Must See TV: May 31 Edition of "Lie Detector:" (Vanity)

PAX TV ^ | May 30, 2005 | Nick Danger

[Nick Danger]

Freeper TV Alert

The May 31 edition of "Lie Detector" on PAX TV will concern two subjects that may interest Freepers. "Lie Detector" is a show where the guest agrees to take a lie detector test right on television. Two guests on the May 31 show:

Known for lobbing softball questions at current President George W. Bush, elite press core official “Jeff Gannon” came under scrutiny by democrats and fellow press core members, who discovered his real name is James Dale Guckert with a checkered past and possible agenda. Was “Jeff Gannon” fed questions by the Bush administration to use as talking points at White House briefings or just a man trying to overcome his past and pursue a career as a journalist?

Steve Gardner, one of Senator John Kerry’s 12 swift boat crew members, who says he was threatened by a political operative, fired by his company and is currently broke because he refused to stand with Kerry at the Democratic Convention.

8 pm, 7 Central

[Nick Danger]

I was alerted to this by the Swifties' PR lady, Jennifer Webster. I assume this means Steve Gardner will pass his lie detector test :)

[jocon307]

Good post, this show certainly would be interesting to freepers! Both guests actually.

[jdm]

Hey Nick, thanks for letting us know. I agree, good post! You forgot your little guy! Here he is!

[jdm]

"Steve Gardner, one of Senator John Kerry’s 12 swift boat crew members, who says he was threatened by a political operative, fired by his company and is currently broke because he refused to stand with Kerry at the Democratic Convention."

Broke? Not standing with Kerry renders one immediately "broke"? I wonder why PAX's write up is the way it is. I doubt he's broke and even if he is, what does that have to do with telling the truth, the whole point of the show?!!!!

[Nick Danger]

Not standing with Kerry renders one immediately "broke"?

It can if you get fired because your boss is a big Kerry fan.

I doubt he's broke

Hence the lie detector test.

[Neville72]

They need to invite Slick Willie on and ask him if he raped Juanita Broderick. While they're at it they can have the Hildabeast on and ask her how Vince Foster really ended up in Fort Marcy Park.

[Wolverine]

BROKE

[jdm]

Thanks for the link. Sorry for jumping to conclusions before checking facts.

[Gunrunner2]

A cautionary note:

Question: Do you intend to answer truthfully?
Answer: Yes
Result: No deception

Question: Do you watch the TV with the lights on? (control question)
Answer: Yes
Result: No deception

Question: Have you ever divulged classified information to unauthorized personnel?
Answer: No
Result: Inconclusive

Question: Are you concerned about something we have no discussed?
Answer: No
Result: No deception

Question: Have you answered truthfully?
Answer: Yes
Result: No deception

Okay. . .if I intend to answer truthfully, answered truthfully and have nothing to hide. . .why the “inconclusive? This inconclusive made my life difficult for nearly 6-months as investigators went nuts looking for something that wasn’t there.

As a former police officer I trusted the instrument. I was absolutely stunned by the result. I was confused and disappointed. I did research on the test , to include meeting with Cleve Backster, the father of the polygraph (http://www.rvconference.org/abstracts/CleveBackster-abstract02.html). Cleve was unhappy about the method the test was being used.

As a result of my research, my own experience, and given the fact that spies are trained on how to beat the thing, I have no faith in it at all.

I caution people to be careful when reading too much into the results, as they are, at best, 90% correct, and at worse, 50%. That means at best there is about a 10% false-positive rate. . .about 100 out of 1000 are unjustly accused. Also, FYI, the demographic with the highest false-positive rate are Mormons (strict moral code, I guess) and devout Catholics (same).

For more info: http://antipolygraph.org/

For excellent overview of the concept: http://antipolygraph.org/news.shtml (First article, top of page)

[alnick]

Broke? Not standing with Kerry renders one immediately "broke"?

No, but losing one's job as a result of not standing with Kerry could, though.

[alnick]

I just looked this up on TitanTV.com to find out what time it comes on tomorrow, and got this from the description:

"Guests include James Dale Guckert, a shill for the Republicans who posed as reporter Jeff Gannon."

Seems like someone has his mind made up about Gannon before he even takes the test.

[pookie18]

Thanks for the post...will now be watching!

[Balding_Eagle]

Was that your own experience?

If so, what are your thoughts about taking a lie detector test following a family member being murdered, or missing ? I'm assuming no guilt or knowledge. Total and complete innocence. This is something that seems to be SOP following such an event, and for good reason. For a completely innocent family member however, there seems to be no upside, except to get the authorities off the backs of family members, and on to the search.

I've always thought that if put into that situation, I would take the test, with two conditions. One, I receive a complete copy of the test and results, and two, it would be video taped, and I get a copy of same.

Odd thing, that's what the husband of the runway bride asked for, and it increased suspicion on him.

[Gunrunner2]

That was my own, no-kidding experience.

Poly's are an interrogation tool, only. They are by no means a "lie detector." I didn't understand that back then but do now.

The poly operator has complete control over the exam results and can shape whatever results he wishes. He can be good or he can be bad, but the "science" really isn't science as you are trying to read someone's mind. Sounds like techno-psychic to me.

I spoke with many poly operators since that awful experience and come away with this observation: They all admit the test isn't perfect and that erroneous results do happen. . .but each one says it doesn't happen to them.

Regarding criminal probes and such. . .especially for family members. . .I have a healthy aversion to that action as there are too many emotions at play and too many variables.

The authorities, in my experience, will ask for the poly when they have some indication, somewhere, that the guy (or gal) might have done the deal. This means they are predisposed to the guilt factor. This also means the police will use their own poly operator to shape the results, intentionally or inadvertently.

Do not trust it. It is worthless.

By the way, after the investigation went on and on and on, and many poly's later where the same result came back over and over and over again. . .they changes tactics and shifted to another set of questions; each beginning with "In your life, have you ever (fill in the blanks).”

At that point I knew they knew they were wrong and were simply fishing to try and save themselves. I told the investigators to pound sand, I'm outta here. Result: I kept my clearance.

With you on the private poly and recording the "official" one. techniques vary and the police poly can be seen to be deceptive and shaping results.