quote:

Originally posted by B92F:
I just read an interesting supposed quote from Ms. Ford on Facebook (which of course means that it is true) that said she "cried during the polygraph." The post went on to say that this would lead to a false positive.

My dealings with polygraphs during my LEO career was limited to observing not administrating them. So for those in the know, is this possible?

She testified to that in the hearing.

I have been growing increasingly suspicious of Ford's story.

A twitter thread by TheLastRefuge lined up closely with things that bothered me.

Here is my version of the concerns

We need to consider the possibility (emphasis on "possibility") that Christine Ford’s story is a complete fabrication

How would you create such a fabrication ?

You design it so all the pieces fit. You test your design, and tweak it as needed.

What features would that fabrication have ?

Vague details about the date/time

Ford initially said the incident occurred in the HS summer of the early 80’s

She refined that later to 1982 because she didn’t drive to or from the incident but she got her drivers license Nov 1982 when she turned 16

She said it was “one evening that summer”

Vague details about the place

Ford told the polygraph taker it was in the Montgomery County area.

Ford said in the 30 July 2018 ltr to Feinstein it was at “suburban Maryland area home”

In her written statement to the comm, she said “a house in the Chevy Chase/Bethesda area”

When questioned by Rachel Mitchell, she said “some place between her parents home and the Columbia Country Club”

? All of those places are consistent in general description. But if she never planned to come forward, the only version that would have publicly existed would have been the “ltr to Feinstein” one.


Avoidance of things that could be verified

Ford testified that “someone” drove her to the party and then “someone” drove her home (not necessarily the same person)

She doesn’t remember who in either case

She testified no one has come forth and identified themselves as the driver


Avoidance of identifying specific people

In the 7 Aug 2018 polygraph, she said 4 boys and a couple of girls were at the party (she named Kavanaugh and his friend Mark as the attackers)

In her ltr to Feinstein she said there was a gathering that included her and 4 others. (She named Brett Kavanuagh and Mark Judge)

In her testimony to the committee she said the gathering included Brett Kavanaugh, Mark Judge, P.J. Smyth, a boy whose name she cannot recall, and Leland Ingham (now Leland Keyser)

? did she need to add an unnamed boy to match her polygraph statement which had been released ?

? For a fabrication, what purpose would P.J. Smyth and Leland Ingham serve in the story ? If it was a fabrication, they wouldn’t remember it.

One might add PJ and Leland because the story needed a way for her to escape the attackers. PJ was described as a nice boy and Leland was her life time friend. When her attackers went downstairs and talked to PJ and Leland, Ford escaped the house. Without the inclusion of PJ and Leland, she was trapped in the house w the 2 attackers. The story needed PJ and Leland.

But PJ and Leland would say they didn’t remember the incident. (as they did say). Ford was asked about that by Rachel Mitchell. Ford’s answer was that Leland didn’t hear anything or see anything of the attack. It was just a normal gathering for them; they would not remember this gathering from 36 years ago.

So the story had to be the attack was upstairs. PJ/Leland didn’t see it.

The music was turned up loud and there was a hand on the mouth. PJ/Leland didn’t hear it

xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

If one tried to create a fabrication, it would have a lot of the features of Ford’s story

Hoping this possibility gets investigated also

This week of lost time on conformation will give the Democrats and MSM enough time to make up more fake shit and more fake accusations.
I think the "October Surprise" this year will be the drop kick of the Kavananagh nomination.

Yeah. I think he's done for.

quote:

Originally posted by sdy:
I have been growing increasingly suspicious of Ford's story.

A twitter thread by TheLastRefuge lined up closely with things that bothered me.


......

If one tried to create a fabrication, it would have a lot of the features of Ford’s story

Hoping this possibility gets investigated also

If you search my posts in this thread, you will see I have suspected this was scripted from the get go.

Concocting a plot line with just the right details, plausible but not verifiable or impeachable, would be childs play for the Hollywood scriptwriters.

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:
The claim was that the 15 yo girl did not want her parents to know she had been drinking beer in a house with boys.

And after watching her mannerisms during her testimony, she is still playing a 15 year old girl, from the annoying "voice fry", the scared look, as well as the constant swiping the hair from her face. She is playing her part to a tee, maybe she will win an Emmy.

quote:

Originally posted by B92F:
I just read an interesting supposed quote from Ms. Ford on Facebook (which of course means that it is true) that said she "cried during the polygraph." The post went on to say that this would lead to a false positive.

My dealings with polygraphs during my LEO career was limited to observing not administrating them. So for those in the know, is this possible?

crocodile tears-

Function: noun plural
: pretended tears or sorrow
Word History An ancient fable tells of a crocodile that sheds tears while eating its prey. Of course, a crocodile is not really sorry for killing and eating another animal because that's how it survives. So when someone is said to shed crocodile tears, it refers to a show of pretended sorrow usually by someone who has done something cruel.



.

Yes, sdy, Ford's "case" against Kavanaugh is beyond suspicious. It's obviously a hatchet job. Julie Swetnick, another Kavanaugh accuser, had sexual misconduct charges brought against her by a company she worked for.

https://www.oregonlive.com/sil...one_of_kavanaug.html

Also, her former boyfriend filed a restraining order against her-- this has been cited in this thread-- because she made threats to kill him and his wife and their child even years after they broke up.

It's a national disgrace that these women could threaten to destroy the career of a distinguished and honorable man. We are living in a modern Inquisition. Accusation alone is enough to condemn the accused to figurative "death."

I have never seen so much rampant-- and unchallenged-- and unchallengeable irrationality.

quote:

Originally posted by GGF:
This week of lost time on conformation will give the Democrats and MSM enough time to make up more fake shit and more fake accusations.
I think the "October Surprise" this year will be the drop kick of the Kavananagh nomination.

Yeah. I think he's done for.

The Democrats and MSM will attempt to make up more fake shit and more fake accusations... count on it. BUT don't despair. McConnell will NOT drop kick the Kavananagh nomination. There WILL be a vote of the full Senate.

The only "drop kick" that can happen would come from Flake, together with Collins and Murkowski.
In the end, I'm still hopeful that all three will be Yes votes.

quote:

Originally posted by sdy:
I have been growing increasingly suspicious of Ford's story.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

If one tried to create a fabrication, it would have a lot of the features of Ford’s story

Hoping this possibility gets investigated also

I'm convinced the woman is a sociopath. She maybe even had s somewhat fatal attraction towards Kavanaugh and resented that he never gave her any notice. Him ending up on the SC short list maybe brought back those feelings.

And then there's a fact no one's talking about. That Chris Garret, the guy Ed Whelan first accused in the mistaken identity tweet rant, had dated Ford supposedly months prior to the alleged incident...

Did Ms. Ford lie about when and why the additional front door was added to her home?

https://www.thegatewaypundit.c...an-senate-testimony/

quote:

Originally posted by GGF:
This week of lost time on conformation will give the Democrats and MSM enough time to make up more fake shit and more fake accusations.
I think the "October Surprise" this year will be the drop kick of the Kavananagh nomination.

Yeah. I think he's done for.

Oh nonsense.

quote:

Originally posted by GGF:
This week of lost time on conformation will give the Democrats and MSM enough time to make up more fake shit and more fake accusations.
I think the "October Surprise" this year will be the drop kick of the Kavananagh nomination.

Yeah. I think he's done for.

How many people take a few days off for fall/winter holidays?

How many people give gifts of money or purchased items to others during this time?

How many people travel during this time of year to visit friends or relatives?

How many people commit time to sports this time of year to watch, study and discuss the teams, the players, the games and all that goes with it?

Imagine all that time and energy standing up to the GDC leftists involved in all this crap.

Imagine a concerted effort to fight these people with all that energy, resources and numbers of people, protesting the state's and nation's capitols, writing, emailing, calling representatives, and evangelizing the votes this midterms?

Imagine what the results would be.

Or sit in the street in sackcloth and ashes.

“Trump ordered FBI investigation:”
Perhaps he will kill two birds with one stone?

This is a chance for the FBI to start earning back respect.

Will they follow criminal leads if they point to Democrats, Liberals, and friends of Clinton's?

quote:

Originally posted by lbj:
Did Ms. Ford lie about when and why the additional front door was added to her home?

https://www.thegatewaypundit.c...an-senate-testimony/

She merely said they discussed the disagreement over the door during couples counseling in 2012. i don't recall her saying the remodel was contemporaneous to the counseling, and the quotes in your link do not show that, so they could have been rehashing an old argument. That would not be unusual during such counseling.

quote:

Originally posted by 226Reasons:

quote:

Originally posted by ensigmatic:
As suspected: The polygraph examination was entirely bogus:

When he administered the polygraph exam, it consisted of just two questions: "Is any part of your statement false?" and "Did you make up any part of your statement?"

Full article: WATCH: Ex-FBI Agent Reveals Details of Polygraph Test He Gave Christine Blasey Ford

Here's my question: why the ambiguity? Which statement? For all we know she could have given her statement on her love of alcohol before the lie detector test. That's a very simple way to subvert the lie detector. Why not ask is any part of your statement about Brett Kavanaugh false? Did you make up any part of your statement about Brett Kavanaugh?

I wouldn't put something like this past them.

I read the polygraph report. The examiner who conducted the exam is experienced and has excellent credentials.

The Zone of Comparison type test he used is the correct type of test to be used in a case like this, and the zone of comparison test would normally be run with two relevant questions asked in three repetitions of the test, in addition to a stim test.

Typically there would be only two relevant questions in a Zone test. Perhaps the most critical step in preparing the test is constructing the two relevant questions.

A "did you lie" test is the least powerful test you can give. The examinee must face severe adverse consequences for having the truth found out to elicit a significant response. To the guilty party, the consequences of having the truth known to a "did you shoot John?" type question are far more severe than having the truth known to a "did you make up any part of your statement?" type question. That is especially so if the memory is faulty, or for a person with a mental condition who has constructed an alternate reality in their mind and convinced themselves of their fiction.

Typically the examiner would obtain a written statement under oath as to the facts, then run the test on the person's statement, there being consequences for lying under oath in addition to other secondary consequences.

After reading her statement and the examiner's questions, I do not believe the examiner's questions had the needed specificity and impact. A lot depends on the pre-test interview. Since she was brought in by her attorneys, I the attorneys had a lot to do with the wording of the questions and her written statement, and the fact that her statement was not sworn. In a criminal case the examiner would have interrogated the examinee; private attorneys do not want examiners to interrogate their clients.


In my view, it was a weak polygraph exam that missed the mark.

quote:

Originally posted by mbinky:
Flake did not change his mind because a few woman yelled at him. He was offered something by Coons and the left. He entered the senate for wealth and power, and once Trump saw through that and called him out he was pissed. He figured he would spend the rest of his days getting rich in the senate and Trump took that away from him.

Maybe it was a nice cushy job offer when he leaves, maybe it was a "signing bonus" from CNN or MSNBC, who knows. He did it for the money, not because of those women.

The more I've watched the video and what Flake has said since, I think the whole elevator scene may have been staged. Flake is one evil SOB and I wouldn't put anything past him.

quote:

Originally posted by HayesGreener:...

As someone who’s never taken or given a polygraph I’d just like to say I appreciate the insight. Thanks for taking the time to write that out.

quote:

Originally posted by sdy:
I have been growing increasingly suspicious of Ford's story.

I'm convinced that her entire story is a construct, designed by Feinstein, lawyers, legal consultants, image consultants, etc. And I'm also convinced that this upcoming "investigation" will backfire, dragging Ford through the process. Again, Democrats are not concerned with facts, data and evidence, only pure emotion. They are betting the bank that brave and inspiring will trump fact and evidence. It's a poor, desperate gamble.

quote:

Originally posted by Loaded Round:

quote:

Originally posted by mbinky:
Flake did not change his mind because a few woman yelled at him. He was offered something by Coons and the left. He entered the senate for wealth and power, and once Trump saw through that and called him out he was pissed. He figured he would spend the rest of his days getting rich in the senate and Trump took that away from him.

Maybe it was a nice cushy job offer when he leaves, maybe it was a "signing bonus" from CNN or MSNBC, who knows. He did it for the money, not because of those women.

The more I've watched the video and what Flake has said since, I think the whole elevator scene may have been staged. Flake is one evil SOB and I wouldn't put anything past him.

Honestly, I think Flake is just a naive, weak little man. I think he really believes that this olive branch he's extended to the dems will somehow help save the process and appease the leftist radicals in the senate and out. Truly he believes that. And truly he is that stupid. That and he has no fortitude whatsoever.