Thank you Dr. Richardson for verifying the Sgts. employment and sorry I questioned your remarks regarding your employment sgt.

For those parties who have expressed an interest:

Sergeant1107 is most assuredly a law enforcement officer.  Although I don't know him personally, I do know his boss (the Chief).  Regards...

Ludovico wrote on Oct 17^th, 2007 at 1:53pm:

George knows I'm a cop and I believe he knows which department I work for.

Dr. Richardson also knows I'm a cop and which department I work for.  

Would you be willing to believe either of them?  

If either of them have forgotten or would like me to PM them the information so they can call my chief and verify my status as a current sworn officer, with over ten years experience, who is a sergeant and a shift supervisor, I'd be happy to send it to them.  I have no problem with either of them posting that they have verified my LEO status, though I wouldn't want them to make public my name or any other identifying information.

As I have already mentioned to Wonder Woman in a PM, I have seen nothing in the behavior of the trolls (which is, by definition, what you and Paradiddle and others have been in your behavior on this board) that would lead me to believe the contents of a "private" message would remain private.  If any of you are currently sworn officers, would you like to PM me your name, agency, and ORI, so that I might verify your credentials?

The fact that so many are willing to call me a liar based on SCAN principles when they are either ignorant of or at least knowingly violating many of the basics of that technique does not make me any more willing to trust them.

SCAN requires, first and foremost, that the statement to be analyzed is uninfluenced and unaltered by the investigator.  An investigator would not interrogate a suspect for an extended length of time, obtain a written statement, and then attempt to analyze it.  But you already know that, don't you?

I have been posting my story on this board and others for over two and a half years, and it has been questioned and attacked many times.  I have written my statement regarding my series of polygraph exams several hundred times, at least, and have had that statement's veracity questioned nearly as often.  If you feel that qualifies my message board posts as not having been influenced by investigators, you obviously have a very different interpretation of the term than I.

Truly, though, what impact does my profession have on my statements and questions?  Each time someone posts a pro-polygraph opinion, I do not start questioning their claims of being a polygraph examiner, simply because it doesn't matter.  If a person has something to contribute to the discussion, it is irrelevant what they do for a living or how many polygraphs they have taken or administered.

When opinions, statements, and questions are responded to with attacks directed at the credibility of the poster it is an example of an argumentum ad hominem.  It is often used by people who are in a state of intellectual bankruptcy and cannot respond with a logical argument to whatever point or issue was raised.  The best response for someone faced with an ad hominem attack is to simply not respond in any way.

Mea culpa for forgetting that.

huh?

Quote:


These are not the guys that I'd want having my back on a hot call. 

I'll take the guys who choose to fight against injustice no matter what the odds or what strange bedfellows might be involved.

Also, I'll take the guys who refuse to quit.

Ludovico's back up team can be the guys who "move on and move forward" when faced with adversity.

DITO

Quote:


Sure.

You wouldn't even have to post all that publicly. You could PM the info to someone for a more private authenticated introduction.

Lets face it. You just don't seem like a cop. Statement analysis or not. Most cops don't whine about the same old issue at every opportunity. They move on and move forward. Your whole line of logic is premised in an ethical paradigm which is a little inconsistent with LE and would have us take away cops guns for all the abuses and bad decisions made with them. Most cops would be very reluctant to engage in conversations that aide the bad guys.

Maybe you were a cop one time. Maybe your one of those short time cops... Maybe you were never a cop but wanted to be one.

I'd be happy to apologize if I'm wrong. 

Hunter wrote on Oct 16^th, 2007 at 11:44pm:


I spent an hour Scanning Sgt's last 10 Posts. Sorry for you but they present no deception.
If you disagree, please quote the deceptive sentences and provide your analysis for debate.

Happy Hunting.

Hunter wrote on Oct 17^th, 2007 at 5:53am:



Bong !!
Sgt: 3 Points
Hunter: 0

Sorry Hunter. You lose.

Don't expect anything!!!  Your non answer and evasion three times in one post is enough for me.  I don't care if you are an LEO or not.  Your arguments are circular and not worthy  of reply

Have a good day

Hunter wrote on Oct 16^th, 2007 at 11:44pm:

So, let's say I provided my credentials to a bunch of anonymous posters on the Internet in order to satisfy their curiosity.  And after I did so you all said, "Gee, I guess he really is a police sergeant."  Then what?

I am willing to bet you would then claim I had never been polygraphed, or that I had hadn't failed any polygraphs.  After I posted sufficient information to prove that I have taken four pre-employment polygraphs and that I failed three of them, what then?

Then we'd come back to the circular logic again, that I must have been lying on the polygraphs, otherwise I would have passed.   

Ad hom attacks, which include the repeated accusations that I am lying about my profession and my experiences, indicate that you are unable to respond intellectually to whatever I have to say.

Now if I were to post my name, and badge number, and POST ID number, and name of the agency I work for, and my office phone number, would I be able to expect an apology from all the people who accused me of lying about being a police sergeant?  Of course not.  I expect you would once again apply statement analysis to posts on an anonymous message board, where the poster does not wish his identity to be discerned, and come to the startling conclusion that the poster appears to be trying to hide something.

Why is that not suprising behavior coming from a polygraph examiner?  You are taking a guess right now about what I do for a living and whether my experiences with the polygraph are true or not, and you are wrong.  That's not too different from the polygraph examiners who took a guess during my screening exams and were wrong as well.  Why should I have expected anything else?

my story

Statement analysis would indicate you are telling a story, not a real life situation.  It is obvious that your attitude will not change and you will continue to be in opposition to the polygraph community at large.  I personally do not accept that you are a sergeant at a LEA.

Paradiddle wrote on Oct 16^th, 2007 at 10:08pm:

I expected nothing less.

I understand your inability to deal with my story.  It must be difficult for you and your breathren to accept.

If you are truly skilled in statement analysis (which should only be used on things like text messages and anonymous forum posts with great care), then I am sure you know what the issue is.  And I am equally sure you know it has nothing to do with any deception regarding my experiences with the polygraph.

But, again, I understand that it easier for you to attack me than it is for you to believe me.  That's too bad.

And we are once again at the classic polygraph trap of circular logic.  I say I'm telling the truth, and you say I'm not.  And you feel perfectly comfortable calling me a liar, because I failed a polygraph.  If I was telling the truth, I wouldn't have failed, and then I wouldn't be on this forum saying that I had failed.

Paradiddle wrote on Oct 16^th, 2007 at 10:08pm:


Sorry Chief but i also smell fish...if the polygraph were a fish sandwich you could smell it from a mile away. Nice "quotations" and ''highlights'' way to ''go'' verbal attactks aside you know as well as i do that if this site were BS or ''anti poly folly'' you and your fellow polygrapghers wouldnt be coming here and posting constantlyyyy. ill be awaitng your tired excuses
Regards!!!

Quote:


See "Sarge", there you go again writing like you are masquerading as another person other than who you are. Your writing is SVA 101 deceptive. You can deny all you want, but your pronouns and sentences suggest there is a different truth than your words. If you were pro-polygraph I would still be very suspicious of you due to your smoky "tells" and verb/noun usage. Sorry chief. I smell fish. Has nothing to do with your alliances.

Paradiddle wrote on Oct 16^th, 2007 at 8:17pm:

I understand.

It is far easier for you to engage in ad hom attacks against me, doubt my veracity, and question my stated profession than it is to deal with the circumstances I have presented.

If you were to accept my story, you would have to deal with the fact that a person who has gone on to have a very successful police career with an unblemished record of honorable and professional behavior was disqualified three separate times for absolutely no reason by the pseuodoscience that is the polygraph.

I suspect that is where the majority of the hostility directed at me by many other posters on this forum originates as well.

My story, if you accept it, would lead any reasonable person to question the utility of the polygraph.  If you believe I have been a sworn officer for over ten years and am currently a shift supervisor who enjoys the utmost respect of the people serving under him, it would be more difficult to pass my tale off as the bitter rantings of some guy on the Internet.  You might actually have to consider that the polygraph screws over some very good people, and I'm sure you would prefer not to do that.

It is far easier to take shots at me and state you don't believe than it is to consider what it might mean if I am telling the truth.

If you are in law enforcement, think of the most respected sergeant you know.  The most tactically and technically proficient supervisor who commands the respect of not only his or her own shift, but also the respect of officers on other shifts.  Now picture that man or woman telling you they failed three out of four polygraphs while telling the truth in each one.

That's me.  But I know it is easier for you to attack me than it is for you to believe me.

Sergeant1107 wrote on Oct 16^th, 2007 at 7:21pm:


Well, if you read the literature, there does seem to be evidence suggesting it might be a really bad idea to use countermeasures if you are telling the truth.

Best advise would be to stop reading this site, and stay out of all the crazy-making drama.

Sorry about your experience, but you should be aware of the error of drawing empirical conclusions from personal or annecdotal experience. 

Hey, for a cop, you seem unusually steeped in a deontological ethical paradigm. We all know that policework isn't perfect either. Heck, even an erroneous arrest could be life altering and devastating for some.  Would you, along with Emmanuel Kant, advocate that police never make an arrest until the courts are absolutely sure someone is guilty? What about the court's imperfections. Kant might suggest courts do nothing for the possibility of harming an innocent man (we all know it happens). Do you ever ask yourself how many people were subject to police brutality today? Do you ever feel like we should completely curtail police investigators' authority due to those potential, and known, abuses? Most cops are well versed in more utilitarian ethics, and realize that all methods are imperfect, but still valuable if used properly. You sure your a cop? Cause you just don't seem like it.

Quote:


George its time to update your boilerplate post. It seems highly inaccurate, and in violation of the posting policies.

And while your at it, please begin advising your reader that studying coutermeasures may make it more difficult for them to produce satisfactory test results.

Quote:


Uh yeah. I thought that was a given.

Quote:



For advice on taking the polygraph, see www.polygraph.org or better yet, www.polygraphplace.com ;
In your case, I would want you to see a physician or a psychiatrist. You may be one of the very rare few who are unsuitable for testing but were tested accidentally  i.e. mental retardation, schizo-effective, schizophrenia, psychosis, arythmic heart, brain damage from head trauma or repeated sports injuries to head ----or a number of other serious conditions that you may or may not be aware of. Otherwise relax and tell the truth----and disclose any "cards up your sleave." To be honest and to ask that you not take this personally as I don't know your identity and you don't know mine------but from a statement analysis standpoint, many of your posts contain a number of indicated deceptions and/or distortions. Quite frankly Sarge, you are not who you indicate that you are----and when you debate issues, that deception comes through and is very distracting. I mean no disrespect, but I simply don't believe your polygraph story of having failed 3 tests with 3 different examiners. Perhaps you failed 2 polygraphs with the same examiner. Regardless, I smell fish.

Paradiddle wrote on Oct 16^th, 2007 at 1:39pm:

Obviously, you are opposed to any advice that includes the suggested use of any type of countermeasure.

I am curious as to what advice you (or any other examiner) has for someone about to take a polygraph?

Please bear in mind that my plan of action in each of my four polygraphs was to relax, tell the complete truth, and not withhold any information.  That "plan" resulted in three failures out of four exams.

If I had to take a polygraph tomorrow, what advice would you give me?  I sincerely hope it is something more than to relax and tell the truth, because I already know that doesn't work.

Quote:


Of course he "may well wish" to use countermeasures, he said so----and he also stated that he intends on reapplying------this is just filler and padding. 

Quote:


Such coaching and use of BS during the polygraph test is a countermeasure----a behavioral countermeasure. Now it seems George is an acting coach as well as a overseas polygraph expert who has never ran a test, passed a test, or been through any polygraph training institute. Sheesh. Why don't you tell the applicant to dress in drag while you're at it George----than you can recruit another antipolygraph minion who will decry the polygraph and regale stories of how it screwed him over while he showed in heels and a minidress.

Quote:


This is tantamount to advice from high schoolers on how to enter the "in crowd"----another experience Geoge might be lacking as an overseas outsider. Phony badmouthing---now that is pure genius. I hope you have experence in an acting troupe like Second City, as such phoniness will fly like a lead Zeppelin.

Quote:


George used so many double-negatives he almost engaged in time travel. I had no idea he could be so cryptic.

Quote:


More time travel? Are we on mushrooms here?

lapd01,

I am sorry to read of your past experience with the LAPD and LASD polygraph units. False positives are all too common, and you may well wish to use countermeasures should you re-apply with either agency. However, the best course of action might be to adopt the "complete honesty" approach described in Chapter 4 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector and to divulge to your polygrapher that you have researched polygraphy, read sites including AntiPolygraph.org, that you know about countermeasures (but have no intention of using them). You might even want to throw in a skeptical or even nasty remark about this website. The reason I suggest this approach is that given your past polygraph experience, your next polygrapher will likely have a hard time believing that you haven't researched polygraphy (and anyone who does so is certain to find AntiPolygraph.org). So admitting that you've researched the polygraph may be taken as a sign of candor. Your polygrapher is also likely to welcome any negative comments you might make about this website.

Beyond that, whether to employ countermeasures is up to you. Polygraphers have no demonstrated ability to detect them, and not using them is no guarantee that you won't be accused of using them. Mysterymeat made reference to my experience with the LAPD polygraph. In 1995, I was falsely accused of using countermeasures by an LAPD polygrapher at a time when I did not even know what polygraph countermeasures are. Earlier that year, I had been falsely accused of deception by an FBI polygrapher. You can read about my experience in my statement, "Too Hot of a Potato: A Citizen-Soldier's Encounter With the Polygraph."

I failed three out of four pre-employment polygraphs while telling the truth and without using countermeasures or reading TLBTLD.

It is unlikely I would have done worse if I familiarized myself with and used countermeasures, and there's a chance I could have done better.

In my experience, telling the truth and hoping for the best works 25% of the time.  


It is interesting that Paradiddle's post indicates that mere suspicion of countermeasure use will cause you to fail.  (Unless he is going to argue, amidst a pointless ad hom attack, of course, that "wrap your neck like a dead goose" is a positive statement that has nothing to do with failing or being disqualified.)

How far a jump is it from suspecting (but not being able to prove) countermeasure use and failing the subject to suspecting (but not being able to prove) deception and failing the subject?

LAPD01

I almost forgot! The LAPD polygraph was kind of "Ground Zero" for George Maschke and this web-site. If anyone can tell you how to beat an LAPD polygraph, it would be George himself!

George wrote an article that is posted on this site. I think the title is "How I burned my potato". Check it out! It should get you an EASY pass on your LAPD polygraph.

Best of luck,

MM

lapd01 wrote on Oct 15^th, 2007 at 9:49pm:




lapd01,

Before doing anything you should read the brand spankin new study here; https://antipolygraph.org/cgi-bin/forums/YaBB.pl?num=1192473646

----and especially read the added part that says; quote "The participants were given the downloadable manual “The lie Behind the Lie Detector" from this site and told to study the book as it could help them to pass the polygraph test.  After having the book for a week, the guilty subjects with the book were no better at passing the test than were the guilty group without the book.  [b]However, the innocent group with the book failed the test at a higher rate  (false positives) than the innocent group without the book.  Makes one wonder if this site is doing more harm than good.  If it doesn't help the guilty to pass and it causes the innocent to fail the test at a higher rate then why would one use the book?  This study indicates the exact opposite from what this web site predicts will happen!"[/b]


So....what should you do lapd01? How about........

Tell your polygraph examiner your experience in researching the test constructs and tell them that you were tempted but have decided to put your best foot forward and not attempt countermeasures. Some keyboard cowboys around here will tell you not to do that---but I  am an examiner and I know what impresses me---and they(keyboard cowboys) are only "doomers". Knowledge is not illegal---but secret knowledge can be a liability to you if you walk into the test with a self-percieved Ace up your sleave. Chances are, your sleave card is only a Joker----so put it on the table---ya don't need more nervousness and agenda. Good luck.

p.s. Having known some lapd examiners, I can assure you they are not 95 yr old cross-eyed old men. They know the CM bologna when they see it---and the mere suspicion of countermeasure use will wrap your neck like a dead goose. Crush their paranoia with the truth, get the job, come back here and tell these clowns how it's done-----unless of course this is a made up scenario and user by a rabid antipolygraph fanboy or administrator.