Floyd's Polygraph Test

Floyd has already been offered $100K by a dot com entrepreneur with no
response yet....

http://forum.linspire.com/viewtopic.php?t=424816&highlight=floyd+landis

I think Floyd should do the poly and the new "Brain Fingerprint". I
suggest using detailed pictures of performance enhancing drugs and see
how his memory responds. For example, if a rider has never seen the
graphics/words on a box of EPO, HGH or T patches, then their brain
waves predictably respond differently than a rider who has this
intimate knowledge of the products. All common brands could be covered
fairly quickly. A rider might have seen these substances up close, but
not taken the drugs, but then why did they see them? Who took them?
Another rider? I don't know what the front or back or inside of a box
of Amgen EPO looks like. Or what color the flasks are. Maybe Floyd
does? The science of memory is well proven in this regard. At any
rate, it would be better for Floyd to accept these challenges (however
flawed) than to publish excuses like "the French have a hidden agenda",
etc.

http://www.brainwavescience.com/

DR. FARWELL: In over 170 tests, the Brain Fingerprinting system has
been extremely accurate. In cases where a determination of "information
present" or "information absent" was made, 100% of the determinations
were correct. In 6 cases, the mathematical algorithm determined that
there was insufficient information to make either determination, and no
determination was made, (i.e., "indeterminate" result).

Q. Has Brain Fingerprinting testing been scientifically tested,
peer-reviewed, and published?

DR. FARWELL: Yes. My colleagues and I have been published in the
leading scientific journals in the field. Dr. Drew Richardson and I
conducted a study of FBI agents in which we were able to identify FBI
agents with 100% accuracy based on their brain responses to information
only FBI agents would know. Sharon Smith, an instructor at the FBI
Academy, and I have published a paper on research we conducted in which
the Brain Fingerprinting system was 100% accurate in determining who
had participated in real-life events (Journal of Forensic Sciences,
January 2001). Brain Fingerprinting testing also achieved 100% accuracy
in three studies I conducted on contract for a U.S. intelligence
agency, including one that was in collaboration with Dr. Rene Hernandez
of the US Navy.

Velo Reaper said:

When and where should have been the first word's out of his mouth.
Instead he's going on talk shows spewing more excuses than a drunk
parolee.

Take the test.

gds said:

Les Earnest said:

In fact, no courts recognize polygraph test results and for good reason:
they are slightly less reliable than reading tea leaves.

-Les Earnest

It's a data point. Not incontroverable proof but a data point. And
courts do recognize polygraph tests. They do not automatically hold the
results up as ultimate truth but they are allowed in as a data point.

I'm interested to learn what tea leaf reader you know is accurate over
80% of the time.

Data points that are unreliable are worse than no data points.
80% accuracy is [censored]. They should call it a nervousness
detector test.

If you are ever accused of anything, even if you are straight up
by God 100% provably innocent, any decent lawyer will forbid you
from taking a polygraph test. The consequences for an innocent
person who fails are much worse than the benefit to a guilty
person who passes.

"gds" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Les Earnest said:

In fact, no courts recognize polygraph test results and for good reason:
they are slightly less reliable than reading tea leaves.

It's a data point.

So is the fact that you don't know anything but spout off about it anyway.

Quoted message said:

Not incontroverable proof but a data point.

No proof at all.

"rpm120" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Floyd has already been offered $100K by a dot com entrepreneur with no
response yet....

You know, I used to work for a company that produced biofeedback devices. I
used to practice on them since I used that to test the production units.

If you really believe that [censored] is true I have a bridge that would make a
marvelous investment for your life savings.

Velo Reaper said:

When and where should have been the first word's out of his mouth.
Instead he's going on talk shows spewing more excuses than a drunk
parolee.

Take the test.

I took a polygraph once. Basically, it tests for an emotional response.
If you can lie without having a guilt reaction then you will pass. If
you tell the truth but have an emotional response to the question then
you will fail.

I think Floyd would test guilty even if he was innocent...

Quoted message said:

gds wrote:

Data points that are unreliable are worse than no data points.
80% accuracy is [censored]. They should call it a nervousness
detector test.

OK, but lots of folks will disagee with that assessment. It all depends
on whether or not there is a better method. For many things in life 80%
is very acceptable.

Quoted message said:

If you are ever accused of anything, even if you are straight up
by God 100% provably innocent, any decent lawyer will forbid you
from taking a polygraph test. The consequences for an innocent
person who fails are much worse than the benefit to a guilty
person who passes.

But that is a legal strategy. And yes you are probably right that most
lawyers would be very wary of the test for their client----If they had
a better way of proving innocense like in the example you give. But in
other cases where the prepoderance of evidence goes the other way-
against the client- one may find 80+% a very attractive proposal.

Right now the only legit compalint I hear is the leaking. All the
spouting off about testing reliability, validity, etc is very weak.
These are claims made with no data. Sure individual "experts" are being
critical of the testing but most of what I have heard/read recently is
overwhelmingly in favor of the tests being both valid and reliable.

Ron Ruff said:

I took a polygraph once. Basically, it tests for an emotional response.
If you can lie without having a guilt reaction then you will pass.

True by definition but easier said than done.

Quoted message said:

If you tell the truth but have an emotional response to the question then
you will fail.

No, modern polygraph testing is more sophisticated than that, and can
differentiate between something that is a sensitive area and actual
lying.

Quoted message said:

I think Floyd would test guilty even if he was innocent...

I don't.

Jeff

In article
<[email hidden]>,

gds said:

OK, but lots of folks will disagee with that assessment. It all depends
on whether or not there is a better method. For many things in life 80%
is very acceptable.

One time out of five your check bounces.

One time out of five the laboratory test shows you have
elevated blood sugar.

One time out of five the police doppler radar device is
badly calibrated.

One time out of five the cook over salts the stew.

One time out of five the New York Times misrepresents
events.

--
Michael Press

Michael Press said:

In article
<[email hidden]>,

gds said:

OK, but lots of folks will disagee with that assessment. It all depends
on whether or not there is a better method. For many things in life 80%
is very acceptable.

One time out of five your check bounces.

One time out of five the laboratory test shows you have
elevated blood sugar.

One time out of five the police doppler radar device is
badly calibrated.

One time out of five the cook over salts the stew.

One time out of five the New York Times misrepresents
events.

--
Michael Press

Interesting choices of examples.
Of course for many things 80% is not acceptable.
But it would be great for winning the lottery.

I'll go back to the idea that right now all the numbers are running
against FL. He has not presented anything credible to explain this. So,
if he had other evidence I'd agree that 80% would be a baad risk but
with nothing else... .

On 10 Aug 2006 10:20:35 -0700, "Jeff" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

No, modern polygraph testing is more sophisticated than that, and can
differentiate between something that is a sensitive area and actual
lying.

Perhaps, but modern lie detector tests are held in less regard now
than they were about 20 years ago. Outside of NSA and a few other
similar employers, you won't find them used, even the cheap ones. I've
had a few and frankly would be surprised if their accuracy was very
high at all, unless you are talking about looking at the question and
the stress, and not trying to tie measured stress to specific lies.

Based on my first lie detector test, where I was left tying to
remember what I just said yes or no to, I'm also guessing that the lie
detector test needs someone that really knows how to phrase a question
properly.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

In article <[email hidden]>,

Curtis L. Russell said:

On 10 Aug 2006 10:20:35 -0700, "Jeff" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

No, modern polygraph testing is more sophisticated than that, and can
differentiate between something that is a sensitive area and actual
lying.

Perhaps, but modern lie detector tests are held in less regard now
than they were about 20 years ago. Outside of NSA and a few other
similar employers, you won't find them used, even the cheap ones. I've
had a few and frankly would be surprised if their accuracy was very
high at all, unless you are talking about looking at the question and
the stress, and not trying to tie measured stress to specific lies.

Based on my first lie detector test, where I was left tying to
remember what I just said yes or no to, I'm also guessing that the lie
detector test needs someone that really knows how to phrase a question
properly.

When was the last time you got drunk and did not recognize
the person you woke up in bed with?

--
Michael Press

Michael Press said:

When was the last time you got drunk and did not recognize
the person you woke up in bed with?

I can honestly say it was 1976. Sometime in January IIRC. I came close
to swearing off alcohol after that.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

Curtis L. Russell said:

Michael Press said:

When was the last time you got drunk and did not recognize
the person you woke up in bed with?

I can honestly say it was 1976. Sometime in January IIRC. I came close
to swearing off alcohol after that.

Of course, this is not a problem if you double-bag.

"Stu Fleming" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Curtis L. Russell said:

Michael Press said:

When was the last time you got drunk and did not recognize the person you
woke up in bed with?

I can honestly say it was 1976. Sometime in January IIRC. I came close
to swearing off alcohol after that.

Of course, this is not a problem if you double-bag.

He did but she saw through them anyway.

On Fri, 11 Aug 2006 23:15:52 GMT, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Of course, this is not a problem if you double-bag.

He did but she saw through them anyway.

I'm hurt - truly hurt. The pain was much greater then, however.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...