- There is little scientific evidence to support the reliability
of polygraphs.
-
- Despite claims of 90% - 95% reliability, critics charge
that rather than a "test", the method amounts to an inherently
unstandardizable interrogation technique whose accuracy cannot be established.
-
- A 1997 survey of 421 psychologists estimated the test's
average accuracy at about 61%, a little better than chance.[15] Critics
also argue that even given high estimates of the polygraph's accuracy a
significant number of subjects (e.g. 10% given a 90% accuracy) will appear
to be lying, and would unfairly suffer the consequences of "failing"
the polygraph.
- In the 1998 Supreme Court case, United States v. Scheffer,
the majority stated that "There is simply no consensus that polygraph
evidence is reliable" and "Unlike other expert witnesses who
testify about factual matters outside the jurors' knowledge, such as the
analysis of fingerprints, ballistics, or DNA found at a crime scene, a
polygraph expert can supply the jury only with another opinion...".[16]
-
- Also, in 2005 the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals stated
that "polygraphy did not enjoy general acceptance from the scientific
community".[17] In 2001 William G. Iacono, Distinguished McKnight
University Professor of Psychology and Neuroscience and Director, Clinical
Science and Psychopathology Research Training Program at the University
of Minnesota, published a paper titled "Forensic "Lie Detection":
Procedures Without Scientific Basis" in the peer reviewed Journal
of Forensic Psychology Practice. He concluded that "Although the CQT[clarify]
may be useful as an investigative aid and tool to induce confessions, it
does not pass muster as a scientifically credible test. CQT theory is based
on naive, implausible assumptions indicating (a) that it is biased against
innocent individuals and (b) that it can be beaten simply by artificially
augmenting responses to control questions.
- Although it is not possible to adequately assess the
error rate of the CQT, both of these conclusions are supported by published
research findings in the best social science journals (Honts et al., 1994;
Horvath, 1977; Kleinmuntz & Szucko, 1984; Patrick & Iacono, 1991).
Although defense attorneys often attempt to have the results of friendly
CQTs admitted as evidence in court, there is no evidence supporting their
validity and ample reason to doubt it. Members of scientific organizations
who have the requisite background to evaluate the CQT are overwhelmingly
skeptical of the claims made by polygraph proponents."[18]
-
- Polygraph tests have also been criticized for failing
to trap known spies such as double-agent Aldrich Ames, who passed two polygraph
tests while spying for the Soviet Union.[19] Other spies who passed the
polygraph include Karl Koecher,[20] Ana Belen Montes,[21] and Leandro Aragoncillo.[22]
Noted pseudoscience debunker Bob Park recently commented, "The polygraph,
in fact, has ruined careers, but never uncovered a single spy."[23]
Polygraph examination and background checks also failed to detect Nada
Nadim Prouty, who was not a spy but was convicted for improperly obtaining
U.S. citizenship and using it to obtain a restricted position at the FBI.[24]
-
- PROLONGED polygraph examinations may also be a tool by
which confessions are extracted from a defendant, as in the case of Richard
Miller, who was persuaded to confess largely by polygraph results combined
with appeals from a religious leader.
- [25]
-
- Countermeasures
-
- Several countermeasures designed to pass polygraph tests
have been described, the most important of which is never to make any damaging
admissions. Additionally, several techniques can be used to increase the
physiological response during control questions.[26] Asked how he passed
the polygraph test, Ames explained that he sought advice from his Soviet
handler and received the simple instruction to: "Get a good night's
sleep, and rest, and go into the test rested and relaxed. Be nice to the
polygraph examiner, develop a rapport, and be cooperative and try to maintain
your calm."[27]
-
- 2003 National Academy of Sciences Report
-
- The accuracy of the polygraph has been contested almost
since the introduction of the device. In 2003, the National Academy of
Sciences (NAS) issued a report entitled "The Polygraph and Lie Detection".
The NAS found that the majority of polygraph research was of low quality.
After culling through the numerous studies of the accuracy of polygraph
detection the NAS identified 57 that had "sufficient scientific rigor".
These studies concluded that a polygraph test regarding a specific incident
can discern the truth at "a level greater than chance, yet short of
perfection". The report also concluded that this level of accuracy
was probably overstated and the levels of accuracy shown in these studies
"are almost certainly higher than actual polygraph accuracy of specific-incident
testing in the field." [1]
- When polygraphs are used as a screening tool (in national
security matters and for law enforcement agencies for example) the level
of accuracy drops to such a level that "Its accuracy in distinguishing
actual or potential security violators from innocent test takers is insufficient
to justify reliance on its use in employee security screening in federal
agencies." In fact, the NAS extrapolated that if the test were sensitive
enough to detect 80% of spies (a level of accuracy which it did not assume),
in a hypothetical polygraph screening of 10,000 employees including 10
spies, 8 spies and 1,598 non-spies would fail the test. Thus, roughly 99.6
percent of positives (those failing the test) would be false positives.
The NAS concluded that the polygraph "...may have some utility"
[2] but that there is "little basis for the expectation that a polygraph
test could have extremely high accuracy."[3]
-
- The NAS conclusions paralleled those of the earlier United
States Congress Office of Technology Assessment report "Scientific
Validity of Polygraph Testing: A Research Review and Evaluation".[4]
-
-
- Comment
Donald Whitehurst, PhD
-
- WhiteHouse.com is known to be former major league porn
site. The same people or income center probably still run it. Zionists
own the internet porn industry, so it is a fair assumption it is involved
with Whitehouse.com. Polygraph operator Gelb could very well be a zionist
and it would be no trouble for him to issue a 'deception indicated' statement
which would immediately give the Obama (neocon Bomb Pakistan, War With
Russia) machine a free pass on the Sinclair allegations. The campaign
thereby skates free and wouldn't even have to make a statement on Sinclair.
The entire operation reads like a simple but shrewd neocon trap to disable
Sinclair.
-
- The reliability of a polygraph test is, as indicated
above, 'little better than chance.' This means a false negative from Mr.
Sinclair is quite possible, especially after such a long session. And
the ability of a master polygraph expert to skew interpretations is quite
easy. We also don't know which part of Sinclair's 4 HOUR arduous grilling
supposedly indicated 'deception.' WhiteHouse.com seems craftily at work
building as many site hits as possible from this exercise.
-
- This whole issue is clearly very easily managed. Diebold
can rig millions of votes, how hard can it be for Mr. Gelb to affect the
outcome of a shaky, unreliable at best, polygraph examination? There are
other certainly other ways to gauge and measure Mr. Sinclair's veracity.
-
- It is wise to keep in mind that mega trillions of dollars
and enormous issues of world domination are on the line in successfully
placing Obama (Brzezinski) in the White House. That kind of POWER is not
about to let a Sinclair incident, true or not, stand in its way. This
alleged 'outcome' of the 'examination' should come as no surprise to anyone,
especially when the operator may well have allegiences to neocon zionist
ideologies.
|
