Drew's Clock

[Saidme]

I listened to Dr Drew's little message on this website for the first time.  What a hoot.  His challenge is to have a "controlled scientific study" regarding CM's.  He should know as well as anyone what a farce it would be to try and conduct this type of study in a controlled environment.  I assume his definition of controlled scientific study would include mock crimes.  Therein lies his problem.  Mock crimes have no value when it comes to the polygraph scenario except for practicing placing components on suspects.  He must not have excelled as a polygraph examiner (if he conducted exams at all).

Whose idea was it to have the clock thing going?  Was that Dr Drew's?  I can see it now as he testifies before a senate hearing on the abolition of polygraph.  Senators, I placed a challenge out to the polygraph community some time back and got no takers.  I even put this clock up on George's website and see, it's still running.

Hmmm, I wonder what credibility the committee would place on that.  Drew with a clock, George with a failed polygraph exam, this website attempting (added empasis on attempting) to assist criminals with furthering their criminal enterprises.  Hmmmmm

[Marty]

I listened to Dr Drew's little message on this website for the first time.  What a hoot.  His challenge is to have a "controlled scientific study" regarding CM's.  He should know as well as anyone what a farce it would be to try and conduct this type of study in a controlled environment.

 
I assume then you prefer an uncontrolled, or unscientific study.  

I think it is worth considering that, while it is exceptionally hard to do controlled experiments with the PLCQT, due to issues of base truth on the comparisons, this is not a problem with CM detection research. Further, many CM's arise from mechanisms that may yield distinct signatures, especially when one extends the sense elements beyond the normal three or four. While it is likely that such expansion would not materially change the validity of the PLCQT, I suspect that detection of certain types of CM's (ones that produced different signatures than detection anxiety) could well be improved.

-Marty

[George W. Maschke]

Saidme,

Marty is correct. The detection of countermeasures is not the same as the detection of deception, and a meaningful controlled experiment to assess a polygrapher's ability to detect countermeasures is indeed within the realm of possibility. The reason no polygrapher is willing to accept Dr. Richardson's polygraph countermeasure challenge is that polygraphers lack the requisite confidence in their ability to detect countermeasures.

The next time the Senate holds hearings on polygraph policy, the issue will not be simply that no polygrapher has accepted Dr. Richardson's challenge, but that no polygrapher has ever demonstrated any ability to detect countermeasures. What credibility do you suppose such an investigating committee will attach to the polygraph community's claimed -- but completely unproven -- ability to detect countermeasures?

You have again suggested that what I have to say about polygraphy is not to be believed because I failed a pre-employment polygraph examination (a procedure that the National Academy of Sciences has found to be without validity). Your resort to such ad hominem attacks suggests an inability to refute my arguments on any rational level. It is you, Saidme, who lacks credibility.

Similarly, your claim that AntiPolygraph.org is "attempting...to assist criminals with furthering their criminal enterprises" is baseless slander and tells us more about yourself than it does about this website.

[Saidme]

George

You and Marty are both incorrect.  Controlled studies using mock crimes are meaningless and anybody who has administered a polygraph examination would agree.  Have you both administered polygraph examinations?  

I and others demonstrate regularly the ability to detect countermeasures.  How many times do we need to go over this?  Should we break out another clock?  Or maybe just one of those clicker counters would do the trick.  

And yes, your credibility is in question because we don't have all the facts about your pre-employment polygraph.  Why don't you tell everyone on the site the true reason you created this site?  Because you still can't accept the fact you've had problems in your past that DQ'd you from the FBI.  

Regarding your attempt at helping criminals.  Just take a look at some of the posts you get daily.  Slander!  I think not.  

What exactly does it tell you about me?  (I'm really interested).  Maybe you can throw down the bones or turn over the tea leaves.  

Get a life and use your talents for something worth while.

[Canadian Crusader]

Why couldn't a scientific test involving the poly be as simple as having subjects pick a colored card from a selection of say 6.  Hook them up and have the polygrapher perform their magic and tell which color the subject picked 9 out of 10 times right Saidme.

The charts would not be as pronounced as say a real life poly without the fear of consequence in the mix but according to some of the polygraphers here that should not really be an issue.

It has also been discussed as to how a polygrapher can know they have detected a countermeasure without a confession.  How is it that fluctuations to ones heartrate, BP, and skin activity can be so precisely determined to be either a lie, a CM, or other?

I regards to this site helping criminals and rapist.  How do you figure that?  It is analogous to saying that Remington is helping murdrers and bank robbers and should be held liable for the crimes these people commit with Remington guns.  Martial arts teachers?  Are they also responsible when one of their students uses what they have learnt when committing assault?  General Motors, are they liable when some idiot runs a red in one of their vehicles and kills some innocent family?  Smirnoff when a drunk driver does the same?  Walmart when they sell a kitchen knife that is used in a crime?  Arguments that George is aiding criminals to continue their dirty work is absurd and absolutely baseless.

[Saidme]

CC

You answered your own question.  The psychological condition of an examinee during a specific issue test and that of an examinee in a mock crime scene is night and day.

As far as determining the difference between a lie and a CM, it just takes practice and experience.  How does a good fisherman know where to go to catch the fish.  He just does because of experience.

I didn't say this site helps criminals.  I said George was "attempting" to help criminals.  I don't think the points worth arguing.  Just read some of these threads.