Trump announces Brett Kavanaugh as his 2nd SCOTUS nominee.

[Bisonfanatical]

The Hill is reporting that Blasey has not confirmed her appearance at the hearing Monday.

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/407 ... ay-hearing

Cold feet about destroying a good man’s name with a phony allegation?

No suprise imo, all this drama is to postpone the vote until after the election. Most of us feel this is a political smokescreen to save specific senators from having to commit haricari (sp)

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

[HI54UNI]

Not rocket science. When you concoct a story to obstruct the confirmation of a slam dunk, why would you cooperate with an attempt to expose your fraud?

As GF said, politics as usual. The good thing is, Democrats are powerless here. They just want to cry a little more. This too shall pass.

The Hill is reporting that Blasey has not confirmed her appearance at the hearing Monday.

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/407 ... ay-hearing

Her attorney is trying to set terms and conditions. My bet is she is a no show. Doesn't want to be put under oath and get caught in a perjury trap.

[JoltinJoe]

Cold feet about destroying a good man’s name with a phony allegation?

No suprise imo, all this drama is to postpone the vote until after the election. Most of us feel this is a political smokescreen to save specific senators from having to commit haricari (sp)

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

My gut tells me that same. She isn't going to testify. Feinstein is going to demand an FBI investigation, blah, blah, "because this can't be resolved by the Senate, blah, blah." She knows she is doomed, but she is going to make the victory as costly, politically, as possible.

I keep hearing that she "passed" a lie detector test -- but the Washington Post, curiously, did not actually say that. Here is what the Post reported:

On the advice of Katz, who said she believed Ford would be attacked as a liar if she came forward, Ford took a polygraph test administered by a former FBI agent in early August. The results, which Katz provided to The Post, concluded that Ford was being truthful when she said a statement summarizing her allegations was accurate.

That's not like the result of any polygraph i've ever been involved with. No test I've ever seen involved reading someone a statement, and asking them if the statement was "accurate."

I'm no expert in this, for sure, but I've always understood that the person administering the test asks specific questions, one after another, developing the details of the account with each question, and monitors changes in the subject's physiological reactions through the measurement of changes in the subject's blood pressure, pulse, respiration, etc., as the account is developed, question after question.

Any time I've asked for a polygraph, that's what I have received.

For example, a person may well have attended a party with Persons A & B, and the test taker would, as the theory holds, observe no change in the subject's reaction as to the reaction recorded to baseline questions, as she answered the question. " And so on:

Were you drinking alcohol?" A: Yes (no change = truthful).

Q: Was Brett Kavanaugh there at the party?
A: Yes, (mild change, probably truthful, change in reaction excusable as subject understands the line of questioning/

Q: Did you speak to Brett Kavanaugh?
A: Yes (same reaction as to last question = probably truthful)

Q: Did you go to a separate room with Brett Kavanaugh?
A: Yes (no change from last question = probably truthful; any change from prior question, indication of deception.

Q: Did he grab you or try to force himself on you?
A: Yes. (no change from last question = probably truthful; any change from prior question, indication of deception.

Where is that kind of stuff?

CID90 -- you know about this stuff, I bet. Am I right?

[93henfan]

I’ve taken a polygraph and can attest that they are not accurate. They are pure quackery that is easily manipulated with about five minutes of training. Liars come off as truthful, and worse, people telling the truth fail. All the time.

About the only genuine use is in getting confessions from people stupid enough to believe them.

And to answer your question, polygraph questions are supposed to be formulated to receive a binary response; never a matter-of-degrees response.

[89Hen]

Just saw Laura Ingraham upstairs going to get her hair done. She was on her cell phone in the hallway otherwise I would have loved to ask her about this whole thing.

[JoltinJoe]

And to answer your question, polygraph questions are supposed to be formulated to receive a binary response; never a matter-of-degrees response.

Interesting. Then how can results be reported the way they are, i.e., she is truthful about being at the party and that Kavanaugh was there, but there indications of deception as to the allegations of the encounter?"

How can you make such a report if you do not develop the story by one question after another? How can the test taker distinguish one fact about the story which may be true, and another fact which may not?

Or maybe you already answered the question: it's quackery?

[93henfan]

And to answer your question, polygraph questions are supposed to be formulated to receive a binary response; never a matter-of-degrees response.

Interesting. Then why are results reported the way they are, i.e., she is truthful about being at the party and that Kavanaugh was there, but there indications of deception as to the allegations of the encounter?"

How can you make such a report if you do not develop the story by one question after another?

Easy. In the scenario you describe above -

Question 1: Were you at a party at this place at this time?
Answer 1: Yes.
Polygrapher interpretation of physiological responses: Truthful

Question 2: Was Mr. Kavanaugh present at the same time and place?
Answer 2: Yes.
Polygrapher interpretation of physiological responses: Truthful

Question 3: Did Mr. Kavanaugh sexually assault you during this time period?
Answer 3: Yes.
Polygrapher interpretation of physiological responses: Not truthful

[JoltinJoe]

Interesting. Then why are results reported the way they are, i.e., she is truthful about being at the party and that Kavanaugh was there, but there indications of deception as to the allegations of the encounter?"

How can you make such a report if you do not develop the story by one question after another?

Easy. In the scenario you describe above -

Question 1: Were you at a party at this place at this time?
Answer 1: Yes.
Polygrapher interpretation of physiological responses: Truthful

Question 2: Was Mr. Kavanaugh present at the same time and place?
Answer 2: Yes.
Polygrapher interpretation of physiological responses: Truthful

Question 3: Did Mr. Kavanaugh sexually assault you during this time period?
Answer 3: Yes.
Polygrapher interpretation of physiological responses: Not truthful

Got it. I think I misunderstood what you meant by "binary."

So they do develop the story with one question after another, but the response to every question is compared to the initial baseline response, and not to the response to the immediately preceding question.

So then, going back to my initial question, reading the subject a narrative and asking if the narrative is truthful IS NOT the customary way of conducting a polygraph?

[GannonFan]

George Costanza proved that lie detector tests are just for show. Remember, "it's not a lie if you believe it".

[AZGrizFan]

George Costanza proved that lie detector tests are just for show. Remember, "it's not a lie if you believe it".

The Democrat mantra for the past 50 years or so.

[GannonFan]

George Costanza proved that lie detector tests are just for show. Remember, "it's not a lie if you believe it".

The Democrat mantra for the past 50 years or so.

Come on, the GOP has their share of whoppers as well. If there's something both parties do equally well it's lying. Plenty of common ground there.

[CAA Flagship]

George Costanza proved that lie detector tests are just for show. Remember, "it's not a lie if you believe it".

Melrose Place

[GannonFan]

George Costanza proved that lie detector tests are just for show. Remember, "it's not a lie if you believe it".

Melrose Place

"Oh that Michael, I hate him! He's just so smug."

[mainejeff]

Just saw Laura Ingraham upstairs going to get her hair done. She was on her cell phone in the hallway otherwise I would have loved to ask her about this whole thing.

[89Hen]

Just saw Laura Ingraham upstairs going to get her hair done. She was on her cell phone in the hallway otherwise I would have loved to ask her about this whole thing.

I'm surprised you'd be jacking off to her. I figured you were more of an Anderson Cooper jackoff.

[kalm]

The Hill is reporting that Blasey has not confirmed her appearance at the hearing Monday.

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/407 ... ay-hearing

Cold feet about destroying a good man’s name with a phony allegation?

What makes Kavanaugh a good man?

[93henfan]

Cold feet about destroying a good man’s name with a phony allegation?

What makes Kavanaugh a good man?

In Heller v DC he stated that red turf, while technically legal, should be frowned upon.





What do I win?

[CID1990]

That method of questioning is highly unusual for a polygraph test

If there were anything truthful about the statement, it would easily mask untruthful parts in terms of the examinee's answer. That is why you ask simple, one part questions about singular facts - with up or down yes or no responses.

I'm ambiguous about polygraph tests. There is a large percentage of people they don't work on (both false positives and false negatives) to the point that they are not allowed as evidence in criminal proceedings.

But the real question here is why would they publicize that she had passed a polygraph in the first place? Why not spring it during testimony? That would be consistent with every other tactic the Democrats have used so far in this process.

I find parts of her story to be credible, and like everybody else except Ford and Kavanaugh- I can't say for sure if she is being truthful or not. But these polygraph claims make zero sense from the Dems' perspective


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[kalm]

What makes Kavanaugh a good man?

In Heller v DC he stated that red turf, while technically legal, should be frowned upon.





What do I win?

Hookers and blow of course.

[JohnStOnge]

Cold feet about destroying a good man’s name with a phony allegation?

More likely it's because she's being threatened. I heard about it on TV but Googled it for this thread. Here's one account:

Dr. Blasey, thrust suddenly into a spotlight that she never sought, has been inundated with vulgar email and social media messages, and even death threats, according to a person close to her, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss a private matter. “From what I’ve heard you have 6 months to live, you disgusting slime,” one message said.

Dr. Blasey, who has two teenagers, has moved out of her house, is arranging for private security for herself and her family, and is effectively in hiding, the person said.

[JohnStOnge]

That method of questioning is highly unusual for a polygraph test

If there were anything truthful about the statement, it would easily mask untruthful parts in terms of the examinee's answer. That is why you ask simple, one part questions about singular facts - with up or down yes or no responses.

I'm ambiguous about polygraph tests. There is a large percentage of people they don't work on (both false positives and false negatives) to the point that they are not allowed as evidence in criminal proceedings.

But the real question here is why would they publicize that she had passed a polygraph in the first place? Why not spring it during testimony? That would be consistent with every other tactic the Democrats have used so far in this process.

I find parts of her story to be credible, and like everybody else except Ford and Kavanaugh- I can't say for sure if she is being truthful or not. But these polygraph claims make zero sense from the Dems' perspective


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I give polygraph tests zero credibility. I've felt that way ever since I took a graduate level statistical theory course during the 1990s and heard the professor talk about the probability of error. Bottom line, according to him, is that a polygraph test has a better than even test of being wrong one way or another. In other words: If you compare the probability that'll it'll be wrong in that either a person who is lying will pass or a person who is telling the truth will fail to the probability that it'll be right in that either a person who is lying will fail or a person who is telling the truth will pass the probability that it'll be wrong is better than 50%.

After that I did more reading and came to the conclusion that I wonder why the hell anybody even uses that crap. There's a reason why it's not seen as valid in Court. It's junk. It's an outrage that it's even being used in today's day and age.

[CID1990]

Cold feet about destroying a good man’s name with a phony allegation?

More likely it's because she's being threatened. I heard about it on TV but Googled it for this thread. Here's one account:

Dr. Blasey, thrust suddenly into a spotlight that she never sought, has been inundated with vulgar email and social media messages, and even death threats, according to a person close to her, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss a private matter. “From what I’ve heard you have 6 months to live, you disgusting slime,” one message said.

Dr. Blasey, who has two teenagers, has moved out of her house, is arranging for private security for herself and her family, and is effectively in hiding, the person said.

That's bullcrap

People are vile, especially online, but she's a damn shrink. She knew damn well what she was getting into. She needs to put on her big girl pants and get in to the hearing. sh1t or get off the pot.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JohnStOnge]

Quick Google found this:

http://www.apa.org/research/action/polygraph.aspx

Most psychologists agree that there is little evidence that polygraph tests can accurately detect lies.

Lie detector tests have become a popular cultural icon — from crime dramas to comedies to advertisements — the picture of a polygraph pen wildly gyrating on a moving chart is readily recognized symbol. But, as psychologist Leonard Saxe, PhD, (1991) has argued, the idea that we can detect a person's veracity by monitoring psychophysiological changes is more myth than reality.

And that's consistent with what I've read about the "technology" for several decades now. It's about as reliable as running around with a forked stick looking for water is and it ought to be discarded.

[93henfan]

More likely it's because she's being threatened. I heard about it on TV but Googled it for this thread. Here's one account:

That's bullcrap

People are vile, especially online, but she's a damn shrink. She knew damn well what she was getting into. She needs to put on her big girl pants and get in to the hearing. sh1t or get off the pot.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

lolyep

After what the vile libtards were doing to Kavanaugh in front of his daughters, we’re supposed to feel sorry for some libtard professor making up a September surprise?

Next.

[CID1990]

Quick Google found this:

http://www.apa.org/research/action/polygraph.aspx

Most psychologists agree that there is little evidence that polygraph tests can accurately detect lies.

Lie detector tests have become a popular cultural icon — from crime dramas to comedies to advertisements — the picture of a polygraph pen wildly gyrating on a moving chart is readily recognized symbol. But, as psychologist Leonard Saxe, PhD, (1991) has argued, the idea that we can detect a person's veracity by monitoring psychophysiological changes is more myth than reality.

And that's consistent with what I've read about the "technology" for several decades now. It's about as reliable as running around with a forked stick looking for water is and it ought to be discarded.

That's all fine and good, JSO

And 93 and I have already pointed out to different degrees that polygraph tests are unreliable... so you're preaching to the choir

But stand by over the next week or so

You are going to see a wide swath of people (curiously all Democrats) defend polygraph testing as reliable as an atomic clock


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk