Still more on Prius runaway

Page 3 of 7  

On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 20:27:50 -0400, snipped-for-privacy@snyder.on.ca wrote:

Your cop nephew says you are wrong on all couunts, too? Okay!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 20:27:50 -0400, snipped-for-privacy@snyder.on.ca wrote:

This assumes there are no false positives from lie detector personnel There are. It can further convince them that you are guilty.
I don't know how many false positives there are, reporting that someone actually telling the truth is lying, and no one talks about them but I've been there. And there wasn't even any crime or civil complaint involved. Please see one of my other posts in this thread.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@snyder.on.ca wrote:

All a lie detector tells is how nervous you are. Most of the time, under the circumstances, that is same thing. But there are a high number of false positives.

Has absolutely no impact on the trial since, at least in the US, you can't introduce refusal to take a lie detector at trial. Makes the cops marginally more interested, but most of the more seasoned detectives know that refusal means nothing in real life. They still like to raise their eyebrows and pretend otherwise, but that is mostly to elicit other guilt responses in the person. BTW: At least when I was more active in the area in the 80s, most of the polygraph operators said they would only take voice stress analysis tests if it was them or their families. They thought it measured truthfulness better.
--
I get off on '57 Chevys
I get off on screamin' guitars
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

I guess some people do talk about them.
Some African tribe had a practice, to determine who was teling the truth, of heating something, maybe it was a ceremonial piece of metal to which magical properties were attributed, and having the accused or maybe even witnesses to a crime (I forget) open their mouths and allow the heated thing to be applied to their tongue for an instant. I do believe it was thought to be a magical test of telling the truth, but cynics about magic would say that anyone who was lying was afraid that his tongue would be burnt and his mouth would dry, making that very thing happen.
Those who were not lying were confident no harm would come and their tongues were normally wet, and indeed a moment of being touched didn't hurt them.
Further making it seem like magic. I'm sure a lot of them knew it wasn't, but it was the system.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Well, that and the fact it is unrealiable. Regardless, people are asked to submit to one fairly often and most of them agree to it. Has nothing to do with being under arrest.
Harry K
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 12:27:47 -0400, snipped-for-privacy@mickymall.com wrote:

Right.

BTW, lie detectors are (often?) crap. They talk about liars fooling the examiner, but the problem they don't talk about is non-liars being labeled as liars.
After my first year in college, at my summer job, I used to get groggy at my desk during coffee breaks (I don't drink coffee). I was at the doctor for something else and mentioned this and he sent me to some big specialist in Chicago, who saw me for free as a courtesy to his friend. The doctor, head of neurology at Univeristy of Illinois Medical Center, gave me a sleeping EEG and said I didn't have epilepsy and never did. (The GP had thought I did since I was 13)
I told them how I felt faint (and did faint once or twice) when I stood up suddenly. They called a lab in the building to check that out but they couldn't set up until Monday. My mother wanted to leave the next day so we ended up going to the leading lie detector place in Chicago. Only for the blood pressure part, but he asked me if I would like the whole test (same price) and being an 18-year old boy, I was curious. My mother told me later that before the test even started, he came into the waiting room and told her, "Don't worry Mrs. MM2005, we had a case like this last week and it was all in her mind."
When I got the report back it was full of omissions and factual mistakes, that distorted everything I had said. Especially the parts he paraphrased. He concluded I was making up my symptoms and I can assure you I wasn't. In fact all I had was "orthostatic hypotension" a drop in blood pressure when standing up, something more than a third of people have, but mine was enough to make me pass out a few times, and a few times since then, when I stretched my muscles, and now when I cough a lot. But it's never come close to happening when I'm driving.
This lie detector place in Chicago was even known the Acting Medical Examiner of NYC when I talked to him, and the guy who "examined" me was supposed to be one of their best (although maybe not since he was the one they had come in on Saturday, but he was still good enough to work there.) I think the guy wished he had a better education and a better job and was pretending to himself to be a wise and knowledgable doctor, instead of a polygraph examiner.
I left out some details, like what the omissions and mistakes were, but this is a major reason that lie detector testimony is not admissable in court.
I have no reason to lie about this. There were no consequences to me. The specialist relayed the lie detector report with very little comment, only to say that it said I was malingering, and my own GP may have also been annoyed at me, especially since he was disproven about the epilepsy (which I was glad of. He hadn't told me I had epilepsy. If he had, I would have known he was wrong, because epileptic seizures occur seemingly at random times, not when you stand up), but there were no consequences to that either. I was away at school 9 months a year and by the next year my parents had moved to another city, so I never saw him again anyhow.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 08:54:38 -0700 (PDT), snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net wrote:

I think it was a big plot to convince people that a Prius could go 91 mph. I still have trouble believing that.
Was he on batteries at the time, or the engine?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The CHP saw an act. They saw a guy allegedly "standing on the brakes" but he was in a different car with two steel doors between them. The driver may have been standing on his brakes or he may have been having an orgasm from jerking off too. Neither can be proved or disproved from a visual in a different car.
I was watching a James Bond movies and I'm positive that Bond really did jump out of that plane and land on his feet. I saw it.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mar 18, 6:45am, snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net wrote:

Really OT but on subject of press 'buying into stories'. Balloon Boy is a fine example. They bought the story of the kid being in there and that went on for hours and hours. Not once, not nobody, even mentioned that had the kid been in there he was dead. You cannot breath a helium atmosphere and live.
That story stunk from the git go as the balloon was obviously too small to lift the kid. I watched the whole thing and waited and waited for _someone_ to point out the scientific impossibilities.
Harry K
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 07:36:05 -0700 (PDT), Harry K

I don't recall that anyone ever reported that he was inside the helium filled envelope. There was a small "box" on the underside.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mar 18, 7:41am, snipped-for-privacy@dog.com wrote:

Only one of the kids at the beginning, daddy and mommy a couple times. The original 911 call was 'kid in the baloon'
No, there was no 'box' attached. There was one unconfirmed report that someone had "seen" one but Daddy never confirmed nor denied that there was one. There was also the report that someone had seen the kid fall out of the thing. Also uncofirmed and proven false.
At the end, when they found the baloon, therewas no "box" attached.
Harry K
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 14:20:08 -0700 (PDT), Harry K

The balloon, complete with box was shown repeatedly on television. It was never alleged by anybody that the kid was in the envelope. He had supposedly been yelled at previously for playing inside the box under the balloon.
Oh, look!
http://images.smh.com.au/2009/10/16/793192/420-balloon-boy-presser-420x0.jpg
...and here's a picture of the balloon as it landed, with the box still attached to the bottom:
http://wwwimage.cbsnews.com/images/2009/10/15/image5387411x.jpg
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mar 18, 5:25pm, snipped-for-privacy@dog.com wrote:

Better look again. That is not a "box", it is part of the balloon. News reports all day were full of "in" the baloon and you must have missed the shots of the cops frantically slashing at it looking for the kid.
The "box" report was of someone sayting the saw a 'box' or 'car' _suspended_ from the baloon.
Harry K
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 21:24:06 -0700 (PDT), Harry K

It's covered in mylar like the balloon is, or is made of, but it's definitely a box.

If they slashed the balloon itself it's because he wasn't in the box when they thought he was so they were looking everywhere. In a hot air balloon, one can crawl into the balloon part, especially when the flame is off or after it lands.

There are always two usages of "in the balloon". One considers the entire contraption the balloon and "in the balloon" means in the basket under the balloon. That's what the meaning is here.
The other refers to the part that holds the hot air, in a hot air balloon. And in a helium balloon, it refers to the rubber or mylar balloon, and no one goes into that. It's entrance is probably less than an inch wide. Even for a 6'foot diameter balloon or bigger the opening is only an inch or less. But the cops were desperate and maybe there were multiple rubber balloons and they thought it possibley he could have slid in between two of them. Are they supposed to look only in the basket and then say, "I guess he's not here."     

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You can deny it being part of the baloon all you want. It won't change the facts. That is standard baloon construction method. Compare it with almost any picture of a baloon. You can also do some searching on the 'net for a summary of the action that day and yu will find that there is no 'box'
Harry K
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 07:10:35 -0700 (PDT), Harry K

I'm not sure if yuou're disagreeing with me or not, especially after reading your reply to my other post.
If standard balloon construction means that the box is part of the balloon, that's fine, and that's what I said, that one meaning of balloon is the whole contraption. So even if someone is in the basket, he's still said to be in the balloon, even though no one thinks he is the chamber with the helium or hot air.
Here it's not so much what terminology balloon makers use but what the reporter used, or what the cop used.

My image of a balloon is a big gas bag with a wicker basket hanging from it, held by ropes, with a fire device in the middle of the basket, heating the air inside the balloon. I used balloon in two different ways in the previous sentence. As I said, "ballooon" can be used two ways, the big gas bag or the whole contraption.
Then there was the Hindenberg, which had many large balloons in a frame, with a passenger compartment underneath. I don't think the Hindenberg was called a balloon, but that was probably for advertising reasons. The same reason it was named a dirigible, directable, something whose direction was under control, to separate it from a balloon that wanders almost aimlessly at the whim of the winds. But a dirigible is just one form of balloon.

There was a chamber intended for instruments that had no helium in it. Whether they used the word box or not, that's what I mean.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Yep, I misspoke on the 'standard construction'. On a hot air balloon, they all have a big round skirted opening on the bottom similar (but not as big as) the one pictured - that is for the hot air to enter. A helium one would not be inflated that way. The one pictured is obviously and clearly part of the balloon constructed out of the same materials and too flimsy to hold any concentrated weight over a few pounds.
There are cites on the 'net for a 'battery box' and also cites to no 'box' attached. I assume they are talking two separate items (battery box and a suspended box).
What kicked all this off was my comment that there were plenty of clues from the start that it was fake and the news people (and cops) didn't tumble until late in the game. I called it fake after the first few minutes from the time I began listening. That was before the discredited report of the deputy seeing a 'box' attached.
Harry K
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 21:24:06 -0700 (PDT), Harry K

It is a box, and if you look around I'm pretty sure you can find photos or video showing it in detail with the door open and closed. It was intended for cameras and weather instruments, not human passengers. It was big enough for a small kid to get inside.
The cops slashed the balloon because the wind was catching it and they wanted to make sure it stayed right where it was.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 06:25:29 -0400, snipped-for-privacy@dog.com wrote:

Right. That's why the thing looked like a mushroom. The stem was the box. There's not a lot of point to building a balloon that won't carry a payload. If that's all you want, you can buy one fully made at the supermarket.

Oh, yeah. That was why. The balloon wasn't empty, it still had helium, almost enough to fly since until a littel while earlier it was flying, so letting out the helium kept the wind from taking it away.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Try again. STandard instrumentation on such baloons is suspended _below_ it, not _in_ it.
I listened to the entire thing and the 'box discussion was proven invalid. IIANM it was even mentioned in summaries at the end of the 'action"
It is amazing how people can get two different 'facts' from the same show, one wrong, one right and I am on the right side.
Even the construction of your 'box' shows it wasn't. Clearly covered with the same stuff as the baloon and thus too flimsy to hold _anything_ heavier than a few pounds and that would ahve to be spread out.
Harry K
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.