sackett wrote on Mar 23^rd, 2008 at 1:40am:


Again Sackett you babble on talking from both sides f your mouth HERE IS YOUR POST!!!

Sackett

P.S.  Statement analysis indicates Fred's guilty and I didn't even need to test him... 

No, wrong again!  I simply indicated the possibility of his guilt, based on statement analysis, but nothing more.

If that, in an of itself is "psychobabble", you're right, it is amazing...

Sackett

sackett wrote on Mar 22^nd, 2008 at 2:40pm:


But sackett, You Judged Fred in that case as being Guilty without in your words even testing him!!!
Your Phsyco babble get's you every time it's amazing!!

notguilty1 wrote on Mar 22^nd, 2008 at 2:46am:


You wrote, "ART???  That's what you use to JUDGE someone? ART??"

No, not judge someone.  Statement analysis is an art form used to help investigators (and others), provide indicators of guilt or guilty knowledge otherwise concealed.  It is a "flag" in the investigative  process designed to help guide investigative efforts.

Sure! I agree that a polygraph CAN be "rigged" against an examinee by the examiner.  But why would we?  It is easier to call someone truthful and kick them out or pass them than to call them DI and have to post-test interview them (or what you cann the interrogation).   

Many examiners who have lost their confidence have in fact simply relegated themselves to running NDI charts (in their minds) and miss concealed or untruthful information via responses.  So, I guess it would be fair to say that having an older examiner is a lot easier to pass than a young, relatively new examiner who still is trying hard to do it right.   

This is the reason why many professional polygraph examiners are trying hard to standardize the profession.

Sackett

This is the kind of art and ability to determine if someone is guilty by the "examiner" during a Poligraph as was done to me:

A polygraph "test" can be rigged against a suspect by, among other things:

1) interrogating the suspect about the relevant issue(s) before the examination. This will have the effect of sensitizing the suspect to the relevant questions, increasing the likelihood that he will react strongly when they are asked;

2) asking the relevant questions in a harsh or accusatory tone of voice (again, with a view to increasing reactions to them);

3) failing to properly (by polygrapher standards) "set" the so-called "control" questions, in an effort to minimize the suspect's reactions to them.

Quote:


It is a scientific art, or if you prefer, an artful science.

I can be whatever you want it to be.  Just cooperate, they're there to help.  They WANT you to get this job!  So just open up.  It will be good for you.  Trust me.  Now, are you relaxed?  Shall we proceed?  Okay, good then:

WHY WOULD YOU BE HAVING TROUBLE WITH THAT QUESTION!!!

WHY ARE YOU LYING!   

OF COURSE YOU ARE LYING!  THE MACHINE SAYS SO!

IT'S 95% ACCURATE!

sackett wrote on Mar 21^st, 2008 at 6:43pm:


ART???  That's what you use to JUDGE someone? ART??
No Sackett thats why Polgraphs and poligraphers opinions are not admitted in court.
How you can come on here defend the Poligraph and call what you do besides the Poligraph Art and then proceed to hang someone as Guilty is why I am against the entire Poligraph prcedure.
A Supreme Court Justice's statements on Poligraph seem's to be on my side and you call me ingorant??
Sackett a few days ago I saw a response from a Poligrapher on here that made some sense. He was a guy that obvoiously knew the limitations of the machine and his own interpretation of the tests.
Now, this of course only shows me that Polygraph and Poligraphers are unreliable.
READ JUSTICE THOMAS WORDS if you don't believe me. Your so blind to all this I am sure you don't believe him either.

"notguilty1",

first off, if only you were intelligent enough to know and understood, there is an art of "statement analysis", of which you are oviously igorant of.  This of course, had nothing to do with polygraph but gave you a supposed entrance to attacking it blindly, once again.  

Secondly, for having the opinion, that polygraph, my statements and opinions (by connection), etc are "a joke", then why do you spend so much time replying to them and giving them credibility?  

BTW, a "one man, judge, jury and executioner?"  How bizare?  Of course, this is the exact reason polygraph is not blindly admitted into court (also, a decision, I agree with).

Sackett

sackett wrote on Mar 19^th, 2008 at 3:38pm:


This statement is what leads me to further believe that poly's are a joke. When examiners such as Sackett can make statements like this it just furthers the argument against the test's. He indicates that in the case of "Fred" he desn't even need the machine he just knows he's gulity. 
WOW he is just a one man Judge, jury and execusioner 
Fortunatly, Sacketts opinions are about as meaningfull in court as the janitors opinon. 
Which leads me to this quote from a Supreme Court Justice. Who seems to dissagree with Sackett. Who am I going to believe???

"Although the degree of reliability of polygraph evidence may depend upon a variety of identifiable factors, there is simply no way to know in a particular case whether a polygraph examiner's Conclusion is accurate, because certain doubts and uncertainties plague even the best polygraph exams." (Justice Clarence Thomas writing in United States v. Scheffer, 523 U.S. 303, 118 S.Ct. 1261, 140 L.Ed.2d 413, 1998.)

THUS UNREALIABLE!! JUST THE EXAMINER'S CONCLUSION

Twoblock wrote on Mar 19^th, 2008 at 7:25pm:


To begin, anything you actually see on TV is entertainment.  Nothing more, nothing less.  The examiner you mentioned stated he disliked the computer due to, "computer background noise."  I can only assume that means actual audible noise, not frequency channel noise.

Secondly and for the record, the analog and computerized polygraph record the same information, just differently.

Sackett

Sackett

You're welcome and yes, mostly.

I don't think the examiner was speaking of audible noise. I think he was referring to maybe the RF disturbances, produced by wave length devices, prevented him from getting as accurate a reading as with the analog. Here again I'm getting into a field beyond my expertise. Just trying to learn.

I drew my conclusion about the analog to computer connection by watching Gelb and Trimarco on TV. It looks like they are using an analog device while looking at a computer monitor.

Twoblock wrote on Mar 19^th, 2008 at 4:32pm:


Twoblock,

the analog instrument refers to the mechanical/electrical instrument used in the past (like the one in "Meet the Parents").  Many "older" examiners prefer it to the computer based programs, usually due to fear/ignorance of the computer itself, lack of computer ability (i.e. comfortability) or not wanting to spend the money.

There is little difference in the tracings and there is nothing related to test technques (referring to your reducing of false positives statement or trade secrets), as it relates to the analog vs computerized process. They are simply different methods to record the same information.  

The computerized polygraph has the ability to modify the tracings after the test for evaluation purposes.  For example, if a tracing is too big or too small, it can be reduced or enhanced for evaluation purposes.  Or, if a tracing goes off the screen during the exam, it can be returned, electronically after the test for evaluation reasons since there are no pen limits in the computer.  

Once a computerized test has been recorded and saved to a file, it can not be altered, except for temporary evaluation purposes; however, the original is never altered.  The analog produces paper charts and, for example, if the examinee eats a portion (actually saw that happen), it can not be reproduced, since the paper chart is the original.

I find interesting, your report of the examiner's comment that the computer background noise bothered him.  I found, back in the day, the scratching of pens on the paper was more anoying than any computer noise...especially the cardio tracing, since when BP/volume increased, you could actually hear the pen speed up.

Thanks for the intelligent question. Hope that answered it sufficiently.

Sackett

Sackett

I was told one time by a polygrapher that he much preferred the results of just the analog over the computer generated test because of the computer background noise.

Questions you may be able to answer:

Not knowing any more than I do about the operations of the poly (waiting on a wise-ass reply here), isn't the analog machine hooked directly to the computer? Doesn't the puter only reveal the results of the analog or does it enhance the analog device so as to reduce false positives. If so, how? How does answering these question reveal trade secrets? Hell, I'm not asking for a DACA produced computer program.

"n.p.c.",

I believe I provided an earlier posting in which I informed "you guys" that while I personally will try to answer most questions given me, there will be some questions that I will not answer.  Reason?  As I stated before, I am not here to help George write a better book or modify his mistakes.  I'm simply trying to offer an alternative, truer account of polygraph than those of fanatical distortions may present to the unsuspecting examinees who review these pages.

Sackett

P.S.  Statement analysis indicates Fred's guilty and I didn't even need to test him...

sackett wrote on Mar 19^th, 2008 at 6:11am:


Sackett, my ol buddy...

A direct question deserves a direct answer.  For example, if one is interviewing a suspect in the murder of "Fred" and he is asked "Did you murder Fred", and the suspect goes on to say:  "It would have been impossible for me to murder Fred, because first off, I know nothing about guns.  Secondly, my car doesn't run at the moment, and third, I don't even know Fred!"

He never acutally says he didn't murder Fred, and that's a big ol fat CLUE for the investigators.

When a question is asked of a polygrapher on this forum, and the polygrapher won't answer the question directly, that is a CLUE also.  A CLUE that the polygrapher doesn't want to answer the direct question, so he wanders off into a discussion of f-f-f and ANS and whatnot, without actually answering the question.

notguilty1 wrote on Mar 19^th, 2008 at 1:04am:


Well, if I could get twoblock and notguilty1 to stop taking warm showers together and looking for a third for their three-some, maybe your attention could be directed to the facts.

I am not here to discredit George, but to add an examiner's perspective to his statements and thoughts. Some of what George reports is true.  I can not deny that.  Some of what he reports and suggests is disinformation and willl get an examinee into trouble during an examination.  I am trying to make the difference clear.

In other words, and repeating myself, I am trying to put a ??? where George and his minions would put an !!!

Your suggestion that we examiner's do not answer your questions, I suggest, you simply do not want to accept the answers we give you. We are not here to give you the answers YOU want, but what is accurate and true, related to polygraph.  You said, "I simply don't know of any other "profession" that has to come on a web site to defend thier actions."  As an explanation, there are few sites which attack a well established profession, then give suggestions as to how to beat it when subjected to it... Why am I here? it IS obvious...

I am not defending polygraph, I'm simply trying to explain and povide free education.  The fact is, you simply do not want to learn.  Don't blame the teacher for the student's ignorance and testing failure, when they want to ignore the text.   

Finally, I am not suggesting that false positives do not occur, they simply do not occur at the rate you and the others posting here would want other, more naive readers to believe.

Sackett

Twoblock wrote on Mar 19^th, 2008 at 12:43am:


Of course I agree with you. But as you point out there is no use using logic with these people they will continue thier mantras so that they can continue their "trade".
I simply don't know of any other "profession" that has to come on a web site to defend thier actions.(
I know first hand and so do many others regardless what Sackett says) that poly's do not detect lies. It didn't with me.
Sackett continues to point out that there are so few of us on here. Then why does he spend so much time here.... I think that answer is obvious don't you?

Sackett

There may only 4 or 5 false positives posting at this time. If you care to find out the numbers who have actually posted of their false positives, which I doubt, search all through the boards. There is quite a number. There was quite a number who posted on the website that preceeded this one. The older posters just don't want to read or debate the same old stuff over and over. Polygraphers nor false positives will ever change their minds no matter what proof either side may presents. They probably feel like - why beat a dead horse.

My opinion is polygraphers come hear now solely to discredit George, Gino and this site. They are not presenting anything new. If the information in this site is not presenting any problems to the poly industry, as most of you say, then why continue to be redundant? I believe this has been asked of all of you, many times, and I don't remember reading a straight forward answer. If you remember one, then point me to it. I sometimes suffer from Halfhimers.

There was one polygrapher years ago that I really liked. He posted under the name of Public Servant. I liked him so well that I offered him a moose hunt in Alaska. He stayed so busy he couldn't accept. This guy was a square shooter. However, this was before you guys realized that CMs were a pain in the ass. Sure wish I knew how he was getting along. If you're out there Public Servant, PM me.

"notguilty1",

You wrote, "Well, I am here as many others are, to say that we failed despite being truthfull." 

Exactly how many are there on this post who espouse that view?  So far I have experienced about 4 or 5, so called false positives.  Out of the thousands of readers and posters, that is a VERY small percentage...

Further, you wrote, "You are the ones claiming the tests works so don't ask me why the reactions are what they are. You push the test you should be showing the proof that it works."

We do not have to prove anything to YOU.  I and others have gone out of our way to explain how the polygraph works and still, we are demanded to "answer the questions!"  Just because we're not answering questions to your satisfaction in no way proves we are not answering the questions.

Finally, you wrote, "I am here to say I failed and was truthfull. So I must be crazy because according to you my subconcious mind does not agree with what I know to be truth. I must be really messed up and so are all the others on here that say the same."

Yes!  I agree.

Sackett

TheNoLieGuy4U wrote on Mar 18^th, 2008 at 3:30am:

Well, I am here as many others are, to say that we failed despite being truthfull. 
You are the ones claiming the tests works so don't ask me why the reactions are what they are. You push the test you should be showing the proof that it works.

I am here to say I failed and was truthfull. So I must be crazy because according to you my subconcious mind does not agree with what I know to be truth. I must be really messed up and so are all the others on here that say the same.

OH PLEASE GET OFF IT ALREADY

       T.M.,

   What I know of polygraph is that it ONLY deals with the concious mind given the examinee has to commit to something which is in his/ her memmory or not.  They don't test the subconcious mind at all.  The measured reactions are not from the subconcious mind, but rather the denial of truth known to the concious mind as reality / history experienced.  By the way, you only speak of half of the equation when you mention an ANS reacation, as there is PNS which provides relief in human physiology.  Shall we say then that deception is occurring in the time frame wherein lack of relief is not occurring as the stimulus takes root / the deception moment is processed.  It is amazing how many experts there are here without a real job, or who screwed themselves out of the one they really wanted with such wonderful knowledge / half knowledge.      

     Hi NotGuilty1,

  Food for thought !   Isn't fingerprint evidence "Opinion" evidence ?  They need eleven points of reference to say they have met statistical significance ?  Isn't hair and fiber evidence "Opinion" evidence as well.  In most cases, Medical evidence is that of "Opinion" evidence, as each side has an Doctor with an opposing "opinion" view.   

  You mentioned "Assumptions".  Tell me this then.  Since polygraphs are done in a vacuum, that is an environment free of artificial stimuli, and the questions are reviewed in advance with no surprise questions in a test (No poster here I have read said anything was a surprise), then why the reactivity if not the lie.  What is the other stimulus internally which is not otherwise a constant variable present in the sequence ?  If you say it could be "He's just nervous" that is a worn out rag of an excuse, and would be again a consistent variable.  So identify for me what new variable is it that the test has not accounted for since the commitment to the questions was made in advance and already processed prior to any charts.   

nopolycop wrote on Mar 17^th, 2008 at 3:45pm:


I like that the "opinion" of the poligrapher and the "assumption" 
These words have no place in facts.
We all have many opinions and assumptions .......

The opinion of the polygrapher as to whether or not one is being deceptive in regards to the question asked, relies upon the assumption that a physiological response, (blood pressure, heart rate, galvanic skin response and breathing rate) is due to the examinees falsely answering the question asked.

Indiana73 wrote on Mar 17^th, 2008 at 2:07pm:


It doesn't matter what questions they ask because you "reaction" to any particular question as well as the lack of a reaction because your reaction to the questions can be due to several factors least of which is a lie. 
POLYGRAPHS DO NOT DETECT LIES AS THE TEST PROCLAIMS !!!!
The poly examiners on here can go on and on talking in circles defending what they do but the above statement IS a FACT.
The test is primarily used to get you to admit things that you may or may not have done. So it is vital for the examiners that the general public belive that this machine can in fact do what it's commonly used name implies "lie detector test". 
So much so has this name been attached to the machine, the examiners have convinced themselves that even though the machine cannot detect lies somehow because soem have done this for so long they can magically detect lies.
What a joke!!