Screening-Out Sabouteurs By Questioning

Robert Cohen wrote:
> The screener is (apparently) not allowed to forthrightly ask the
> ticketed passenger: "Are you for jihad against the United States etal?"
> and/or: "Do you intend to commit saboutage of your airplane?"
>
> Well, the person with such a holding or intention would of course lie.
>
> However: aren't there some ways/means/techniques/signals for discerning
> lies?
[snip]


El Al uses some questioning techniques that don't involve
questions
like that. They are vastly more simple like "where have you stayed"
"What's in your other bag" that kind of thing. They are far more
interested
in your "body language" than anything else.

they can avoid the checks by using explosive loaded turbans or toupees
,you can easilly build a plastic explosives bomb underneath a turban or
a wig and it wont be found .
or even a set of false teeth made of plastic explosives .

very silly.

explosive loaded turbans? which airport on this planet are you flying from?!

sikhs wear turbans!



<izzix@rock.com> wrote in message
news:1155226916.531898.294160@p79g2000cwp. o...
>
> they can avoid the checks by using explosive loaded turbans or toupees
> ,you can easilly build a plastic explosives bomb underneath a turban or
> a wig and it wont be found .
> or even a set of false teeth made of plastic explosives .
>

Bert Hyman wrote:
> DarrylJm (Darryl) wrote in
> news:1155304446.428016.97840@m73g2000cwd. :
> > Robert Cohen wrote:
> >> ...
> >> However: aren't there some ways/means/techniques/signals for
> >> discerning lies?
> >> ...
> >
> > In short: No. My master's thesis was on this topic, specifically
> > on cross-cultural lie detection: accurate detecting when someone
> > from another culture, speaking a different language, is lying. I
> > obviously had to reference previous research on nonmechanical lie
> > detection, including intracultural.
>
> Was that lie detection in a static setting, that is, just listening
> to someone speak at will and attempting to detect lies in their
> statements, or was it in an interactive setting, where the lie
> detector could engage the subject in conversation, ask questions and
> change the direction of the conversation based on the answers?

In my instance, static (using video), because a dialog would by
definition differ between subjects, which would introduce an additional
variable. However, just video, just sound, and both video & sound were
tested. In that instance, there would be little utility of
question/answer with an individual who didn't speak the same language
anyway.

But as I said, I'm not claiming anything based on my one study, but on
the body of research done by others.

I wouldn't go so far as to claim there aren't in existence individuals
who may be good lie-detectors. I just claim that it isn't common, and
it can't be reliably taught to others, and that such a mystic ability
that is not quantified & retested at intervals can fail at any time
without anyone knowing it until it's too late. It's one thing to bring
an umbrella because Granny's knee aches something fierce, it's
something else to plan a shuttle launch based on it.

> > >> ...
> > >> However: aren't there some ways/means/techniques/signals for
> > >> discerning lies?
> > >> ...

While we're on this thread, let's just note that polygraphs ("lie
detectors"), despite their widespread use in government security and
criminal justice systems, are also essentially voodoo science, with
basically zero scientific basis or credibility.

They may intimidate some (or even many) of the people tested by them,
but none of the (remarkably limited) serious research done on them to
date validates them as reliable, tested, demonstrated, or successful
automated ways of detecting lying, with or without human interpretation
of the test results.

On Sun, 13 Aug 2006 12:46:41 -0700, AES <siegman@stanford.edu> wrote:

>> > >> ...
>> > >> However: aren't there some ways/means/techniques/signals for
>> > >> discerning lies?
>> > >> ...
>
>While we're on this thread, let's just note that polygraphs ("lie
>detectors"), despite their widespread use in government security and
>criminal justice systems, are also essentially voodoo science, with
>basically zero scientific basis or credibility.
>
>They may intimidate some (or even many) of the people tested by them,
>but none of the (remarkably limited) serious research done on them to
>date validates them as reliable, tested, demonstrated, or successful
>automated ways of detecting lying, with or without human interpretation
>of the test results.

There were a couple of prominent cases involving so-called lie
detector cases.

There was an FBI agent turned spy named Hanson that couldn't be
detected by a lie detector case and there was a CIA turned spy that
couldn't be detected by the CIA lie detector tests.