Glad you like it.  Don't worry, I'll be in town for a while...

Quote:


I think you ARE here for me.  For my amusement. that is, because you really CRACK ME UP!


Quote:


You think anyone who believes the NAS report over the opinion of an arrogant polygrapher is "deseased".

T.M. Cullen wrote on Mar 10^th, 2008 at 6:08pm:



It absolutely amazes me!  The new redress of examiners, by the anti-folks, is that we polygraph examiners do not answer your questions!?  
Look at the past thread responses.  I have repeatedly attempted to make you understand; not agree with mind you, but understand my points and positions.  

The problem is, as now established, that we don't answer questions with the answer YOU want.   Answers that will fit neatly into your perfectly demented idea of what polygraph is, thereby supporting your beliefs.  Sorry, I won't give you what you want just because you want it.  Time-out!  Go to your room...

Well, I'll say it again.  I am not here for you.  Your disease is in full swing and I can not provide any antidote that you will accept.  


Sackett  

EJ

Not me Coach. My zingers are more nasty if I choose to accept the mission. Mission Impossible music please.

My polygraph kick now is to get polygraphers to test our Globalist poluted-crats in Washington D.C. to determine who is going to vote away our sovereignty and give it to the UN. Right now, only 34 Rep. senators on record as being against it. The only reason it hasn't come up for vote is the economic problems. I really fear for my kid's, grand-kid's and great-grand-kid's wellfare. Everyone should share that concern. I can servive under the toughest adverse conditions and can shoot with the best. Deer neck shot at 400 yds. aint bad.

Any polygraphers up to the challenge of promoting such testing??? or are you just content on warbling here??? EJ, is that a zinger?? NAH

Quote:


Maybe he could post our standard poly-pro NON-RESPONSE to go with it.

Quote:


In Sackett's case, they are one in the same. You attempted to run him through the mud---and his profession IS law enforcement Einstein.

Quote:


Funny, things were fine until you joined eh? You might want to wear a napkin----seems like you are the one practicing professional cannibalism.

Quote:


Most folks aren't too giddy about taking a polygraph test. Pretty thin insight.

Quote:


Yeah, well---anyone can burn down a barn. You claim to be an authoritative lawman, yet you spend days on a sight that promotes manipulation of tests on child molesters. You ignore the peer reviewed research which shows that countermeasures aren't effective---'cause darnit, you wear boots. Hell, the polygraph doesn't even seem to have been more than a nuisance to you historically----but than again, you hide behind your username and throw rocks. I have thrown a few stones myself, but at least I do so with my real name. You? Ya gotta name? If you really are a retired cop, than why not post under your real name? 
Oddly enough,  you have changed identities from noply4me, to nopolycop---out of what, boredom? 

Quote:


Uh, yes it is illegal to impersonate a police officer over any electronic device, be it phone, DSL, whatever. As an advertised police officer, you validate the use of countermeasures and forensic information gathering by law enforcement----and consequently you provide a perceived stately authority.

Also, in most states it is commonly prosecuted as a felony---although certain aspects like equiping cars with phony rollers is most often a misdemeanor----unless it is used to pick up girls in pull overs or to roll through red traffic lights.

Quote:


Twoblock....is that you? (lol)

EJohnson wrote on Mar 10^th, 2008 at 10:54am:


If you would have done your due dillligence, you would have seen where I was referring to the polygraph profession, not police work.  

Having said that makes the rest of your post not worth commenting on, because of your erronious conclusion.  But, having said that, the "brotherhood" is not nearly as strong as it was when I started.  Cops are notorious for eating their own, (so to speak).

And, there is one thing that is universal amongst cops (except the polygraphers themselves).  Cops HATE to take polygraphs.   Regarding Sackett in particular, cops also hate being lied to, especially by other cops.  When Sackett says that the polygraph isn't about catching people lying, and then rambles on about ANS responses ad nausium, and won't answer my simple questions, he looses any credibility in my eyes.  Once a cop looses credibility in the eyes of another, he normally isn't invited for coffee any more. 

I also wonder about your last line where you say "leads some to believe that, well, you are "more shop than cop".  Now, I don't quite know what that saying means, but what you said leads me to believe that there are behind the scenes discussions somewhere related to how to attack the credibility of the people who post here, including me.

It looks like in addition to being accused of being a Sex Offender, a Polygrapher, GM himself, the latest is that I am not actually a cop.  Wow, you guys certainly do worry a whole bunch about N.P.C.  Instead of trying to discredit those who post here, it would be much better for your own credibility and the cause of polygraphy in general if you just answered simple questions honestly.

Lastly, it actually isn't against the law to play make believe cop on the internet.  First off, each state has it's own version of "impersonating a law enforcement officer" with the modern penal code extending the impersonating laws to include all public servants.  It says:

Section 241.9  Impersonating a Public servant

A person commits a misdemeanor if he falsely pretends to hold a position in the public sevice with purpose to induce another to submit to such pretended official authority or otherwise to act in reliance upon that pretense to his prejudice.

Love ya babe... 

nopolycop said;
Quote:


Ahem. Cops don't talk to other cops like that. Conventional wisdom (and some experience) demonstrates that fellow lawmen who disagree with polygraph argue against polygraph itself, not "the law enforcement profession." Based on your distortion there, you are as much a cop as that guy from the Village People. Can you also sing?

According to you---you have years of duty in the force yet you are suspiciously devoid of any apparent brotherhood with Sackett, a fellow lawman with 90% of the same values. Where is noplycop's commonality with Sackett? Such an obvious vacuum of commoness leads some to believe that well, you are "more shop than cop."

.02

PS FYI, it is a felony to impersonate a law enforcement officer---yes-----even on the internet.

I was referring to the polygraph profession, not LE.  BTW, I no longer work full-time at being a cop, but still have a badge and volunteer occasionally.  My other life's work prevents me from working full-time any more.   

Listen my friend, you are the one here who is not being forthright in his discussion.  Answer my simple questions, with straight answers, and people may have more respect for you and the poly profession.

"n.p.c.",

you muttered, "You are a piece of work, Sackett.  You plainly said the innocent, ingornant honest person, and when called on it, segway into a convoluted explanation involving a cop being railroaded by Internal Affairs, or someone innocent but somehow involved, but who will be railroaded into jail by some overzealous detectives.  In otherwords, the cops are going to use the polygraph to somehow trap otherwise innocent persons and put them in jail?

Wow, some profession you work in..." 

Innocent, ingornant honest person who may otherwise be conned into believing the garbage on this site.  My examples were just that.  Examples of how I've seen good cops conned into believing things they should not and losing their jobs because of it.   

You may work in a polyanna department where bad things never happen to good people, but I have never had that priveledge.   Mistakes get made, good people do bad things and sometimes detetctives get overzealous to solve cases.  Yeah, it happens and sometimes they don't listen to their polygraph examiners and do stupid stuff anyway.  The same way they identify "the suspect" who later passes and then think polygraph doesn't work...Presuposition of outcome is dangerous to the innocent as well.

I guess; like on this site, I'm damned if I do, damned if I don't.

Sackett

P.S.  We're in the same profession, so much for your ability of attention to detail...

sackett wrote on Mar 9^th, 2008 at 6:22pm:


You are a piece of work, Sackett.  You plainly said the innocent, ingornant honest person, and when called on it, segway into a convoluted explanation involving a cop being railroaded by Internal Affairs, or someone innocent but somehow involved, but who will be railroaded into jail by some overzealous detectives.  In otherwords, the cops are going to use the polygraph to somehow trap otherwise innocent persons and put them in jail?

Wow, some profession you work in...

nopolycop wrote on Mar 9^th, 2008 at 5:25pm:


OK, what about the police officer subjected to an IAU examination by citizen complaint?  He reads he has to "help himself" and protect against false positives.  He comes into my suite, attempts countermeasures, is caught and then fired or punished for non-cooperation and/or suspected improper activities.  But in fact he didn't do what he was accused of.  Oh well.... right?

What about the criminal suspect, not guilty, but has peripheral involvement (i.e. witnessed the crime but is not talking, heard someone bragging in a bar, etc).  Same thing, attempts CM's or doesn't abide by the rules of the test.  You know detectives, right?  He must be guilty and they do all they can to establish through circumstantial evidence that he's the guilty one. Meanwhile the truly guilty go on without suspicion or further investigative review by those detetctives who at this time, "have their man."

Need I say more?  The guilty will take care of themselves, I really feel obligated to the honest person who finds themself in my chair...

Sackett

sackett wrote on Mar 9^th, 2008 at 5:03pm:


Okay, I can understand the job applicant, but how is your posting here keeping innocent, honest people out of jail?

Wow!  You have a job/business and spend your days on this site trying to convince people polygraph is a scam.  And I'm told to get a life?  I have one, polygraph IS my business, it IS my life!

BTW, and I've said this before, I'm not here to prove anything to you or your other self inflated crusaders.  I am here for the innocent, ingnorant, honest person who might actually believe the dribble on this board and to try to give those readers a different view which, in the end, might save their job aspiration or keep them out of jail.

In other words, I am here to put a ??? where you guys put a !!!

Sackett

sackett wrote on Mar 9^th, 2008 at 1:45pm:


No Sackett, You see I do have a business that I have built with years of hard work. I didn't just go and take a "course" for a few weeks and then get my living off sitting in judgement over people using a "SCAM"

If it is true that the thousands of people on this site are mostly examiners and that there are just about 4 of us anti's, why the hell would you possibly spend so musch time here? Surely if you have a life you have better things to do than to write short novels to turn 4 peoples opinons around.
Could it be that you see that with the internet and sites like this more and more people victimized buy "the scam" will come forward and your game will be exposed for what it is  a SCAM and Sacket will have to go flip burgers ( what else would you be qualified to do?)  Oh yeah meter maid!!
Other than that I cannot see why else you'd be wasting your time here.
BTW, I was not denied a job based on the scam machine I was faslely accused of a crime and failed a poly. I have had no repercussions from this ( results are not admissable in court) other than the realiztion of how how many people must be victims of this scam every day. My purpose here is to spread the fact that Poly's do not work at detecting lies or any part of lie/truth statements or any play on words Sackett calls it.

George, in response, 

Regarding Aragoncillo, you wrote, “Assuming the allegations against Aragoncillo are true, if he intended to commit espionage before being hired, the polygraph did not detect it, and it certainly did not deter it after he was hired.

First off, you know very well that polygraph can not divine the future nor can it determine the desires, thoughts or intentions of future (potential) actions.  This is a common misrepresentation of polygraph, especially in the media, as in the recent show Moment of Truth.  In any one show, they may actually only ask one or two “real” potential polygraph questions.  This leads the public to believe the polygraph has the ability to determine if someone is “thinking” about leaving their spouse, etc.  It is nothing but entertainment and blaming polygraph for not catching what someone did, before they did it is a preposterous notion.  As for catching him, after the fact, did he undergo an update examination AFTER his spying began?  How do you know an update examination was not the reason he was caught?  Just a thought as I have no direct knowledge of any intelligence activities; of course, neither do you.

Regarding Chin, you wrote, “Chin's espionage was facilitated by his having presumably passed every CIA polygraph screening examination to which he was subjected during the course of his career.”

Once again, I simply asked the question, did they all really pass or was that an assumption?  You clearly answered the question here.  BTW, you ignore the fact he was a double agent.  How do you or anyone here know, that factually he passed.  Many times the results of polygraphs in the intelligence community (I hear) result in investigations which result in their discovery then information collected is used to manipulate the agent and we, the general public never hear about it.  But that’s not possible here, huh?  Nope!  You have “presumed” and that is good enough!

Regarding Ames, you rely upon the rambling letter of Ames’ distain for the polygraph as “proof” he passed.  First off, I have addressed my thoughts on the matter previously.  Secondly, I never saw where he claimed to have passed or where anyone supports that assertion.  Can it be assumed by his statements, I suppose you make that nexus.  I’m not so sure.  I heard (somewhere) he never truly passed any of his examinations but due to his senior position in the agency and constant promotions that no-one could believe he was having trouble and nobody wanted to challenge such a senior officer.

These observations by me were made simply by looking at your statements through the links on the home page.  I can’t speak for all of the cases you cite.  

I can offer a question though.  What would our intelligence services be without polygraph?  While you decry the usefulness and ability of the polygraph; you provide no alternatives!  You wrench your hands at the prospect of screening test and their numerous false positives.  You research the bowels of the press to find any article that would suit your purpose.  But you offer nothing in the place of polygraph.  Would simple background investigations have prevented any of the spy cases you cite?  Probably not, since background investigations were undoubtedly completed anyway. The spy issue in this country would certainly be overwhelming without polygraph and for you to suggest otherwise is ludicrous. Your complaint seems to be employment.  It is unfortunate that there is in fact a false positive rate, but very low.  Meaning, some folks who feel they deserve a job and maybe they do, are simply not going to get it.  Life ain't fair, move on!  

Regarding your Lykken/Iacono study, their first line of the findings of CQT Error Rate begins, “Unfortunately, it is not possible to use the existing polygraphy literature to accurately estimate the validity of the CQT.”  So why exactly are you using it?

Their conclusions were, “Although the CQT may be useful as an investigative aid and tool to induce confessions, it does not pass muster as a scientifically credible test. CQT theory is based on naive, implausible assumptions indicating (a) that it is biased against innocent individuals and (b) that it can be beaten simply by artificially augmenting responses to control questions. Although it is not possible to adequately assess the error rate of the CQT, both of these conclusions are supported by published research findings in the best social science journals (Honts et al., 1994; Horvath, 1977; Kleinmuntz & Szucko, 1984; Patrick & Iacono, 1991). Although defense attorneys often attempt to have the results of friendly CQTs admitted as evidence in court, there is no evidence supporting their validity and ample reason to doubt it. Members of scientific organizations who have the requisite background to evaluate the CQT are overwhelmingly skeptical of the claims made by polygraph proponents. 

BTW, wasn’t Lykken the developer of the GKT?  A test with proven reliability somewhere in the 80-90 percentile.  Maybe I’m mistaken…

The article certainly outlines some deficiencies in the process, especially amongst research and inability to know ground truth.  I agree it is far from perfect but I also read a lot of insinuations based on other causes.  I read inferences based on opinion, but I read no CONCLUSIVE research results indicating it did not work. I read no CONCLUSIVE proof that it is biased against the innocent and I certainly read no CONCLUSIVE proof or evidence that polygraph can be beaten simply by augmenting the control questions.  This of course removes all consideration of an examiner or monitor and the various abilities we have as a profession to detect them.  This of course, is where you make headway.

And, unfortunately, because polygraph relies upon more than one science and the factors and variables are so very much out of the control of researchers, polygraph may never rise to the “muster” that scientists like to see as “proof” or “evidence” of viability or reliability.  Nonetheless, it still works!

Also, you wrote, "Cleve Backster is nutty as a fruitcake. Follow the link in the bullet point and just listen to some of his interviews. Real scientists have tried without success to reproduce his results."

OK, you got me there.  But, doesn’t every family have their strange eccentric uncle?  Does that make his contributions to polygraph any less important or viable.  He developed the CQT, which is one of the most researched and robust examinations currently in use.  He developed the numerical scoring process.  A process BTW to help reduce false positives and introduced the Inconclusive result.  So rather than throwing charts on the ground and making a decision, we have a more verifiable and replicable process in making determinations.

Again, any judge making a decision is limited to consideration of the information which is presented to him by opposing attorneys. Most lawyers are not supportive of the polygraph simply because it does away with the need for their jobs (relatively speaking).  So any judicial decision is based on the skills and ability of the lawyers involved, i.e. good lawyering...

Regarding educational presentation, the APA and ASTM have enacted rules in an effort to prevent misrepresentation of educational achievements.  If you find anymore, please advise.  BTW, all scientific and art communities having growing pains, and we’re certainly no exception.

I’m not going to argue with you over the education and training received by examiners.  You refer by implication that the DoD Poly Institute was ONLY 14 weeks.  Having attended that school you refer to, I was providing an insight that it was not a day school or walk in the park.  Further, the instruction at DACA (formerly DoDPI) is comparable with graduate course now used in (an accredited university) for inclusion in Master’s programs.  Regardless of length, hardly barber shop trade school. 

Regarding the one research document reflecting innocent blacks were more likely to pass than innocent whites, you wrote, “Nope. DoDPI/DACA did not publish the study. AntiPolygraph.org did! DoDPI/DACA suppressed it.”

You’re now telling me where I read things?  If it was not published, where did you get it?  Hell! Where did I get it?

George, it is fairly easy to see that some information you present it true and can not be argued.  Most information you present here, unfortunately is implied information as a result of innuendo, inferences and presumptions.  No, I’m not here to fix what you write, just point out some facts to make readers ask themselves, why does this site exist?  I know I can’t trust everything I read, so who is this guy that runs this site?  Who can I believe; whiny failures who want to blame the polygraph world for their lot in life?  How can I get at least one person to pat me on the back and say, “I know, I know”, false positive got me too…..

I say "The truth WILL set you Free!"  It will also get you a non-deceptive test result...

Sackett

P.S.  “notguilty1” wrote, 

“Sackett, 

For someone that claims that this site has few anti posters you seem to spend LOTS of time here doing what?? Why would you spend so much time getting "Hosed down" with the truth by people here who have acual proof that fasle positives are REAL!!  Yes, me included. I don't need reports I lived it first hand. If your "science" was so effective and we were so few, you would not be spending this much time on this site making a fool of yourself. Of course unless you really have to fear that your scam will eventually be exposed as just that a scam, and your days of sitting in judgement of others will be over and you'll have to accually get a real job. When I hear things like getting info hre or anywhere can only hurt your poly results and that not being nice to your poligrapher ( scam artist) can only hurt you that tells me that polys are a scam. 
Sackett, get a life!!!! "

Well “ng1” I have a life.  I also have the job I want, apparently unlike you.  And I stand by my statements.  This site has thousands of readers, thousands of registered users (probably most are polygraph examiners and one-time posters) and about four active anti-supporters.  I think that speaks volumes for the true number of “false positive” victims out there who are unable to move on in this world.  Especially considering AP comes in at the top 3 or 4 of every search engine I find.  You’d think you’re victimized brotherhood would be juuusssssttt a little bigger….

BTW, I don't know anything about cars; I just know when they work...

Have a nice life…

T.M. Cullen wrote on Mar 7^th, 2008 at 5:47am:


And don't forget be nice to him!!

Quote:


NO! NO!  Best to go in with a "blank slate"!  That way you'll be unbiased, and untainted by the venomous claws of the "anti" crowd and their maniacal leader GM! 

Along a similar vein, if you're in the market for a used car, worst thing to do is research ahead of time.  Just go to the closest used car lot and start yacking with the saleman.  They are there to help!  Just "open up"!  Let them know how much money you're willing to spend, and tell them you know NOTHING about cars.  They'll know what's best.

Sackett, 
For someone that claims that this site has few anti posters you seem to spend LOTS of time here doing what??
Why would you spend so much time getting "Hosed down" with the truth by people here who have acual proof that fasle positives are REAL!!  Yes, me included. I don't need reports I lived it first hand.
If your "science" was so effective and we were so few, you would not be spending this much time on this site making a fool of yourself.
Of course unless you really have to fear that your scam will eventually be exposed as just that a scam, and your days of sitting in judgement of others will be over and you'll have to accually get a real job.
When I hear things like getting info hre or anywhere can only hurt your poly results and that not being nice to your poligrapher ( scam artist) can only hurt you that tells me that polys are a scam. 
Sackett, get a life!!!!

Sackett,

Quote:


Now who is being disingenuous ? Gelb acknowledged that his Phd was from an unaccredited online 'college' - (read: degree mill )

Quote:


That is deflection. But, does that make Humble more, less or equally as phony as Gelb ?

    Quote:


From what I hear (first-hand) its more like 8 weeks in class and the rest is 'internship' outside of class. Further, that 'class' means listening to hackneyed old Instructors war stories and how many DI's he's chalked up; and how damn good he is at it (polygrapy); and how to dupe the examinee (read: victim) into making admissions and confessions. Hell, you dont need a polygraph for that.. a tin hat with
a lightbulb will do the trick !!!

Quote:


MICJ do not require a candidate to have a college degree. A pulse will suffice.

Quote:


Because thats bs, that's why. That also why Marston school let their students out early - because the bs tank runs dry after several weeks.

Quote:


Of course you read it - dont you keep up with the literature and research ? You regularly infer that you do...why not this one ?
   
Quote:


Again, selective retention.

Quote:


Because you have to be continually reminded, because you so conveniently tend to forget or ignore that the most venerable Scientific organisation in the west essentially said that polygraphy is bs. Sort of hurts you donnit ???

Quote:


Sackett - you must be the only senior member of the APA that didnt know....

Quote:


sidesteppping ... a nice dance to remember.

sackett wrote on Mar 5^th, 2008 at 7:18pm:


I would think that if there's anything false or misleading, you'd be happy to see it corrected. I know I would. In any event, I'll address your comments point by point below.

Quote:


Actually, if you read the article linked in the referenced bullet statement, you'll see that I'm not relying so much on the National Academy of Sciences report (which characterized the scientific underpinnings of polygraphy as being "quite weak"), but rather on a survey of scientific opinion conducted by David Lykken and Bill Iacono (which is cited in the linked article). And your suggestion that the NAS panel cherry-picked research that supported its views is preposterous. One of the criteria for choosing committee members was that they had no vested interest in the outcome of the review. The names of proposed panel members were published in advance on the NAS website, and members of the public were given the opportunity to raise any objections they might have to any nominees. Moreover, none of the NAS panel members were themselves subject to polygraph screening. That's a lie told by your colleague, TheNoLieGuy4U.

Quote:


I think the fact that the FBI considered the father of the lie detector to be phony and a crackpot is a salient one. Then as now, the marketing of polygraphy was way ahead of the science. The cartoon currently displayed on the homepage was chosen because it better conveys one of the key messages of that AntiPolygraph.org is trying to make known: that polygraphy depends on deception on the part of polygraph examiners.

Quote:


Cleve Backster is nutty as a fruitcake. Follow the link in the bullet point and just listen to some of his interviews. Real scientists have tried without success to reproduce his results.

Quote:


In this case, the judge was quite correct, and the record is there for all to read. (This and all the bullet points on the homepage have links to relevant documentation.)

Quote:


Ed Gelb's Ph.D. is as phony as a three dollar bill. As we've documented, he obtained it from an unaccredited diploma mill. He uses it to dupe the public in marketing his polygraph services. And to its shame, the American Polygraph Association doesn't consider his continuing fraud to be a violation of its ethical standards.

Quote:


The fact remains that it takes very little training to become a polygraph operator. And one doesn't really need a college degree to learn what is taught at polygraph school. The college requirement has been instituted to keep up appearances. There are no prerequisite courses, and a degree in English literature will do as well as a degree in biochemistry. Actually, a degree in English lit is better, because a hard science major is more likely to understand that polygraphy is sheer pseudoscience.

Quote:


Nope. DoDPI/DACA did not publish the study. AntiPolygraph.org did! DoDPI/DACA suppressed it.
    
Quote:


See the linked article, "The Lying Game: National Security and the Test for Espionage and Sabotage" for documentation.

Quote:


This is not a re-statement of an earlier point. And you've offered no real reason why this conclusion of America's most prestigious scientific body should be disregarded.

Quote:


Yes, they did all pass the polygraph. Follow the links on the homepage for documentation.

Quote:


I don't understand your question. I do speak Persian (Farsi) and Arabic, but I haven't translated The Lie Behind the Lie Detector to either of those languages. What is your point?

Quote:


What do you mean by defending my freedom of speech by "declaring a freedom from it?"

George,

I'm not here to give you credibility or assit in making your site more believable or trustworthy.  But, I will address a couple things to establish my point to avoid the perception that I am just here to piss off the "anti" crowd.  From your main page:


•      The consensus view among scientists is that polygraph testing has no scientific basis? 

     No!  There was a consensus amongst those few who participated in the preparation of the NAS meta-analysis of specially selected research articles supporting their views [three authors I think (not sure) by last count according to one of your posters supporting the report] that pre-employment screenings was less than completely accurate (or words to that effect) and subjected to potential inaccurate findings and faults (All the while ignoring the fact that many “scientists” involved in this report were subject to the very testing they were criticizing. This little tidbit of information introduces questions of motive the report.  Meanwhile, specific issue testing reflects greater credibility and accuracy; a point you meaningfully withhold.

•      The FBI considered the creator of the lie detector test to be a phony and a crackpot? 

     If you have to rely upon reports and findings from the 1930 and 40’s, then I can not attack your position.  Polygraph has come a long way since then and you know it. Of course, that is no doubted the reason you removed the old photo of an examination (not actually taking pace but for the photo op of the moment) and  replaced with your cartoon.  Isn’t it?  Did the photo (which of course was not taken during an examination), look too professional?

•      The man who started the CIA's polygraph program thinks that plants can read human thoughts? 

     And your board members talk about research… Backster, I believe, established through his research that plants have reaction to destructive thought. Coincidence?  I don’t know.  Quirky?  Yep!  Does that remove the potential of reliability and validity from his findings and research? No!  Yet you would simply “poo poo” this information in support of your beliefs and self promotion…  Shame on you!  Remember Star Trek (sic)?  Handheld communicators?  Everyone thought what? BS!  Never happen…. Have you got one now?  Yep!

•      The foremost polygraph advocate in academia was discredited by a federal judge? 

     Now George, the opinion of one judge does not make for fact.  It reflects good lawyering...

•      A prominent past-president of the American Polygraph Association is a phony Ph.D., and this premier polygraph organization doesn't consider it an ethics problem? 

     I believe he has a PhD.  It may or may not be accredited, though I am not sure.  Many people I heard were duped by “licensed” universities and worked hard to get their degree; all the while not knowing they were un-accredited by the DoE. There are many colleges out there that are unaccredited and many more just outright selling their diplomas.  And many people have been duped by      them both, as well.  Look at the “inventor”, seller and maker of the CVSA.  I heard he bought his PhD from the store down the strip mall from his offices.  Now that, I think, is phony...

     Finally, this issue has been addressed not only by the APA but the ASTM as well.

•      The longest polygraph school produces newly minted polygraphers in just 14 weeks -- less than half the time it takes to graduate from a typical barber college?
 
     Cute!  14 weeks of very intensive class room and practical instruction requiring about 70 hours a week of work.  A bachelor degree is required (unlike barber school) and past experiences (though employment as well).  Further, much of their instruction IS accredited by an accredited university (now) and accepted towards graduate program work.  Furthermore, after the instruction comes an intense internship period of continuing instruction for between 2-4 months (on average).  Dang!  How come you don’t mention any of that…?

•      The Defense Academy for Credibility Assessment (the erstwhile DoD Polygraph Institute) suppressed a study suggesting that innocent blacks are more likely to fail the polygraph than innocent whites?

     I’m pretty sure they published those findings, because I remember reading about it somewhere (and I am not in the “inside” crowd).  Meanwhile, published reports of research on the accuracy of polygraph gets “round filed” here… (hummm?)
   
•      The researcher who developed the U.S. Government's polygraph Test for Espionage and Sabotage "thought the whole security screening program should be shut down?" 

Don’t know anything about that and I don't use it.

•      The National Academy of Sciences concluded that "[polygraph testing's] accuracy in distinguishing actual or potential security violators from innocent test takers is insufficient to justify reliance on its use in employee security screening in federal agencies?" 

     Addressed above.  Did you just simply restate the same thing to sound more believable?

•      Spies Ignatz Theodor Griebl, Karel Frantisek Koecher, Jiri Pasovsky, Larry Wu-tai Chin, Aldrich Hazen Ames, Ana Belen Montes, and Leandro Aragoncillo all passed the polygraph? 

     Did they?  Do you have proof of that?  Did they pass, or did something else occur?  I know “Al” likes to post here, proclaiming his truthfulness…

•      Al-Qaeda and Iraqi insurgents know full well that the lie detector is bogus? 

     Really?  Is that why they need your book, already translated in Farsi and Arabic…?  Don't you speak those languages?

George, as I have stated before, I respect you right to freedom of speech.  But do not defend your freedom of speech by declaring a freedom from it.  That is disingenuous and misleading to your readers! 

Sackett

sackett wrote on Mar 5^th, 2008 at 5:02pm:


Could you please cite specific examples of the sort of "misleading claims" of which you speak? As the main point of entry to this site is our homepage, I'd be particularly interested in any examples of "misleading claims" there that you might care to cite.

T.M. Cullen wrote on Mar 5^th, 2008 at 4:45am:


"polyf",

now, (in response I say), in an effort to at least appear to be sane, please try to deliniate the difference between my opinion of some of the posters on this board and the honest people duped into entering this site by the misleading claims of polygraph inaccuracies and over-inflated statistics of false positives, prejudice and accusatory examiners, etc.


Sackett

Quote:


No.


Hey, you've alreading answered your own question in previous posts. 

We come here to have a "pity party".   

Background?  Mostly fed wanna-be types who feel "entitled" to a job.