Our Advertisers Represent Some Of The Most Unique Products & Services On Earth!


Polygraph Reliability 'Little
Better Than Chance'
Operators Can Easily Affect Results

From Wikipedia
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.
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]
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.

Donate to Rense.com
Support Free And Honest
Journalism At Rense.com
Subscribe To RenseRadio!
Enormous Online Archives,
MP3s, Streaming Audio Files, 
Highest Quality Live Programs


This Site Served by TheHostPros