This exactly describes how you judge evidence. You must have been looking in the mirror when you wrote this.

Your juvenile comment is further proof that you are unserious, uneducated, and insincere.

Now, given how quickly you responded, I know you didn't bother to read any of the articles I cited, not even the ones published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. Of course not, because you have no interest in actually learning anything.

Rather than do actual research, you settled for another problematic AI-generated reply. In contrast, since I had already done considerable research on the PSE and on other VSA technology, I presented you with numerous articles that support VSA reliability, most of them published in scientific journals and one of them published in a law-enforcement technology journal. And your only answer is to accuse me of doing exactly what you do.

I trust you will contact all the federal agencies, state and local agencies, and private corporations that use VSA lie-detection technology and tell them they should stop using it.

Elm st extension:

Lovelady and Shelley walked down to where the extension meets the railway track.

Nothing valid?  What exactly are you taking issue with?  The statistical outlier in terms of the number of votes cast?  The fact that the elections laws were changed in almost every state in the months leading up to the election?  That the margin of victory in several key states was a direct result of the election law changes? Those are just facts. The rules were changed using COVID as a fake pretext.  Those changes had a direct impact on the outcome.  Trump wins easily without them. 

"Former Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton argued Wednesday that Russian meddling in the 2016 election in large part cost her the White House, and said she was "leaning" toward believing that President Trump's campaign did, indeed, collude with the Russians.

During an interview at Recode's Code Conference, Clinton argued that the Russians "could not have known how best to weaponize" damaging information about her campaign and fake news stories perpetrated on social media unless they had been "guided" by Americans."

Nothing valid?  What exactly are you taking issue with?  The statistical outlier in terms of the number of votes cast?  The fact that the elections laws were changed in almost every state in the months leading up to the election?  That the margin of victory in several key states was a direct result of the election law changes? Those are just facts. The rules were changed using COVID as a fake pretext.  Those changes had a direct impact on the outcome.  Trump wins easily without them.