Face Kicker Posted February 2, 2012 Report Share Posted February 2, 2012 my background was wiped too, guys. i'm really the guy who invented lunchables, but the government doesn't want you to know that Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HumanGoing Posted February 2, 2012 Report Share Posted February 2, 2012 my background was wiped too, guys. i'm really the guy who invented lunchables, but the government doesn't want you to know that Well, his story does seem to check out... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GripGambler Posted February 2, 2012 Report Share Posted February 2, 2012 I won't pretend to be some kind of lie detector expert, since I actually know relatively little about modern advances in the technology. But they still are not admissible in court, and that is because their accuracy is questionable. And it is true that they are employed more as an interrogation technique rather than an actual "fact finding" machine. And as far as I understood it, the lie detector test that was being referred to would have been conducted on an older model of lie detector. But I may be wrong about that. And I have to agree, the claim that his background was wiped does sound a little too convenient. The cause and effect of their court admissibility is not proof of their current success rate. Courts often do things based on past precedences and it remains that way until it is challenged in court (read: until an organization comes up with the large financial backing to fight it in court for years, with something to gain out of it).. Plenty of laws, as we all know I'm sure, are politically motivated (criminalizing hemp) or other reasons to preserve a process (such as having evidence that is proof of a crime, but it being thrown out because it was illegally obtained)... don't assume that just because it isn't currently admissible in court that it delivers incorrect results. Note that the polygraph was deemed generally inadmissible in the early 1920's (Frye v the United States). Consider that this was ~60 years before DNA testing came about. Quick edit: Also, note that admissibility isn't a one size fits all. It is not as simple as saying that courts will not admit a polygraph under any circumstance, because that simply isn't true. Read this source if you're interested in the matter. While it may not be the most unbiased source, they do cite pretty much every claim necessary. http://www.mattepolygraph.com/legal_admissibility.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HumanGoing Posted February 2, 2012 Report Share Posted February 2, 2012 The cause and effect of their court admissibility is not proof of their current success rate. Courts often do things based on past precedences and it remains that way until it is challenged in court (read: until an organization comes up with the large financial backing to fight it in court for years, with something to gain out of it).. Plenty of laws, as we all know I'm sure, are politically motivated (criminalizing hemp) or other reasons to preserve a process (such as having evidence that is proof of a crime, but it being thrown out because it was illegally obtained)... don't assume that just because it isn't currently admissible in court that it delivers incorrect results. Note that the polygraph was deemed generally inadmissible in the early 1920's (Frye v the United States). Consider that this was ~60 years before DNA testing came about. Quick edit: Also, note that admissibility isn't a one size fits all. It is not as simple as saying that courts will not admit a polygraph under any circumstance, because that simply isn't true. Read this source if you're interested in the matter. While it may not be the most unbiased source, they do cite pretty much every claim necessary. http://www.mattepolygraph.com/legal_admissibility.html Okay, I'm going to admit that you seem to know more about this than I do. So I'm going to defer to your expertise. However, I still find the claim that this particular guy passed a lie detector test unconvincing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GripGambler Posted February 2, 2012 Report Share Posted February 2, 2012 If he doesn't think he's lying (delusional, convinced himself a lie is the truth, maybe an intelligent sociopath) then the lie detector test probably won't catch anything. Not only that, but his reports are way too wild to take only his word as evidence. People who have their opinions swayed on a topic by words alone should reconsider their logic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HumanGoing Posted February 2, 2012 Report Share Posted February 2, 2012 If he doesn't think he's lying (delusional, convinced himself a lie is the truth, maybe an intelligent sociopath) then the lie detector test probably won't catch anything. Not only that, but his reports are way too wild to take only his word as evidence. People who have their opinions swayed on a topic by words alone should reconsider their logic. Agreed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 7, 2012 Report Share Posted February 7, 2012 LOL I've managed to take a ufo topic, and turn it into a lie detector test arguement Props2me Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 7, 2012 Report Share Posted February 7, 2012 LOL I've managed to take a ufo topic, and turn it into a lie detector test arguement Props2me Agreed congrats on that one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 7, 2012 Report Share Posted February 7, 2012 on ufo's... among me and my bro ive always been the fantastical one. i loved the thought of aliens, bigfoot, loch ness monster. read so much about it. my bro was the one grounded in reality. my bro believes in ufo's (lets differ that to aliens). over a decade ago, we were walking our dog in Lagos, Nigeria (i bring that up because i'm pretty sure we have no way to build special aircraft or stuff. who knows though, maybe the lack of infrastructure is why the us/russia/whoever would test their shit there. but i digress). anyway, we're walking our dog this night and suddenly my bro taps me and points up. we bot stare, transfixed as we watch this ufo flying upwards into the night sky; the lights getting smaler and smaller till we cant see it anymore. i cant remember seeing an outline but there were a bunch of circular green lights with a red one in the middle and it was huge. i cant, for the life of me imagine what it could have been. anyway, thats my personal experience and i like to imagine im not crazy cos if im crazy then im obviously imagining i have a bro too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.