Quote:


How about not being hired.  I'd say that's a pretty specific consequence you sanctimonious [expletive deleted].

Quote:


Add me to the 'just got lucky' list you're compiling.

Quote:


I sat and reflected on this last passage for quite some time. After much thought, I've concluded this is the most outrageous statement I've seen yet posted to these bulletin boards.

Quote:


To those who's voices would be stilled by your threats, I pray your chains rest lightly upon you as you lick the boots of Herr Ngoo.

As the ancient Spartans so magnificently phrased it:

Mo lon labe

JM

Evidently you haven't read the numerous posts on this site. If you had you wouldn't have to ask the question.

All of the "truth" devices are bovine poop including "brain wave science". I would volunteer to be a research subject for the validity/invalidity of "all" of these divices if I could be assured that the true results would be plastered in every newspaper and on every TV station in this country. The brain wave science is just another money making scam. If there was anything to this "technology" they could do so much more good turning it toward the medical profession. And make so much more money.

Does your anti-polygraph/CVSA stance include other devices such as the 'P' wave monitor - Facial thermal imagine - Etc.?
I would be interested in any accurate statistical data indicating that any individual found to have failed the Polygraph and was indeed innocent suffered any specific consequences.

xpmachina.  If itz true that you passed the poly test by resorting to CM, I'd say you just got lucky.  Thatz about it.   Hope you also have the same luck when you see your doc the next time and he failed to diagnose a cancerous tumor because you failed to co-operate with him.  I understand why you need to make these postings.  Those just don't realize that you'll have no chance to do so when the day comes for you to go behind bars.

J.B.,

Among other things, you wrote:

Quote:


With regard to the scientific community's acceptance of CQT polygraphy, I would remind you of Iacono & Lykken's survey, which is discussed at p. 22 of the 2nd ed. of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector:

Quote:


That CQT polygraphy is not unanimously supported has everything to do with its lack of an established (or establishable) accuracy rate and it's lack of grounding in the scientific method.

Propoly wrote on Mar 29^th, 2002 at 10:37pm:


I post comments. I look and have looked for answers. Now that I have become more educated on the subject, I post answers when I feel I have them.

Quote:


I guess the inference here is that neither Gino or myself are hard working nor are we honest, and that we have posted 'biased' information about the polygraph while you, Mr. 'Propoly', have not. Let's read on and see.

Quote:


To date, Propoly, I have seen nothing from you except gratuitous assertions and personal opinion. Precious little information. None in fact.

Quote:


Well that's a shame. I guess when your polygraph interrogation victims actually have a chance to fight back and speak their minds, as well as bring to light the incredible pantload of BUNK the travesty of a sham of a pseudo-science polygraphy is, you fold like a cheap card table and crawl back to the heavily censored bulletin boards where your particular brand of magic snake oil can be peddled free from the scrutiny of others who know all about you. Take care,

bt

Gino, Beech


Since my replies to messages on this site, I have yet to get a negative reply from the readers who are actually posting comments, looking for answers. To be perfectly honest with you, I don't believe I will. Because if the truth be known, the majority of the individuals who are seeking information about the polygraph examination are hard working honest people, who are seeking unbiased information. It's obvious in your comments, Gino and Beech, no matter what information is provided about polygraphy on this site, you're not going to agree with. Therefore, as of this date and time, I will not respond to, or even waste my time replying to one of your comments as it pertains to what I wrote in an attempt to answer the questions of the curious and sincere individuals as it relates to polygraphy.

George,

Quote:


Again you skirt the issue.  There are accepted peer-reviewed field research studies on CQT polygraph and there is a current accuracy rate established by those studies.  The reason CQT polygraph has not been unanimously accepted as a scientific method has nothing to do with its current accuracy rate or its scientific basis.  It has to do with the squabbling between ideological camps as to who's question format is better.   Your reference to an interrogator's ability to render an opinion on truthfulness has nothing to do with CQT polygraph.

J.B.,

You refer, of course, to the message thread, The Scientific Validity of Polygraph. My assertions regarding the validity of CQT polygraphy are that it has not been proven by peer-reviewed scientific research to differentiate between truth and deception at better than chance levels under field conditions, and that because it lacks both standardization and control, it can have no validity. I think enough has been said about this in that discussion thread that critically thinking readers can draw their own conclusions about these arguments. The reason I haven't stated the "current accuracy rate" is that an unscientific procedure like polygraphy can not have a meaningful accuracy rate. It would be rather like attempting to state the accuracy rate of the opinions rendered by police interrogators regarding the truthfulness of those they interrogate. Even if an accuracy rate could be determined for a sampling of interrogations, that rate would have no predictive validity for the opinion rendered in any particular interrogator's interrogation of any particular person on any particular day.

I'd also like to make a fine point about what Gino wrote above: it's not the case that CQT polygraphy has been proven by peer-reviewed research to be no more accurate than chance, but rather that CQT polygraphy has not been proven by peer-reviewed research to be more accurate than chance (under field conditions). There is an important difference between the two propositions.

George,

You still amaze me.  You have virtually dropped out of a debate that was started on your assertions of polygraph validity.  Too date you have never presented any credible peer-reviewed research to support any of your assertions.  You haven't even said what the current accuracy rate.

Gino,

You say chance.  What does the current peer-reviewed research say of polygraph accuracy?

Quote:

Perhaps xpmachina used countermeasures for the reason that he stated--that [the]POLYGRAPH TEST HAS NO SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE TO PROVE ITS VALIDITY.

Quote:


To deduce that those who employ countermeasures believe that the polygraph instrument is an accurate lie detector is a non sequitur. The only reasonable conclusion that can be drawn is that these individuals do not wish to chance their futures on the outcome of a "test" shown to be no more accurate than chance.

Propoly wrote on Mar 28^th, 2002 at 8:48pm:


But not, apparently, his use of countermeasures.

Answer something for me, xpmachina? If you were confident that you didn't do anything, then why use counter measures? Were you afraid that you couldn't pass the polygraph examination by just telling the truth. Well there is one good thing about your admission(using counter measures that is), you knew that the polygraph instrument would detect your lies  

Duc 748,

The information we provide is also likely being used by sexual assault victims in the numerous jurisdictions where the alleged victim of a sex offense must "pass" a polygraph "test" before the police deem the allegation credible and begin a serious investigation.

There is a great deal of legitimate information in our society that is also exploited by criminals. The fact that something can be used by criminals is hardly a reason for suppressing it.

Take, for example, rights and protections present in our justice system. These are frequently taken advantage of by guilty individuals. Under your logic, perhaps we should eliminate the right to remain silent. After all, criminals who confess are much easier to convict. While were at it, let's toss the Miranda decision. Many criminals may be ignorant of their rights--let's keep them that way, right? I could go on ad nauseam. 

The information we provide on this website has an indisputable legitimate purpose--to help those forced to submit to polygraph "tests" protect themselves against false allegations.  

Instead of blaming those who provide support for victims of polygraph "tests," you should be directing your energy toward those in the polygraph profession who routinely mislead the press and elected officials about the infallibility of polygraph "tests." The fact is that these "tests" are easily beaten by the guilty.  They also tend to falsely accuse many innocent people. If criminals are going unpunished because they are beating polygraph "tests," the blame rests with anyone foolish to rely on these "tests."

Lastly, your comparison of polygraphy to modern medicine is ludicrous. The medical diagnostic process is supported (and shaped by) the best universities in our nation. The faculty at these institutions represents the best and brightest in our society. Polygraphy, on the other hand, receives nearly no respect from top tier academics. I’ll leave it up to you to flesh out the argument that the level of intelligence among the faculty at polygraph schools compares favorably to the level of intelligence of those who teach medical doctors their diagnostic skills. 

Duc748 wrote on Mar 10^th, 2002 at 2:33am:


Duc748,

We are indeed lobbying Congress and are happy to speak with anyone in the media who will listen. But these measures won't help to protect the innocent people who are being harmed by polygraphy, and we can't provided them with the information they need without also making it available to everyone.

The information about polygraph countermeasures provided here will help criminals "continue on their merry way of destroying other people's lives" only to the extent that government places any reliance  on this pseudoscientific fraud. Is it responsible for government to rely on polygraphy, in view of the fact that it has no scientific basis and is easily defeated through the use of simple countermeasures (information regarding which is freely available to all who seek it)?

100% innocent my ass! Everyone says they are being set up by the cops!

Dear all, 

Sorry to arouse a chaos here. Though it's not polite so use four-letter word here, but still have to say

crappity smack YOU DUC!

If you had ever read my posts before you would have not said "This guy xpmanchina"

I was in the stage of investigation for a criminal case, in which I am 100% totally innocent. The policemen tried to set me up, and I was asking for help in this website. I am not in a rape case, drug dealing, robbering nor anything very serious. I am a decent person, and have no record.

Just because the cops tried to set me up, that was why I said yes when the DA asked me to submit a poly test. But I am just an normal person, I have never been experienced in any charge before, then I found this site, people especially Geroge helped me a lot!!

Just like George said, and from my own experience. 

POLYGRAPH TEST HAS NO SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE TO PROVE ITS VALIDITY.

You don't have to be trained like spy or FBI/CIA agents. I can be sure that anyone being trained himself for 2 hours shall surely pass the test.

We don't come to this website to be a coward, we come here to protect ourselves from being falsely accused. At least I came here for that reason.

Thank you George always. Polygraph test is a lie, I have already proved it by myself no matter how people think. It is certainly a lie.

Duc, in all due respect, I don't think Mr Maschke's purpose of this website was to promote convicted sex offenders' passing these polygraphs.  Yes Duc, it does outrage me myself that certain types of people who have done horrible crimes are using these methods.  One thing is though, you can't blame Mr Maschke.  His goal was to prove the deception of the polygraph itself, and that he has done.  Believe me I know where you're coming from internally, with certain criminals employing these methods, but in all due respect these people were going to find this method whether in this website, or somewhere else.  This website is not the only place to learn about the polygraph, and it's failures.  One other thing, is that some people do use countermeasures while telling the truth.  It's just their insurance policy of not coming out a false positive, which you can see many people who have worked long, and hard towards achieving certain positions, and/or rank are labeled as crooks, spies, drug addicts, and so on.  Duc I do know you're a person of high integrity and I can see that you will make a very good Federal Agent, and not to mention you have served our country as well for a long period of time.  You have bigger and better things ahead of you.  One thing though, you must be a bit more open-minded towards certain issues, I mean being an Law Enforcement Agent means you must have a high level of tolerance, and even though you may disagree with certain viewpoints, you will have to offer the same and equal level of public service to the inhabitants of this country.  I just thought I had to post, because in all due respect, I know you're a man of honor, and I do have the outmost respect for people like you, but also I don't think Mr Maschke should be held liable for certain criminals looking for ways to beat the system.  From a personal standpoint George is anything but a promoter of deviance, personally he's helped me out greatly in my personal endeavors which you probably know of.  I'm not the best judge of character, but I do know when I see people encompassing honorable characters such as yourself and Mr Maschke and many other members of this site, while there will be those dirty deviant individuals on this site, I am a firm believer in the justice system, and I truly believe somehow, somewhere, these people who are commiting such shameful acts will get theirs in the end.  Take care, and I truly hope I didn't upset many of the honorable and respected members of this site.

Duc748 wrote on Mar 10^th, 2002 at 2:25am:


What an odd, warped and totally pathetic misrepresentation of my previous post. How very typical of you, however.

And, just to clarify the facts for the benefit of other readers, never once have I asserted I lied on my polygraph exam.

Mr. Duc, you wield the epithet 'liar' on this board with such viscious ferocity and frequency I can only presume you must think yourself the second coming of Jesus Christ himself, and that you have never once in your entire life lied to anyone, including your recent polygraph interrogator. How pleasant it must be to sit so high above the rest of humanity, doling out your gratuitous assertions and lily-livered attempts at ad hominem attacks, snugly cozy in the comforting fact that you alone are without sin. You're a popinjay, Mr. Duc, nothing more.

Rarely have I been so thoroughly entertained by another's hubris. Please don't stop posting,

BT

Quote:

George, you ARE helping rapists pass the polygraph. That's not a moral judgement, it's a fact. 

Quote:

Tell you the truth George, I don't know off the top of my head. But, there must be another way. Lobbying congress, getting your message of polygraphs not being valid through other media outlets. Getting your governor to hear what you have to say and showing the evidence to support your case. Anything other than telling convicts this is how you beat the polygraph, so that they may continue on their merry way of destroying other people's lives.
You say the polygraph ruins innocent people's lives. I'll argue that by helping these low-lifes, you're helping them to ruin innocent people's lives. So who sits on the high moral ground here?

Quote:

And so now we've reached the, "My dad can beat you dad up" phase. Kind of what I expected from you. Of course, should I have expected differently from a self-admitted liar? You want to call it innuendo or gutless, so be it. Really means very little to me, coming from you. Cheers.

Duc748 wrote on Mar 9^th, 2002 at 11:35pm:


Earlier today, you wrote, "So George, knowing that you're helping rapists pass the polygraph, how do you feel about it?" and you implied that beech trees condones "condone rape, murder, incest, drug use." Seems to me you're passing moral judgment on both persons and methods.

You also asked earlier, "If your goal is simply to rid the world of polygraphs, isn't there another way to do it?" What other way do you have in mind?

Duc748 wrote on Mar 9^th, 2002 at 11:15pm:


My father had a response for statements like this one. "You're too clever by half."

Weaseling out of harsh, blatant innuendo shows you to be rather gutless as well. My impression of the Federal Bureau of Investigation is rapidly declining commensurate with your ever-increasing number of posts.

Timofei,

You wrote, among other things:

Quote:


This is a key point that you've raised, and one that the polygraph community (and the governmental agencies they serve) have long avoided confronting. For example, the president of the American Polygraph Association has declined to state how APA members should should proceed if a subject were to reveal that he/she has read The Lie Behind the Lie Detector and understands the psychological manipulations involved in both the "stim test" and the "control" questions.

With information about polygraphy now readily available to anyone who can read English and has Internet access, it's high time that the polygraph community mustered the courage to candidly address the question of how to deal with informed subjects.