George:

I truly appreciate your support and feedback! 

Larry

polylawman:

I was charged with nothing; I just had an elevated reading with a question that pertained to criminal sexual activity during a pre-employment polygraph examination. Due to my employment with children, the examiner filed a child abuse report against me that indicated that I made some admissions during the post-test interogation. I did not make any admissions.

As a result of the examiner's false report, I had to endure a six week investigation and was placed on administrative leave by my employer. There were no victims. I was investigated soley based on the polygraph examiner's lies (no children had made any allegations against me). I was eventually cleared. The investigation came back UNFOUNDED.

As to your question regarding the department involved, it was Probation. I had already been offered a "conditional offer of employment" and had already passed all other backround and reference requirements. However, the "conditional offer of employment" was recinded due my examiner's false report that listed admissions that I never made.

In addition, you were wrong about your reply to George. I have contacted the ACLU of So. California and was told that my case has merit. Although, the ACLU did not elect to take the case, they did provide me with referrals.

Now I have a few questions for you: 1) Have you read the "National Academy of Sciences" report on the polygraph and do you dispute it's findings? If so, please explain how your 6-8 week polygraph certification course makes you more qualified than the Phd educated scientists who concluded that polygraph exams are unreliable, 2) How many innocent individuals have you sent to jail, and how many honest men and women have you played a part in denying employment to based soley on a polygrah chart?




   

Larry,

Upon re-reading this message thread from the beginning, I see that you mentioned in a post on 25 October that you had indeed contacted the ACLU. Were they able to help in any way? Their website mentions that although they cannot provide referrals to individual attorneys, they "can mail you appropriate referrals to other agencies which may be of help."

No he hasn't because the entire posting is suspect.

Larry,

I'm deeply saddened to learn of your father's tragic death and the cascading series of events that led to it. I can only begin to imagine the anguish you and your family must be going through.

Have you contacted the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California? I think there are troubling aspects of your case (foremost among them, the polygrapher's fabricated admission) that have serious civil rights implications. Information on how the ACLU accepts cases is available here.

I'm sorry to hear about your loss. Losing a loved one can be devastating 
But what does one have to do with the other? Were you wrongly accused of molestation to? 
I would love to chat with you about this and find out exactly what occurred.  I will not however discuss this in an open forum. 
I just want to know three things? 1.What were you charged with 2. What does the examiner have to do with your fathers death? 3. What department , if you can say, did this occur.

Thanks for your support!

Please see my previous post that explains modifications that I have made to this posting.

Polyman,

A True Libertarian has already been vindicated, no thanks to the polygraph; what remains to be seen is how the polygrapher who fabricated an admission will be held accountable.

If you were honest during the polygraph test, then you shouldn't have anything to worry about

Thanks everyone for all the support. I truly appreciate it. I will keep you all updated!

This is a modified  post. My father passed away recently, and in my opinion, it was due to my polygraph experience (my experiences and investigation snowballed and lead to his death). I gave more specific details in my original post; however, I have chosen to delete most of the specifics due to legal reasons. 

In my original post, I honored my father as a veteran and a civil servant. He was both and deserved to die in a much more dignified matter. 

Quote:


Anonymous,
Well put

Skeptic

The quality of pro-polygraph community contribution(s) since the release of the NAS polygraph report has reached such consistent lows as to make one wonder if the Captain(s) of this sinking ship of fools have abandoned the rats and yeomen to their figurative watery graves...

Dear Polydonotlie,

I know you have spent many years gathering your scientific studies to come up with your "99% accuracy rate" but the National Acadamy of Sciences examined all available evidence that was trustworthy and disagrees with your accuracy statement.

I urge you to Fed-Ex your reports to them as they will eventually do even more studies.

Are you sure you do not have a little brother named "george"?

Ploygraphs are nearly 99% accurate based on my research. Perhaps, " A True Libertarian is a "True Liar?"

Seeker,

The polygraph community's strategy seems to be to say as little as possible and hope that the storm blows over, and that the findings of the NAS will go down the public "memory hole" (just as the findings of the 1983 Congressional Office of Technology Assessment eventually did).

However, a key difference between now and 1983 is that polygraph opponents are increasingly organized and vocal. Policy makers who would ignore the NAS's finding can expect to be held publicly accountable.

George:
As I have searched for all relevant data since the 8 October report, I have found nothing of merit from the pro-polygraphers.  I had hopes of preparing arguments for their responses, but since the depate is pretty much ended, I suppose there will be no need.

Of course, it must be borne in mind that the NAS polygraph panel's conclusion that polygraphy can differentiate truth from deception at levels above chance in naive populations untrained in countermeasures is completely consistent with the notion that polygraphy is a pseudoscientific fraud that depends for any success on a naive and gullible public.

Marty wrote on Oct 21^st, 2002 at 8:48am:


Fair enough.  Perhaps a better way to put it would be to note that the NAS report should realistically end debates of the type we've seen here at Antipolygraph.org (accuracy issues and countermeasure efficacy in screening applications).  If anything, it will shift the debate to where it belongs: whether it is rational and just to continue using a technique with such obvious drawbacks.

Perhaps you are correct that those drawbacks were widely known within the polygraph community, and perhaps not.  They certainly weren't unknown, but I have my doubts as to whether the average polygrapher knew the level of fraud in which he or she has been participating.  One does not need a world-class background in science and statistics to become a polygrapher.

Skeptic

I don't recall the NAS describing phrenology as better than 50-50 at anything either. It doesn't even have placebo value which at least the polygraph can claim!



-Marty

Marty,

Quote:


I suspect the same might be said of the extant research on phrenology. A dearth of competent research on a technique with such a weak theoretical basis as polygraphic lie detection does not necessarily create a compelling need for such research. Admittedly, such research may be of some interest from a pure science standpoint.

Quote:


I did NOT suggest more research was likely to increase accuracy, rather, it is needed because the research extant is so poorly done. It's just that one can not tell in advance what such research will yield. There is no reason to believe better research would show the polygraph more reliabile or less reliable than the current NAS estimates.  The NAS report calls for more research to determine where if anywhere it moght prove of some value. Also, they note the lack of almost any work on countermeasures other than a few anecdotes and that they were stonewalled in this area.


-Marty

Marty,

Actually, the NAS panel suggests that more polygraph research is not likely to significantly increase accuracy, stating at p. 8-2:

Quote:


...which is academese for saying that "investment" in polygraph research is a waste of money.

Skeptic wrote on Oct 21^st, 2002 at 7:38am:


Unfortunately, it doesn't.  It does expose what was well known (and accepted) within the polygraph community (high false positive rates). This is only new to the public at large. I hope the broader dissemination of this info changes things but am .... skeptical. One only has to look at how hard it is to get rid of things like facilitated communication, zero point energy (free energy fantasies), and cold fusion....

It also strongly encourages real, high quality, research which is sorely lacking. One can't be sure, a priori,  of the results of such research.

-Marty

Fair Chance wrote on Oct 21^st, 2002 at 4:40am:


Both are probably a bit dramatic.  I would suspect that pro-polygraph types will be a bit sparse around here for a while.  The NAS report pretty much ends real debate, at least on the topic of polygraph security screening.

However, there's a difference between online debate and real-world results.

Skeptic

Yes George,

Are we watching the sunset on a beautiful day or are we just going through the eye of the hurricane?