Quote Originally Posted by Bilbodoggins View Post
As usual, without any training, experience or education Todd knows how to do something better than the experts.

You know nothing about how a polygraph is administered or why it works.

Here are just a couple of points:
Of COURSE there were more than three questions. The company is not going to tell you exactly what they did. They have proprietary methods and trade secrets just like many businesses.They are not going to let an outsider come in and tell them how to run their tests! They provided results.
Having a neutral third party, who provided the questions, in the room would invalidate the machine's electronic interpretation of the responses.
I'm not going to go into why this is so. Take a class, read a book!

Polygraphs are much more reliable than they were a decade ago. But the law is slow to catch up with technology.
Quote Originally Posted by Bilbodoggins View Post
Serious question because I must have missed something, Why was Eric Persson's test "more reliable?" and when did she agree to take it and then reneg?
There actually weren't more than 3 questions.

I was wrong about one and only one thing, regarding the polygraph situation. Apparently, you cannot ask more than 3-4 questions in a polygraph test, due to time limitations regarding how long you can safely be hooked up to the machine. The examiner asks 6-7 baseline questions (such as "Do you have 11 fingers?" or "Do you live in the United States?") in order to compare them to the "relevant questions" (the ones we really want answered). The remaining 3-4 questions are the relevant ones.

So I was indeed wrong to criticize there only being 3 questions to the test. That was standard, and I didn't realize it.

However, I was very RIGHT to question the other elements of the test. Namely:

1) Why did she travel 300 miles to a ghetto location in North Las Vegas, just to take a polygraph test?

2) Why was this arranged and directed by her PR firm? Would they have reported a negative result? Did they give her the exact questions well in advance?

3) How many tests did she take before getting this one with the desired result?


If a neutral third party were arranging or supervising the test (rather than her own PR firm), then we could have the following assurances:

1) She only gets one chance to take it

2) The results are reported to the public no matter what

3) The questions aren't provided days in advance

4) The polygraph tester is not being bribed to lie about the results


A polygraph test arranged and reported by a highly friendly party (your own PR firm) is useless.