1. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    I was asked by @iain carstairs if I would take a lie detector test:

    I said I would if he paid for it. he said he would pay for it, and looked up an examiner in Los Angeles. http://polygraph-west.com/

    I have mixed feeling about it as lie detector tests do not seem to have a strong scientific basis. But it might be interesting.

    I have invited Iain here to discuss the details, to see if something might be mutually satisfactory.
    • Like Like x 1
  2. Pete Tar

    Pete Tar Moderator Staff Member

    Why would you care to prove that you believe what you say? Science is proof enough. Don't play their petty games.
    All it'll 'prove' to them is that you've been brainwashed.
    • Like Like x 1
  3. JRBids

    JRBids Senior Member

    Tell him you will if Max Bliss and Russ Tanner take one, too. :)
    • Like Like x 1
  4. Alhazred The Sane

    Alhazred The Sane Senior Member

    "Are you being paid by the government to help cover up the chemtrail conspiracy?"

  5. David Fraser

    David Fraser Senior Member

    I know a little about polygraphs. You would not get to see questions in advance as the test is based on stress reactions.

    They have rolled it out on England and Wales for use with sex offenders on parole. The theory is you are able to set baseline questions based on previous offences and then use that as the guide when questioning about new offences. It is not admissible in court even though the trials were successful. From what I understand most of the offenders volunteer information possibly from fear of getting caught out. As a tool it can only be used to prove guilt not innocence due to its flaws.

    I can't see the value in this context unless it is accusatory in nature. Even then they can say you are trained in countermeasures or delusion. I volunteered for a session to be recorded as part of my studies and I did not pass as such but had conflicting results. He did not detect any of the lies but said I was lying on some truth questions. A very strange experience.
  6. JRBids

    JRBids Senior Member

    That is what I would be afraid of, telling the truth and having some machine say it's a lie. It seems a little quackery.
  7. Josh Heuer

    Josh Heuer Active Member

    Lie detectors are bogus. If you can keep yourself calm enough you can lie. I know this from experience, I took a little challenge and was able to lie with no problem. Not everyone can get in that mind set but it's definitely possible.

    There's a good reason why they're not admissible in court.
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Like Like x 1
  8. O_O

    O_O Member

    In the eyes of dedicated "chemtrail" folk, this might be a no-win situation for Mick. That is,
    1. not taking the polygraph will be damning
    2. any possible indication of a "lie" or uncertainty in the test will be damning (a possibility, taking into account the varied history of reliability that these things have)
    3. passing with flying colors will only "prove" him to be an adroit liar
    I mean, if Mick can control his biofeedback readings, then, you know, he's an inter-dimensional reptile-humanoid, ja?

    I'm trying to imagine a positive outcome for this offer. I was instantly hopeful when I read about it, but soon felt naive.
    Any developments in your discussion with Iain or your feelings on the matter, Mick?
    • Agree Agree x 1
  9. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    I decided just not to do it, due to the "no-win" scenarios you list, and it all seeming like too much bother for no real benefit. I told Iain this, and he said that's what he expected.
    • Like Like x 1
  10. O_O

    O_O Member

    Oh okie-doke. I should've bothered to read the Twitter back-and-forth. You handled the situation well, I feel, with your straight-forward appeal to facts and science. Peter was right, it's best to let the evidence speak for itself.
  11. David Fraser

    David Fraser Senior Member

    I think that is a good call. Given his blog is a CT wish list, including Boston and Crisis Actors, I suspect the exercise was for his own publicity.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  12. Grieves

    Grieves Senior Member

    I don't see what value a polygraph could possibly have in the assessment of a person's true disposition toward beliefs and opinions they've stated. Aside from being an increasingly criticized practice (many jurisdictions have concluded polygraphs are a pseudoscience and entirely inadmissible in court) the test is only pertinent to specific events. What questions could possibly apply in this case except "Were you lying when you said: *insert Mick stating an opinion here*?"
    • Agree Agree x 1
  13. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    I only entertained the idea at first because I thought it would be interesting to do. But it seems like regardless of the outcome it would be counterproductive.
  14. cloudspotter

    cloudspotter Senior Member

    Turn it around and put a chemtrail believer in the chair

    "Can contrails persist for more than two minutes?"
    "Did contrails behave like this when you were growing up?"
    "Would you expect to find Aluminium in air samples?"

    They'd probably answer No to all of these and be confident they were telling the truth
  15. David Fraser

    David Fraser Senior Member

    Or ask them if they are willing to undergo some hypnosis sessions to help identify when they first saw a contrail ;-)
  16. JRBids

    JRBids Senior Member

    I don't know what the point was anyway. How does a person believing or disbelieving in something prove/disprove whether or not they exist? After last night's skywatch call, I'd like to have Russ Tanner, MadisonStar Moon and John Massaria take lie detector tests and ask THEM if they believe chemtrails are real.
  17. Josh Heuer

    Josh Heuer Active Member

    It's pretty simple...the only way in their mind to prove their pseudoscience is by using more pseudoscience :D
    • Funny Funny x 1
  18. qed

    qed Senior Member

    Drat. I wanted to test your non-belief in some of the other conspiracies on this site;).
    • Like Like x 1
  19. TEEJ

    TEEJ Senior Member

    • Funny Funny x 3
  20. occams rusty scissor

    occams rusty scissor Active Member

    I'm fairly certain any lie detector test results would be spun in a similar manner to all other CT fantasies. You'd be damned either way. We are talking about a crowd of people who are convinced that a bomb didn't go off and kill and injure people, despite it being broadcast live on TV and having thousands of Independant witnesses. Whether positive, negative or indifferent, any result would be "interpreted" after processing and filtering in the usual CT manner.
    • Agree Agree x 5
  21. Hevach

    Hevach Senior Member

    Back around 2003 or 4, a couple actual experts took lie detector tests that truthers expected to prove their case. They passed them with flying colors. This, of course, was absolute proof of the extent of their CIA interrogation resistance conditioning, because nobody can pass a lie detector that well.
    • Like Like x 4
    • Agree Agree x 1
  22. anacoluthon

    anacoluthon New Member

    I don't understand why he (Iain) would want to take a lie detector test. Instead, why doesn't he put forward some physical proof that 'chemtrails' exist?
    • Agree Agree x 2
  23. JDubyah

    JDubyah Member

    A lie detector test in this case would, at best, show that both Mick believes what he believes, and that Iain believes what he believes. Those two things would be at odds, but would also confirm that we shouldn't listen to belief, but on facts and science ... and then we're right back where we started.
    • Agree Agree x 4
  24. occams rusty scissor

    occams rusty scissor Active Member

    Because he can't?
    • Like Like x 3
    • Agree Agree x 3
  25. Svartbjørn

    Svartbjørn Senior Member

    This.... this is why I hate procedural shows like CSI and Law/Order... People do NOT understand how polygraphs work.. they're not LIE detectors. You can tell a bold faced lie IF you believe said lie, or convince yourself that you believe it. For example.. you can take one Polygraph about being a human controlled by spiders with psychopathic powers from the planet Metebelis III and fail miserably.. then convince yourself that are ARE said human, and then pass the same test.

    Polygraphs work on averages and how a person's body -typically- responds to stress... THATS why Polygraphs are used as a requirement for entrance into the CIA, FBI or police forces.. it gives a measure of how you respond to being stressed, not necessarily the answers you give. For the love of the great spaghetti monster in the sky, read a book or two.. or better yet sit through the hiring process and watch what happens.. geeze. (this isnt directed at you guys, just more a statement of frustration at people clawing for anything to prove their point.. literally an appeal to authority)

    *Edit.. it would appear that JDubya already beat me to the punch with this post lol ... Sorry J, didnt mean to stomp on ya there.
    Last edited: Dec 19, 2014
    • Like Like x 2
    • Agree Agree x 2
  26. JDubyah

    JDubyah Member

    No worries, different posts, different takes on the subject.

    And I think there's a difference between say, "Do you believe there's a conspiracy to spray 'Chemtrails' over the world's population' vs "Have you seen any verifiable proof of the Chemtrail conspiracy". Both are yes/no questions, but one would focus on belief, the other on fact. CTers are high on belief, low on verifiable facts. *Unless* they believe that a lot of the garbage that gets posted as 'fact' really are 'facts'.. then we're back to square one again. I think Mick was right to turn this one down, as the questions could easily go into the grey areas of Geoengineering plans/studies that are 'real', but that doesn't make them 'real' in practice yet, and how you answer a question like, "Do you believe Geoengineering is real?" with yes/no in that context?
    • Like Like x 3
    • Agree Agree x 1
  27. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    i would think an experienced polygraph guy would know you have to ask very very specific questions. i mean planting a tree is geoengineering, no?
    • Agree Agree x 1
  28. Svartbjørn

    Svartbjørn Senior Member

    depends really.. here are some examples Ive found of PG questions (or variations there-of)


    They're very generic questions.. and when it comes to things that are less concrete (Like ideas and concepts) there's a LOT of room for error... so most likely what would happen would be a some form of pre-test (as indicated above) which would help lay out the grounds for the ideas and concepts, as well as the ACTUAL definition of what Geo-Engineering is.

    No matter how you look at it, its a lose/lose. If Mick comes out as being honest, then he'll have been trained by the alphabet orgs to resist polygraph interrogation.. if he comes out as un-truthful, its "proof" that Geo-Engineering is a real thing. If our friend in question here (cant remember his name off hand) comes out as honest, then it shows that Geo-Engineering is real.. if he comes out as DIS-honest then the test is a sham and he's been set up by the alphabet orgs to look bad.

    This is -exactly- why Polygraphs arent seen as legit evidence in a court case but CAN be used in an investigation. Yes and No questions leave a LOT of room for interpretation, and it all depends on how your perceive the question.

    Example: A friend of mine was applying to be a cop in Toronto.. the tribunal he was sitting before asked him "Do you like kids." He was a family guy, so he says yes. The questions then got dark.. what do you mean, you like kids, how do you like kids, are you sexually attracted to kids etcetcetc..now, granted, this was to put pressure on the guy to see how he'd handle having his words twisted against him intentionally etc.. but you get the point.

    He took a polygraph after that interview and when asked "do you like kids" his results went off the charts BECAUSE he had that image and that memory bouncing around inside his skull. This is also why investigators do NOT ask yes and no questions.. they ask "open ended" questions and let the subject fill in the blanks. Not only does it give you insight into the mind of the person you're interviewing, it also allows for them to give you information you may NOT have had before. This is what so many people out there just DONT understand.
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
  29. Village Cat Dad

    Village Cat Dad New Member

    Poly's are tenuous, at best, in my experience. I have had polygraphs taken by gov't alphabet folks (who shall remain nameless ;-). The results vary as to your sensitivity of the emotional response the question. For example: I have a relative who is a pharmacist. He is licensed to dispense all sorts of drugs, as well as being one of the managers of the drug store (trusted with the $$$). Yet, he is an "non-sensitive". He had some difficulty initially getting hired because he registered "flat-line" on the poly. In essence, regardless of the question, he wouldn't show a "true" or "false" reading. On the other hand, I'm a "sensitive". Accuse me of something and I'll have an emotional response, irrespective of whether it is true or not. So the poly is a poor test for "truth", in my opinion.
    • Agree Agree x 3
    • Like Like x 1
  30. MeeSeeks

    MeeSeeks New Member

    I realize how old this thread is, but I'm really interested in polygraphs and have some experience with it, so I just wanted to comment in the off chance that somebody revisits this thread. Maybe it will give someone some insight.

    Anyway, I've taken multiple polygraphs in my lifetime with mixed results. Each one of them was for a hiring process for one job or another. It's my estimation that the US federal agencies that use them in hiring use them as a sole discriminator to cut the applicant pool when they've extended too many conditional offers of employment. The reason I say that is because they initially tell you that when evaluating polygraph results they "look at the whole person". I consider that a blatant lie. People can pass the written entrance exams, the panel interviews, the writing samples, and the PT tests, but then fail the polygraph and be disqualified even though they've provided no more evidence or statements beyond polygraph charts that something may have been omitted or fabricated on their applications. So, in cases where an applicant has passed each step of the process but had a polygraph chart that someone considers outside of acceptable parameters, the applicant basically gets disqualified based on a hunch or assumption.

    Having gone through several polygraphs, I can say that the routine that the examiners use are very very predictable. I’m not necessarily saying everyone’s routine is exactly the same, but definitely close enough to recognize when the examiner is trying to manipulate you. After one of my polygraphs, the examiner told me that I failed and started going through each one of the questions again after saying he wanted to “help me out” to get me through the process and hired. That was absolutely a lie. Anyway, I offered no additional information and the interview concluded. I was later contacted by a background investigator for that same job and was told that I was moving forward in the process. When I met with that investigator he told me that the notes from the polygraph examiner stated that I had no troubles with the polygraph. Imagine my shock!!!

    Here’s a bonus anecdote on a lighter note:

    In a completely separate polygraph exam, during the pre-exam interview, the examiner noted that I studied Russian and served in the military to include being stationed in the Republic Of Korea for a year and commended me for it. Later on, he somehow started going down a rabbit hole that I could have possibly been a plant from the Russian mafia to smuggle drugs into and out of Korea. That was some Alex Jones level insanity that he had absolutely no basis for. I actually found it hilarious.

    Too Long; Didn’t Read Version: Polygraphs are psychological manipulation.
    Last edited: Jul 15, 2017
  31. Hevach

    Hevach Senior Member

    Another alternative I used in a similar bet in college was just be completely keyed up at every question. Have a baseline halfway up the chart and make the comparison impossible. Also not something everybody can do but the reverse I couldn't pull off.

    Edit:didn't see how old this thread was