22-07-2015, 09:04 PM
David,
I found this in searching less than ten seconds, using the terms together, polygraph baseline inconclusive. I am arguing what is obvious, it is wishful, ludicrous for Mr. Doyle to assert as if it was a fact that Yates is reliable because "he passed his polygraph test." Whether he posts that, or you do, it ends this particular area of discussion, because it is an unreasonable conclusion to draw, even without the additional evidence that Yates was suffering from mental illness that ended his ability to live outside of a secure institution, per his wife's own later narrative and the disease description on his death certificate.
Again, who do you expect is your audience, is taking you seriously?
Ralph's documented polygraph test result as reported by those who administered the test to him was that his responses could not be measured because no baseline (contrast) could be established. He responded similarly to control questions at the outset, that were obvious untruths when the untruths were put to him, and also to known truthful questions. If you yearn so badly for this to have meaning other than it has, I have no alternative than to take your analysis of his polygraph test result to be unreasonable. You're making "stuff" up. In taking your position, you are leaving me with a farther reaching impression.
Mr. Doyle asked "what about" Yates's wife's 42 year old memory and recall of what an FBI agent allegedly told he about Yates's polygraph test result? I do no know what to do with that recall.
I weigh it. I consider the overall purpose of DC Dave's interview of Mrs. Yates so many years after the fact, and the emotional impact on the breakdown of her husband's mental health of Mrs. Yates and her children, shouldered by the woman during those 42 years. I compare her recall of an undocumented conversation with an unnamed FBI agent in early 1964 compared to the entire record, including the FBI report related to the polygraph test and what is included in the disease description on Yate's 1975 death certificate, and I conclude that Mrs. Yates's recall does not weigh much. i am satisfied that my conclusion about this is reasonable for the reasons i just stated. I try not to permit broader assumptions to interfere with this analysis.
And, you're burning up your "cred," David. Are these particular arguments really important enough to risk impairing the neutral assumptions I would otherwise approach future discusssions with you?
Huh? Are you lecturing me?
My methodology is responsive to results I have been able to achieve. How is yours working for you?
August, 2012:
I had to literally force this admission.:
September 2013, author Janney in his revised edition of his book, Mary's Mosaic sequel chapter..:
It took 25 months after I disclosed what was obvious to me in mid year 2012. Lt. William L. Mitchell was simply a witness who came forward to tell police homicide investigators what he observed while jogging on the tow path, and in his later testimony at the Ray Crump murder trial.
The resistance to the evidence I found and shared has taught me that too many people have too much invested in a belief system that does not appreciate receiving information that tends to contradict broader assumptions.
Please understand that my experience indicates the problem here is not my approach or my analysis. The problem is the clouding effect of deeply held, broad assumptions. No belief system should interfere with the work of getting to the truth.
I found this in searching less than ten seconds, using the terms together, polygraph baseline inconclusive. I am arguing what is obvious, it is wishful, ludicrous for Mr. Doyle to assert as if it was a fact that Yates is reliable because "he passed his polygraph test." Whether he posts that, or you do, it ends this particular area of discussion, because it is an unreasonable conclusion to draw, even without the additional evidence that Yates was suffering from mental illness that ended his ability to live outside of a secure institution, per his wife's own later narrative and the disease description on his death certificate.
Again, who do you expect is your audience, is taking you seriously?
Quote:http://www.apa.org/research/action/polygraph.aspx
..........
So-called "lie detection" involves inferring deception through analysis of physiological responses to a structured, but unstandardized, series of questions. The instrument typically used to conduct polygraph tests consists of a physiological recorder that assesses three indicators of autonomic arousal: heart rate/blood pressure, respiration, and skin conductivity. Most examiners today use computerized recording systems. Rate and depth of respiration are measured by pneumographs wrapped around a subject's chest. Cardiovascular activity is assessed by a blood pressure cuff. Skin conductivity (called the galvanic skin or electrodermal response) is measured through electrodes attached to a subject's fingertips.
The recording instrument and questioning techniques are only used during a part of the polygraph examination. A typical examination includes a pretest phase during which the technique is explained and each test question reviewed. The pretest interview is designed to ensure that subjects understand the questions and to induce a subject's concern about being deceptive. Polygraph examinations often include a procedure called a "stimulation test," which is a demonstration of the instrument's accuracy in detecting deception.
Several questioning techniques are commonly used in polygraph tests. The most widely used test format for subjects in criminal incident investigations is the Control Question Test (CQT). The CQT compares responses to "relevant" questions (e.g., "Did you shoot your wife?"), with those of "control" questions. The control questions are designed to control for the effect of the generally threatening nature of relevant questions. Control questions concern misdeeds that are similar to those being investigated, but refer to the subject's past and are usually broad in scope; for example, "Have you ever betrayed anyone who trusted you?"
A person who is telling the truth is assumed to fear control questions more than relevant questions. This is because control questions are designed to arouse a subject's concern about their past truthfulness, while relevant questions ask about a crime they know they did not commit. A pattern of greater physiological response to relevant questions than to control questions leads to a diagnosis of "deception." Greater response to control questions leads to a judgment of nondeception. If no difference is found between relevant and control questions, the test result is considered "inconclusive."....
Ralph's documented polygraph test result as reported by those who administered the test to him was that his responses could not be measured because no baseline (contrast) could be established. He responded similarly to control questions at the outset, that were obvious untruths when the untruths were put to him, and also to known truthful questions. If you yearn so badly for this to have meaning other than it has, I have no alternative than to take your analysis of his polygraph test result to be unreasonable. You're making "stuff" up. In taking your position, you are leaving me with a farther reaching impression.
Mr. Doyle asked "what about" Yates's wife's 42 year old memory and recall of what an FBI agent allegedly told he about Yates's polygraph test result? I do no know what to do with that recall.
I weigh it. I consider the overall purpose of DC Dave's interview of Mrs. Yates so many years after the fact, and the emotional impact on the breakdown of her husband's mental health of Mrs. Yates and her children, shouldered by the woman during those 42 years. I compare her recall of an undocumented conversation with an unnamed FBI agent in early 1964 compared to the entire record, including the FBI report related to the polygraph test and what is included in the disease description on Yate's 1975 death certificate, and I conclude that Mrs. Yates's recall does not weigh much. i am satisfied that my conclusion about this is reasonable for the reasons i just stated. I try not to permit broader assumptions to interfere with this analysis.
And, you're burning up your "cred," David. Are these particular arguments really important enough to risk impairing the neutral assumptions I would otherwise approach future discusssions with you?
David Josephs Wrote:Tom...
I for one can appreciate the careful and calculated way in which you approach the evidence... yet your initial assumptions that the FBI reports are reliable and representative of the investigation rather than primae facia evidence for the conspiracy itself is where, I believe, you begin your journey taking a step and building on thsoe steps into the wrong direction..........
Huh? Are you lecturing me?
Quote:Jim Hargrove, on 21 Jul 2015 - 09:53 AM, said:
You didn't point out the FBI claims for the "3 am interview." Tom Scully did on another forum.
Almost all of John's notes for Harvey and Lee are from original source documents. He should go back to that method and approach secondary sources with extreme caution, as he did previously.
My methodology is responsive to results I have been able to achieve. How is yours working for you?
August, 2012:
Quote:Douglas says: (Link)
............
Are you a third party surrogate (or a direct employee) working for the USG whose mission here is to attempt to discredit the confession of a hit-man? The readers of your book review here will not have forgotten that William L. Mitchell (or someone identifying himself as this person) confessed to author Leo Damore---William L. Mitchell himself told Damore that he was Mary Meyer's murderer. This event is well-documented in Janney's book.
Your attempt to suggest otherwise, via your citations, conveniently ignores this vital fact. Peter Janney has not identified Mitchell as Meyer's murderer "because Mitchell could not be found," as you claim; rather, he has identified Mitchell as Meyer's murderer because Mitchell confessed this to Damore. All the citations in the world will not erase this fact.........
I had to literally force this admission.:
Quote:Tom Scully May 8, 2014 at 5:46 pm
............
Mr. Albarelli, facts are valued….
Peter Janney, published in his revised paperback edition of "Mary's Mosaic":
"The purported confessional telephone call to author Leo Damore at the end of March, 1993 by someone claiming to be Mitchell now invites some new consideration. First attorney James Smith's notes about the call, taken when Damore called Smith within hours after his converstaion with the person claiming to be Mitchell, reflected Damore's statements that William Mitchell had been married with five children and was now living under another name in Virginia. None of this appears to be true. In addition, the real William L. Mitchell was not seventy-four years old in 1993, but fifty-four. There has been so far, no indication that Mitchell ever had any liason with the FBI."
Hank Albarelli Posted 29 May 2013
"I have not read it. [My source knew Mr. Mitchell quite well and indeed still communicates and occasionally visits with him; that I passed this on to peter was entirely appropriate.} There is far more to the Mary M. story than has been released thus far…."
September 2013, author Janney in his revised edition of his book, Mary's Mosaic sequel chapter..:
Quote:.....Secondly, given what is now known about William Lockwood Mitchell, the 1993 Damore phone call also raises several new quetions: Most importantly of course, was Damore actually talking to the real William Mitchell, or someone impersonating him?.....
Quote:http://memoryholeblog.com/2014/09/05/the...hot-meyer/
September 5, 2014
........In January 2014 Janney deposed William Mitchell as part of a wrongful death civil lawsuit to procure information on Mitchell's potential responsibility for Meyer's murder. "I am still in the last stages of my research that I hope will pull the pieces together that may point to the fact that [William] Mitchell had a specific role in this event on October 12, 1964. But I do want to make clear that I no longer believe that he was the actual assassin."....
It took 25 months after I disclosed what was obvious to me in mid year 2012. Lt. William L. Mitchell was simply a witness who came forward to tell police homicide investigators what he observed while jogging on the tow path, and in his later testimony at the Ray Crump murder trial.
The resistance to the evidence I found and shared has taught me that too many people have too much invested in a belief system that does not appreciate receiving information that tends to contradict broader assumptions.
Please understand that my experience indicates the problem here is not my approach or my analysis. The problem is the clouding effect of deeply held, broad assumptions. No belief system should interfere with the work of getting to the truth.
Peter Janney's uncle was Frank Pace, chairman of General Dynamics who enlisted law partners Roswell Gilpatric and Luce's brother-in-law, Maurice "Tex" Moore, in a trade of 16 percent of Gen. Dyn. stock in exchange for Henry Crown and his Material Service Corp. of Chicago, headed by Byfield's Sherman Hotel group's Pat Hoy. The Crown family and partner Conrad Hilton next benefitted from TFX, at the time, the most costly military contract award in the history of the world. Obama was sponsored by the Crowns and Pritzkers. So was Albert Jenner Peter Janney has preferred to write of an imaginary CIA assassination of his surrogate mother, Mary Meyer, but not a word about his Uncle Frank.