Quote:



Hey!  This reference sounds like Edward Gelb!   I think it fits Eddie Gelb to a T!

Quote:

Not exactly the readers. I think it was pretty clear that I was challenging polygraphers to set something like this up if they feel that it would be so damaging to us. If you look up “shill” in Webster's revised unabridged Dictionary, you will learn that it means: One who poses as a satisfied customer or an enthusiastic gambler to dupe bystanders into participating in a swindle. I’m pretty confident that I got my point across considering that fact that all of the other posters besides you understood what I proposed. 
Quote:


Torpedo, you’re being deceptive! If we were in the same room, I would request that you wheel your chair into the corner and pull mine up knee-to-knee with you. You are straight-out manufacturing statements to support your weak argument.  
Quote:
We make it abundantly clear in our writing that the only way one can be caught using countermeasures is to admit it (have you actually read The Lie Behind the Lie Detector?) Furthermore, we caution that such admissions are not to be made under any circumstances. 

It’s nothing more than elementary logic. Our advice is to never admit to employing countermeasures. An individual admits to employing the ‘measures. Therefore, it can be deduced that said individual is not following our advice.
Quote:

Since your hypothetical suit revolves around a plaintiff that has been caught using countermeasures, this fact is going to have to be established. Because those who admit to using countermeasures are going to have a pretty tough time advancing the argument that they were following our advice, the detection of the countermeasures will have to be established by the polygrapher. Considering the courts’ deep-rooted skepticism of polygraphy, this is going to be a tough thing to prove. The “this chart shows countermeasures—polygraphers universally agree” argument isn’t going to get very far.
Quote:

Sure, there are lawyers that take cases on principle. There are also lawyers bring frivolous actions knowing that they have a high profit potential. They are comfortable with rolling the dice on court sanctions and possible disbarment. I’m just not sure that there are all that many attorneys looking to bring frivolous actions with no profit potential like the one you describe above.

Still, I have hope. The costs would pale in comparison to the value of the nationwide publicity that your proposed lawsuit would get us.

Torpedo

You should run for a political office. Maybe for a U.S. Congressional office. You do have a knack for twisting other's statements into meaningless rhetoric. A natural for a politician. Geno also suggested a polygrapher bring suit against this website which you failed to address. 

Could you pass a polygraph, without using countermeasures, with one question being "do you lie to and deceive others to achieve your objective"? As I have said before, politicians should have to pass a polygraph in order to assume and hold their office.

Quote:


Torpedo, to even a casual reader, it's painfully evident you're taking the words of others out of context, misrepresenting others' responses to you and completely ignoring numerous points.  In fact, it's so bad you're pretty much carrying on a conversation with yourself.

Just thought I'd give you a "heads-up"...

Skeptic

Gino, am I incorrect, or are you virtually DARING any of the readers (or "shills" as you call them) of TLBTLD to sue AntiPolygraph.Org?  I just want to make sure I am reading your post correctly.  Do you think that there might be some lawyer out there who would take this case on principal instead of the want of money?  It could happen!  I am so pleased that your disdain for those who you seek to "help" has now been made public.  And to think, all those folks came to you and your Namebase friends believing that you would help them.  How wrong they were! So you think there is some connection between discovery of what techniques are used to detect countermeasures and a suit by someone that they followed your posted advice, admitted using countermeasures? Where did you learn that? Did you sleep through most of your classes in civil procedure?

Torpedo:
Quote:


We’ve seen this thinly-veiled scare tactic before and have yet to dignify it with a response. I feel that now is the time to give it its due.

A lawsuit against us because we provide information on polygraph countermeasures would be the best possible thing to ever happen to AntiPolygraph.org. A large part of both discovery and the trial itself would center on how polygraphers purportedly detect countermeasures . Polygraphers could no longer claim "countermeasures are easy to spot, but that information has to be kept secret." This information—or lack thereof—would become public information for everyone to see, amounting to a great deal of embarrassment for the polygraph community. 

Two things would be pivotal issues in such a trial:

#1 That no study—not even one funded by the American Polygraph Association—has demonstrated that polygraphers have the ability to detect sophisticated countermeasures like those outlined in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector . In peer-reviewed analog studies by Charles R. Honts and collaborators, even experienced polygraphers were not able to detect countermeasures use at better-than-chance levels. It comes as little surprise that Dr. Richardson's polygraph countermeasure challenge remains untaken after nearly a year.

#2 In addition to the lack of a proven methodology for detection of countermeasures, there lacks even a documented methodology itself. As you very well know, The American Polygraph Association quarterly, Polygraph, in its more than 30-year history has not published a single article setting forth any methodology by which polygraphers can reliably detect countermeasures. Not a single article. Even astrologers have documented and published methodologies for how they arrive at fortunes (star charts, etc). 

Before our lawsuit can go anywhere, the plaintiff would have to prove that the polygrapher actually detected countermeasures. One would have an easier time proving that an astrologer properly told a fortune (one again, they have books, agreed-upon standards, etc).  A polygraph countermeasure lawsuit is going to put into public record what we already know--that polygraphers are merely guessing and bluffing when it comes to countermeasure detection. It goes without saying that such a suit will be laughed out of court,  leaving the polygraph community thoroughly discredited and embarrassed. 

Perhaps one of the polygraphers reading this can set everything up. All that would be necessary is to have a shill to visit an APA member, have him “caught” using countermeasures, and then bring a lawsuit against us. Come on, ‘graphers. This sounds like a plan. The only downside will be finding a lawyer to take the case. I learned during the 1st day of civil procedure that litigation is a last resort and that one should always find a “deep pocket” before proceeding. This will be a substantial impediment because we do not possess large sums of money. 

I’ll tell you one thing—you better be ready with more than “countermeasures are easily detected, but I can’t tell you how.” 

Torpedo wrote on Jan 10^th, 2003 at 12:43am:


<sigh> My kingdom for an honest polygrapher...

Skeptic

Glad to see that little "admission"  I certainly hope that all see that for what it is.  "Now if you decide to take that old lie detector test...we antipoly folks want you to do well and we will "suggest" some little tricks to "help" you get by...but if you do get caught, we want it known that you are on your own...and if you say that you "saw it here".....shame on you.  Remember, Anti-Polygraph.Org disavows any knowledge of this...we say this so you cannot come back and sue us you can't come back a sue us.  Remember you are on your own if you tell that examiner you are using countermeasures"  What a comforting thought for all of those you provide counsel to.

Torpedo wrote on Jan 9^th, 2003 at 6:57pm:


Unfortunately, sir, you are hardly in a position to be complaining about others in this regard.  Like so many of the polygrapher visitors we've had to this site post-NAS-report, virtually your entire "contribution" thus far has been ad hominem in nature (please see Stephan's Guide to the Logical Fallacies -- Attacking the Person if you have trouble understanding what you are doing wrong).

Quote:


This is simply false -- both advice on this site and The Lie Behind the Lie Detector are well-referenced vis-a-vis academic studies and research.  They are hardly based on anecdotes alone.

Quote:


Another false statement.  Reading and reviewing studies done by others is most definitely "research" (a general term for "inquiry") -- and despite your implications, it is certainly valid, as well.

According to you, it seems, one has no room to speak with authority on a subject unless one has actually carried out a certain type of research.  This is a very odd notion.

Quote:


Had this been all NAS had done (had they not done first-person interviews, etc. as well), it still would have been as valid as any other study.  You're grasping at straws, Torpedo.

Quote:


It is clear that you don't understand to what argumentum ad hominem refers.  Please see my link, above.

Quote:


Given well-known and researched false-positive rates, I must disagree with this strongly.

Quote:


If someone were to use countermeasures and admit it, he or she would not be adopting the advice given here.  Have you actually read The Lie Behind the Lie Detector (which you disparage with such authority)?

Skeptic

damned_already wrote on Jan 9^th, 2003 at 8:42pm:


Nervousness most certainly could cause problems on the test.  Remember, there really is no such thing as a "lie detector" -- rather, the "test" (best case) indicates adrenal/nervous responses.  How do you think you'll react when asked questions of a loaded sexual nature?  How about when you know your marriage is on the line?

(Before "Torpedo" jumps in and claims no one but a polygrapher can know anything about the test, let me point out that I have a degree in psychology, which included information about the polygraph, the nervous system and physiology, etc.  I have also done considerable research on the polygraph, reading studies and the opinions of acknowledged experts in the field.  Mr. Maschke and Mr. Scalabrini have done this as well, to a much greater degree.  I also urge you to download and read The Lie Behind The Lie Detector, if you have not already done so, and judge for yourself.  After all, it's your life -- don't let me, Torpedo or anyone else make the decision for you.)

Skeptic

guys i didn't mean for this to turn into the same war that looks like is going on in every other post.

Yes, Torpedo, you are right about whats going on with my wife.  There are fidelity issues that she thinks will be solved with a poly.  She has also stated that if I pass that she will still have doubts.  This is the main point to why I am "freakin" out.  I am damned if I pass, and damned if I don't.  So naturally I will be nervous.  Will this nervousness cause a problem on such a test?

Torpedo wrote on Jan 9^th, 2003 at 6:57pm:


In my opinion, when one asks for a third party to intervene in the written tone you used, yes. Absolutely.

Quote:


My characterization of your tactic was 'running to daddy'. Note I never referred to George as my daddy, not have I ever sought his help in censoring others' opinion ont his board as you have just done. It's illustrative however that you twisted the meaning of my post just as I am certain you twist the responses of your examinees into admissions-- you do it offhand so easily that otherwise could not be true.

Quote:


I'm sorry, are you referring to my position or your position with that commentary? Nice job of rationalizing the findings of the National Academy of Sciences intensive study of the polygraph.

My research concludes that there is no valid research demonstrating that the polygraph as it is overwhelmingly used today is anything but a clever interogation prop used to convince the naive and gullible that you can somehow read their mind. Fortunately, I am neither naive nor gullible. Goodbye, polygrapher.

Quote:


There is very little evidence that countermeasures can or cannot be detected. The published research in this area is extremely limited. Personally, for technical reasons, I suspect some types of countermeasures are more easily detected than others. It has been suggested (I think by Honts) that mental CM's are the hardest (or impossible) to detect. Drew's statements suggest this as well.

-Marty

Torpedo,

You write:

Quote:


Beep, Beep...false assertion alert goes off!  Never would I or the organizers of this site suggest anyone acknowledge the use of countermeasures...any who might do such would clearly not be following our advice.  Although you and I would differ as to the wisdom of employing countermeasures, I suppose we can both agree only a fool would acknowledge their use once having been employed.  Anyone who would do such can only blame himself for his troubles inasmuch as (1) he was clearly advised to do otherwise and (2) being that you guys CAN'T detect  (you can accuse anyone though) countermeasures and once having employed them, such an action would be tantamount to snatching defeat from the jaws of sucess...

Hello BT, so I am "whining" to George?. Well, at least we have established one thing....I am glad to see that you folks (well, at least Bech Trees) looks up to George as "Daddy" . More reason for "Daddy" to instill manners in his children. 

On a more academic note, you offer to DA that he should believe you over anything the pro-polygraph community says because of the "research", yet you cannot and have not provided anything other than "war stories".  You will no doubt make mention of the NAS study, but you should keep in mind that wasn't "research" in the true sense of the term.  It was a literature review and the reporting of a position that they have taken. When you take a position and then you atttempt to support it by attacking any opposing view.  It seems to me that that is ad hominem, at least in nature. That is precisely what you have done.

With respect to the comments offered by Annoymous.  I think (and this is MY opinion) it is shameful for you and your friends to encourage apparently otherwise unknowledge people (especially those who would have been NDI anyway) to engage in countermeasures. In light of the advice you and others have provided and the threats of law suits that are thrown about, I would find it incredibly interesting to see what you and those of your calling would do should a person who adopted your advice, performed countermeasures, ackowledged such use (notwithstanding if they can be detected or not) and did not get the job they sought, or the security clearance they desired because of this and their misguided belief that they would just be helping themselves. 

Many of the anti-polygraph crowd seem to enjoy berating the pro-polygraph group, but I can't help but wonder what would happen should this occur.  Now have I planted such a thought with some person who has taken an exam, employed countermeasures al a AP.ORG and lost an opportunity for a job they wanted?  Have I planted a thought in some person's mind to take this very route? Who knows....perhaps time will tell.

Torpedo,

I previously wrote:

Quote:


Under most circumstances, I would have begun with a quote of your material.  Unfortunately, your last post added nothing to the general discussion and addressed little of substance (I'm sure that George is thrilled to know that you took note of something) from previous posts.  Needless to say, I don't really care if you are not pleased with the disdain I display for polygraph screening; I am considerably more displeased by the litany of broken dreams and dashed plans of innocent people caused by polygraph screening.  But then again, back to the substance of my previous post--perhaps you might care to address the point I made about why innocent people are led to affect polygraph tracings and outcomes...

torpedo,

Could I trouble you to point out where in my posts above I engaged in an ad hominem argument?

As for your imploring whining to George that he should upbraid me, perhaps in the future you could resist the urge to run to daddy every time your posts are challenged here? In my opinion such tactics are slightly unseemly and demonstrate a lack of substance to your arguments.

George, your comments are noted.  By the same token, and in the interest of fairness, do  you not think that cautioning Beech Trees and Annoymous against the harangues in which they have engaged in this thread and it it not necessarily helpful to your cause.  It DOES go both ways you know and you cannot argue with that logic.

You write:

Quote:


If you intend to offer advice on this site, I hope you are not as simple-minded as this quote would indicate (albeit knowingly and disingenuously misleading is hardly much of an improvement).  Innocent examinees are led to affect chart tracings, because in the absence of such, you and your ilk can not guarantee them a correct result by protecting them from the tremendous random (and other) error inherent with lie detection.  The rationale is actually quite simple and should be quite clear to even you--to the greatest extent possible, it is far better to have their fate rest in their hands rather than in yours...

Torpedo,

I think your following advice to "Damned Already" is well-reasoned:

Quote:


As for your criticisms of AntiPolygraph.org, perhaps it would be more helpful to "Damned Already" (and others who may read this message thread) if you were to specifically point out anything in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector that you believe to be untrue, rather than questioning our credentials and/or motives.

damned_already,

Above is the haughty, arrogant and condescending attitude you can expect from your polygraph interrogator should you actually dare to challenge his authority with honest, pointed questions concerning the validity of the polygraph prior to your interrogation.

Beech Trees, I cannot believe you are making the recommendations that you are.  "Well meaning and well researched". Just who are you kidding. Tell me the "research" that you and your cronies are or have been involved. I mean the ones who post here as you told DA.  You obviously did not read my post and snapped off some response to this guy who was seeking advice to further your own cause. Stay back and observe BT, you are out of your league!

Damned_already, I apologize.  You are seeking advice and I am certain you had no intention of ending up on the observing end of Beech Trees "ad-homimen" arguments (that's one of the terms they like to banter about).  As you can see, they (or at least Beech Trees) is trying to lay out information in legalese.  The closest he came was when he acknowledged that his "crew" are "well-meaning"...not sure what he meant by "well researched" because few (and I meam 1 or 2) of them are actually researchers (there are opponents of polygraph to be sure, but at least they have sense enough not to sully their names and reputations on this site) who have engaged in scientifically based research.  That acknowledgement should help you make a decision.  Remember what I said that apparently Beech Trees did not see, I recommended counseling over a polygraph in a fidelity issue.  Again best of luck.  I will register under "Torpedo" in the event you wish to send me a private message and offer you what assistance I may.

damned already,

While the particularly energetic 'torpedo' is practically counting his finders fee, please note that this is a not-for-profit website, and it nor I have anything to gain in any way by disseminating the truth about the lie behind the lie detector. Ask yourself this: If the vast majority of courts dismiss as piffle the results of polygraph tests, would you want such a polygraph to be the final arbiter of your fidelity and love for your wife? Do you want to take the advice of well-meaning, well-researched political activists, PhD's, law enforcement, military and legal contributors here, or the advice of someone who lies for a living?

Dear Damned_Already; am I correct in assuming that this is a fidelity issue between you and your wife?  If so, then my original advice stands and I would ask you to note, as I have told you, those who are frequent denizens of this site have qued up to give you advice regarding the admissibility of polygraph EVIDENCE. Although I cannot say for sure, I am reasonably sure that none of them are attorneys, with the possible exception of Mark Mallah.  If I am correct on my presumption, you and your wife have an issue that you wish to resolve and a polygraph is being considered as the means to that resolution.  If I am incorrect and this is a criminal issue and you wish to take a polygraph to assert your non-involvement, do it through your attorney.  He should be able to identify and engage the services of a polygraph examiner for you in your geographical region.  Advise him to call one of the national polygraph organizations for a referral to an examiner in your area.  I would encourage you to employ the services of a fully licensed and appropriately trained examiner.  Unfortunately, not all states require licensing and at this point I do not know where you are located.  I am not sure if Mr. Maschke has provided a link to any of them, but you are certainly invited to contact the American Polygraph Association at 800-272-8037. They will gladly provide you with the name and contact information of a member examiner in your area.  I hope this has been some help to you.