Ya know dan, lieguytoo and I were talking yesterday on the phone.  Every time him and I talk reminds me that we all can get along as long as we are honest with each other and ourselves.  

I also find it amusing that people like december say I can't let stuff go, but fail to mention that I talk to lieguytoo all the time.  

I feel I should also make it clear to everyone, I hold no ill will against lieguytoo, and haven't for some time.  I do hold ill will against the people he worked for and represented who share responsibility for his actions.  After all, he was a managing employee at behavioral measures and a Board Member of TAPE. 

Funny how they accuse him of all sorts of unethical acts, when I see a history that he was the ONLY person in that whole group that acted with honor and maned up.  Lieguytoo was the only one of that whole group to do the right thing.  He made it right.

Says a lot about BM and TAPE doesn't it?  BW measures and TAPE still deny that lie guy too was even attached to them.  They also deny that what he did was wrong and fail to condemn the actions and apologize on behalf of their organizations.  

The only man amongst them turned out being lieguytoo.  Shame on them

As December goes, it is clear she ran for cover after I started asking real questions.  Clearly when it comes to actually debating, they find themselves lacking in facts, answers, and substance.

My advice for December is this.  Before you start attacking me again like a coward

1, use your name, otherwise you lack credibility.  Nothing new there in regard to lack of credibility huh?

2, don't throw stone at a man that has a machine gun (figuratively speaking of course)

3, you don't need to change the questions when you have all the answers

Dan Mangan wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2015 at 3:52pm:


Dan, I will agree that changing the goalposts is like Montreal Habs diving for the net in a playoff game.  

I can't agree with some of the other things you are pushing though.  The best part of you and me, though we can't agree on key things, WE STILL GET ALONG.  

Maybe some people can learn to play like adults as you and I have with one another.

Joe McCarthy wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2015 at 2:57pm:


Joe, when I read those words of yours it reminded me of the American Polygraph Association Board of Directors' decision to move the goalposts with regard to my quest for the office of president-elect.

For the past fifty (50) years, a full member of the APA could run for the office of president-elect without having previously served as a director.

But now, after seeing my support spike from 15% of the vote in the 2014 election to 28% of the vote this year -- and perhaps fearing that my support would continue to grow in similarly large measure -- the APA Board of Directors has crafted a rule requiring that candidates for president-elect first serve as a director.

That rule is embedded into a much larger package of new bylaws and constitutional changes for the APA, which will be up for a vote at the general membership meeting on September 1st. Passage is all but assured.

I wonder what part of my three-point election platform the APA establishment fears most?

Could it be my bill of rights concept for polygraph test subjects? (Clearly, bringing informed consent to a much higher levels kills business.)

Maybe it's my idea a countermeasure challenge series that pits randomly chosen polygraph operators against a crew of CM-schooled ringers. (I predict polygraph accuracy would be shown to hover around 50% in that scenario.) 

Of course, it could be my call for total equality among APA members.  (Seems fair to me -- and many of my peers, evidently.)

In any case, the APA's decision to move the goalposts, election-wise, is a most telling development.

It appears that vocal critical thinkers, iconoclasts, and non-believers must be kept at bay.

But for an organization that claims to be dedicated to truth, the question is obvious: Why?

What amazes me the most is the almost over the top effort that is made to cover up the lies and protect the piers and we are supposed to be the people why "detect lies" and or verify character.  WTF

This is really a very easy issue to solve.  Fact is, the refusal to want to stop this from their end just keeps lending credence to the corruption I am exposing.

Quote:


I have to be careful down here as approaches that are....... average.... in my old stomping ground, are not approaches that will work down here.  People down here don't listen to reason down here when utilizing such methods.  It just makes them dig in more like ticks.   

You are also assuming I am dealing with men who are brave enough to look me in the eye; one on one, and on the level.  Fact is, they wouldn't stand a chance sitting at a table with me and having a fair debate if they HAD to answer questions honestly.  Not a one of my, how did people on pp put it, "Texas Tormentors," would ever have the guts to do it.  Why? 

That answer is simple.  They rely on mob mentality and bullying to win a debate.  They also will not engage in an environment where the system is not rigged to their benefit.  Even when I say Rios and St. John in October of last year, they avoided certain direct questions like the black plague.  Well never mind listen to how Rios lies and avoids questions in this video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ddYN2jbH0Ds&index=6&list=PLfdmQbJ2BVYROwsBSdkO9e...

First he says he knows nothing about any of it

LIE

he was on the board of directors

Then he says he follows the bylaws to the letter

LIE

the bylaws were violated on multiple occasions by all involved including the Board of Directors, Executive Committee, and the Ethics Committee.

he said he would look into it 

LIE

he already knew everything

he said that the only person who is afraid of taking a polygraph is someone who will lie to it

THIS WAS THE TRUTH

Funny how TAPE's president says that, but not a one of them is willing to step up to the test under fair conditions.  Interestingly, I was willing to step up to my own test to exonerate myself from TAPE and TAPE's sycophant's accusations against me.  I guess if we go by Rios' mentality of only a liar would avoid a test, one can easily presume, that they are lying and I am telling the truth.  hmmmmmmm

They can act like they are above taking a polygraph.  Fact is they are afraid of failing their own tests and ending their career.   

They only way I can fight them, is to expose their lies and unethical behaviors.   

oh another lie he tells, is that only TAPE MEMBERS and invitees can attend CEU classes.

This also was a LIE 


MEETINGS

1.      The seminars of this Association shall be held semi-annually at a place selected at each semi-annual seminar.

2.      The place of the seminar shall be determined by a majority vote of all members present and voting.  If more than two places are nominated, the place receiving the smallest number of voted on the first ballot shall be dropped from consideration and the balloting continued until one place, of two remaining, has received a majority of all votes cast and the place of the next seminar be determined thereby.

3.      In order to attend a semi-annual or any meeting of the Association a member of any class membership shall be in good standing.

4.      Elected officials of other polygraph organizations may be invited to attend the business meeting of the Association at the discretion and invitation of the President.  Non-Examiners or other Polygraph Examiners may attend a seminar for all activities excluding the business meeting of the Association.

that is from their own bylaws.  So that day, the President of TAPE broke his own bylaws, ON VIDEO.  either that or he is incompetent and didn't know his own bylaws.  There really is no third option here.

Moreover, TAPE broke their bylaws with me and my wife Karen's membership applications.  The procedures were not followed according to the bylaws at all.  Even though both Rios and their lawyers assured me the bylaws would be followed.   

Fact is, these people wouldn't know what the truth was down here in Texas if it pitched a tent in their asses.  Nothing any of them say can be trusted, and if I were a lawyer out there, I would demand every chart of theirs and question their very decision or action.  With as many times as Mr. Rios has been taught lying in his official capacity as an organization president, who is to say he doesn't lie in his official capacity as a New Branfules police detective?  It's a fair question.

Same with the rest of the liars I have exposed over the past year.  If they will lie and cover this crap up, who is to say they won't lie about test results, or confessions, or scores?   

If they will cover up racist, sexist and terroristic threats made by their members and leadership, who is to say they don't practice racism, and sexism still.  Funny how Andy Sheppard said TAPE would apologize if they knew all that crap cam from their organization; 7 years later and I am still awaiting that apology.  Funny how I didn't get it from Rios the two times I saw him last year.  He knew, come on; and all I wanted was simple words.

Lastly, with two instances of having my safety and well being threatened by Officers of TAPE, who is to say TAPE will not use violence or threat of violence again to silence me?   

Just saying, and it is well known that I have had my safety threatened by two TAPE Officers.  One threatened me in 2008, and Maria Hubbard did so in public earlier this year in an unprovoked incident.  In the legal world, I believe this would be called a pattern of behavior.

Anyway, you get the idea.  Though these people should be questioned, they never have been until I showed up and was provoked into taking action.  So they only thing they have left is threats of violence, or punishing me through a rigged system where the right thing takes a back seat to the politically expedient and lies are more revered than the truth.   

While I still strongly believe in polygraph and the good I try to do everyday in it's use, I have little faith in our system

Joe, as a fellow Irishman and certified Masshole (we grew up about 30 miles apart), I find your patience to be both humbling yet perplexing. 

Were I in your shoes, I would have long ago employed a decidedly more severe approach: scorched earth, no prisoners. (I'm speaking figuratively, of course.)

Needless to say, I would start with the chief clown.

As our esteemed former Massachusetts state governor, and past presidential candidate, Stanley M.  Dukakis said, "A fish rots from the head first."

Perhaps my approach is uncivilized.

But then, I prefer "Smiddicks" to Guiness,  and Irish Mist to Jameson.

Yes, it's uncivilized, but...

I'm not worried about it, as quickly as December showed up, she left once it came time for her to back up her crap.

Typical behavioral measures, all flash and talk and no substance.

It doesn't matter, if December is who I think it is, I came upon some information that will explain why this person who insists she has no vested interest has a lot of interest in reality.Also spending a lot of time looking in collage stations and the corroding arias to confirm other information.

We all know what happens when I start diving, I have this ability to find very interesting things.  Next week I will be back in Conroe/Huntsville to pick up more info uncovered.

Stay tuned boys and girls.

Joe McCarthy wrote on Jul 25^th, 2015 at 9:20pm:


Thank you -  Sounds good to me.  I normally like single malt, but a good 18-year old blend distilled in cork sounds good.  I've already got the Guinness, next time I'm at the liquor store I'll get the Jameson.   

                 Shláinte

18 year old Jameson and Guinness   

Anything less is uncivilized

Joe McCarthy wrote on Jul 24^th, 2015 at 7:11pm:


Joe -  I understand completely.  But back to the question -  Smithwicks or Guinness.  I'd like an Irishman's opinion.

All I can say ARK, before charm can work, we have to assume the people I am using the charm on is a lady.  If it is one of the two people I suspect, while they may be female, a lady they are not.

Dan Mangan wrote on Jul 25^th, 2015 at 1:44am:



Personally, I think it is both possibilities.

Ark, if I may interject...

I dare say that none -- and I repeat, NONE -- of Joe McCarthy's TAPE detractors would ever submit to the dreaded liebox -- the very same instrument they cling to so adamantly as being so highly accurate.

Why the resistance?

That's a good question.

Either the liebox is bogus, or Joe's detractors are....well, you get the drift.

Joe, why don't you just get this gal that is giving you hard time and give her some of that old Irish charm? Get her into the polygraph suite, turn on the activity sensors and do her to a tender turn..

sorry man, it's just that I am the kinda person that when I fight, either I am all in or I am not.  I am so sick of clowns like December, and the only way to silence them is to beat them into the ground with their own shit.

You're right though, need to rest between rounds.

Frankly, I wish I didn't have to do this at all.  Things were so quiet between 2009 and last year.  

Ya know, if a few of them would do what you just did and talk to me, a lot of this fight would not be necessary   

I firmly believe a lot of this can be worked out over a few beers and honest conversation.  It almost worked once in October of last year.  A couple people talked and the war was almost over forever.   

Amazing what can happen when ALL sides sit down and be reasonable.   

Of course they will deny it and I hope they do.  I love catching them in lies

Joe McCarthy wrote on Jul 24^th, 2015 at 4:26pm:

Joe -

         Let's lighten it up a bit.  Do you prefer Smithwicks or Guiness ?

hey Rick

Are you having fun yet?



Loses some effect when you're not yelling it in person right?

It's one thing to claim to be a good person, it's another thing to BE a good person.   

Wandersmann wrote on Jul 24^th, 2015 at 4:34am:


Wandersmann, in my personal opinion, this is a most profound observation that strikes at the dark underbelly of the polygraph indu$try.

But for many stalwart polygraph apologists, the end justifies the means.

It's no wonder that my proposed bill of rights for polygraph test-takers has been roundly condemned by indu$try beneficiaries.

At least the American Polygraph Association has a growing number of progressive realists within its rank-and-file membership who do not fear the concept of legitimate informed consent. Sadly, none of the APA's elected officers -- not a single one, as far as I know -- supports a bill of rights for test subjects.

If I'm wrong about that I'm sure someone will chime in very soon to correct me, given that this forum is by far the one most monitored by polygraph professionals.

[cue crickets]

Did December go and run away?  Wow, they are resorting to the ole hit and run tactic.  A tactic embraced by frauds, shysters, drunks, and carnies.

Typical of Holden and his crew, send in the clowns and then run when the going gets tough.  It's their go to.

pailryder wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2015 at 12:45pm:


Pailryder, I will apologize for my over-animated description of polygraphers.  I know several polygraphers who easily fit the  description I gave.  In fact calling them screw ups, thugs, frauds, mother stabbing whores and cheats would be sugar-coating it, but I don't mean to paint everyone with the same brush.  I reacted because you were painting polygraphers with the same brush in a different color and what you described is not even close to what I experienced.

quickfix wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2015 at 7:38pm:


Lots of Ad Hominem attacks to my post, but no real comprehension or substantive refuting of anything I said.  Whether you enjoy "ruining" a person's career or not is irrelevant.  I might be mistaken, but haven't you joked about ruining people in the past on this forum Quickfix ?   I had the impression you enjoyed it.  Whether you enjoy it or not, I'm glad you tacitly admitted you are, in fact, ruining people.  Thank you.  I rest my case.   

Pailryder, regarding your Ad Hominem response,  I'm glad you think Orwellian torture is funny.   Do you think that someone losing their livelihood and having a nervous breakdown due to the polygraph is not Orwellian torture ?  Do you know what the term Orwellian torture means ?   I'll tell you where I came up with the Dachau statement.  It just popped into my head when you said polygraph examiners were "good" people.  I recall reading a speech that Heinrich Himmler once gave when he said, and I paraphrase after translation , something to the effect of, "it is impressive that we can do such terrible things and still remain such good people."   

I don't need to join my friend on the delivery truck and my 8 times on the polygraph over a 20 year period (obviously I must have passed) are behind me.  I have several friends, however, who are going through hell and I feel for them.  My motivation for continuing an interest in this topic involves following my oath of office and duty to my country.  I am also proud of my service and my agency and believe that the current polygraph abuse is a stain on the honor of our sacred law enforcement and military institutions.  I don't blame polygraph examiners as much as I blame our poor leadership for allowing the polygraph to be a panacea of truth.  I know a Vietnam Silver Star recipient who became a polygraph examiner and then quit when he realized that he was hurting innocent people.  He had honor.  He would have continued as a polygraph examiner if he was allowed to just use it as a tool.   

Lastly, to those of you in the polygraph community who are laughing at me, as Quickfix suggests, I would be happy to share notes about the difference between a complicated month/year long investigation conducted in accordance with due process and culminating in a trial versus a several hour interview followed by an "interpretation" of a biological reading with final innocence or guilt determined by a kangaroo court staffed by members of the same "private club".

quickfix wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2015 at 7:38pm:


Not bad for 320 hours of barber school.

quickfix wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2015 at 7:38pm:



ok that made me laugh

Wandersmann wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2015 at 5:09am:


The only one who is being laughed at by the polygraph community is YOU.  What ridiculous blather from an ex-fed who is obviously jealous of the salaries earned by federal examiners, or previously failed his own polygraph with his agency.  BTW, many of us already earn well into six-figures as federal employees.  We don't need to "cash in".  The federal government pays us a special salary rate beyond the normal GS schedule because of what we do.  To suggest we enjoy "ruining" someone's career is utter nonsense.  But since you are now retired, you are safe now.  Maybe you can call your buddy and get hired on that delivery truck.

pailryder wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2015 at 12:45pm:



pailryder:  no plagiarizing from Doug Williams!