Forensic science

'Lie Detectors' Do Not Detect Lies

A polygraph test does not prove Christine Blasey Ford is telling the truth-or anything else.

|

There was no shortage of absurdities during last week's Senate hearing on Christine Blasey Ford's sexual assault accusation against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh. But the suggestion that the polygraph test she passed proved she was telling the truth may have been the silliest.

"I understand that you've taken a polygraph test, Dr. Ford, that found that you were being truthful when you described what happened to you," said Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.). Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) twice noted that Kavanaugh, unlike Ford, had not taken a polygraph test, implying that the omission was evidence of his guilt.

Klobuchar and Harris, both former prosecutors, surely know this is bunk. As Kavanaugh pointed out, polygraph results are "not admissible in federal court because they're not reliable."

Even if polygraphs worked as advertised, they would be useless in resolving conflicts between the accounts of two people who both believe they are telling the truth, as seems to be the case with Ford and Kavanaugh. But the problem is deeper than that, because the basic premise of polygraphs—that deception can be detected by looking at variations in someone's blood pressure, heart rate, respiration, and galvanic skin response (a measure of perspiration)—has never been properly validated.

"There is no lie detector, neither man nor machine," a congressional subcommittee concluded in 1965. "People have been deceived by a myth that a metal box in the hands of an investigator can detect truth or falsehood."

More than half a century later, that conclusion is still accurate. "Most psychologists agree that there is little evidence that polygraph tests can accurately detect lies," the American Psychological Association says. "Although the idea of a lie detector may be comforting, the most practical advice is to remain skeptical about any conclusion wrung from a polygraph."

While so-called lie detectors do not detect lies, they may detect signs of fear, stress, or anxiety. But these are ambiguous, since a falsely accused person may respond more strongly to "relevant" questions (those related to the incident under investigation) than a guilty one who is calmer under pressure or who knows techniques for beating a polygraph.

"Countermeasures pose a potentially serious threat to the performance of polygraph testing because all the physiological indicators measured by the polygraph can be altered by conscious efforts," the National Research Council (NRC) warned in a comprehensive 2003 review of polygraph research. "Certain countermeasures apparently can, under some laboratory conditions, enable a deceptive individual to appear nondeceptive and avoid detection by an examiner."

The NRC found that the quality of polygraph studies "falls far short of what is desirable" but concluded that "in populations of examinees such as those represented in the polygraph research literature, untrained in countermeasures, specific-incident polygraph tests can discriminate lying from truth telling at rates well above chance, though well below perfection." Even that assessment may be too generous.

Given the wide variation in polygraph practices and the serious methodological problems with both experimental and observational studies, the NRC noted, "study results cannot be expected to generalize to practical contexts." Psychologists Leonard Saxe and Gershon Ben-Shakhar have argued that "it is impossible to predict the conditions under which polygraph test results will be accurate or inaccurate," because there is "no unique physiological reaction to deception" and "no theory which ties deception (or any criminal activity) with physiological reactions."

Polygraphs can be useful, but mainly as pseudoscientific props for cops trying to scare suspects into confessing, employers trying to show they are serious about security, and politicians trying to score points. Last December, for instance, Roy Moore, a conservative Republican supported by Donald Trump, tried to contest his loss in Alabama's U.S. Senate race by citing a polygraph test that he said showed he was not guilty of the sexual abuse charges that figured prominently in the election.

I suspect that is one case where Amy Klobuchar and Kamala Harris would be quick to point out the problems with polygraphs.

© Copyright 2018 by Creators Syndicate Inc.

NEXT: My Wall Street Journal Op Ed on Important Property Rights Case that Will be Argued before the Supreme Court Tomorrow

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Polygraphs dont detect lies or the truth.

    Its a scam for shaman to ‘see’ if your lying to the NSA, FBI, and CIA.

    1. I’m baffled why no one seems to have noticed that she took the polygraph right after her grandmother’s funeral. why was it so important to do it right then? could it be because a polygraph effectively relies on ones physical emotional response and she had just been through a highly emotionally exhausting event? one where she might also have taken some kind of pharmaceutical to deal with being distraught not to mention exhausted from travel? if she was so afraid of flying her PTSD must have taken quite a toll as well.
      i’m sure it’s all just a massive coincidence. truly…

      1. How her polygraph was conducted was even more hilarious. They are designed to catch the reaction to the question. Her test consisted of writing a story down on paper and then asking her about what she wrote, bypassing asking her questions that would cause a reaction.

        Also there is now the letter from the ex boyfriend claiming she’s coached others on how to pass the tests.

        1. To thwart a lie detector test is fairly simple: For the warm-up “calibration”, to get your baseline reading, they ask you emotionally totally unloaded questions… “What is your favorite color”, “Do you like dogs”, etc.

          DURING THESE QUESTIONS tense up your muscles isometrically!!! (Do not move them visibly). Do it all over your body as much as you can. If you are asked about it, tell them that the detector test itself stresses you out!

          Now when you lie (about having NOT blown on a cheap plastic flute that was NOT prescribed to you, for example), relax your muscles to normal, so as to hide your extra stress from the flute police!

          (To find precise details on what NOT to do, to avoid the flute police, please see http://www.churchofsqrls.com/DONT_DO_THIS/ )? This has been a pubic service, courtesy of the Church of SQRLS!

          The other method of avoiding the flute police, is to OBEY Government Almighty in ALL things!!!

          1. Dear SQRLSY,

            My 9 year old has a recorder now. It was issued to her by her school (GAWD, thankfully). But I’m worried someone else in my family might blow into it. Please help!

            Sincerely,
            Leo

            1. The ONLY solutions are:

              ‘1) Keep the recorder in a locked safe at all times, when it is not in use, or…

              ‘2) Get a PRESCRIPTION for said “recorder”, from a Government-Almighty-sanctioned, licensed, credentialed, and board-certified physician, for ALL members of your household, and all of those who visit!

              This has been a pubic service, courtesy of the Church of SQRLS!

              1. GAWD bless you SQRLSY

                1. There’s yet a THIRD possible solution here!!! GAWD be praised; there are more ways to skin a cat!

                  So the USA, according to my research, is the ***ONLY*** nation to require a prescription for a cheap plastic flute! And as I understand, and embassy’s soil belongs to the nation who sends the ambassadors to live at the embassy… USA law does not apply!

                  Have your household be declared to be the embassy, of, say, North Korea, and THEN you and yours will be FREE to blow on a cheap plastic flute, w/o a prescription!!!

        2. More pertinent to your last sentence is that SHE LIED UNDER OATH that she never coached anyone to take a lie detector test!!

          It is already all out there on the internet that Ford comes a longtime CIA family & is well versed in Deep State/D.C. Swamp protocol….It is pretty obvious that she is a Hit Woman for the DEMs & the Deep State to dent Trump his pick!

        3. Had a similar test. But the examiner’s opinion was higher than God’s. I have lost five comments trying to reply to this comment! It was an invalid test!

          1. Without intentional lies, and known true answers, how the hell could he determine when lies occurred?! The examiner could not get me to confess to a lie, so he just said that I was being deceptive! I was screwed over! I had no more medical practice!

            1. I was forced to take it by a psychological group evaluating me for the state medical board in Denton, TX. (Wish I could get through a total comment without it getting dumped!) They determined a whole slew of things that went against my normal battery of psychological testing. I had a colleague, who was a psychiatrist and a pain management doctor evaluate them. He said I had normal results, on the evaluation and did not know how they could say that a normal “score” was indicative of me failing the test! The powers that be can do what the hell they want!

      2. It does not matter when or why the polygraph is taken.

        It measures BP, skin conductivity, respiration, and pulse. Thats it!

      3. The meme that her being “afraid of flying” has been shown to be a lie. It’s also been reported by her long time former boyfriend that she committed perjury in claiming she never coached anyone in how to take a polygraph test. She also couldn’t remember if she took the polygraph the day of, or after, of her grandmother’s funeral. And she obviously was knowledgeable about drugs affecting behavior and response. Also it’s worth examining all the contradictions in her stories as pointed out in the report by Rachael Miller.

        As someone who’s actually taken a polygraph, that we don’t have the actual report means we really don’t know what “truth” it supports (to the extent it does – obviously these are fallible) or not.

  2. Yeah. And we don’t need no steeenkeeeng lie detector to see all of Kavanaugh’s blatant lies

    Kavanaugh committed perjury several times, repeating two lies..

    1) He claims the drinking age was 18, so his drinking was legal. A lie. The drinking age in Maryland changed to 21, before he became a senior, and he was not 18 as a junior. Associated Press

    2) He also lied that the other four people at the party have “denied” the events. HE is the only one denying it. The others all said they could not remember it, BIG difference. Only one other student was in the room, Mark Judge, and even he did not deny it happened, only that he could not recall it. AP Fact Check

    Plus all his evasions and REFUSALS to answer key questions, or attack the questioner — which I doubt he’d tolerate in his own courtroom.
    ,
    Most notable to me, Kavanaugh twice REFUSED to answer if he was the out of control drunk depicted in Mark Judges book as “Bart O’Kavanaugh.” (wink wink) Is that because he was under oath? (lol)

    Check the sources.

    Left – Right = Zero
    Both authoritarian, less than 40% of Americans, and still shrinking..

    1. ^example of mentally ill Lefty.

      1. ^example of mentally ill Lefty.

        Your ignoring proven facts is NOT psycho?

        1. Shut up Hihn.

    2. 1) most ordinary people aren’t aware of stupid changes like that, let alone teenagers, especially 36 years later.

      2) Few people would parse that as a difference signifying anything other than partisan straw grabbing.

      1. I’m pretty sure teenagers are keenly aware of any changes to the legal drinking age, even if only because they know they need a better fake ID or straw purchaser.

        I really don’t give a single, solitary shit if the guy had a few beers (or, from the sounds of things, quite a few) before receiving the blessing of the holy state. But, if he feels the need to lie about something this petty, that doesn’t exactly fill me with confidence in his character and judgment.

        1. My memory of that time in Maryland is that I was 19 and legal to buy alcohol when it was supposedly. 21 year cutoff because I had been 18 and legal the year before.

          And I have been told I’m out of my mind by people I generally trust. That at 19 I was illegal. Yet proprieters sold me beer. Go figure.

          Just saying.

          1. Wikipedia says due to home rule in Maryland, the alcohol laws are set by county by their own rules.

            There is no Maryland state law on alcohol. There are several Maryland county laws, which differ in wording and level of enforcement. Under conditions, a person who is underage to buy, possess or drink in public, can legally drink in a private residence in Maryland. I think he has said he drank when it was legal for him to drink.

            Not knowing the address, it is hard to tell what 1982 Maryland county law applied. Nor is it easy for us to know now how the law was enforced in 1982.

            1. Your full of shit, Trumptard. Shame on you.

              Kavanaugh said, “Yes, there were parties. And the drinking age was 18. And yes, the seniors were legal” VIDEO PROOF

              “The legal age in that state was raised to 21 on July 1, 1982; Kavanaugh did not turn 18 until Feb. 12, 1983.”

              Progtards aren’t the only brainwashed puppets
              Left – Right = Zero
              Both shameless robots

      2. 1) most ordinary people aren’t aware of stupid changes like that, let alone teenagers, especially 36 years later.

        Cowardly diversion. Changes are TOTALLY irrelevant. They know if it’s legal.
        And you just admitted Kav is a liar! If he doesn’t know, he should say so. When asked about his drinking he lied. Umm, as invented out of thin air! AND YOU KNOWINGLY DEFENDED THE FABRICATION.
        Shame on you both.

        2) Few people would parse that as a difference signifying anything other than partisan straw grabbing.

        That’a as evaisive as yelliong FAKE NEWS. And just as laughable.
        He’s hiding likely HEAVY and ILLEGAL drinking, which would immediate enhance Ford’s credibility.
        Pay attention and I’ll explain why/

        If he was the blackout drunk, as depicted in Mark Judge’s book — both guys could have done exactly as Ford says .. and honestly not remember it. Thus. his word is USELESS if he was the type of drunk depicted by so many of his friends at the time.

        Logic and facts vs tribal bias.

    3. My take.

      He drank a lot as a young man and in college. When I was in college around the same time there was a lot of that. Some smoked more than drinking. Many became very productive and successful people. He did.

      Does he now I do not know. No evidence of that.

      I don’t care.

      1. Kavanaugh committed perjury several times, repeating two lies..

        1) He claims the drinking age was 18, so his drinking was legal. A lie. The drinking age in Maryland changed to 21, before he became a senior, and he was not 18 as a junior. Associated Press

        2) He also lied that the other four people at the party have “denied” the events. HE is the only one denying it. The others all said they could not remember it, BIG difference. Only one other student was in the room, Mark Judge, and even he did not deny it happened, only that he could not recall it. AP Fact Check

        Plus all his evasions and REFUSALS to answer key questions, or attack the questioner — which I doubt he’d tolerate in his own courtroom.
        ,
        Most notable to me, Kavanaugh twice REFUSED to answer if he was the out of control drunk depicted in Mark Judges book as “Bart O’Kavanaugh.” (wink wink) Is that because he was under oath? (lol)

        Check the sources.

        Left – Right = Zero
        Both authoritarian, less than 40% of Americans, and still shrinking..

    4. It’s been fun watching hihn descend deeper and deeper into idiocy and paranoia.

      1. I enjoy enjoy watching you whining goobers who CANNOT challenge what he says … with links to proof.
        Sore losers.
        Pathetic.

    5. Wow, saying you do not remember a party occurring and that you do not remember meeting or knowing someone is denying the facts as presented. To accuse Kavanagh of lying under your premise is no different than Clinton telling the Grand Jury ” it all depends on what you mean by the definition of ‘is'”. The only truth here is your side has failed in every attempt they have tried to stop the confirmation of Kavanagh and this is just the latest in that long lines of failed tactics. The desperation of what you are arguing makes him a liar is so lame that it is laughable. Your party exonerated a man who has been accused of domestic abuse where actual evidence exists and supports and will likely re-elect a Senator who was charged, and skated because of a hung jury on charges he helped a friend steal commit $700 million dollars by committing Medicare fraud and got paid for his help. Before you start pointing fingers are Kavanagh or anyone else, look at your own party and the abuses and lies they have been telling, again and again.

      1. Your full,of shit on what was said. And a fucking psycho to ASS-ume he’s a Democrat! Kavanaugh’s lies are FULLY documented.

        A BIG demand that Kavanaugh be withdrawn.

        This from a leading Jesuit publication, America Magazine. (Kavanaugh’s high school was Jesuit)
        Add this the Dean of the prestigious Yale Law School, Judge Kavanaugh’s own alma mater, who called for an invetsigation before there was one.

        The list is growing of supposedly dishonest answers from Kavanaugh on Thursday, now expanded to include diversions, evasions and refusals to key question. Personally, his refusal to deny that he is the total drunk in Mark Judge;s book, a classmate named “Bart O’Kavanaugh” This one is becoming a bandwagon. He claims innocence everywhere EXCEPT this published incident. With all his other claims that he was never a heavy drinker, why would he refuse to say it was not him who puked into a car and passed out?

        It’s quite reasonable to assume he was avoiding perjury. He refused twice. The first one, he set his jaw and went totally silent, defiantly. New “witnesses” are popping up on his heavy drinking, including an ex-girlfriend of Mark Judge, who says Mark described an event similar to Dr. Ford.s.

        1. Yale Law Faculty Ask Senate to Pause Kavanaugh .
          Originally the Dean, now the faculty of his alma mater

          More Than 500 Law Professors Condemn Kavanaugh For ‘Lack Of Judicial Temperament’
          “More than 500 law professors from nearly 100 law schools around the nation have signed a letter to the U.S. Senate to say that the volatile temperament Supreme Court nominee Judge Brett Kavanaugh displayed on Thursday as he testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee disqualifies him from sitting on the nation’s highest court.”

          Kavanaugh withdraws from Harvard Law gig as students sign letter objecting to his role
          “Judge Brett Kavanaugh will not teach at Harvard Law School in the winter, as he was expected to do, the university announced Monday night in an email to law students.”

          American Bar Association dropped Brett Kavanaugh’s ratings in 2006 after concerns about his temperament and honesty

    6. The AP article to which you link states that in nearby DC, it was legal for kids of Kavanaugh’s age to purchase and consume liquor. Plus there was that grandfather clause making many kids near his age legal. Given they could legally buy it and consume it there, it seems reasonable that kids of his age were drinking.

      Heck, I was drinking in high school illegally (several times to the point of getting sick), as were many (better to learn early, and I don’t drink now). I don’t care if Kavanaugh was lying about this, because it’s not relevant what so many high school kids did when they didn’t harm others, in relation to his appointment. What’s more important is how he did in school (excellent grades, showing he had good priorities and was responsible for what mattered) and what he’s done in his professional career.

      If we’re going to get persnickety, we should equally apply that standard to Ford’s testimony, and she fails that standard by a lot.

  3. So called polygraphs are as useful as a crystal ball or feeling bumps on your head.

    They should never be admitted in law or opinion as evidence of anything.

    Lie detectors. What a load of crap.

    1. Yes, but Scientology’s “E-meter” is an absolute wonder of flawless technology and beautiful artistic splendor!!!

      Why don’t the feds cough up a few billion dollars and pay Scientology for their “tech”, here, so that we could FIX this thing?!??! We should use the absolute BEST!!

      (Tom Cruise and Ted Cruz both approve of this message).

    2. The authoritarians among us are amazingly fond of a number of tchnologies and techniques that do not do what they are relied upon to do.

      Breathalyzers are not sensitive enough to justify the way they are used. (Instead, I would favor dashcam evidence of erraticdriving)

      Polygraphs are utter hogwash

      Radar guns are frequently out of register and subject to all kinds of abuse.

      And drug sniffing dogs do not locate drugs at a better percentage than bald faced guesses.

      When will this change? Don’t hold your breath.

      1. 2 of my friends have had their vehicles searched after they declined the search and the drug dog “alerted”. No contraband was found. I think that happens a whole lot more than the 2 times I know of. It seems the drug dogs really are about an end run of the 4th amendment.

    3. Do not forget how a bare light bulb and rubber hose were used to get hundreds of people to “tell the truth”…

    4. I underwent a polygraph test (and passed), and it was interesting. My examiner had me falsely and accurately answering questions as a baseline (but it seems the procedures vary). It would have been helpful to have some statistics as to the accuracy of the tests as measured via testing of the tests. All that’s reported is they aren’t accurate enough (I agree)

      The problems with Ford’s test are that a) we nor the Senate have the polygraph test report (it was only shown to the WaPo) and b) we really don’t know the questions asked (e.g. was she asked if she was groped by Kavanaugh, or just some guy?). Also, it appears that Ford’s retired FBI friend (who likely had at least a business relationship with the examiner) was the one who arranged the test for her (a conflict of interest). Her FBI friend wrote a letter claiming that Ford’s old boyfriend (who affirmed Ford coached someone on how to pass a polygraph test) was lying (and how would she know?) which discredits her and the test IMHO. The fact that Ford hasn’t provided the test report to the Senate also discredits her claims IMHO, which also goes for her therapist’s notes. Claiming evidence exists and supports your story, then not providing it is problematic. What are they hiding?

  4. So Ford “passed” a polygraph? Well that puts her in good company:

    “In 1986 and 1991, {Aldrich} Ames passed two polygraph examinations while spying for the Soviet Union and the Russian Federation, respectively. Ames was initially “terrified” at the prospect of taking the test, but he was advised by the KGB “to just relax”.[28] Ames’ test demonstrated deceptive answers to some questions but the examiners passed him, perhaps in the later opinion of the CIA because the examiners were “overly friendly” and therefore did not induce the proper physiological response.”

    Well I’m convinced that polygraphs are accurate. How about you?

    1. There are stories that she coached others to pass them.

    2. I believe the [28] references Tim Weiner, David Johnston, and Neil Lewis, “Betrayal: The Story of Aldrich Ames, An American Spy”, New York: Random House, 1995, ISBN 978-0-679-44050-5.
      The KGB also instructed Ames to get “a real good night’s sleep. Be fresh and rested. Be cooperative. Develop rapport with examiner. And try to remain as calm and easy as you can.”

      Classic instruction on how to beat a polygraph from the pros.

      A polygraph can indicate (a) you believe what your are saying or (b) you are a really good liar.

      Reliance on polygraph results to establish a third party’s guilt with no corroborating evidence or witnesses indicates ….

      1. Kavanaugh committed perjury several times, repeating two lies..

        1) He claims the drinking age was 18, so his drinking was legal. A lie. The drinking age in Maryland changed to 21, before he became a senior, and he was not 18 as a junior. Associated Press

        2) He also lied that the other four people at the party have “denied” the events. HE is the only one denying it. The others all said they could not remember it, BIG difference. Only one other student was in the room, Mark Judge, and even he did not deny it happened, only that he could not recall it. AP Fact Check

        Plus all his evasions and REFUSALS to answer key questions, or attack the questioner — which I doubt he’d tolerate in his own courtroom.
        ,
        Most notable to me, Kavanaugh twice REFUSED to answer if he was the out of control drunk depicted in Mark Judges book as “Bart O’Kavanaugh.” (wink wink) Is that because he was under oath? (lol)

        Check the sources.

        Left – Right = Zero
        Both authoritarian, less than 40% of Americans, and still shrinking..

  5. We already know the Polygraph, and her testimony, was BS

    We already know about her former boyfriend’s sworn statement.

    We already know about her coaching McLean to beat polygraphs and get a job with the FBI

    We already know about McLean leaving the FBI and signing the famous Open Letter

    Could Reason staff that want to weigh in on this at least keep up?

    1. Here’s what your blatant and snarky bias ignores

      Kavanaugh committed perjury several times, repeating two lies..

      1) He claims the drinking age was 18, so his drinking was legal. A lie. The drinking age in Maryland changed to 21, before he became a senior, and he was not 18 as a junior. Associated Press

      2) He also lied that the other four people at the party have “denied” the events. HE is the only one denying it. The others all said they could not remember it, BIG difference. Only one other student was in the room, Mark Judge, and even he did not deny it happened, only that he could not recall it. AP Fact Check

      Plus all his evasions and REFUSALS to answer key questions, or attack the questioner — which I doubt he’d tolerate in his own courtroom.

      Most notable to me, Kavanaugh twice REFUSED to answer if he was the out of control drunk depicted in Mark Judges book as “Bart O’Kavanaugh.” (wink wink) Is that because he was under oath? (lol)

      Check the sources.

      Left – Right = Zero
      Both authoritarian, less than 40% of Americans, and still shrinking..

  6. Lie detectors are now allowed as evidence in a court of law. That is all you need to know.

    1. Sorry, bad typist. Lie detectors are NOT allowed as evidence in a court of law.

      1. In some instances they can( though they shoudn’t be):

        “Of course, as with most things in a courtroom, every rule has its exception. In the rare instance that both parties agree that the results of a polygraph exam should be admissible for some reason, the court could allow it as evidence.”

        https://www.hg.org/legal-articles/is-a-polygraph
        -test-admissible-as-evidence-31737

        1. The other party should never allow a polygraph results to be admitted in court.

          Since they dont detect lies or truth.

        2. Rare instance? I’m having trouble imagining any circumstance where both parties would want the polygraph results admitted.

  7. If you fail a polygraph, your usual AGW (armed government worker) will think you are lying.

    If you pass a polygraph, your usual AGW will think you are lying.

    An AGW using a polygraph, probably got their training from a Scientologist using their E-Meter.

  8. There’s no surefire way of knowing anything. You could all be lunatics (or dumb humans incapable of processing info) or under the spell of a crab alien for all we know. We do are best under the circumstances to determine the truth of things. The willingness to take the lie detector. The willingness to submit to FBI questioning. The willingness to answer the questions. These are things that point to her not being a conscious liar. Kavanaugh was basically the opposite. He didn’t answer questions. He just sat there unresponsive as if he was lost and the question would have to be repeated and still he wouldn’t answer. Kavanaugh would not acknowledge the provable things that might made him look bad. He blatantly misrepresented other people’s statements. Kavanaugh lied to discredit his Ford and we don’t need to know the truth of the sexual assault. We know he’ll lie today to obstruct a inquiry into a sexual assault claim. Then when you consider Kavanaugh’s poor credibility and that at least two completely believable women are making similarly disqualifying allegations it adds to measure. Once you add it all up you have multiple data pointing to the same conclusion. Kavanaugh is a liar.

    1. Even by media matters standards, you’re low quality, ordinary person

      1. It’s either Chandler or another hihn sock.

        1. Anything to avoid confronting the facts. I know your game.

        2. Its Chandler

          1. You’re probably right.
            Hihn never bothers to cite much of anything, while happy horseshit is famous for citing all sorts of stuff s/he should have read first, since most all of it turns out to say the opposite if horseshit’s claims.

      2. You discredit yourself.

    2. Ford has precisely zero credibility as a witness, she can’t even keep her “story” straight.

      1. She knew enough to describe a brew drinking gathering that was almost exactly described in Kavanaugh’s calendar. She dated one of Kavanaugh’s best friends. She knew where Mark Judge was working at the time. What exactly do you doubt?

        1. Pathetic, the calendar angle has already been debunked. Ford has not a single datum that connects her alleged event to Kavanaugh. She has nothing but a continally changing account that she convenienty edits when she’s in danger of being refuted. And all that’s apart from her lies and BS over her “fear of flying” crap and the “second door” scam story line where the building permit dates don’t match up, an obvious lie to cover her ass over the fact she’s renting out an individual living unit to Google interns in violation of local zoning laws.

          1. The calendar thing has been debunked. The claim isnt that that one July 1 entry is the day it happened. It’s that the description of gathering to drink beer is similar to the gathering she describes. You don’t think that July 1 entry was the first and only time Kavanaugh gathered with Squi, PJ and Mark Judge? Then how do you explain how knew where Mark Judge was working? First hand accounts of the event arw are damn good evidence. Kavanaugh wasn’t a stranger to her and he wasn’t wearing a mask.
            Her certainty that Kavanaugh was the perpetrator is evidence. Plus her saying this to other people years before Kavanaugh was nominated completely eviscerates the idea of a conspiracy.

            1. Has not been debunked.

              1. False:

                https://hotair.com/archives/2018/09/29/
                problem-dems-july-1-1982-entry-
                kavanaughs-calendar/

            2. “Her certainty that Kavanaugh was the perpetrator is evidence”

              WTF?

              What about Kavanaughs’ “certainty” that he didn’t commit the offense.

              Her claim IS NOT evidence.

              And indeed the “evidence” she has provided – the names of people she claims were at the party – don’t back her up.

              Her only “evidence” contradicts her claim.

              Gawd but we have dumbed down the American populace.

            3. “The claim isnt that that one July 1 entry is the day it happened.”

              Okay, than the entry proves exactly nothing about Ford’s accusation.

              ” It’s that the description of gathering to drink beer is similar to the gathering she describes. You don’t think that July 1 entry was the first and only time Kavanaugh gathered with Squi, PJ and Mark Judge?”

              Unless you can find a similar calendar entry that explicitly mention’s Ford and the other young woman she claims was there, it’s not similar enough to mean anything.

        2. First, the claim that three friends went to a friends house with beer is not exactly a strong prediction. They were on first name basis, and studies estimated that 84% of high schoolers at the time drank. The fact that they would have attended a party with alcohol together sometime in the summer is essentially a given.

          Secondly, even if the party did happen and everyone was at it like she said, that wouldn’t provide evidence for the primary point, that Kavanaugh violently attacked her.

          If he drunkenly tried to kiss her and she pushed him off, that would explain both stories (for him, it wasn’t important, just another girl at a party who rejected him. For her, it was memorable, and memory made it worse over time). This is just conjecture, but it seems the most likely scenario out of what has been proposed.

        3. Mark Judge had published Mark Gauvreau Judge, “Wasted: Tales of a GenX Drunk”, Hazelden, 1 May 1997 and at least one other memoir about being a recovered alcoholic. His past was literally at least two open books.

  9. But the suggestion that the polygraph test she passed proved she was telling the truth may have been the silliest, Jacob Sullum says.

    Does a psychology professor claiming not to know anything about polygraph exams indicate anything about truthfulness?

    1. Exactly! She knew how to manipulate the evidence. She knew what the answers “should” be. The infantile whispered voice should have tipped the poeple off. She wAs manipulating the entire thing! And, recovered memories are NOT RELIABLE!

  10. I would put the democrats in an interesting position if all those proclaiming their belief in Ford’s claims were asked to take a polygraph test where they would be asked a series of questions to determine whether they really believed the claims or they were using it to derail Kavanaugh’s nomination.

    1. Partisanship is a strong drug. Everyone seems to know for certain what happened on a night 36 years ago that none of them witnessed, based entirely on which side of the political spectrum they most associate with. I have no doubt that the Democrats and Republicans could all pass lie detector tests on who they believe in this case.

      1. I’m highly partisan, but I’m also capable of objective analysis and Ford’s “story” has more holes in it that swiss cheese and nothing that connects it to Brett Kavanaugh.

        1. I’m sure you know for certain that the Clintons had Vince Foster and James McDougal killed too?

          1. No idea, got any tips?

      2. I suspect you are right. Scary.

  11. I=It

  12. Oh yay. More partisan bickering over a 36 year old yearbook and hand-written calendar, a woman who “passed” a meaningless polygraph test, and a teenage boy who likes beer. I don’t know which is worse, the pointless partisan bickering or the continued coverage by a publication titled “Reason.”

    Perhaps we should stick to Kavanaugh’s record? There’s plenty of meat there Reason.

    1. Whom the ABA awards its highest rating.

      1. American Bar Association dropped Brett Kavanaugh’s ratings in 2006 after concerns about his temperament and honesty

        Yale Law Faculty Ask Senate to Pause Kavanaugh .
        Originally the Dean, now the faculty of his alma mater

        More Than 500 Law Professors Condemn Kavanaugh For ‘Lack Of Judicial Temperament’
        “More than 500 law professors from nearly 100 law schools around the nation have signed a letter to the U.S. Senate to say that the volatile temperament Supreme Court nominee Judge Brett Kavanaugh displayed on Thursday as he testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee disqualifies him from sitting on the nation’s highest court.”

        Kavanaugh withdraws from Harvard Law gig as students sign letter objecting to his role
        “Judge Brett Kavanaugh will not teach at Harvard Law School in the winter, as he was expected to do, the university announced Monday night in an email to law students.”

        1. 2/2
          A BIG demand that Kavanaugh be withdrawn.

          This from a leading Jesuit publication, America Magazine. (Kavanaugh’s high school was Jesuit)
          Add this the Dean of the prestigious Yale Law School, Judge Kavanaugh’s own alma mater, who called for an invetsigation before there was one.

          The list is growing of supposedly dishonest answers from Kavanaugh on Thursday, now expanded to include diversions, evasions and refusals to key question. Personally, his refusal to deny that he is the total drunk in Mark Judge;s book, a classmate named “Bart O’Kavanaugh” This one is becoming a bandwagon. He claims innocence everywhere EXCEPT this published incident. With all his other claims that he was never a heavy drinker, why would he refuse to say it was not him who puked into a car and passed out?

          It’s quite reasonable to assume he was avoiding perjury. He refused twice. The first one, he set his jaw and went totally silent, defiantly. New “witnesses” are popping up on his heavy drinking, including an ex-girlfriend of Mark Judge, who says Mark described an event similar to Dr. Ford.

    2. The thing is there are Republicans accusing Kavanaugh. These are his partisans accusing him
      So your lazy dismissive thinking doesn’t even apply to the Republican accusers.

      1. Which side of the abortion debate do you suppose those “Republican accusers” fall?

        1. It would be advantageous to my political goals if the Republicans overturned Roe, gay marriage and the privacy cases. I want women to have the right to decide but I’m not personally affected by it.

          1. So you have total contempt for individual liberty.

        2. I don’t love Democrats but I prefer them over Republicans. I like libertarianism but it seems like giving support to libertarians helps Republicans so I’m conflicted. Conflicted but not about my dislike of conservatives and Trump.

          1. And last thing. I took a survey that said “you agree with Gary Johnson 85% or something then it was Hillary Clinton 75% and then it was Trump 63%”. So it turns out I agree with Trump most of the time, lol.

            1. Newest Hihn sock?

              1. Wait for the BOLD and spittle forming at the corner of his comments.

    3. I don’t know which is worse, the pointless partisan bickering or the continued coverage by a publication titled “Reason.”

      That’s close enough to “…for a magazine called Reason…” so I’m calling it.

      DRINK, motherfuckers! DRINK!

    4. Perhaps we should stick to Kavanaugh’s record?

      (snort)

      Kavanaugh committed perjury several times, repeating two lies..

      1) He claims the drinking age was 18, so his drinking was legal. A lie. The drinking age in Maryland changed to 21, before he became a senior, and he was not 18 as a junior. Associated Press

      2) He also lied that the other four people at the party have “denied” the events. HE is the only one denying it. The others all said they could not remember it, BIG difference. Only one other student was in the room, Mark Judge, and even he did not deny it happened, only that he could not recall it. AP Fact Check

      Plus all his evasions and REFUSALS to answer key questions, or attack the questioner — which I doubt he’d tolerate in his own courtroom.
      ,
      Most notable to me, Kavanaugh twice REFUSED to answer if he was the out of control drunk depicted in Mark Judges book as “Bart O’Kavanaugh.” (wink wink) Is that because he was under oath? (lol)

      Check the sources.

      Left – Right = Zero
      Both authoritarian, less than 40% of Americans, and still shrinking..

  13. Here’s something else that I think may be good evidence that Kavanaugh is lying. Kavanaugh might have said he “first learned” about the Ramirez accusation from the newspaper. Well there may be text messages that show Kavanaugh was anticipating the accusation long before he could have read about it in the newspaper. That’s black and white stuff. If he told the Senate he was blindsided by a newspaper when the truth was much different then Kavanaugh lied to bolster his denials which would seem to be the end of it.

    1. You make this too easy:

      https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/brett
      -kavanaugh-did-not-perjure-himself-on-deborah-
      ramirez-and-nbc-owes-him-a-correction

      1. Page not found and I looked using duckgoduck but still couldn’t find the article you reference

        1. Put the following in Google:

          “Brett Kavanaugh did not perjure himself on Deborah Ramirez, and NBC owes him a correction”

          Click on appropriate link for the Washington Examiner.

          Not that it’s gonna do any good, you’re clearly a true believer and emotionally welded to only one position.

          1. An OPINION piece … at the Washington Examiner????

            I can show that Bernie is the second coming of Jesus Christ. On opinion piece at Daily Kos.

            Left – Right = Zero
            Tribal loyalty above truth and facts. Because bigoted

        2. duckgoduck

          I find that duckduckgo.com works better…

      2. They will not issue a correction. They will issue another flimsy accusation. This whole circus is not about fact.

        This is transparently about keeping a nominee off the Supreme Court because of his positions on judicial issues.

        And firing up the masses for the Nov elections.

        1. The Dems taking the house is now in doubt and there’s an excellent chance the GOP will significantly increase their majority in the Senate.

  14. Kavanaugh wrote in favor of lie detectors in the past. He’s terrible on the fourth amendment. And his temperament and partisanship aren’t becoming of a proper Nazgul.

    But he’s a Republican and a firearm proponent. And that’s explains the love fest from our resident horde of yokels.

    1. He did no such thing, both those cases involved the government’s use of polygraphs and in no way addressed their scientific credibility.

    2. “But he’s a Republican and a firearm proponent. And that’s explains the love fest from our resident horde of yokels.”

      He was appointed by Trump, which explains bullshit like this from lefty ignoramuses,

    3. Yale Law Faculty Ask Senate to Pause Kavanaugh .
      Originally the Dean, now the faculty of his alma mater

      More Than 500 Law Professors Condemn Kavanaugh For ‘Lack Of Judicial Temperament’
      “More than 500 law professors from nearly 100 law schools around the nation have signed a letter to the U.S. Senate to say that the volatile temperament Supreme Court nominee Judge Brett Kavanaugh displayed on Thursday as he testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee disqualifies him from sitting on the nation’s highest court.”

      Kavanaugh withdraws from Harvard Law gig as students sign letter objecting to his role
      “Judge Brett Kavanaugh will not teach at Harvard Law School in the winter, as he was expected to do, the university announced Monday night in an email to law students.”

      American Bar Association dropped Brett Kavanaugh’s ratings in 2006 after concerns about his temperament and honesty

  15. I consulted my Ouija board and it said Kavanaugh is innocent. Can we just move on to the confirmation vote now?

    1. Get a second opinion from the Magic 8 Ball.

  16. The polygraph is used to detect physical responses that the average person shows when they are attempting to deceive.

    Which is why a lot of tests start with simple questions that can only be true or false to establish how the individual responds to questioning, used by the tester to evaluate responses to questions that are under doubt.

    A true believer in the Loch Ness monster or UFO bases in Antarctica could pass a polygraph test.

    A person under stress could say rocks are hard or water is wet and fail a polygraph test.

    A pathological liar can pass a polygraph test with flying truthful colors. People can be coached and prepped to lie and pass a polygraph as showing no signs of deception. .

    The polygraph may prove that a person believes what they are saying is true.
    The polygraph is not a lie detector.
    The polygraph is not a truth detector.
    The polygraph is not a fact detector.
    At its very best, the polygraph is a belief detector.

    That, boys and girls, is why polygraph results are not admissible as evidence in a court of law.

    1. “The polygraph is used to detect physical responses that the average person shows when they are attempting to deceive.”

      No, not even close. It detects physical responses that the average person shows when they are nervous/anxious. The polygraph tells you nothing at all about why they are nervous/anxious.

    2. They are useful if you understand there limitations. You mentioned reasons for not admitting them into criminal trials but left out the main reason and that is: people give the results too much weight.

      1. “people give the results too much weight.”

        Yes, and the correct weight to give polygraph results is 0,000

        1. And that’s the weight it has been given here, where here means the issue.
          Here (this page) dozens of bloviations.

    3. The polygraph records, BP, pulse, respirations, and skin conductivity.

      That’s all it does.

    4. I would say it’s more accurate to call a polygraph a “stress detector”.

      1. American psychologist William Moulton Marston (1893?1947) created the systolic blood pressure test. His wife Elizabeth told him that she saw a connection between her emotions and her BP. That led to his research and her collaboration in developing the polygraph and promoting it as a “lie detector” about 1922. Marston also developed the fictional comic book character Wonder Woman inspired by his wife and their life partner Olive Byrne. WW was armed with the Lasso of Truth (and bulletproof bracelets, boomerang tiara, distracting figure). The US Congress in the 1950s established that comic books were seducing the innocents of America into juvenile delinquency and urged a crackdown. I would like to see the US Congress subjected to both the lie detector and the Lasso of Truth. And I want my “Tales From the Crypt” back.,

  17. 21st century lie detector:

    1. Remove clothing.

    2. Inspect genitalia.

    If vagina, then truth. If penis, then lies.

    1. Unless the accused is a Democrat, Black, Muslim Congressman running for AG of Minnesota, then the opposite is true. When the accused is a democrat, unless there is overwhelming evidence, the woman is a liar.

      1. Nuts and sluts. Drag a dollar through a trailer park. Bimbo eruptions.

  18. “”I understand that you’ve taken a polygraph test, Dr. Ford, that found that you were being truthful when you described what happened to you,” said Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.).”

    They also tossed her in the pond and she sank!

  19. Polygraph machines are not “lie detectors”; they are stress monitors and that is dubious too.

    1. Remember Barney Miller when Dietrich said he was from another planet and the polygraph said he was telling the truth?

      1. Thank you. I was trying to remember what show I saw that on. Been driving me nuts all day.

  20. The only thing the polygraph confirmed is she believes what she is saying is true. It does not mean it is actually true or that she is not mistaken on the facts and those involved. The larger problem is how Democrats seized on the results and misrepresented their value in their attempt to smear Kavanagh and brand him not only as a liar but as a rapist. The fact elected officials would so casually attempt to destroy a man’s life, career and family is beyond reprehensible. If anyone should be convicted of lying during the hearing last week it is not Ford or Kavanagh, but the entire slate of Democrat Senators who lied through their teeth about so many things, including the polygraph.

    1. No. Polygraphs dont even detect if the person believes that they are telling the truth.

      There is zero scientific and reproducible evidence that links BP, pulse, skin conductivity, and respirations to lying or truth telling. ZERO.

  21. Polygraphs are merely a tool for eliciting confessions from people that believe they work. Junk science at it’s best.

    1. ^this.

      1. ^this squared.

  22. All of the Democrat members of the Senate Judiciary Committee are attorneys. They all know polygraphs are unreliable, inadmissable in court (unless both sides agree to it), and NOT A SINGLE ONE of them would EVER advise a client to go ahead and submit to a polygraph to “prove you didn’t do it” or “clear your name” or “make people feel better about you”, yet they all make a big deal over the fact that CBF “passed” a polygraph, and Kav refuses to take one.

    CBF as a psychology PhD surely knows the American Psychological Association’s position that polygraphs don’t prove anything.

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

    And her attorneys know that they are crap as well. But, like the SJC Dems, they are well aware that the general public mostly thinks polygraphs are laser-accurate lie detectors. As such, they arranged for Ms. Ford to take a polygraph test without announcing that she was taking it. If Ford “passed” the test, they would present the results as evidence “proving” that Ford was telling the truth. And if Ford “failed” the test… then, “Polygraph? What polygraph?”

  23. All of the Democrat members of the Senate Judiciary Committee are attorneys. They all know polygraphs are unreliable, inadmissable in court (unless both sides agree to it), and NOT A SINGLE ONE of them would EVER advise a client to go ahead and submit to a polygraph to “prove you didn’t do it” or “clear your name” or “make people feel better about you”, yet they all make a big deal over the fact that CBF “passed” a polygraph, and Kav refuses to take one.

    CBF as a psychology PhD surely knows the American Psychological Association’s position that polygraphs don’t prove anything.

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

    And her attorneys know that they are crap as well. But, like the SJC Dems, they are well aware that the general public mostly thinks polygraphs are laser-accurate lie detectors. As such, they arranged for Ms. Ford to take a polygraph test without announcing that she was taking it. If Ford “passed” the test, they would present the results as evidence “proving” that Ford was telling the truth. And if Ford “failed” the test… then, “Polygraph? What polygraph?”

    1. “The Truth About Lie Detectors (aka Polygraph Tests)”, American Psychological Association, 5 Aug 2004.

      “The Truth About Lie Detectors.” Those psychologists and their wacky sense of humor. They are such comedians. My wife did reports for a forensic psychologist (transcribing his dictation tapes to printed reports in standard state format). I bet their conventions are laugh riots.

      Casting doubt about the trustworthiness of Christine Ford’s lie detector tests? It is obvious this was planted at apa.org by clever alt.right operatives intent on the vitiation of Roe v Ward to teleport America womanhood into the universe of The Handmaiden’s Tale. (They used a time machine.)

  24. Did Dr. Ford take 10 different lie detector tests for all 10 versions of her story?

    1. Only 10?

      In the 7 Aug 2018 polygrapher’s notes, Dr. Ford listed P.J. Smyth as a bystander to the attempted rape.
      In her July 6 text to WaPo, Dr. Ford listed P.J. Smyth as a bystander to the attempted rape.
      In her Senate testimony, Dr. Ford testified it was inaccurate to call P.J. Smyth a bystander to the attempted rape but maintained that P.J. Smyth was at the party but not in the room with her and Kavanaugh and Judge.

      P.J. Smyth, Leland Keyser, Mark Judge, Brett Kavanaugh (the four named by Dr. Ford) do not recall any party as described by Dr. Ford and do not corroborate any part of her story.

      No one can absolutely confirm or deny (a) that Dr. Ford was at a party or (b) that Dr. Ford was in a bedroom at a party or (c) that Dr. Ford was the victim of an attempted rape that occurred, according to Dr. Ford, (a) in the mid 1980s (her 6 Jul WaPo txt), or (b) early 80s (her 30 Jul letter to Sen Feinstein), or (c) early 80’s (her statement recorded by the 7 Aug polygrapher), or (d) 80’s (she crossed out the polygrapher’s early), or (e) summer of 1982 (WaPo 16 Sep article).

      The 16 Sep WaPo article (a) claims Dr. Ford said it was “summer of 1982” and (b) reported notes from her 2013 therapy show she said she was in her “late teens” when the assault occurred. Dr. Ford testified she was 15 at that time. “Teens” are 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, seven ages, and if Dr. Ford wants to regard 15 as late teens, any other opinions are pedantic.

      1. We’re gonna need a bigger lie detector.

  25. ..,or anything else…? To state the obvious, lie “detection” is quite good at measuring any response out of accepted baseline, which may be where the anything else happens, or doesn’t, no?…#:-) It’s all appearance to some; a crumbling facade; I believe the human people whom I have heard speak, and I have read their words. Seen their faces. I find all credible, and note Ms. Swetnick has not revealed her credentials through the tv press, no? Speaking of creds…:-)

  26. The polygraph was taken on August 7. The results were released on September 26. Would the results been release have been announced and release had she not passed them? My assumption is no.

    Maybe I’m missing something, but I don’t understand how the polygraph increases the credibility of her statements.

    This test establishes that she is in the population of (truthful or delusional or psychopathic) but it fails to prove that she is in the population that is (truthful + sane + non-psychopathic).

    1. Maybe I’m missing something, but I don’t understand how the polygraph increases the credibility of her statements

      Umm, nobody said otherwise, Sluggo. Her credibility is based on all his perjury lies

      Kavanaugh committed perjury several times, repeating two lies..

      1) He claims the drinking age was 18, so his drinking was legal. A lie. The drinking age in Maryland changed to 21, before he became a senior, and he was not 18 as a junior. Associated Press

      2) He also lied that the other four people at the party have “denied” the events. HE is the only one denying it. The others all said they could not remember it, BIG difference. Only one other student was in the room, Mark Judge, and even he did not deny it happened, only that he could not recall it. AP Fact Check

      Plus all his evasions and REFUSALS to answer key questions, or attack the questioner — which I doubt he’d tolerate in his own courtroom.
      ,
      Most notable to me, Kavanaugh twice REFUSED to answer if he was the out of control drunk depicted in Mark Judges book as “Bart O’Kavanaugh.” (wink wink) Is that because he was under oath? (lol)

      Check the sources.

      Left – Right = Zero
      Both authoritarian, less than 40% of Americans, and still shrinking..

      1. He “llied” about the drinking age. That’s rich. I don’t think you really know the meaning of the word “lie”. Or you’re lying.

      2. Maryland. Under home rule, every county in Maryland has its own alcohol laws. Minimum age applies to buying, possessing and drinking in public. Different Maryland counties allow underage drinking in private residences under different conditions. 1982 at some unknown address in Maryland “underage” drinking could be legal at a private party (not smart but legal).

        In lay terms, if an alleged witness cannot or will not corroborate that X happened, they are denying that X happened and your BIG difference is a quibble.
        None of Ford’s witnesses corroborate that the party happened.
        Same for Ramirez.
        Same for Swetnick.
        Hell, Swetnick cannot follow her written script in her own Declaration.

        I think everyone should refuse to identify as a character in someone else’s creative nonfiction memoir. What character in what book would you identify with under oath? What kind of key question is that?

  27. Sure that, the only truth here is your side has failed in every attempt they have tried to stop the confirmation of Kavanagh and this is just the latest in that long lines of failed tactics.

  28. The ultimate debunking book on the polygraph is David Lykken’s “A Tremor in the Blood: Uses and Abuses of the Lie Detector,” $12 used on Amazon at https://goo.gl/JNG1Bf

  29. Here’s a persuasive Sept. 29 Atlantic article, “Why We Know Kavvanaugh Is Lying,” by Nathan Robinson at https://goo.gl/m3864D

  30. What polygraph tests do detect is emotion. If one reacts to a question such as “Did you steal an apple?”, it could be that an apple was stolen from him or it could be that he may have gotten sick from eating a rotten apple But polygraph “experts” don’t ask follow up questions to find out why they got a reaction to a question. They simply assume the reaction means the fellow is lying.

  31. A good palm reader holding the back of your hand in her palm and tracing lines on your palm with a finger of her other hand could “read” your emotional responses to questions and suggestions better than a polygrapher.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.