Witness account of Ukraine MH17 takedown confirmed by lie detector - RT - Polidicks

[url]http://rt.com/news/217295-mh17-ukraine-military-plane/[/url] [quote=Russia Today]Russia’s Investigative Committee has confirmed the claims by a Ukrainian, who said he witnessed the deployment of a Ukrainian warplane armed with air-to-air missiles on the day the Malaysian Airlines flight MH17 was shot down. READ MORE: Russia to probe media reports that Ukraine military shot down MH17 The interview was conducted on Tuesday, spokesman for the committee Vladimir Markin told the media on Wednesday. This followed a report in a Russian newspaper, in which the Ukrainian citizen, who preferred to remain anonymous, voiced his allegations. [b]The investigators used a polygraph during the interview, which showed no evidence of the witness lying, he added.[/b][/quote] [url]http://www.apa.org/research/action/polygraph.aspx[/url] [quote=American Psychological Association]Lie detector tests have become a popular cultural icon - from crime dramas to comedies to advertisements - the picture of a polygraph pen wildly gyrating on a moving chart is readily recognized symbol. But, as psychologist Leonard Saxe, PhD, (1991) has argued, [b]the idea that we can detect a person's veracity by monitoring psychophysiological changes is more myth than reality. Even the term "lie detector," used to refer to polygraph testing, is a misnomer.[/b] So-called "lie detection" involves inferring deception through analysis of physiological responses to a structured, but unstandardized, series of questions.[/quote]

Wasn't RT banned from here?

[QUOTE=itisjuly;46792985]Wasn't RT banned from here?[/QUOTE] I had too. I saw it and laughed too much, I had to share it. I guess others don't think so...

The horrible satellite photo photoshop was bad enough.

[quote] The investigators used a polygraph during the interview, which showed no evidence of the witness lying, he added.[/quote] lol Polygraphs are so fucking inaccurate, I expected even Russia to know this

He might not have been lying, he might have just been wrong. Either way, playing internet detective is dumb.

Did they test his anus for clenching?

a lie detector? RT is stepping their game up, first it was obviously photoshopped pictures.

Really? Are they still trying to play off that horrible photoshop as legitimate?

[QUOTE=Crash155;46792997]lol Polygraphs are so fucking inaccurate, I expected even Russia to know this[/QUOTE] They do. They're just trying to make their conspiracy about it being a Ukrainian takedown look legitimate by pulling whatever they can out of their asses to do so: this lie detector claim, that terrible Photoshopped image of the jet, etc. What a bunch of retards.

[QUOTE=Pr0fane;46793041]Did they test his anus for clenching?[/QUOTE] Full prolapse, he's lying out his ass!

Polygraphs won't detect a lie if the person believes that the lie is truth.

I love how they retracted their statement that a Ukrainian SU-25 shot down MH-17, when the photoshop showed an SU-27... It was so poorly done too, RT hastily edited the wikipedia articles on the SU-25, contradicting the SU-25's specs that Sukhoi themselves had readily available. The Russian propaganda machine still succeeded with a lot of Russians, and most of the Liberty movement in the US.

[QUOTE=ZombieWaffle;46793098]Polygraphs won't detect a lie if the person believes that the lie is truth.[/QUOTE] People can know their lying and still beat them. To really fuck them up you can do something simple like stop breathing which will throw it way off.

If polygraph testing is so inaccurate, why does law enforcement use them during job interviews (or so I've heard)?

[QUOTE=Crash155;46792997]lol Polygraphs are so fucking inaccurate, I expected even Russia to know this[/QUOTE] what an understatement, they are utterly bullshit and useless yet somehow even some American Government Agencies still use them apparently

Aren't lie detectors wildly inaccurate? Just because you're stressed about an answer doesn't mean you're lying about it. Likewise, just because you're comfortable about an answer doesn't mean you're being honest. And it doesn't really matter if it's accurate or not if they just make up the whole thing, which is likely what they're doing. "We have guys who asked a guy if he saw a plane and they said he said he did, so there was specifically an SU-27 plane with R60 missiles. The naked eye can see details like that on a flying plane, right?"

[QUOTE=Crash155;46792997]lol Polygraphs are so fucking inaccurate, I expected even Russia to know this[/QUOTE] They do know this, but it's RT, the leaders of deception and state propaganda that reddit cremes over for some reason.

Here's an unbiased source. [url]http://sputniknews.com/world/20141224/1016178364.html[/url]

[QUOTE=Megadave;46793532]Here's an unbiased source. [url]http://sputniknews.com/world/20141224/1016178364.html[/url][/QUOTE] [quote=Wikipedia on Sputnik news]Sputnik is an international multimedia news service [b]launched on 10 November 2014 by the Russian Federation owned and operated agency, Rossiya segodnya.[/b] Sputnik replaces the RIA Novosti news agency and Voice of Russia[/quote] [quote=Wikipedia on Rossiya segodnya]Rossiya segodnya (Russian: Россия Сегодня, tr. Rossíya Sevódnya; IPA: [rɐˈsʲijə sʲɪˈvod⁽ʲ⁾nʲə]) is an international news agency [b]founded by a decree of the Russian president Vladimir Putin on 9 December 2013.[/b][/quote] I don't know if you're joking or not.

[QUOTE=DELL;46793114]People can know their lying and still beat them. To really fuck them up you can do something simple like stop breathing which will throw it way off.[/QUOTE] And then the operator will notice the anomaly and make you do the whole procedure again, starting from adjustments. And again. And again. And then some more until you won't be able to control yourself any longer. Services that employ polygraphs know their shit. If they have to use it, they'll make sure you're properly 'prepared' (ie. exhausted). Not to say RT isn't bullshitting, but polygraphs are not as simple as some people think. It's not just the machine, it's also a professional psychologist trained to work with it and analyze the data properly.

[QUOTE=gudman;46793683]but polygraphs are not as simple as some people think. It's not just the machine, it's also a professional psychologist trained to work with it and analyze the data properly.[/QUOTE] They are dumb though

[QUOTE=gudman;46793683]And then the operator will notice the anomaly and make you do the whole procedure again, starting from adjustments. And again. And again. And then some more until you won't be able to control yourself any longer. Services that employ polygraphs know their shit. If they have to use it, they'll make sure you're properly 'prepared' (ie. exhausted). Not to say RT isn't bullshitting, but polygraphs are not as simple as some people think. It's not just the machine, it's also a professional psychologist trained to work with it and analyze the data properly.[/QUOTE] Dude it's literally bullshit, American psychologists deem it useless for ascertaining the veracity of someone's testimony. That's why it's not admissible as evidence in a court of law, because it can be beaten, opposed to forensics and ballistics work which can pinpoint weaponry and DNA to specific people.

[QUOTE=purvisdavid1;46793767]Dude it's literally bullshit, American psychologists deem it useless for ascertaining the veracity of someone's testimony. That's why it's not admissible as evidence in a court of law, because it can be beaten, opposed to forensics and ballistics work which can pinpoint weaponry and DNA to specific people.[/QUOTE] I never said anything of that sort. Of course they can be beaten (not beaten, but rather just making it a waste of time mostly), of course they're not reliable enough to be used in court, obviously compared to physical evidence and various other methods of investigation. But they're not 'piss-easy' to beat by not breathing and stuff like this people say constantly.

[QUOTE=Megadave;46793532]Here's an unbiased source. [url]http://sputniknews.com/world/20141224/1016178364.html[/url][/QUOTE] lmfao [editline]25th December 2014[/editline] if that's unbiased then I'm the queen of england

[QUOTE=gudman;46793683]And then the operator will notice the anomaly and make you do the whole procedure again, starting from adjustments. And again. And again. And then some more until you won't be able to control yourself any longer. Services that employ polygraphs know their shit. If they have to use it, they'll make sure you're properly 'prepared' (ie. exhausted). Not to say RT isn't bullshitting, but polygraphs are not as simple as some people think. It's not just the machine, it's also a professional psychologist trained to work with it and analyze the data properly.[/QUOTE] Which, therefore, means the technique can be manipulated to serve the operator's interests. Both parties are capable of abusing the polygraph if they need to. It's an incredibly unreliable tool when it comes to providing genuine evidence and that's why many courts no longer accept them in criminal procedure.

[QUOTE=RVFHarrier;46793819]Which, therefore, means the technique can be manipulated to serve the operator's interests. Both parties are capable of abusing the polygraph if they need to. It's an incredibly unreliable tool when it comes to providing genuine evidence and that's why many courts no longer accept them in criminal procedure.[/QUOTE] Yeah IIRC that's one of the main reasons why this kind of testimony gets thrown out the window in courts almost universally, because it's as far away from objective as it can be. I wasn't implying that stuff labeled "proven by polygraph!" is reliable. It's not, rather it's the mark of a bullshit.

[QUOTE=DELL;46793114]People can know their lying and still beat them. To really fuck them up you can do something simple like stop breathing which will throw it way off.[/QUOTE] I remember reading somewhere that people would throw it off by biting their tongue or causing themselves pain in some way. Doing that would make the results unclear and more than likely they would be thrown out. [editline]25th December 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=Krinkels;46793270]If polygraph testing is so inaccurate, why does law enforcement use them during job interviews (or so I've heard)?[/QUOTE] If you understand technically how they work you can answer your own question. Google it.

[QUOTE=sasherz;46793905]If you understand technically how they work you can answer your own question. Google it.[/QUOTE] He obviously doesn't, that's why he's asking about it.

Are they sure it was a lie detector and not an E-Meter?