PrivateSnowball wrote on Sep 13^th, 2006 at 11:31pm:


Private Snowball,

While I can understand how the thought of a child molester being allowed to roam free in society while continuing to prey on the weakest of victims sickens you, you are missing the point when it comes to the polygraph. Simply put, it is not reliable. That means child molesters under investigation for crimes they indeed have committed will walk after passing a polygraph. Convicted molesters may pass or fail as part of probation, regardless of whether they've victimized another child. Blame those who are using an unreliable tool and system, not the founders of this site.

cesium_133

Do not expect specific, truthful answers to specific questions. Very, very few will be forthcoming. You will get a few lame answers, maybe.

nonombre

If an applicant comes to you or any other federal polygrapher knowing that they have less than a 50% chance of passing the poly because of your weeding out process, truthful or not, then they should expect the odds are against them and their LE employment lives are ruined. There is no way in hell that this kind of percentage has used or sold drugs or have been/are spies. Yet, you people, individually, ruin their lives. Before you people die, you had better get on your knees and pray for a whole bunch of forgiveness.

As to countermeasures - if an applicant correctly uses mental countermeasures (or not) and you accuse him/her of such, then you are saying "I can read your mind.  I AM THE ONE AND ONLY AUTHORITY HERE. THEREFORE, YOU ARE OUT OF HERE". Doesn't that make you feel powerful??

As to the ones who admit to using countermeasures,
they are week and shouldn't be in LE. However, you have written that many who confesses such, you work them through it and they pass. They used deception and you worked them through it and they pass?? Hmmmm??

Nonombre,

I don't see much of a difference in the end result between a person answering all the questions on a polygraph honestly and still failing, and a person attempting countermeasures and being accused of "purposeful non-cooperation" and failing because of that.

In fact, I think it would be easier to explain away a "purposeful non-cooperation" label on subsequent job applications than it would be to explain a "deception indicated" result.   

It is not surprising that you and other polygraph examiners advocate the old chestnut:  "just tell the truth and trust the polygraph."  For anyone who follows your advice and fails it is little consolation if their polygrapher thinks, "At least they failed honestly."

Were I to take a polygraph again I would tell the truth and I would use countermeasures.  From past experience simply telling the truth results in a "deception indicated" score 75% of the time.  I could hardly do much worse telling the truth and attempting countermeasures.  At least I would feel as though I wasn’t totally helpless in deciding my fate.

nonombre wrote on Sep 17^th, 2006 at 5:42am:


Awwww, come on bro.....lots of geniuses swear.  Just look at Robin Williams!

"regards"
alterego

LieBabyCryBaby wrote on Sep 15^th, 2006 at 8:16pm:


I haven't heard Eos or anyone else say that.  They say, correctly, that coming here and learning what George has put out is a good idea.  I am sure people with quick thinking and good logic have beaten the poly without George's help.

Quote:


That fear makes a person the lemming you wish them to be, CryBaby.  It renders them susceptible to your lie that the poly can detect lies.  It cannot; it is a fancy BFB machine.  Only confessions can demonstrate lies through this method.

By the way, when I had read TLBTLD and learned it all, I went into subsequent polys much more relaxed.  I used CM's without regret, and without fail.  And I passed when I might well have not    In fact, I cha cha'ed in and out with the lovely knowledge that I had beaten the machine and a polyboy who thought he was invincible.  I don't think I would have otherwise, but righteousness was upheld when I did.  There you go, one testimonial for George's site and against your position.  I am sure I speak for many others.

Quote:


*Waves hand frantically*

Where IS the CM beef?  Where's the beef?  Show the studies, CryBaby.  We asked you first    Answering a question with a question isn't an affirmative answer at all.

No, I have not committed any serious criminal offense, but piddly stuff that someone could use to nitpick me out of my current job.  So, ok, I haven't robbed anyone, but I passed notwithstanding some peccadilloes.  Ones that should not count against a person.  And you're hearing from me.

Quote:


I have seen quite a few come here expressing thanks.  I would not expect more than a few of the whole number to do so, though.  Had I only 1 poly to deal with, I would have read the information here, passed, and -maybe- sent George a private note.  I would not have bothered posting... why?  I would have had to create an account, which takes 2 minutes that I would have rather used elsewhere on the WWW.

Quote:


Believe as you will, CryBaby.  There's no placebo here; it's the real McCoy.  My world has failed to crash down yet, and I used more than 1 suggestion from TLBTLD.  If someone louses up their CM's, well, risk that or risk a false positive.  I would rather lose having the reins in my hands.  However, I don't go in planning to lose, and I have not.

I have also heard many reasons why you polyboys won't take Dr. Richardson's challenge.  Why not be the man and do it?  Don't make excuses- don't beg off because of lab this, or situation that.  Excuses are like ani.  Everyone has one, and most smell.  If you can detect CM's, and you say you can at better than chance, do it.

You and your pals must hate the doc, he being a defector from the cause.  Taking all that precious, apocryphal knowledge with him and handing it to the enemy like Benedict Arnold.  Blowing the whistle.

While I think of it, please tell us all your opinion of EPPA.  Good or bad?  I know it cost you and your drinking buddies money.  If you agree with it, why shouldn't it be applied across the board (please be specific)?  Also, if you agree with the Act, why was it okay to use the poly in employment screening prior to its passage, or was that a mistake?

If you disagree with it, why?  And why is your APA not trying its damnedest to get the act repealed for the greater good of mankind?  Because, like the tobacco companies, you know that what you peddle is harmful.  Big Tobacco got kicked off the TV in 1970, and to this day they have never challenged it.  Why?  Even though they would win, they know that they would be exposed yet again for the scoundrels they are.

Knowledge is power.  I have the former, and I feel the latter.  You and yours cannot pull the hood over my eyes, CryBaby.  Please digest...

alterego1 wrote on Sep 17^th, 2006 at 5:04am:


No actually I learned it from Drew Richardson.  I found it to be a civil way to end a post and to let the other party know you do not hold his opinions against him.   

BTW, you really shouldn't swear on a message board.  It tends to showcase your ignorance.

Regards,

Nonombre

nonombre,

what do you say to folks who waited their whole life for their shot at a LE career and get booted by a false positive and havent tried CMs?

what do you say t George, whose career was ruined by a stranger who called him a spy after knowing him for a few hours?

I didnt try CMs for 2 reasons. #1-it didnt seem right, tho I have since changed my mind about that and #2-I didnt think trying it without knowing enough about what a good chart looks like would work.

LieBabyCryBaby wrote on Sep 15^th, 2006 at 10:59pm:


This is an easy one to answer....."The first rule of Fight Club, is that one does not talk about Fight Club........".......oh sorry, I got side tracked for a moment.

What I meant to say is, "The first rule of countermeasures is that one makes no damaging admissions."  George has already hinted that this board may be monitored, so no one who values his job or future job would come on here and run his mouth talking about how he successfully used countermeasures to defeat the poly.

But if you use the search function, you will indeed see several brave individuals who have come on here and given their testimony.

"Regards" 
(Is nonombre the one responsible for making this crappity smacking phrase so cliché on this message board?)

Twoblock wrote on Sep 16^th, 2006 at 8:46pm:

And what of the truthful people, who would have been "branded" truthful, except that their attempts at countermeasures (taught by you and others) have now "branded" them "Purposeful non-cooperation" and have therefore cost them everything?

What do you say to them Mr. Twoblock?

Perhaps you consider them to be "Martyrs" for the Antipolygraph cause?  "Acceptable losses" for the greater good? 

Regards,

Nonombre

Polygraphy babble continues.

If you people research this site, which I am sure most have because of you posts, you know the numbers of applicants who have professed their innocents and still failed the poly. You don't know doddly shit about any of them yet you automatically brand them liars. It doen't matter to you that some maintained TS credentials and worked in Military Intel. You still brand them liars. 

If a truthful person is going to be branded a liar by the polygrapher anyway, then why not use countermeasures and inhance the chances of passing. Your punitive minds are going interpret the chart squiggles to suit you. You probably can't determine what the squiggles are so, the first thought is COUNTERMEASURES. Since you are the judge, jury and hangman, you send them an they way without a chance to enter their chosen field. You should be damned well ashamed that you use you ill-gotten power to solely deny imployment. Especially those who served well in the military. Something a lot of you didn't have the GUTS to do. It makes my blood boil and for that reason I must stop.

Sergeant1107 wrote on Sep 16^th, 2006 at 1:26pm:


Sergeant,

I have heard this question posted many times on this website and I believe it to be a legitimate one.  Allow me to address this subject from my perspective:

I do not think that anyone would argue that there has been an increase in attempts at polygraph countermeasures since the advent of this and similar websites.  Along with this goes the raging debate between the pro and anti polygraph community as to how effectively countermeasures can in fact be identified by the polygraph examiner.

Of course I cannot answer for other examiners, but I will tell you that I catch attempts at countermeasures fairly frequently.  When caught and confronted some examinees confess (in some cases even bringing me their copy of TLBTLD from the front seat of their car).  Others do not admit to their use of CM's, but once confronted their obvious behavior and the resulting physiology suddenly stop.  Have I caught them all?  Probably not, but I sure have caught a whole bunch.

The problem for me (as I have stated on this website before) is not as much the guilty applicant or suspect that comes in and "rolls the dice" in his attempt to "beat the box."  I worry far more for the good, solid police applicant or wrongfully accused innocent person, who has followed the advice of this website and has "taken measures" to assure his passing.  I admit that I have seen a number of these.

As I have previously stated, once confronted, the great majority of these people knock off their stupidity, cooperate, and successfully complete the process.  Some continue to follow the advice posted on this site, maintain their adversarial stance and if an applicant, they get to see their application trashed.  This is only fair.  Same goes for examinees testing as the result of pre-trial agreements.

My bottom line is that I believe the material taught on this site probably stands some remote chance of assisting a few guilty individuals in alluding an improperly trained polygraph examiner.  However, I also believe very strongly that this website has caused MANY, MANY innocent/truthful people to have significant problems passing their polygraph examinations, many to the point of having been branded as "Willfully non-cooperating," and as a result losing their life's dreams...or worse.

I often wonder what the administrators of this site would say to the police applicant who was tossed out into the street because he employed the "advice" given to him by the people on this website who themselves could not pass a polygraph examination.  

Regards,

Nonombre

It always seems odd to me that polygraph examiners can decry the questionable ethics of anyone who posts countermeasure information for all to see, and soon afterward claim that countermeasures don't work and even if they did they are easy to detect.

If the sum total of advice on this website consisted of something ridiculous such as, "Wear a blue shirt - polygraphs don't work on blue" or something similar I doubt that any examiners would bother to take the time to post rebuttals.  I also doubt that anyone would be accusing George of unethical behavior for posting his "blue shirt" countermeasure advice for all to see.

If the countermeasures on this site don't work, why do pro-polygraph people care if they are available?

Wow, are those the hundreds of studies that the National Academies of Science said lacked sufficient methodogical controls and standards that they wouldn't meet National Institute of Justice or National Institute of Health requirements? 

Because those guys at the NAS certainly have an axe to grind and are prone to wishful thinking. All that education and years of distinguished research required for admission into the NAS certainly demonstrates bias against the polygraph. Which I guess it's why you can so easily dismiss their conclusion that the polygraph lacks a scientific basis and poses a significant threat to national security...

How many polygraphers are members of the National Academies? Oh, that's right, zero, because at least one would've made onto the panel that researched the polygraph otherwise the American Polygraph Association wouldn't have bemoaned that "the APA was not invited to participate in any of the deliberations, nor consulted to provide responses to many questions raised in this project."

You can hold onto your belief in your pseudoscience but reality is another matter. In due time, your profession will go the way of phrenology, physiognomy, personology and other flapdoodle that used to be used in criminal justice...

LieBabyCryBaby,

If I am so closed minded and your oh so strong a debater, then post your studies for all to see. Show us the validity of your data. There are enough people of science and logic on this website to evaluate fairly what you have. I include myself in that list, and  I will not jaundice anything I believe in the data , and I will fairly evaluate it on face value. You polygraphers always quote your studies, but why is it they are never out for public scrutiny by the scientific community at large ?? So its up to you now .... see how weak that is 

Regards

Digithead, while EosJ's last post is so weak that it isn't worth responding to, and your last post is almost as pathetic, I will respond briefly to yours.  Lucky you.

You say that the Willis vs. Smith, et. al case "demonstrates that there is documented evidence that offenders are becoming aware of countermeasures and their effectiveness."  My reply is, so what?  The case doesn't show that the countermeasures worked for the defendant, do they?  No.  So what's your point and how does it refute anything I said?  And what the judge said or "a staff member" said makes no difference.  We aren't arguing a point of law here.  Go back to Snowball's post that initiated this topic if you need to figure out where we are.

Also, why would I have to "face it," because of what someone said in an ancient and obscure 1971 study, that the polygraph's only utility is the "bogus pipeline effect," when I know from experience, as well as from studies that support MY view, that the polygraph actually works and is not dependent on faith, supersticion, or a placebo effect?

The reason that most polygraphers like myself don't hang around this site for long is certainly not because you, George, Drew, or anyone else in the anti-polygraph crowd have superior studies or facts on your side. It is simply because OUR studies and facts will never be accepted by people with your agenda, and because ALL you have to support you are easily refutable lab studies and wishful thinking.  You might say the same thing about polygraphers, but you would be wrong because at least we have actual experience with the little "box" you hate so much.

Now I think I am done with this topic.  It bores me.   Call it a cop-out if you want to, or claim a false victory.  The fact is simply that, as usual, bantering back and forth with close-minded people is a tiresome waste of time.

"Regards."

LieBabyCryBaby wrote on Sep 15^th, 2006 at 10:59pm:


See the Iowa court case in Willis v. Smith, et al (2004) which involved access to countermeasure literature by a civilly committed sex offender. This offender was required to undertake polygraph examinations as part of his treatment and he had ordered George's book on countermeasures. He sued the institution that housed him because staff denied him access to the book. The judge allowed the book to be given to the offender but ordered all discussion of countermeasures to be redacted. This case demonstrates that there is documented evidence that offenders are becoming aware of countermeasures and their effectiveness.

Another clear issue demonstrated by the testimony of a staff member in Willis v. Smith, et al (2004: 8) who admitted that "it is more important for patients to believe the polygraph is valid then for the test actually to be valid." From this testimony, the judge concluded that "the polygraphs act similarly to a placebo for some patients, in that if the patient is worried about being caught in a deception, the patient may admit things before the test is administered" (Willis v. Smith, et al 2004: 8). 

Do you think this is the only guy who's trying to get information on countermeasures?

Face it, the polygraph's utility is solely attributable to the bogus pipeline effect (Jones and Sigall, 1971) where its utility is reduced to nil once a subject is aware of the bogus nature of the instrument.

LieBabyCryBaby,

The part your missing as most polygraphers miss, is that to defeat you, one must only say NO. With that comes the surety of not getting hired, but in doing so it confirms the moral and internal courage not to submit to a bogus process.  But there are better jobs out there than those that require the mental rubber hose beating that is the polygraph. But remember, you have to live and play by certain ground rules, which we know, and your process is your weakness. I do not have to play by those rules,  nor would I. By your own words, our minions grow everyday. It is by that point that we will prevail.  Your logic also suffers from the falicy that I am a mere novice. An assumption that other polygraphers on this board have made, but to those that know me, would never say. But keep up your good work. And keep increasing our numbers.  All the best !!

Regards ...

EosJupiter wrote on Sep 15^th, 2006 at 9:25pm:


Don't worry, EosJ.  I don't intend, nor can I hope, to get the last word in here.  I am not an "Especially Senior User," so I don't post here that often.  Today has been quite an exception for me.  However, sometimes I simply can't resist replying when the response I get is so inane.

No, I don't openly admit anything of the sort.  You and other misinformed pretenders just don't get it--the lab does NOT equate to the real world.  You can do all sorts of things in an attempt to create a laboratory simulation, but it just doesn't have the impact on the examinee that the real life threat of failing the polygraph does.  For example, you can tell the examinee, "Ok, if you can fool the examiner I'll give you 50 dollars," or you can say to the examinees in your experiment, "Here's 50 dollars each, but if you don't fool the examiner you have to give it back."  Either of these manipulations would be an attempt to make the exam and the reward or consequences more significant to the examinee, but would any rational scientist believe that these manipulations would match the real-life threat of facing a lengthy prison sentence, public humiliation, etc.?

Many of the studies used to support the polygraph are, in fact, field studies rather than lab studies.  They use post-polygraph confessions to confirm what the charts already showed.  This is great because they are using real-world polygraph results rather than lab results.  But the argument could always come from the anti-polygraph side that these real-life criminals both believed in the legitimacy of the polygraph AND failed to use countermeasures.

Either way you look at it--lab manipulations or outcome verification--there are going to be people on both sides who believe what they want to believe and refute the results.

So, we are back to the question I keep asking you, which I know you can't really answer: Where are the criminals and applicants who used the information on this site to beat the polygraph while lying to the relevant questions?  All we see here are people who used the information they got here and then attribute their passing to the use of that information without any evidence that they wouldn't have passed the polygraph anyhow.

I agree that No Opinion or Inconclusive is better than failing.  Of course it is.  But there's no way you can reasonably say that an innocent examinee can push himself or herself DOWN to inconclusive because the countermeasures worked.  And where are the actual guilty people who pushed themselves UP from failing into the gray inconclusive area by lying to crime questions?

Your arguments are pretty weak, EosJ.  But I wouldn't expect more from someone who has no actual experience, but who is simply a parrot who repeats what other parrots are saying.

"Regards."  

LieBabyCryBaby wrote on Sep 15^th, 2006 at 8:58pm:


LieBabyCryBaby,

So you openly admit that your polygraph and procedures can't and won't stand up to scientific rigor. See what a little truth can do, it can clairify just how much the parlor trick your process really is. And isn't a poly suite a clinical setting by design, removing outside interference, your conclusion is non sequitor. Oh but wait, thats right it not your house were you have your power base and support. And why is it now that all the Fed Agencies are telling applicants not to research polygraphy. Again the key word is impotence, as you can't defeat those of intellect and audacity. You want willing sheep, and anyone worthy of having intellect will never go blindly as sheep. Passing or No Opinion is far better than a failure, because in either case it reflects that your abilities are highly questionable, if not negated. 

Regards 

EosJupiter wrote on Sep 15^th, 2006 at 8:35pm:


EosJ,

I'm afraid I've shaken you too much.  You can't even write complete sentences.

If the advice on this site actually did produce "inconclusive after inconclusive," that would be quite revealing indeed.  What it would say is that a guilty examinee did just enough to pull himself or herself from the depths of failure to the gray area of inconclusive.  If the information actually worked for innocent examinees, why would they end up inconclusive, going in the opposite direction TOWARD failure rather than away from it into higher positive numbers?

As for Drew's challenge, it is an empty challenge.  It could only be done in a lab setting or, worse, in a public setting where outside factors would likely contaminate and skew the results.  Lab studies can not duplicate real-world conditions.  And where would we find REAL criminals willing to put their lives on the line simply to satisfy a bunch of disgruntled polygraph failures?  Drew, George, and their minions make this challenge, but most of them know it isn't practical or even possible to implement an event that would prove anything one way or another. So, no serious polygrapher is going to bother responding to it.

I repeat, EosJ, where are all the criminals who have used the advice on this site to pass the polygraph?  And where are all the applicants who have used this same advice to pass the polygraph while lying their asses off to relevant questions?  All we hear on this site are a few people saying they used the information and it helped them pass, but can they prove they passed because of the information rather than simply because they were innocent to begin with?  I think not.  

yes, the crashing sound is not far off the sound made when an innocent examinee doesnt do anything this site suggests, gets called a drug dealer and is sent on his way after chasing a career for 12 years and being 20 minuts away from getting it.

LieBabyCryBaby,

Feed their fears, I highly doubt it. Once someone comes here, and understands the process of polygraphy they relax and the fear and anxiety is greatly reduced. At worst you get inconclusive, after inconclusive. Which really does look quite bad for you doesn't it. And rubbing elbows with engineers and scientists seems like a much more productive thing to do, than screw people during any hiring process. People are not criminals nor should they be subject to such treatment.   

Now if your the great god of polygraphs, then take Drew Richardsons challenge,  prove your schlock machine really can detect countermeasures. But again I think you would rather hide behind your machine, and continue to dupe people. But thats fine, everytime you give a polygraph, you increase the numbers of those that will eventually help eliminate it.  I reiterate once the fear and anxiety is gone, and the vail of secrets removed from your process. You and your machine are impotent. Your greatest fear is an informed public.

Regards ....

EosJupiter wrote on Sep 15^th, 2006 at 7:07pm:


EosJ,

If memory serves me correctly, you are the one who regularly brushes shoulders with engineer types, and you mention such associations in an effort to bolster your perceived credibility and intelligence, right?

As for arrogance, your posts are quite arrogant in tone, yet you have even less to support your views than does George.  No doubt, you are a fair debater, often hiding behind your verbosity when you lack actual substance in your arguments.  However, cattle excrement is cattle excrement no matter how you dress it up.

I wasn't aware that I was spewing any venom, but if it has that effect on anyone in this forum, I must liken it to plain water melting the wicked witch in the Wizard of Oz.

You asked me a question, so I will ask you one back:

Why would you come here and try to scare readers with, Oh if you DON'T read "The Lie Behind the Lie Detector" and follow its advice, you will fail and fail badly?

I don't need to scare anybody, EosJ.  They are already scared when they come here.  This site further feeds their fears, and many of them end up messing with their own heads and ruining their prospects.

You may ask, Where is the evidence that polygraphers can detect the countermeasures advocated on this site?  Well, where are all the people who actually committed a serious criminal act and then passed the polygraph by following the advice on this site?  Funny, but we don't hear from them, do we?  And if thousands of people come to this site, take the advice, and then pass the polygraph, why do none of them come on this site and admit that they actually passed the polygraph while lying their asses off with regard to relevant issues?  I believe that the advice on this site may serve as a placebo for the innocent, but nothing more.  If it makes them feel better, that's fine and dandy, but I've seen their world come crashing down when they've been caught and disqualified.
   

Quote:


Nothing about breathing a certain way, making your palms sweat on purpose , or causing you blood pressure to raise is inherently immoral or indicative of the amount of integreity a person has.

If you are lying to the question, you lack integrity. If you are telling the truth, you do not. You are not "cheating" or "beating" a test if you modify your reactions to produce a chart that will be indicative to the examiner of the ground truth. Now if you get "caught", that's your problem, but it isnt immoral anymore than getting busted by your kids for being Santa Claus is immoral. 

What IS immoral is representing to an job applicant/exmainee false impressions about the nature of a test in order to collect a set of charts that you think is an arbiter of truth when the examinee's mental state has been manipulated by you to begin with.

Now, Joe, the FBI can't hire people who might lie on the stand as it will ruin their credibility. Joe, have you ever lied to a person of authority?

You F%#^#-ing frauds.

I wish I could maintain the dispassionate logical reasoning that George manages, but I can't.

LieBabyCryBaby wrote on Sep 15^th, 2006 at 5:59pm:


LieBabyCryBaby,

You must be either pretty arrogent or greatly scared of this website to spew forth such venom. Could it be that you have been beaten by those with the knowlege and audacity to carry out countermeasures. Something tells me  that even more so you have alot of $$$ tied up into your polygraph equipment and software, and laptop, and your services seem to not be needed so much anymore. Otherwise why would you come here and try to scare readers with, oh if you read "The Lie Behind the Lie Detector", You will fail and fail badly. Funny I see more testimonials on this website about those that have been successful then those who have been caught.  And I for one will take my chances with my own council, and capabilities. And on a personal note, I would by far take Georges advice, over some BS peddling polygrapher every time. Remember its the likes of you PDD examiners that created this backlash and this website. And more people keep reading everyday and will continue to beat your BS machine and you. Something tells me that beating your box would not be hard.

Regards ...