UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2004 > Mar > Mar 23

Re: Jerry Black To Polygraph Bruce Maccabee -

From: Steven Kaeser <steve.nul>
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 12:32:02 -0500
Fwd Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 08:49:41 -0500
Subject: Re: Jerry Black To Polygraph Bruce Maccabee -


This discussion isn't going to be resolved by further
discussion, but with that said.....

>From: Kenny Young <ufo.nul>
>To: ufoupdates.nul
>Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 08:58:02 -0500
>Subject: Re: Jerry Black To Polygraph Bruce Maccabee


In response to Robert, Kenny wrote:

>In case you weren't aware, self-sponsored polygraph tests aren't
>valid. I think it was already said that the legitimate test Ed
>Walters was to have taken, he never showed up for.

Actually, all polygraphs are sponsored by someone and are about
as reliable as the arbitron ratings. If one side in a legal
dispute has the right to promote a polygraph examination to
prove its point, then the other side has that same right to
prove their point of view. I worked at a retail outlet that
decided to test the polygraph system and brought in a specialist
to solve a crime that never actually occured. Of course,
following the testing of all employees the person giving the
test had "identified" the thief, and in actuality identified
flaws in the polygraph process. It may be your opinion that one
test was more valid than another because of sponsorship, but
that really doesn't make one more accurate than the other.

>Your second point also is posed as if you were unaware of the
>circumstances of this case. J. Black's focus is not a simple
>disagreement on the investigative outcome but to explore the
>potential for investigator/claimant financial collaboration and
>how such a relationship has effected the investigation.

However, the "potential for investigator/claimant financial
collaboration" JB appears to uncovered is based on annecdotal
innuendo. You wouldn't expect to take this before a jury based
on this, would you?

>I'm not too encouraged from all the fluff offered by many of the
>UFO UpDates list folks. If this were a case of Remote Viewing,
>this gullible lot would all be in favor (some less conscious
>persons perhaps while foaming at the mouth).. While Remote
>Viewing is no longer used by govt. agencies as it was deemed
>'unreliable,' the polygraph is widely used for job screening and
>security. It is a legitimate process, despite what the
>unconscious pronounce.

Interesting. The Federal Government halted funding of Remote
Viewing because its accuracy was only about 35%. Hmmmmmmmm.
That's actually not all that bad given the scope of what they
were doing. Your statement is accurate if you take the
Government statements literally, but while I'm not a
conspiratorialist I really take the Government's comments on
most things with a grain of salt.

As far as the polygraph is concerned, it's a tool that meets a
need for some. I've taken them for job employment and hated it,
but there's often not much you can do. If you read agency
reports on this subject, I think you'll find that there are
often better ways of identifying problem employees, but many in
the enforcement end are wedded to the polygraph process It may
be a legitamate process, but that doesn't speak directly to its
accuracy and propriety.

[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |

UFO UpDates Main Index

UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp

Archive programming by Glenn Campbell at Glenn-Campbell.com