Quote:


Surprise surprsie, a polygrapher making sweeping statements and trying to bait. For anyone who is interested in the post where my sexual activity is discussed in a little bit more detail, go here:

https://antipolygraph.org/cgi-bin/forums/YaBB.pl?num=1197468793

Quote:


I have an opinion after doing some research...so that makes me a know it all? If you and other polygrapher woudl answer direct questions, maybe I would get some actual information which opposes most of the views on this site....but time and time again polygraphers choose to avoid actually answering the tough questions. 

Quote:


I will be happy to. I might pass, I might fail, I might use cm's, I might be falsy accused of lying, I might be falsy accused of using cm's...who knows....but I will come back an let you know how I did. This is about the fifth time you said this over the past two weeks to me...I appreciate your genuine concern. 

Ms. Taylor, do you find any part of the statement below as wild or unsubstantiated?

If a polygraph was actually capable of detecting lies, then a one question test would be valid, such as:  "Did you kill John Doe?"

A yes or no answer, and the poly is over, and spits out the results.  Instead, the examiner first attempts to convince the examinee that the machine is a "lie detector" then falsely "tests" the examinee in a stim test, then presumes that the examinee is telling little white lies during the test on the control questions, but those are not relevant, and then on the relevant questions, the whole truth (or deception) is revealed.  All of  which can be altered if the examinee squeezes his butt muscles, does math in his head, bites his tongue or steps on a tack.

All this is done under the justification that "Well, no test is perfect".  I submit a polygraph examination is not even a test, because there is no objective way to pass.  One must receive a favorable "opinion" that he or she is being truthful or deceptive.  One cannot "pass" an opinion.

Donna.Taylor wrote on Jan 9^th, 2008 at 6:57pm:


Well, wonders never end... Ms. Taylor the questions I ask which you and others refuse to answer are precisely the type of questions that, if left unanswered, exposes the polygraph for the sham that it is.  The fact that you do not know how many people you "pass" were using countermeasures, exposes the truth.  You don't know, and can't tell.

BTW, I have a lot of respect for polygraphers who choose to work with SO's on a daily basis, as the mere association leaves a stain that is difficult to wash out.  I also have no problem or issue using the poly for SO's, because they should be in prison anyway, IMO.

chrismcphee33 wrote on Jan 9^th, 2008 at 4:43pm:



Chris McPhee, as you now know I am retired LEO and a Polygraph Examiner for the past 7 years.  It amazes me that other supposed LEOs posting on this site can’t see through the BS you spout.  You came to this site to find out how to avoid a sexual area on an upcoming polygraph.  Now you state you are going to tell the truth but still employ CM’s to assure you pass the Polygraph.  You act as if you now ‘know it all’ because you practiced with a BP cuff.  As I have stated previously, do what you plan to do; but, please return here after your polygraph and tell us all how you did.  It’s plain and simple.

Just remember what has been posted in the past. In a study that was published in 2007 (Dr. Honts & Wendy Alloway)….. The result-the book TLBTLD did not assist the guilty group to pass but did cause more of the innocent group to fail. This is completely opposite of what is stated at AP. Studying the countermeasures actually caused more innocents to fail without helping guilty to pass.  For more details check out:  Latest Study Indicates "Lie Behind the Lie Detector" Hurts Innocent, Doesn't Help Guilty    (posted under AP polygraph policy - 12/7/01)

As for nopoly4me, I also don’t care to engage in discussions with you as you just try to argue and bait.  Someone recently asked for stats on if there really is a 75% failure rate on pre-employment exams.  Yankeedog and I provided just the opposite and you tried to dissect that information.  I can see why Sancho ignores you.

SanchoPanza wrote on Jan 9^th, 2008 at 6:35pm:


Actually your opinion is ill-concieved and inaccurate, but I will admit to a free cup of coffee now and then back in the day when that was not considered a gratuity.   

Twoblock wrote on Jan 9^th, 2008 at 6:04pm:


Thank-you Twoblock for your kind words.  I will be the first to admit though, that my carreer hasn't been all that action packed, but there are a few times where the pucker factor was pretty high.

I frankly only brought up this aspect of my personal life to counter Sancho's holier than thou attitude.  No cop has a corner on the integrity and honestly department.   

What I find incomprehensible is the willingness to brand innocent applicants as liars, and denying them the opporunity to serve their community based on an arbitrary and capricious test such as the poly.  It is no wonder that jobs go wanting for lack of applicants.  When I started, there were a hundred applicants for every open job.  The reverse is now true, and I believe the polygraph is responsible for a large part of that.

Chrismcphee33   Your assumption that I am a polygrapher is based on what?


And I can't understand your support of Nopoly when he probably survived 30 years active duty puttiing the arm on merchants for freebies and cop discounts while radioing HQ that he was out of position to respond to anything dangerous and perjuring himself in court while padding his expenses or siphoning gas out of his agency car for his kids go-cart. Of course that's not an accusation, thats just an opinion isn't it?


Hey Mr. Maschke   You decide  Unsupported accusation or Statement of opinion?

Sancho Panza

Again Nopoly the only response I have for you is ...

nopoly4me

WOW!!!

Many thanks for putting your life on the line for so many years in these dangerous times.

Good job

I forgot something in my previous post about polygraphers, like Sancho, not answering questions directly. I meant to also include that he/she also tends to revert back to prvious posts (ie: I have considerably more evidence that you are and exhibitionist and voyeur than you have that I am a polygrapher. ). You can repeat that 100 times, I have no issues with it because I have explained in more detail what I meant...if you really cared to know.  Read over your previous post and it will; be very obvious just how much you avoid the actual questions. You act like you don't want to justify such questions with a response, yet you will respond to my statements about you yelling (ie. The use of different kinds of emphasis like the one you call yelling (which seems odd to me considering this board doesn't use sound).

You made a statement about nopoly making wild and unsubstantiated claims...I am just asking which of the claims he made, which I pasted in my previous post, are wild and unsubstantiated?

SanchoPanza wrote on Jan 9^th, 2008 at 4:37pm:


NOW it's getting FUN!

I presume you are referring to the following comment:

"You probably survived by avoiding the hot calls, (like you avoid my posts) and getting into internal affairs as soon as you could brown nose enough brass."

Well, of course the above is not a direct accusation as you state, but instead couched as an opinion, which frankly was beneath my dignity and not worthy of a person with my intellectual prowess.  I guess I got caught up in the moment, and for that I apologize.  I find it curious and instructive though, that you actually don't deny it's truthfulness, but instead misdirect by stating that I directly accused you of avoiding hot calls and brown nosing your way into internal affairs.  No, Sancho, I was just stating my opnion based on my 30 years of active duty police work, (I still carry a badge, BTW). You see,  I have seen many people get to the top, (or at least a cushy ROAD* job such as internal affairs) on the backs of good cops and their carreers.

And, I have said nothing here that I wouldn't say to your face, or anyone elses face.  I would welcome a personal meeting with anyone here.  Perhaps Dr. Phil or Maury Povich could arrange it, it could be a very exhilerating experience for all, and extremely entertaining.

* ROAD means "Retired On Active Duty" for the non-police readers.

Gotta go now, I have a one o'clock court appearance.

chrismcphee33 wrote on Jan 9^th, 2008 at 4:52pm:

First I was referring to his posts in general not the post you referenced although I wouldn’t necessarily exclude it. 
 
If I responded to the above, wouldn't that really be responding to Nopoly?  Go back and read the part where I clearly stated "I have decided that Nopoly’s wild unsubstantiated claims and the baiting nature of his posts are unworthy of further response."  Do I need to resort to capital letters and yellow highlights to get you to read that? If there is some part of that statement you are unable to comprehend, please describe it as best you can and I will try to explain even though the language was sufficiently plain that further explanation would probably make someone accuse me of condescension. 

The idea that simply regurgitating his post somehow makes it yours is just a bit silly. Someone might  possibly even call it plagiaristic.  

Sancho Panza

Chrismcphee33   Your assumption that I am a polygrapher is based on what?

I have considerably more evidence that you are and exhibitionist and voyeur than you have that I am a polygrapher. 

You just can't seem to acknowledge the possibility that intellectually curious individuals can research polygraph without eventually worshipping at the George Mashcke antipolygraph shrine. 

You criticize statements that promote honesty truth and integrity when you came to this forum attempting to learn how to avoid being honest and truthful about your admitted embarrassing sexual behavior in your upcoming polygraph test. 

The vast majority of your questions attempt to establish an avenue of credibilty that you can use to justify your intended attempt to alter the results of that test.

You have my answer to that question. There is no moral and ethical justification for using countermeasures of any kind. 
Asking the quesion over and over changing the words of the questions without changing the substance of the question is unlikely to elicit an different response. 

The use of different kinds of emphasis like the one you call yelling (which seems odd to me considering this board doesn't use sound)is just an attempt at emphasising that "hey you've heard this answer before" or to call attention to a particular point. Your repeated asking of the same questions over and over after you have received responses is just an indication you refuse to read the response or that you are refusing to acknowledge a response because it doesn't tell you what you want to hear. 

Sancho Panza

nopoly wrote:
And, a polygrapher lying to the examinee isn't?  The mere fact that you are hooked up to a machine that is called a lie detector is dishonest on it's face, because the machine cannot detect lies.

In fact, the last time I discussed the issue face to face with a polygrapher, he admitted that he cannot tell if a person is lying.

If a polygraph was actually capable of detecting lies, then a one question test would be valid, such as:  "Did you kill John Doe?"

A yes or no answer, and the poly is over, and spits out the results.  Instead, the examiner first attempts to convince the examinee that the machine is a "lie detector" then falsely "tests" the examinee in a stim test, then presumes that the examinee is telling little white lies during the test on the control questions, but those are not relevant, and then on the relevant questions, the whole truth (or deception) is revealed.  All of  which can be altered if the examinee squeezes his butt muscles, does math in his head, bites his tongue or steps on a tack.

All this is done under the justification that "Well, no test is perfect".  I submit a polygraph examination is not even a test, because there is no objective way to pass.  One must receive a favorable "opinion" that he or she is being truthful or deceptive.  One cannot "pass" an opinion.

Sancho:
What part of nopoly's post are the wild and unsubstantiated claims? Could you also tell me which parts are of baiting nature?

In my limited experience posting on this site, it has already become obvious that polygraphers like SanchoPanza tend to make general sweeping statements about morality instead of answering questions. While they are writing these long drawn out responses, which include YELLING and exclaiming! they don't seem to realize that their avoidance of the actual questions is the most telling thing of all about their own understanding of the validity of the polygraph interrogation process.

chrismcphee33 wrote on Jan 9^th, 2008 at 4:00pm:


THANK YOU Chrismcphee33 I have decided that Nopolys wild unsubstantiated claims and the baiting nature of his posts are unworthy of further response. He appears to lack the ability for logical discussion and chooses instead to toss wild accusations that are without foundation. 

You will probably notice, as I have,  that the polygraphers on this board have started ignoring ignoring him as well. You'll need to ask them why.  Surley if you have actually read his posts you don't think that is due to the intelligent nature of his commentary. 

He has directly accused me of cowardice and brown nosing without  basis. I have never said anything to anyone on this board that I would not happliy say to their face. 

If NoPoly4me had the intestinal fortitude to make that comment to my face he would also need the agility to duck.

So based on all of that I choose not to respond to his comments. 
So What?

Sancho Panza

chrismcphee33 wrote on Jan 9^th, 2008 at 4:00pm:


To keep this response to your comments on topic, it is indeed telling that the polygraph supporters here cannot (or will not) answer straight forward questions honestly, but instead choose to rant and rave about anyone who might want to ensure the success on this arbitrary and capricious procedure commonly called a "lie detector test".

If one goes through my posts, (not suggesting this, but just commenting generally) one will see that typtically the straight forward questions I ask are ignored, or if not ignored, are not answered directly, but emotionally and off-topic.  Or, in the extreme, they do the equivalent of stamping their feet, put their fingers in their ears and say, "I don't HEAR you."  All very childish, in my opinion.

For the record, am pretty much done researching the polygraph, I believe I have a pretty good handle on what takes place during a polygraph examination.  I can now just post for the fun of it, and to help others who come to this site to gain information about the polygraph come to understand it's limitations and the falsity of it all.

Sancho's last response to nopoly is very telling indeed...

Mr. Mashke,  Are there any published scientific independant peer reviewed studies that prove that any type of polygraph countermeasure can make a guilty examinee appear innocent or assist an innocent examinee who is having difficulty, pass the exam?

A simple yes or no would certainly suffice if you are busy, but if the answer is yes could you direct me to where I can read it?

Sancho Panza

Nopoly  Once again my response to you is ...

Sergeant, On a slightly different subject but still pertaining to polygraph, I have been doing some reading on pre-employment screening tests for law enforcement. It appears that after failing your first test because of drugs, you should have been given a specific test on the subject of drugs before being disqualified. When you failed your second test due to fighting/assaults you should have been given a specific test on that subject before being disqualified. When you failed your third test due to theft issues, you should have been given a specific test regarding theft before being disqualified. If these tests occurred what were there results?  If they did not occur you might have a legitimate cause for criticism based on the polygraphers not being thorough. 

We've discussed screening exams before, and we've discussed the higher error rates that exist in screening exams. Specifically we have discussed that if you score positive on a TB skin test, they don't start treating you for TB they give you another test to confirm the results of the screening exam. It would appear that this is also the proper protocol for pre-employment polygraph. 

Just thought I would share that with you

Sancho Panza

SanchoPanza wrote on Jan 9^th, 2008 at 12:29pm:


And, a polygrapher lying to the examinee isn't?  The mere fact that you are hooked up to a machine that is called a lie detector is dishonest on it's face, because the machine cannot detect lies.

In fact, the last time I discussed the issue face to face with a polygrapher, he admitted that he cannot tell if a person is lying.

If a polygraph was actually capable of detecting lies, then a one question test would be valid, such as:  "Did you kill John Doe?"

A yes or no answer, and the poly is over, and spits out the results.  Instead, the examiner first attempts to convince the examinee that the machine is a "lie detector" then falsely "tests" the examinee in a stim test, then presumes that the examinee is telling little white lies during the test on the control questions, but those are not relevant, and then on the relevant questions, the whole truth (or deception) is revealed.  All of  which can be altered if the examinee squeezes his butt muscles, does math in his head, bites his tongue or steps on a tack.

All this is done under the justification that "Well, no test is perfect".  I submit a polygraph examination is not even a test, because there is no objective way to pass.  One must receive a favorable "opinion" that he or she is being truthful or deceptive.  One cannot "pass" an opinion.

Sheesh... The poly is a joke and a fraud.

Sergeant,  Neither one of us should appear naive here.  You keep talking about letting ones innocent mind wander to where ever it will and that is not the topic under discussion. Let your mind wander all it wants and that isn't  using countermeasures but the minute you attempt to direct your thought process in in any way in order to manufacture or supress a response to a question on a polygraph it becomes a countermeasure. If you engage in countermeasures you are acting in a dishonest and unethical manner whether or not you are caught. You also place yourself squarely in the group Law Enforcement appears to want to exclude from its ranks.

Remember ethics and morals are what govern our behavior especially when no one can see us. 

Sancho Panza

George W. Maschke wrote on Jan 9^th, 2008 at 1:18pm:


I'm sorry Mr. Maschke but your comment about a double standard is based solely on your inference an not one tiny bit on my statements or implications contained in my comments. Your opinion is based on an assumption that all polygraphers are practicing deception and that in order for polygraph to work all polygraphers must lie, which are assumptions you can't prove. Your reference to polygraph as "pseudoscience" is simply your parroting of someone elses unproven opinion. 

I have never said that I condone deception practiced by anyone concerning polygraph. If you think I am misrepresenting this statement, each and every one of my posts is available for your review. As the person who literally wrote the book condoning deception, I'm surprised that you don't see the difference. 

As I have said repeatedly, If you don't believe that polygraph is a fair process, REFUSE TO TAKE THE TEST and go find a job elsewhere. 

If you don't think that polygraph should be used by agencies to help them determine whether or not a person is a suitable employee, WORK TO CHANGE THE LAWS THAT ALLOW THEM TO DO SO. 

Either or both of those activities are both ethical and moral and they evidence the dedication to values that indicate the presence of integrity. 

Conversely, if one  engages in purposeful physical countermeasures .If one engages in any thoughts that they think might alter their genuine physiological reactions to questions asked on a polygraph examination, they are attempting to alter the results of the examination. Attempting to purposely alter the results of the examination is dishonest and unethical. Encouraging others to attempt these countermeasure is unethical and evidences negative integrity issues. These actions would also prove beyond doubt. a lack of honesty and integrity that Law Enforcement appears to want to exclude from its ranks. 

On another note, back before the holidays just about the time that you got real busy I asked you a quesion I wonder if you have time to address it now:   I notice that in your personal statement about polygraph you are very careful not to talk about certain issues surrounding the nature of your employment with the government. How can  they control what you talk about after you no longer work for them?


Sancho Panza

SanchoPanza wrote on Jan 9^th, 2008 at 12:29pm:

The bold text above strikes me as utterly ridiculous.  My thoughts are my own.  What other people are thinking is completely unverifiable, yet you obviously believe that the thoughts of test subjects are an aspect of the polygraph exam that can and should be controlled by a polygraph examiner.  There is simply no verifiable way of doing that, as you well know.


SanchoPanza wrote on Jan 9^th, 2008 at 12:29pm:


I’m not searching for a “loohole" or a “loophole.”

If I take a polygraph test and the examiner tells me to be honest, and not to clench muscles or breathe incorrectly or step on a tack or bite my tongue, I’ll gladly do all those things.  However, there is simply no logical pathway to thought control and it is completely untenable in practice.

If the examiner tells me what to think about, i.e., to think about the question and the answer I just gave, isn’t that essentially telling me to produce an artificial reaction?  If you ask me if I am 100 years old and I truthfully tell you that I’m not, why on earth would I continue to think about my answer?  If I am asked about stealing or drug use or driving drunk and I answer honestly, why should I continue to think about my answer?  Because my answers are truthful it’s as uncomplicated as answering any other objective question.  If I’m asked what state I live in and I answer, “Connecticut”, why would I continue to ponder the question or the answer?  If I am told that to do anything else is somehow unethical that is absolutely ridiculous.  I’ve answered honestly and there’s no need to give it another thought, so why would I?  Yet according to your stated logic, I’d be behaving unethically by thinking about something else.  That makes no sense whatsoever.


I am fairly confident that neither you nor any other polygraph supporters truly have a problem with a truthful person’s thoughts, for exactly the reason I just stated.  A truthful person will answer and that will be it – there will be little reason for them to dwell on their answer or replay the question in their head because once they answered truthfully they are done.  I don’t see how anyone could disagree with that.

I believe that you, justifiably so, have a problem with someone who lies on the polygraph and then tries to calm themselves by thinking of other things.  The real problem, ironically, is that neither the examiners nor the polygraph are able to determine who the truthful subjects are and who the liars are.

SanchoPanza wrote on Jan 9^th, 2008 at 12:29pm:


But you hold a double standard. You aver that it is unethical for those whose honesty and integrity is going to be judged by the pseudoscientific procedure we know as polygraph screening to use polygraph countermeasures to protect against the risk of a false positive outcome. Yet you condone the many deceptions practiced by polygraph examiners that are an integral part of the polygraph process.