Background check?

[Sergeant1107]

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.

[T.M. Cullen]

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

[George W. Maschke]

What 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 (including lead into gold) possible (if not profitable).

[SanchoPanza]

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

[Twoblock]

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.

[notguilty1]

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?  

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.

[SanchoPanza]

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

[Twoblock]

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.

[notguilty1]

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.

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 =)