Quote:


There is no meaningful appeal process. However, you can and should write a letter contesting your polygraph operator's accusation of deception, if only to document the fact that you do not silently agree with and accept it.

You can address your letter to the individual who signs your rejection letter.

I would keep it short. Just affirm that you told the truth. It's pointless, and possibly counterproductive, to attempt to think up reasons why the polygraph (an invalid procedure that is wrongly called a "test") produced inaccurate results.

Doug Williams wrote on Jul 13^th, 2013 at 6:01pm:



How do you APPEAL a polygraph. what do you include. I just failed mine. I do not agree with results. 

We've ruined lives?  Oh, that's terrible;  they're all unemployed, homeless, hungry, jumping off buildings!  Hurting a life?  like a Mafia hitman? I better go to confession tonight so I can be forgiven!

Sully wrote on Jan 8^th, 2014 at 3:53pm:


There are millions of people who have been falsely branded as liars, simply because they had a nervous reaction when they answered a question.  They have had their lives ruined because they believed the lie that the polygraph was reliable and accurate as a "lie detector", and that the polygrapher was an honorable professional who would treat them fairly.  They found out the hard way that the polygrapher was just an interrogator - that the polygraph was just a prop he used to frighten and intimidate them.  And worse yet, that the polygrapher could accuse them of lying without any evidence to prove that accusation and they could not challenge or appeal his decision!  That's not fair, it is not the way things should be done in this country, but that's the way it is!  It is past time to put a stop to this BULLSHIT!   

examiners have to defend what they do to others, in their own mind, with insults, to justify their jobs...it is unfortunate that they ruin so many careers and lives...think about it, if they would outlaw polygraphs, which they should, examiners would be out of a job, and they do make some big bucks.  Can you imagine hurting a life, for money?  Wouldn't it be great, if they would have to follow all those people around they failed and see what good human beings they were...who is the lier, really?

quickfix wrote on Jan 7^th, 2014 at 8:19pm:



Proves my point

Sully wrote on Jan 7^th, 2014 at 2:09pm:

maybe it's up your ass.  Try searching around up there.

xenonman wrote on Jul 13^th, 2013 at 5:59pm:



well let me tell you, 3 polygraphers from the same area ruined an applicants life and to better his future, b/c you examiners are so aloof and one sided...when you grow older, believe me, it will one day come to you, through the bad karma you've thrown on others, just how corrupt your inaccurate little machine and you are, "actually thinking you can catch people in lies."  And one day, you will realize all the harm you've done to others...and you get paid to do this, you receive training and think your an expert at catching people in lies....tell me something, where is your little crystal ball hidden?

xenonman wrote on Jul 13^th, 2013 at 5:53pm:



I think you are confused about me.  Please let me inform you about who I am and what I do - go to my website  www.polygraph.com

The B/I can foul up one's application for work just as badly as the polygraph.  Perhaps even worse....
All it takes is for the investigators to latch onto even one asshole who's willing to make negative remarks about the applicant.

I'm so glad that Williams doesn't coerce or accuse anyone.

Unfortunately, his slick responses can do very little to conceal the reality that not everyone has the luxury of choosing whether or not to be polygraphed.

I also wonder where he obtained his polygraph "training".

Ex Member wrote on Jul 9^th, 2013 at 8:29pm:


Polygraph operators are out of control - they don't answer to anyone, and they don't give a damn about the millions of people who are traumatized, and whose lives are ruined by their arbitrary and capricious actions.  It is tantamount to criminal negligence on the part of our government to allow this so-called "lie detector" testing to continue!  The EMPLOYEE POLYGRAPH PROTECTION ACT should be extended to PROTECT EVERYONE from the practitioners of this insidious Orwellian instrument of torture!

pailryder wrote on Jul 7^th, 2013 at 12:56am:

If you simply hook them up to the instrument, ask a standard set of questions, let the computer score the charts with no post test interrogation, then that would be an innocuous side show. It's a different story when someone is facing a revocation hearing, or if someone's career is on the line.

pailryder wrote on Jul 7^th, 2013 at 12:31pm:

Our bodies are full chemicals making us feel all kinds of ways. I would feel a change in my body by being asked any kind of personal question where I feel threatened or have much at stake; extrapolating it to deception without a firm scientific theory is foolish and can hurt many people in many ways.

pailryder wrote on Jul 7^th, 2013 at 12:31pm:



Pailryder:  You have finally said something that almost resembles a factual, truthful statement.  I said almost, because you are not quite there yet.  You are right when you say that what you do is not "hard science", (any of the natural or physical sciences, in which hypotheses are rigorously tested through observation and experimentation).  It is not even soft science, (a science, such as sociology or anthropology, that deals with humans as its principle subject matter, and is therefore not generally considered to be based on rigorous experimentation).  It is, as I have always said, pseudoscience, (a theory, methodology, or practice that is considered to be without scientific foundation - that pretends to be science). 

Arkhangelsk

Ex Member wrote on Jul 7^th, 2013 at 2:44am:


Some people know there is a connection because they actually feel the change in their body when they lie.  Be honest, have you never felt that?  Polygraph is an interview and interrogation technique, one person questioning another.  I respect scientific research and try to modify and align my techniques with other social sciences, but every real world polygraph is unique, an interaction between two specific individuals and as such is not repeatable, so I agree with your assertion that what I do is not hard science.

pailryder wrote on Jul 7^th, 2013 at 12:56am:


There is indeed a connection: it is the sequence of exothermic chemical reactions between a fuel and an oxidant accompanied by the production of heat and conversion of chemical species. This is a proven scientific and fact that is repeatable. There is no such provable connection between reaction and deception-this is where polygraphy loses its license to be called "scientific."

Doug

Doug Williams wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2013 at 1:47pm:


Mistake 1  You fail to distinguish between an interview and an interrogation.  We do not coerce and accuse anyone in the interview, we save that for the interrogation.  A small distinction which may escape many but should not be lost on the greatest self proclaimed expert in the antipolygraph universe. 

Mistake 2  You fail to distinguish between LEA, government and private practices.  As a private examiner, the client or his attorney requests and pays for my services.  I have no incentive to accuse or coerce anyone.

Mistake 3  Inference   In your chosen example, you see smoke, you infer fire.  But there is no direct and unequivocal connection between smoke and fire, is there?  Your inference is likely correct, but it could be mistaken.  There can be fire without smoke and smoke without fire.

We see smoke, or empirical observable response, and infer fire, or deception as the most probable likely cause of that response.  Not the only possible cause, but the most likely.  We have never, to my knowledge, claimed a direct unequivocal connection.    

Doug Williams wrote on Jul 5^th, 2013 at 9:22pm:

Proven demonstratively wrong by your own post.

pailryder wrote on Jul 4^th, 2013 at 12:26pm:



I see you have calmed down enough to correct the error in your post.  Now perhaps we can have an intelligent "conversation".  And, I am not engaged in a "SHOUTING MATCH" - you are the only one talking in ALL CAPS!  But I'm sure my argument is so powerful and overwhelming, that to you it may seem like I'm shouting.

You say, "There is SO MUCH wrong in your postings, I don't know where to start".  Let me suggest you start with one thing in my postings that you think is wrong, and we'll converse about that.  I will even accommodate your grandson and resist the strong urge to use emoticons.

pailryder wrote on Jul 4^th, 2013 at 12:26pm:



You are done?  You never even started!  Why?  Because you know you can't win a debate with me!   The reason you are done before you even start is because you know you can't prove that the polygraph is a "lie detector" - and you know that I have already proved it is not!  I stick to the facts and let the facts speak for themselves, but you have no facts to support your position.  You know you can't defend your position that the polygraph is a "lie detector"  - so you quit before you even start.   

Since you can't win the debate, or even engage in an intelligent conversation, your only recourse is the same old ad hominem attack that you and all the other polygraphers resort to.  And you all get so riled up your posts don't make sense and your spelling and grammar is terrible!  But I'm sure that is no reflection on your intellect.     "SO I WANT"??????  Want what?  Want to make believe you are not a fraud and a con man?

I see you quote Dr. Lykken at the bottom of your posts: "No good social purpose can be served by inventing ways of beating the lie detector or deceiving polygraphers."   David Thoreson Lykken.  

I would have you know he changed his mind about that after he met me and read my manual.  I met Dr. David T. Lykken, professor of Psychology and well-known polygraph opponent, when I testified in Congress in support of the Employee Polygraph Protection Act.  He wrote me to thank me for my manual and he even endorsed the techniques taught in my manual & video/DVD and my PERSONAL TRAINING in his book saying, "...if I were somehow forced to take a polygraph test in relation to some important matter, I would certainly use these proven (methods) rather than rely on the truth and my innocence as safeguards; an innocent suspect has nearly a 50:50 chance of failing a CQT administered under adversarial circumstances, and those odds are considerably worse than those involved in Russian roulette. (A Tremor in The Blood: Uses and Abuses of the Polygraph, 2nd ed., Plenum Trade, 1998, p. 277)  This great man was totally opposed to your insidious Orwellian industry and, as you can see, he actually advised people to use my techniques to protect themselves from being falsely branded as a liar.

  
And here is a special Fourth of July treat for you and your grandson!

Doug

There is SO MUCH wrong in your postings, I don't know where to start.  SO I WON'T!!!!!!!  I prefer a conversation to a SHOUTING MATCH!!!!

BTY, my eight year old grandson thinks your incessant use of emoticons is childish.

Everyone have a happy and safe 4th.

Now I'm done.

Ex Member wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2013 at 2:40am:



Pailryder:  I don't think he meant that polygraphers "do infer both truth and deception" based on the polygraph chart tracings, but rather from the information you elicit, (by whatever means).  In other words, if a person admits to having lied, that may allow you to infer that further investigation is needed.  But you and I both know that you can't "infer either truth or deception" by evaluating the polygraph chart tracings.

To infer means to derive as a conclusion from facts or premises - we see smoke and infer fire.  To infer from a "reaction", that a person is being deceptive is ludicrous. When you see a nervous "reaction" to a question, you may only infer that the person had a response to a stimulus - nothing more.  That response, or "reaction" does not indicate deception, and you cannot infer that it does.  I quote Dr. Phil Zimbardo, Phd, Standford University who said, "There is no direct and unequivocal connection between lying and these physiological states of arousal...(referring to polygraph)."  So if you say "we do infer both truth and deception", and you infer that based on the polygraph chart tracings, you are wrong.  You can't infer either truth or deception from anything the polygraph records, that inference must be drawn from facts - not "wild ass guesses" as your cohort Sullivan is quoted as saying.

scubadiver1 wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2013 at 3:14am:


How do you know about what "all polygraphers" do or do not do?  I have been involved in polygraph testing since 1972 - on both sides of this issue - and I think I have a pretty good idea about what polygraphers do and don't do.  I have received tens of thousands of reports from victims, I have debated dozens of polygraphers, and have done the only real investigative report on their practices, (CBS 60 MINUTES among others).  And I will tell you that I have never found a polygrapher that doesn't "accuse and coerce the person being interviewed"!

But I defer to your vast experience - and all the knowledge you gleaned from having failed one test - thanks for setting me straight!   

Ex Member wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2013 at 2:40am:


I do not disagree with your statement, we do infer both truth and deception.

scubadiver1

Best of luck on your appeal.