Page 8 of 8

Re: Detecting Lies

PostPosted: Mon Apr 15, 2019 7:17 am
by sandman
Actually there are serious flaws with most forensic techniques. The short list of questionable techniques includes hair analysis, shoe and tire patterns, blood splatters, bite mark analysis, bullet lead analysis, general handling and processing of forensic evidence, and even fingerprint matching. Add to that new technologies such as linguistic analysis, computer forensics, facial reconstruction, DNA evidence, and basic profiling techniques and the room for error begins to seem like a bottomless pit of uncertainty. Basically any type of forensic evidence should be regarded as inconclusive and circumstantial.

Re: Detecting Lies

PostPosted: Mon May 27, 2019 7:45 am
by mrfish
sandman wrote:Actually there are serious flaws with most forensic techniques. The short list of questionable techniques includes hair analysis, shoe and tire patterns, blood splatters, bite mark analysis, bullet lead analysis, general handling and processing of forensic evidence, and even fingerprint matching. Add to that new technologies such as linguistic analysis, computer forensics, facial reconstruction, DNA evidence, and basic profiling techniques and the room for error begins to seem like a bottomless pit of uncertainty. Basically any type of forensic evidence should be regarded as inconclusive and circumstantial.

Sure, but worse than any of the items on the list would be the polygraph. It has absolutely no validity! With these other techniques you might at least get some clues that can be followed up on, but with the lie detector you're dealing with junk science at its worst!

Re: Detecting Lies

PostPosted: Sun Dec 04, 2022 6:23 am
by MojaveMike
Polygraph Nonsense Let Killer Go, DNA Caught Him 46 Years Later | Glen McCurley Case Analysis
Listen very carefully to what Dr. Grande says beginning at 5:30 into the video.

Re: Detecting Lies

PostPosted: Mon Dec 05, 2022 5:41 am
by wildrose
MojaveMike: That's a very sad story, but Dr. Grande repeats the assertion that the polygraph is junk science several times right up to the end of the video. It's good to see someone discuss the topic with such intelligence and honesty, but it makes me wonder how many people have been falsely charged and convicted of crimes based on polygraph evidence.

Re: Detecting Lies

PostPosted: Sun Jan 22, 2023 5:52 am
by drdesert
‘Serial killer bad’ polygraph blocked mom from returning to Border Patrol
The use of polygraphs in employment situations is unjustifiable. Polygraphs are junk science. Anyone who has been cheated out of a job as the result of a polygraph test should be able to sue all involved. It has long been established that there is no scientific evidence that polygraphs (even when "properly" administered - whatever that means) are by any stretch of the imagination valid and are about as reliable as flipping a coin. Basically the use of the polygraph in any context should be against the law. The charlatans who administer them should be subject massive penalties.

Re: Detecting Lies

PostPosted: Mon Feb 06, 2023 5:57 am
by MojaveMike
Body language expert reveals what Bill Gates actually was thinking :smack:
More pseudoscience! The polygraph is junk science and interpreting body language is even worse. It's pathetic when a halfwit is given the task of interpreting the body language of a genius!

Re: Detecting Lies

PostPosted: Thu Jan 18, 2024 9:46 pm
by a2z
Casey Anthony's Parents Take "Lie Detector Tests" in Documentary | Dangers of Polygraph Nonsense
There are a lot of bullshit peddlers on this planet. The polygraph is a prop used to trick stupid people into confessing to a crime. The guy in this video explains this quite well.