Hi, I more or less agree with your viewpoint. It is a subject that a few people could debate, with only slightly differing viewpoints, yet for hours on end.

I come from a dysfunctional family background. My father was a rogue.
looking back, i am convinced that he was a sociopath. He defied rules ans
laws; lived by his own credo and pretty much justified eveything that he
did. 

Which makes me an exception to the rule. I had no positive role models.
We used to move home at midnight. Not just changing neighbourhoods -
we used to move hundreds of miles at a time.

I was poorly educated, until I left home at age 16 and went my own way. 
I put myself through college. Held down decent jobs. Attended further learning 
courses. Opened my own businesses, made profit, sold and moved on.
I found my niche in investigation - I guess I always had an innate knack to
'read' people. Fraud investigation led me to the DOD industry. Some years
back I invested with a property club and can now indulge myself somewhat.

My father really led a miserable life. He married a woman that gave him back
all his BS in spades.

And now I have 2 spoiled brats that pretty much fit your story.

Fun, isn't it...?

Quote:

I think it is likely that many people today do whatever they like the majority of the time, especially younger people.  They don't give much thought to what is legal or illegal, only to what their friends are doing and what seems like fun.

Fast forward a couple of years and they decide they'd like to pursue a career that tends not to hire people who behaved irresponsibly over an extended period of time, or showed a very significant lack of judgment a limited number of times, or even a single time.

Many of these people feel completely comfortable decrying the unfairness and the illogic of disqualifying police applicants for activities many of their friends engaged in regularly.  They have a very difficult time recognizing their past behavior as irresponsible and lacking in good judgment because they and all of their friends engaged in it regularly.  Their barometer is off; they see such behavior as normal and don't understand that other people, even in their teen-age years, were able to recognize hallucinogen usage as wrong, and were able to recognize shoplifting as wrong, and were able to recognize selling their parent's prescriptions was wrong, etc...

I don't believe children are born with any sort of moral compass.  It must be instilled in them by their parents. 

When it is not, they become used to doing whatever they want and whatever feels good.  When they are later told that their past behavior is unacceptable they become indignant.

Quote:



Good One..!!!!
Damn. I wish I had said that.

On a different tack however..(haha) I am somewhat amused by the crop of of people visiting this site,
that have dodgy backgrounds ( " I did some stuff, but i'm law abiding now" ) and whom want to become
law enforcement officers...? Go figure.

I wonder if anyone has ever undertaken any psychological research into why people (to differing degrees) with criminal history become so hell bent on becoming Cops. Do you think that they have
a different perception of what the uniform stands for - as compared to normal people?

Do they perceive the uniform as a means to commit criminal acts without the usual fear of being apprehended ? 

Do they perceive cops as being criminals with sponsored clothing ?

Reading world news, it seems to be a common thread running through many societies.

Time to muse.

Quote:


You took the words right out of my mouth, but I was trying to be... (wait for it)... TACTFUL!  LOL

I think the 'tack in shoe' tactic is about the dumbest ever.
I mean, what is the examiner supposed to think when subjects come limping into
the examination room. If the tack isnt making contact when they walk, then they
basically have no chance to make it work later in the test - any subject doing the
'foot jive' would automatically give themselves away.

Control and selective manipulation of breathing, coupled with distracted focus
is the way to go....but one does need a fair amount of IQ to get it right.

I wonder if there's a market for an 'anti-poly wonder tack'.
Works by remote control of a switch linked to the sphincter.
Activating yr sphincter creates 1 CM response while the electric tack shocks the 
hell out of you - sending your GSR soaring.

Just a thought. Use it. Dont use it.

I wouldn't classify an inconclusive result as a win.  I've never tried the tack in the shoe CM because it seems too difficult for me to employ.  What was the purpose of this exam?  Seems to me that he meant you will be retaking a poly in the near future due to the inconclusive result.

yea... so... I didnt really follow most of the procedures explained... however i was able to use the tack in the shoe trick.  To say the least my test came back inconclusive, and the examiner said it was more on the truthful side than deceptive.  Basically he went through the same questionare of 10 questions about 5 times.  He went the through the first set and what I didnt was push on the tack to keep my heart elavated and tried to keep a steady breating rate, completely concious of my breating rate... I kept it slow and steady.  Next he the stim test i believe is what it was called.... it was the numbers test...  He told me to pick a number between 2 - 9. I picked 7,  he told me lie on that number.  So when he went thru the numbers I let off the tack at numbers 2-6, when he wanted me to lie on number 7 I pushed on the tack to make my heart rate go up, let off the tack on numbers 8-9.  After that he did the 10 question set questionare.   In which what I was hoping, I provided a false "lie" on his chart (when i pressed on the tack on the number 7 during the stim test).  I proceeded to Press on the tack the whole time during the questionare, when I answered the question I let off the tack. I mixed it u a little as I really wasnt sure what I was doing... So afterawhile I just pressed on the tack trying to raise my heartrate DURING when the question  was asked,  I answered then let off tack.  I stepped on the tack... and raised my heartrate as soon as he begin the next question.  All the while I kept my breathing rate steady.  I think it worked as he said my results were inconclusive and more on the truthful side.  What do you guys think?  Did I do it right?  Well I know it worked... but I would like to perfect it more... as I may have more polygraphs latter.... In fact I think the polygrapher was mad, cuz he was like and I quote, " You'll probably be seeing me later down the road."

nonombre wrote on Jun 5^th, 2007 at 2:17am:


Hi,

But you didn't actually quote any numbers (stats). I also scored many confessions in my time. however I agree with the viewpoint of others that DOD technology is really used to elicit confessions and cannot distinguish truth from deception with scientifically validated certainty. And therefore it is not science and should never be touted as such. 

Its an investigation / interrogation tool. Nothing more. Nothing less. 

Politics. ha. I always think of Arnie when I think of politicians. I can imagine him kicking down doors for votes. He should be tested to verify where his support truly lies. ?????

Nonombre,

You can polygraph politicians !! Not only would I openly support you, I would even donate money for that, but I do believe you would have open support from all sides on this debate. When politicians and lawyers lips are moving they are lying. So on that premise, it could be a win-win for all concerned. Just a thought !! 

Regards !!!

Quote:


Actually I don't mind answering.  You see I am actually a fairly simple guy and I see the "accuracy" of my work this way:  I do two kinds of tests, screening and specific issue.  In the case of screening, I have found that the vast majority of the folks who fail subsequently give up disqualifying information which would preclude them from becoming police officers in the first place.

In the case of specific issue tests, even MORE of those folks who fail, subsequently confess to the crime and in many cases give me information or evidence only the guilty party would have known, in other words a "confirmed" confession.

Now I am no scientist, and don't know a whole lot about research, but as far as I am concerned, those numbers speak for the accuracy of what I do.  I have lost track of the number of good, solid, cases that would have never been made had it not been for polygraph...

But I will admit that polygraph is certainly a contraversial line of work.  There are times I wish I did something more accepted by others....

Maybe politics?

Regards,

Nonombre

Nonombre,

Thanks for your good wishes. I am going to try and do a deal with amazon
iro sole distribution rights and see if they will absorb some of the
printing / publishing costs, base don sales of my previous book.

I wrote a book previously. It sold well. Thought I would use the same avenue
again as the % split was very fair. But, the old crowd changed hands and so
I have to start knocking on doors all over again.

This time around I want to go for a bigger market.

I think that door kicking must have made you a HBP patient.
Shit. every next time you kick a door it could be your last time.
Your family must have been very pleased when you gave that one up.

If you post from your work place and your Identity is known there, then I would understand 
that you cannot answer my next question with sincerity. 

Q: Dont you often admit to yourself that this technology has less than desirable accuracy..?

If you dont answer.....no sweat.

Quote:


1904,

I have been a law enforcement examiner for awhile now.  I conduct pre-employment and criminal specific issue polygraph exams.  Truly the most fun I have had since kicking down doors on the drug team (in my much younger days).

I am sorry that polygraph turned out to not work out for you.  I truly hope your future efforts are fruitful and make sure to let us know about your book(s) once they are published.

Regards,

Nonombre

1904

Nonombre has a history of not answering questions. Ask Eosjupitor. If he does, it is with another question. He has stated that he's not a fed. BUT?? He sure knew all about George's FBI poly. He likes to gather infomation but is extremely reluctant about revealing any. His replies are mostly attacks. Doesn't have the ability to debate.

If I don't know enough to intelligently debate a subject, I will immediately say so and back out of the debate and will only re-enter when the attacks begin.

If you don't mind, I will pvt/message you about your book writing. I can write a motion picture script (with POV's, etc.)but have much trouble putting the story in book form and the book should come first.

nonombre wrote on May 31^st, 2007 at 10:27pm:


Hi There,

In my spare time I write poetry. Some of my poetry has been published over the years. 
I am busy writing books at the mo - without giving away too much -  one is about how we inherit
more than just physical dna but also psychological dna - it would be classified as fiction with
a good splodge of humour. 

The other is a work of satire - lampooning politicians.

I bought into properties years back - a good investment that has produced rewards.

Are you pvt or fed ..?

Quote:


Sorry,

I glossed over this part the first time. I think that your breathing CM should work fairly well and if you have it down pat - then well done. I would assume that this would work better with people who breathe shallow - ie slight built and not athletic. Because even if you are controlling the timing, are you controlling the depth...? If a subject of mine was breathing regular and fairly deep, I would be suspicious
and would break that cycle, by telling them to take DEEP breaths - 3 breaths after scoring cycles. 

I think my breathing CM is possibly better..ie - breathe 'normally' but produce reactions on the CQ's and reflief on the RQ's........but that's just one mans opinion. whatever works for you shouldn't be meddled with.

Keep on keeping on.......

1904,

Although I do not have any current plans to "break free" of my chosen profession, your post does interest me.  What calling have you now chosen to pursue (if you don't mind me asking?)

Nonombre

nonombre wrote on May 31^st, 2007 at 1:11am:



NONOMBRE - HI
If you dig up some of my earlier posts you will read that I AM exiting the ignoble and unprofessional
polygraph and cvsa industry. I started up a totally different business several years ago, with the intention of baling out of p/g. At last I am free of the Lies Of The Lie Detector. 

Are you still stuck in that deceitful rut............?????

Break Free .... you know you want to...

TwoBlock,

Thanks for the compliment. !!  I do believe that some of our resident polygraphers may be a little upset that "1904" has decided to really live up to the "Dedicated to Truth" motto. About time we get someone with the knowlege and Huevos Grande to tell it like it is. It beats hiding behind a message board that only polygraphers get to view and comment. To this end I am impressed.

Regards ....

Nonombre

What a novel idea! Still the profound thinker, HUH?

You or any of your government peers care to debate 1904? However, be careful. He seems to be as sharp as Eosjupiter. You remember him, don't you.

I love his defining signature and even you "can be a legend in your lunch time"

Quote:


1904,

You seem a bit "disgruntled."  Have you considered a different line of work??

Regards,

Nonombre

Quote:



Yip. I noticed that I am viewed with some suspicion. But take a step back and look again.
I dont need to have a hidden agenda because I have no intention of revealing my identity
to this forum - maybe to one person that I think I might have met before - but otherwise we're
all just 'usernames' on a board. Better that way.

Fact: I have been in the DOD industry a long long time. I have alienated myself from many of my peers because I told them that we are dabbling in smoke and mirrors bullshit and that too  many (not all) of them have sold their souls. 

Fact: I instruct but have not tested for real issues a coupla years now. It depresses me.
I tell students clearly, "Most of the people that you will test, over 95%, should be NDI. Your
function is not to try and be a hangman. Use your skill to help subjects to pass. The process is
unnatural, intimidating and designed to prejudice mere mortals. The guilty do not need any assistance from you. They will, if guilty, fail all by themselves. They do not need your assistance to fail.
When you get Incon's - and you will get plenty - give the subject the benefit of doubt. The entire
subject of CM's is a mindf***. Dont go there. There are so many undetectable CM's - let it go.
We are not dealing with science. You will have VF's and when you do, hope to GOD that you have
erred on the right side. If you ruin an innocent persons life, you have your own to live with. Use this
technology with extreme care. "

EosJupiter wrote on May 30^th, 2007 at 5:07pm:



Mmm. I attended a lecture of Stan Walters. Have 3 of his books I think. Plus his little pocketbook guide. Stan is a showman. Knowledgeable, but just a tad too OTT. But, as you said, a worthwhile read. I am an avaricious (?) reader of any DOD material. It is amazing how much there is out there. A lot of interesting material but also a lot of BS - I'm trying to remember a large, hard bound coffee table size book i bought on SA - by some clown - it was total utter crap. Too lazy to walk to my study right now - think he was a Wendell somebody. What a plonker. Tried to reinvent SA (CBCA) with a dash of KA. Dont buy it, unless you're short of a paperweight.

Quote:


I look forward to reading more of your posts, though it may be with some scrutiny since antipolygraph posts from an examiner are unusual. Don't take it personally though, I don't think anybody on here explicitly trust any single poster - otherwise we wouldn't be here.

polycrap32123 wrote on May 24^th, 2007 at 1:15am:


Sorry it took me so long to respond.  I've been on vacation and I don't tend to visit here as much as I did in the past.  Selfishly, since I have had success in using CMs multiple times, it's become a non-issue for me and has lost my interest.

I prefer to use tongue biting, but I'm always prepared to use sphincter contractions if both sides of my face are visible, or mental CM if there is a sensor pad.  Some of my previous posts talk specifically about CMs that I have used in the past.

I would not tell anybody to use breathing CMs unless they have some experience in breath control, as I do.  I lock in a pattern of rate and depth before the chart begins, and I stick with it until the test is completely done.  I actually count 1-mississippi, 2, 3, 4 in,  and 1, 2, 3, 4 out.  When I answer Yes or No, the pattern is naturally interrupted and I resume it from the point I left off.  If it is a CQ, I stop counting, answer the question, and resume after an appropriate amount of time – depending on the pace of the test 5-20 seconds.
My goal is not to use a breathing CM, but rather to make it a negligible point by being precisely consistent.  I don’t know for certain that THIS method of breathing has any impact on the outcome at all, but my personal experience says it works for me.

Again, I have used tongue biting every time, have never been accused of it, and have always passed.

1904,

Stock market says value is going up. Welcome to the board, your opinions should make for some very stimulating 
messages. QuickFix, Lienot, Palerider, or any of our other lurking polygraphers,  I do believe they will find you most entertaining, if not annoying. 
And as I suspected long ago, the use of SA & KA seems to be a common use tactic by most of the polygraphers. Both subjects worthy of study
and counterable. Walters book on the subject is worth reading. I would have prefered to see a more basic reason for you posting 
as revenge or payback. But  cleansing works for me. The way you worded your response says it all. 

Regards ....