, courts, and many respected people in the science world, not to mention police departments use the polygraph every day. Not to mention that Congress commands it certain circumstances.
Sancho Panza
QuoteYou forget that scientists, judges, courts, and many respected people in the science world, not to mention police departments use the polygraph every day. Not to mention that Congress commands it certain circumstances.
One of the main reasons George Washington died was because doctors "bled" him repeatedly. That was an acceptable medical practice back then. You'll probably say, "well, that was then, we now have better medical procedures to use." But "bleeding" a patient NEVER was a scientifically valid procedure, whether used in the past by doctors or not.
So there is yet another fallacious argument you've made.
Many people in the scientific world? Not the scientific community in general, and certainly not the NAS in particular.
The courts? Can you point out a case in which polygraph results contributed to a conviction based SOLEY ON THE CHARTS, and not from information volunteered, or confessions elicited from the guilty party during a polygraphic interrogation? In cases of the latter, that just proves the polygraph is capable of eliciting confessions, or self-incriminating info, not that the machine actually scientifically DETECTS LIES.
OTOH, the results of DNA testing are accepted in court precisely because IT ACTUALLY IS a scientifically valid test, unlike polygraphy.
TC
Mr Cullen tsk tsk tsk first off I was responding to a post from notguilty1 in which he stated
Quotein the case of Polygraph finds that scientists, judges, courts, and many respected people in the science world, not to mention the very police dept. that didn't charge me with a crime all confirm that it is at best unreliable).
My statement was accurate;
QuoteYou forget that scientists, judges, courts, and many respected people in the science world, not to mention police departments use the polygraph every day. Not to mention that Congress commands it certain circumstances.
If you think my statement is incorrect
PROVE IT if you have the intelligence, education, ability or literacy just
PROVE IT.
I am perfectly satisfied that I can come up with sufficient examples to prove its accuracy. The fact that my statement is accurate is further proved by
YOU and this board, because if it WASN'T still being used by scientists, judges, courts, and many respected people in the science world, not to mention police departments and being ordered by Congress. You wouldn't be here because you wouldn't have a cause to rant about at all,
NOW WOULD YOU?
Don't ask me to do your research for you because I used my research time this evening to show you how wrong you are about bloodletting.
You wrote
QuoteOne of the main reasons George Washington died was because doctors "bled" him repeatedly. That was an acceptable medical practice back then. You'll probably say, "well, that was then, we now have better medical procedures to use." But "bleeding" a patient NEVER was a scientifically valid procedure, whether used in the past by doctors or not
The first recorded use of medicinal leeches was about 2500 years ago, although there is some evidence that the ancient Egyptians and Aztecs may have used these little blood-sucking creatures to help people that were having medical problems. Back then, leeches were used to
remove the "bad blood" from patients that were suffering from things as basic as a headache.
The practice of "
bloodletting", which is removing blood from the human body, was very common in the mid 1800's. In fact, the practice of "bloodletting" was so common that in 1833 alone, France imported over 42 million leeches.
Other methods of "bloodletting" were also widely used during this time, but none were as efficient, predictable, and painless as the leeches. Leech harvesting also became a very popular and lucrative activity during this time. People would walk around in leech infested waters (leeches live in warm, shallow, sheltered water areas) and then remove the leeches that had attached themselves to their legs and feet. The popularity of "bloodletting" using leeches, however, was soon to end.
The practice of "bloodletting" lost its popular in the early 1900's. It was seen as an old and outdated procedure that had no benefit to the patient. By the early 1920's, the practice of "bloodletting" was almost never used.
It was not until the mid 1980's that we would see the return of these small blood-sucking creatures. The use of leeches in medicine, otherwise known as Hirudotherapy, made its comeback in the 1980s after years of decline, with the advent of microsurgery such as plastic and reconstructive surgeries. In operations such as these, one of the biggest problems that arises is venous congestion due to inefficient venous drainage. This condition is known as venous insufficiency. If this congestion is not cleared up quickly, the blood will clot and arteries that bring the tissues their necessary nourishment will become plugged and the tissues will die. It is here where the leeches come in handy. After being applied to the required site, they suck the excess blood, reducing the swelling in the tissues and promoting healing by allowing fresh, oxygenated blood to reach the area until normal circulation can be restored. The leeches also secrete an anticoagulant (known as hirudin) that prevents the clotting of the blood.
What happened to George Washington occurred because of a failed attempt to stop the swelling in the president's throat that was inhhibiting his breathing and preventing him from swallowing. A natural aversion to placing leeches on the human body as well as insufficient understanding about why leeches worked to reduce swelling led to the practice of mechanical venesection. It George Washington's case it was actually a last ditch effort to prevent his suffocation. A tracheotomy was suggested but over ruled. They removed over 8 pints of blood from his body in less than 24 hours and
that was never an "acceptable" or common practice. Basically his doctors knew bloodletting worked, they were just wrong about why and how much.
Other medical procedures that were once common, fell out of favor, and then returned include the use of maggots in infected wounds and trepanation or the burring of holes in the skull to relieve swelling on the brain caused by the accumulation of fluid.
So contrary to your opinion, Bloodletting, Trepanation and the use of maggots in infected woulds are ALL THREE, MEDICALLY ACCEPTED, SCIENTIFICALLY VALID PROCEDURES today.
It really isn't correct to say that bloodletting NEVER was a scientifically valid procedure, because it is. Not just in the past, Right Now it is
Find a better analogy
Sancho Panza
Quote from: Sergeant1107 on Sep 23, 2008, 09:06 PMNotguilty1, I would never call you crazy, because that would be an ad hominum attack and Dr. Mashke only tolerates that from people who agree with him. However, I certainly can't disagree with your self assessment.
Quote2 card monte scam
Quote3 card monte scam
Which is it? You don't seem to know any more about monte scams than you do polygraph.
You forget that scientists, judges, courts, and many respected people in the science world, not to mention police departments use the polygraph every day. Not to mention that Congress commands it certain circumstances.
Sancho Panza
Spoken like a true con man. It doesn't matter if it is 2 or 3 card in the card scam. When you pick a card, the red card is never there.
Just like Polygraph, what you think is going on is not and that is how the scammer needs it to be. Glad to see your true to your ilk, Sancho
Polygraph has NEVER resulted in someone's conviction based solely on the charts and not the confession or information gained from the interrogation. ;D
Notguilty1
First the red card is always there and in plain sight, you just can't follow what is happening. You really don't know which is the correct name for the game you are trying to use as an example, do you? ;D ;D ;D ;D ::)
Second, I defy you to find a criminal case ANYWHERE in the United States where a conviction was obtained based solely on a SINGLE piece of evidence of any kind. Are you really that naive, or are you just conveniently dense?
Sancho Panza
Quote from: Sergeant1107 on Sep 24, 2008, 12:35 AMSecond, I defy you to find a criminal case ANYWHERE in the United States where a conviction was obtained based solely on a SINGLE piece of evidence of any kind. Are you really that naive, or are you just conveniently dense?
Sancho Panza
In New York: People v. Israel Vasquez. Vasquez was convicted of 1995 second degree murder despite no eyewitnesses and no forensic evidence. The sole piece of evidence against him was a hearsay statement, later retracted, by a teenaged woman who claimed she had heard Vasquez claim he'd eaten a sandwich in the victim's kitchen.
The conviction was overturned on appeal in 2007, but you can hardly deny that a conviction was obtained.
It took me all of about ten seconds to find that case. I'm sure it is not the only conviction in U.S. history based on a sole piece of evidence.
With regards to three card monte, the red queen may be there "in plain sight" all the time, but you will never win.
As any magician, con artist, or experienced cop can tell you, no one ever wins at three card monte. Anyone who appears to win money is part of the monte gang – there are no exceptions.
I can see the parallel with the polygraph. In three card monte, you have the illusion that a skillful player can find the queen and win the money, but the reality is that the dealer will only accept winning bets from members of his own gang. The "player" has no real chance regardless of his skill.
With the polygraph, there is the illusion that a truthful subject has nothing to worry about and will surely pass, but the reality is that the operator is going to do nothing more than take a guess as to the truth or deception in the subject's answers. The subject has no assurance whatsoever that truthful answers and complete disclosure will result in a "passing" score.
Sancho,
It doesn't surprise me that you would defend such an archaic practice as blood letting. At any rate, both phlebotiomists and polygraphers are pretty much blood suckers.
Actually, it was called Phlebotomy, and, like polygraphy, was quack pseudo-science.
Bloodletting came to the U. S. on the Mayflower. The practice reached unbelievable heights in the 18th and early 19th centuries. The first U.S. president, George Washington, died from a throat infection in 1799 after being drained of nine pints of blood within 24 hours. The draining of 16-30 ounces (one to four pints) of blood was typical. Blood was often caught in a shallow bowl. When the patient became faint, the "treatment" was stopped. Bleeding was often encouraged over large areas of the body by multiple incisions. By the end of the 19th century (1875-1900), phlebotomy was declared quackery.
http://www.museumofquackery.com/devices/phlebo.htm
What are your views on alchemy?
TC
Quote from: Sergeant1107 on Sep 24, 2008, 04:05 AMWhat are your views on alchemy?
Perhaps our friend Sancho Panza, after drawing a connection between traditional bloodletting and the contemporary medical use of leeches, would have us believe that alchemy is really a science because, after all, particle accelerators now make nuclear transmutation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_transmutation) (including lead into gold (http://chemistry.about.com/cs/generalchemistry/a/aa050601a.htm)) possible (if not profitable).
Are you sure you guys aren't meeting in the bathroom? I ask Notgulty1 a question and get responses from Mr. Cullen, the sergeant and Dr. Maschke.
First: Sergeant, in People v Vasquez in addition to the probably perjured hearsay testimony against Vasquez there was also evidence presented from the crime scene that the victim was was accosted as she entered her apartment, after which she was dragged to her bedroom, handcuffed, blindfolded, and gagged, and then shot twice in the head, through two pillows that were placed over her. Sounds to me like the evidence presented at the trial probably at least included crime scene photos, blood analysis, firearms trace, ballistics, and a medical examiners report. Have you EVER taken a case to court with just ONE piece of evidence? The point regarding 3 card monte is that your buddy notguilty1 was trying to use it as an analogy when he didn't even know the name. The real scam here is that you guys who claim that you failed a polygraph even though you told the truth think that your unsubstantiated assertions somehow prove that polygraph doesn't work. Anecdote does not equal data.
Mr. Cullen. I didn't defend bloodletting, I just pointed out that you were wrong about it not being a scientifically validated medical practice and you are indeed wrong. The practice is in use today, it is now better understood than it was 200 years ago and the process has been refined, but it is still in use.
8 or 9 pints in 24 hours even in a man of George Washingtons considerable stature such an amount would represent over 50% of his blood volume. In modern terms that would constitute a class IV ( and there is no class V) Hemorrhage which is immediately life threatening even if you're laying on the table in a modern surgcial theatre. Even in the olden days, taking over half of a patients blood wasn't common nor was it an accepted medical practice. His Doctors goofed. His throat infection caused a swelling of the epiglottis. The tracheotomy that was recomended and not performed might have saved his life. It certainly would have improved his breathing, but it was rejected because it was a radical new procedure that was not considered scientifically validated or medically accepted. Now it is performed when needed under battlefield conditions. It isn't exactly the same as it was then. It is now better understood than it was 200 years ago and the process has been refined, but it is still in use.
Dr. Mashcke. Alchemy, has no direct lineage to nuclear transmutation because there is no evidence that changing lead into gold using astrology was ever achieved the desired result. That isn't the case with bloodletting and you know it. But since you're here anyway, please review Notguilty1's posts for ad hominim attacks.
Does Notguilty1 know that you 3 don't think he is sufficiently competent to answer his own post?
Sancho Panza
Sancho Panza
The molucular weight of a substance is the sum of the weights of the atoms that compose the molecule. Therefore Hg is closer to Au than Pb. Also the only thing that Astrology changes are some people's minds.
Atomic No. Atomic weight
Au 79 197.2
Hg 80 200.61
Pb 82 207.21
If the molecular structure of Hg could be changed by fusion, there's no telling what would be the results. It can't be done because Hg evaporates before any phase transformation occurs. There are scientific facts.
Since polygraph results connot reach close to this level of scientific fact, then it's nothing but alchemy.
Quote from: Sergeant1107 on Sep 24, 2008, 12:35 AMNotguilty1
First the red card is always there and in plain sight, you just can't follow what is happening. You really don't know which is the correct name for the game you are trying to use as an example, do you? ;D ;D ;D ;D ::)
Second, I defy you to find a criminal case ANYWHERE in the United States where a conviction was obtained based solely on a SINGLE piece of evidence of any kind. Are you really that naive, or are you just conveniently dense?
Sancho Panza
I am completely aware that, the obvious is lost on you Sancho since you still feel the need to further your cause but, 2 card was obviously a typo as usual just like a trained con you move the focus away from the statement and on to your typo discovery.
The fact still remains, as Sergeant pointed out that the connection is there.
You keep saying that our "only" experience in Polygraph is our failed tests. I cannot see how direct experience is null and void in the validity of your claim of valid test. Especially when the overwhelming evidence is that Polygraph does not work as used.
The fact that the police as well as other agencies demand it's use is that polygraph, many times results in confessions and admissions because of the examinees
belief that the machine will reveal their deception.
That is not evidence that Polygraph works, it is only evidence that interrogation works "sometimes" since there are folks that will confess to be allowed to leave even if the confession was a lie. But, that's another argument.
I am aware that this, as all the other overwhelming information regarding the lack of validity of the polygraph is lost on you. However we have many that come here and elsewhere on the net to learn the truth about this scam and so these messages go to them.
Twoblock, you need to do a bit more research Nuclear Transmutation and Nucleosynthesis.
Lead was first successfully transmutated into gold in 1980 although there is some evidence that Soviet physicists did it accidently as early as 1972. We're probably not going to see routine transmutation of lead in to gold in our lifetimes because the cost of the energy required to get lead to turn loose of 3 protons is worth more than the gold it would produce. The resulting gold in this process would probably be radioactively unstable decaying quickly into other elements.
Today particle accelerators routinely transmute elements. A charged particle is accelerated using electrical and/or magnetic fields. In a linear accelerator, the charged particles drift through a series of charged tubes separated by gaps. Every time the particle emerges between gaps, it is accelerated by the potential difference between adjacent segments. In a circular accelerator, magnetic fields accelerate particles moving in circular paths. In either case, the accelerated particle impacts a target material, potentially knocking free protons or neutrons and making a new element or isotope.
A Transmutation that tranforms gold into lead is possible in a nuclear reactor because the way a buclear reactor creates energy is by removing protons from atoms.
By the way before one gets too critical of alchemy remember that modern chemistry as well as the periodic table are direct descendants of alchemy.
Sancho Panza
Sancho Panza
I did not do research for the post I made. I spoke from hands on experience in my own lab. And the purpose was to try to show you real scientific information as compared to the non-scientific information of the polygraph.
I am fairly familiar with particle accelerators. The Van De Graff accelerator, the linear accelerator at Lawrence Livermore, Fermi Lab., the SSCL in Texas that was closed by an idiot N.Y. senator and Cern.
The purpose of today's accelerators is to determine the basic building blocks of matter, not "transmutate" one element into another which was the goal of alchemists. That was not science like polygraphy is not science.
It would appear that this thread has transmutated into a discussion of electrons , protons, fig newtons and morons. We both have shown how smart we arn't so let's try to turn it back to the original topic of the thread.
Quote from: Sergeant1107 on Sep 24, 2008, 10:05 PMSancho Panza
I did not do research for the post I made. I spoke from hands on experience in my own lab. And the purpose was to try to show you real scientific information as compared to the non-scientific information of the polygraph.
I am fairly familiar with particle accelerators. The Van De Graff accelerator, the linear accelerator at Lawrence Livermore, Fermi Lab., the SSCL in Texas that was closed by an idiot N.Y. senator and Cern.
The purpose of today's accelerators is to determine the basic building blocks of matter, not "transmutate" one element into another which was the goal of alchemists. That was not science like polygraphy is not science.
It would appear that this thread has transmutated into a discussion of electrons , protons, fig newtons and morons. We both have shown how smart we arn't so let's try to turn it back to the original topic of the thread.
Two block, unfortunately, Sancho loves nothing more than getting us all away from the facts about Polygraph. He will talk about his mom's underwear if it means talking your eye off his scam.
Thanks for suggesting we get back to topic =)