The truth, yes or no?

Juan Mourep

Juan Mourep

Vital 1st Team Regular
3 men take polygraph tests, an expert, the most highly respected polygraph expert at the time conducted the tests, using the latest state of the art equipment.

The following responses were recorded on this instrument's strip chart: relative blood pressure; skin conductance; thoracic and abdominal respiration. This involves a computerized monitoring and analysis of the tracings along with a point­ scoring system of the charts applied by the examiner.

The men answered a series of questions over two sessions.

The numerical score from the first set of questions was +34. The numerical score of the second set was +26.

Numerical scoring of +6 or more are considered indications of truthfulness.

The computer ­based analysis returned a probability of truthfulness of subject 1 of .964 subject 2 of 990, and subject 3 of .993

Or to put it simply 96% to 99% probability that those questioned were telling the truth.

The examiner found all 3 men to be telling the truth.



Would that be enough to convince YOU that they were telling the truth, yes or no?



 
Polygraph tests are unreliable at best. You can be trained to beat them, and sometimes they just get it wrong.

Statistically the results are significant, but that does not mean that it is 100% guaranteed they told the truth. No from me.
 
There's a twist to this tale isn't there? You are going to reveal the scenario around the story and we'll all be shocked!

Not sure that I trust polygraphs tbh.
 
HeathfieldRoad1874 - 16/7/2015 08:04

Polygraph tests are unreliable at best. You can be trained to beat them, and sometimes they just get it wrong.
Click to expand...



If it was one person I would have questioned the result, this was three different individuals.


 
Long and short, not really sure, would need to read the counter arguments to it. They do say you can train yourself to pass the test, without knowing who the guys were, was it random etc, difficult to say.

 
Thing is how can you trial it without the ones taking the trial being under genuine pressure of prosecution surely fear is what triggers the reactions.Also some career criminals who have no fear of prison they wouldn't give a shit so would easily be able to keep their emotions under control.
 
I don't trust technology to beat deceitfulness of an individual tbh, bare facts i prefer than a device, or more so waterboarding i would say works better ''did you do it?? NOOO DUNK DUNK DID YOU NO DUNK DUNK DUNK DID YESSSSSSS FFS JUST TRIAL ME'' sorted! :139:
 
Can I take 'the jury's out' line Juan? I couldn't call yes or no on this. If I was forced to I would go no as I have seen documentaries on this and people who have beaten them and were eventually found guilty. However good I still think you need other evidence
 
They can be beaten. Things like having a pin to jab your skin or biting your tongue can influence it. I wouldn't be happy without further corroborating evidence
 
Not in isolation without context or other evidence, no.

 
Juan Mourep - 16/7/2015 10:53

HeathfieldRoad1874 - 16/7/2015 08:04

Polygraph tests are unreliable at best. You can be trained to beat them, and sometimes they just get it wrong.
Click to expand...





If it was one person I would have questioned the result, this was three different individuals.
Click to expand...


LOL. Three is hardly a significant number of tests. Talk to me when you've got a few thousand.
 
Poly's aren't reliable and never have been.

Think sex during one answer and clench your arsehole.

If you want a guess - like a poly - we need occupations and the questions asked at the very least mate.

Knowing you though this is a case where there was no physical evidence and the US deathrowed somebody based on an apparent Poly failure.

So I guess my answer agrees with you lol
 
You must log in or register to reply here.