Verbatim,
Quote:

It's once again polygraph time.  Updates.  I am now placed in a weird situation.  On my last polygraph, the examiner ran the polygraph twice.  This is not normal.  After the second time he stopped the machine and asked me if what I knew about counter measures.  I told him exactly what I knew.  I felt that there was no reason to hide the fact that I knew what they were and that I could employ them at will.  He didn't say anything more, he simply ran the test one more time.  After running the test, he told me I could go without saying whether I "passed" or "failed".  I assumed that this meant that I passed because he did not ask any more specific questions or ask for a confession.  When the polygraph results were reviewed later, they showed no deception.  I find this interesting.  The examiner, knowing that I could employ countermeasures, made no mention (that I'm aware of) to the treatment provider or probation office about my ability to fool the test.  I am inclined to believe that the examiner doesn’t want to draw attention to the fact the polygraph can indeed be beaten.  Interesting.

Quote:


Amused,

Not that I feel the need to answer to someone who appears to be somewhat "cerebrally challenged", but since I have nothing better to do, and a few minutes to kill, I will.

First, my PERSONAL research is in the area of deception as a whole, including behavior, forensic aspects, etc. 

Second, you're right, my mind is made up, but only after personal experience and investigations. Unlike you, who seem to simply spew for the sake of posting.

As far as my IQ, judging by the limited wisdom you have displayed, it's much higher than yours. As far as my question to okieboy, maybe you should read it again, it was cordial and straight-forward. It was not "friendly" and it was not in any way in support of what he or anyone else in that thread, or similar threads, has been convicted of or continue to participate in. If they have problems, they need help, period.

Please, in the future, if you are going to address someone or make accusations, present a valid argument or point. Stop with the senseless dribble. It is the likes of people like you that lower the average IQ on this site.

Regards,
PK

Amused,
I say again, what is your position on the polygraph? Poly-killer is simply one of the many LEO's out there who oppose polygraphs. Does that cause a problem for you? And I don't know what the average IQ is on this site, but I'm sure it dropped a few points now that you have graced us with your presence.

And what  is your "research"?  Sounds like you have your mind made up.  Makes me wonder what the average IQ is on this site.  And I do think that Fed-up had a point about you and "okieboy" being very friendly.  But perhaps you are just working undercover and trying to get the goods on the ole okie.

Quote:


Fed-up,

I suggest you gather a little information before making statements or casting your arbitrary judgments based a comment or question I have posted. I have NEVER participated in, condoned, or even considered child molestation or anything remotely related. Frankly it IS very disturbing to me. Maybe you should read my initial post. I AM A POLICE OFFICER and have been for several years. I was inquiring to okieboy for my own personal research(as if it is any of your business).

Regards,
PK

Hey Poly-Killer, why don't you and Okieboy and the rest of the perverts on this site start your own website.  You guys make me sick.

OkieBoy,

Do any of the methods taught in the "Sting" differ from those taught in TLBTLD? IF so, which ones? You can reply directly to my registered name here or in an open post, it really doesn't matter. 

I am curious to know if there are differences, your response would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks,

PK

I understand what you are going through, Verbatim.  I have three months left now on an indecent exposure charge, and I have been passing all of my polygraphs using the "sting" method.   
I have in turn tought a couple of guys to use the method to pass their tests, but I made sure I knew them and their crimes weren't too detestable in nature.  The guys that are in there for rape, incest, or other crimes, I think should sweat the polygraphs out.  Sure, the polygraph is bogus, but the thought of those guys knowing they could get away with anything gives me chills.   
I would tell the group what that guy said to you....unless he is going to rat you out for using countermeasures to pass the polygraph.  You didn't tell him did you?
That is something I will never understand.  Why do they lump all sex offenses in the same group and give them the same punishment.....polygraph testing, your picture on the internet, and sex offender registration?
Why does the government consider indecent exposure, or trying to pick up a hooker the same thing as a violent rape or raping a child?  They are giving them the same punishments and it doesn't make sense.

Verbatim,
Now you find yourself within a moral dilemma. If your fellow probationer is offending, ie molesting children, you owe it to society at large to do something about it. If he is offending by viewing "inappropriate" material like teenagers in bathing suits, than you probably still should do something about it. Do you go to therapy with this guy? Maybe you can bring it up in group in a roundabout way?
Countermeasures are good for preventing people otherwise innocent of being accused. They are not advocated for the use of guilty people to hide their evils. I trust you will do what is right in this situation.

Well, well, well!  It's been quite a while since i have viewed the site, and it seems that a thread that I started last year is still spawning discussion.  I am posting this update to let you all know what has been going on.  I have taken 3 polygraph tests since the initial one, and all have come up as passed.  I have become more confident in taking them, and don't worry any more about them.  However, something has been brought to my attention by one of my fellow probationers.  He says that he has been doing things that he should not be doing while on probation and passing the polygraph tests by "visualizing a calm place" the entire time he is taking the test.  This apalls me!  I do not know the extent of his offenses because he did not go into detail, however, the fact that he could beat the polygraph with no knowledge of countermeasures just by his visualization technique worries me greatly.  I regulary augment my responses so as to not be accused of probation violations, but to think that this is all it takes to fool this machine... FRIGHTENING!  Once again I bring my disdain for this procedure to the table.  If we are to rely on a "test" that can so easily be countered to ensure that the probation population remains in check what does that mean?  I offer up this scenario.  The correctional departments believe in the validity of the polygraph.  If a probationer is passing a polygraph, then they must not be doing anything wrong.  The reward for passing the polygrapgh is lighter supervision.  If a probationer is able to trick the polygraph, in essence he is able to reduce his/her supervision and, if disposed to, offend again.  This is alarming.  To all of those who would place faith in the polygraph, i have this to say; i believe the time is coming (if not already come) that a person who passes your polygraph can be out in the public offending at will because you rely on faulty methods.  This from someone in the trenches with those that would do this very thing.

unknown wrote on May 5^th, 2003 at 6:29am:


The problem with the polygraph is that its "SUBJECTIVE" not objective. Because of this you would be hard pressed to state unequivocally under oath in a court of law that the reaction measured could only have been produced by one employing a countermeasure and not by some emotional reaction to the question.

Ones probation is not revoke based on assumptions.

Simply put: PROVE IT.

I too would like to know who and where. There is very little public information on probation revocations and their underlying causes, especially when the probationer has not committed a new offense.

unknown wrote on May 5^th, 2003 at 6:29am:


What is this person's name, and in what court was he convicted of violating the conditions of his parole/probation by using countermeasures on his polygraph?

I know someone that was sent to prison for using contermeasures. He was formally charged with failing to comply with the condition of submitting to a polygraph.

UMMMM!!! Torpedo, did you run out of gas???? Or do you choose to ignore posts that require something besides mud-slinging?

Torpedo, 

For once you write with content.  I applaud you for that.

Torpedo wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2003 at 11:17pm:


Actually, Torpedo, it is funny you mentioned initiation, because, in my opinion, I was going after the person who initiated the personal attacks.  Had the roles been reversed, I would have done the same.  

You know that I am not extremely one-sided when it comes to the polygraph.  I do believe you and Batman even suggested that I join your treehouse club (Justice League).   I prefer to remain independant (and leaning heavy toward the anti-poly side), thank you. 

Quote:


First off, know your audience whenyou are making comments.  You have no idea what "whipping boy" means until you have been an intelligence officer in an Armor unit, especially the most brazen, lethal Armor unit in the world (3rd ACR).  I would have enjoyed being the "whipping boy" -- it would have been a step up from the way I was treated.

Anyway, I'd like to ask what the "standardized manner" is.  

And as far as your agency treating you as a "whipping boy," those that make such accusations have too much faith in a sketchy system.  I fully believe that given a polygraph examination, an interview, and a background investigation, the interview should be given the most weight, followed by the BI, and then the polygraph.  Those who blame you were probably once interviewers / BI agents, and believe themselves to be most thorough and infallible.  They can't be wrong, so you must be.

Quote:


Again, I feel that BI's and interviews are better tools than the polygraph for screening.  The screening test is too broad, and too many innocent applicants are falsely accused (see the NAS report.)

Quote:


I agree, but again, it can't be the end all to an investigation, rather a tool to guide investigators to the proper conclusion.  The human element of investigation is the most important.

Quote:


This is a circular argument.  Basically, the entire system is corrupt, from the unreliable results of the polygraph (see the NAS report) to the ability of countermeasures to manipulate the test.  That is whay I believe that the polygraph should be eliminated in total.  The only way to eliminate both problems is to eliminate the root cause -- the polygraph.  

I'm going to ask a sincere question here -- I know that countermeasures work best against a CQT test.  How well do countermeasures work on an event specific test?  Can the PL CQT be eliminated, rendering CM's useless, and still allow for the effective use of event specific testing? 

Quote:


Well, I guess you think that after every 5 words I type, I get back to grinding my axe.  Interesting.  I continue to ask that you put yourself in my shoes, and honestly, if you did, wouldn't you be grinding an axe as well?

Quote:

Don't worry, I hang my head in shame too, sometimes (but I still won't join your treehouse club).

Quote:


Well, if you are so confident that you have done everything to protect the innocent examinee, I suggest you try and convey the same to others in your trade.  After what I went through, I don't know how my examiner can lay his head on a pillow and feel good about himself.  There was no protection in that exam room that day.

Chris

Marty wrote on Mar 4^th, 2003 at 4:14am:

Sorry about that. I did not intend to say that the odds were 50/50, but I can see how my words convey that opinion. Of course,  "considerably less than perfect" is not that great. And what are "ideal conditions"? An examinee who has no anxiety about the test and got a good nights sleep, it's a beautiful sunny day, and the examiner is a decent guy with no pre-conceived notions regarding the examinee's guilt or innocence?

orolan wrote on Mar 4^th, 2003 at 3:32am:


orolan,

I think it is unlikely that the polygraph has only 50-50 odds of labeling an innocent person guilty. What NAS's study does say is that the polygraph is unproven and that it's accuracy is, at best, considerably less than perfect under ideal conditions.

There are also reasons to believe that once one knows about the polygraphers "trick" on a CQT that the test would become more likely to yield a false positive since it would devolve into a R/I type test. The reason the PL control question test was invented was to reduce the false positives from R/I tests.

I still have gotten no reponse from polygraphers testing another polygrapher and about how they sensitize another polygrapher with control questions since they would recognize axactly what they are doing - hence obviating the purpose of the control questions.

-Marty

Since this thread seems to be sliding "off-topic", permit me to steer it back. Torpedo; 
1) What is your opinion on the use of polygraphs for maintenance testing of sex offenders? 
2) Innocent people will use countermeasures ONLY because the polygraph is just as liable to show they are guilty as it is to show they are innocent. Agree or disagree?
3) In the case of a Florida PCSOT,  a questionaire consisting of some 150 questions is given to the examinee. These questions cover everything from traffic violations to sexual activities,  sexual fantasies, drug abuse, alcohol abuse, you name it, it's in there. After discussing each of these answers, the examinee is hooked up, and the examiner asks the question "Other than what you have already told me, were you truthful on the questionaire?". So, if there is a response indicating deception, how would you as an examiner decide which of the 150 questions the response applied to?

Torpedo wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2003 at 11:17pm:


For the record, Torpedo, I for one have never, nor will I ever, state that a bad employee should have been caught by the polygraph.  I could not in good conscience believe polygraph screening to be largely invalid then turn around and blame the lack of a polygraph for a bad employee slipping through the cracks.

I know such blaming does occur, but I believe it to be wholly naive, since I think a polygraph screen could very well have let the bad employee through, as well (or worse: given a false stamp of approval to the employee).

I am truly sorry that you have the impression no one here will listen to what polygraphers have to say.  Unfortunately, from my point of view the evidence polygraphers give here for polygraph testing is weak and unscientific (what scientific evidence there is -- that I've seen -- casts doubt on the efficacy of the polygraph, especially in screening situations).  And when claims are made here by polygraphers, they are almost never backed up; this gives the strong impression that most such claims are bluffs, and that the pro-polygraph side is really indefensible.

Please believe that it is my standards of evidence, not dislike of the people presenting it, that fuels my position on this issue.  You and I might not like each other in real life, Torpedo, and I'm as willing as any here to engage in a pointless flame war on occasion.  But if your side had the stronger evidence, that's the side I would support, from an argumentation standpoint.

Regards,
Skeptic

Annoymouse:  I prefer not to divulge that information if it is all the same to you.  I do not mean to sound discourteous, but I doubt that now has any bearing whatsoever on anything I might write or say now or in the future.

Just wondering torpedo, what was the screen name under which you used to post?

Steincj....for your information, I have attempted many, many times to engage in a discussion with various people on this board....in many cases to no avail. Even to the point of changing the names under which I posted and trying another tact in the event those who responded were "poisoned" to my comments. The vast majority of the anti-polygraph community are so narrow minded and mired in their position that they absolutely will not engage in any meaningful discussion.  You jump all over me for making ad hominem attacks, but say nothing of the person who initiated them.  When people call us "pigs" and "butt cheek checkers" and "cowards" among other childish ad hominem attacks, you have got to expect a response in kind. True enough, my responses may add little to the discussion, but I will not sit back and have people like him attack me with no response forthcoming.  Just because you write in favor of him, does not mean he is right...anymore than I am right. I just do not have a champion as he apparently does in you.  But if you choose to admonish one...then admonish all.

And for the record:

Pre-employment screening -- I am in favor of it if used in a standardized manner. I am exasperated when a "bad" employee is identified and many people remark "why wasn't he/she polygraphed.  We are a convenient "whipping boy" to most of you on this board.  When you need us, you wonder where we are...when you have something else to do, we are a burr under your saddle and an esasy target.

Security screening -- I am absolutely for it. I know of many instances where its use is invaluable. Nuff said

Event specific testing -- Won't argue with you here.  Considerable research has been done in this area...it works...period.

Use of Countermeasures -- I too am against it.  I think it is ludicrous to teach innocent people to perform countermeasures.  I woulds be willing to bet that there are many people who read this board but have chosen not to provide posts that they used CM's, were caught....by whatever reason....and now regret it.  I am particularly incensed about the incredible narrow logic used by proponents of this site that when sex offenders use the "lessons" provided in TLBTLD, that is something akin to collateral damage and then turn around and lay blame at the feet of the government for using polygraph in the first place.

I maintain my position that those who know what they are talking about (not just carping on this board) took a polygraph and failed it and now they have an axe to grind.  That's okay, I can deal with that.  But to "teach" people what to do to defeat polygraph is foolish...IMHO.   

I know that I have opened the door and the responses I will get from this will just exasperate me even more.  I know I cannot win any of you over.  I don;t care if I can or not.  When your proponents propose writing in bathroom stalls to advertise your site, I just grin and realize that while there may be some of my colleagues who make me shake my head in disbelief, there is certainly an equal number on your side of the fence who cannot, will not and never will accept the fact that there just might be another side to all of this.

There are numerous people who write on this board whose knowledge of polygraph is derived from movies and television.  In most cases, in case you did not know this, professional polygraphers, bristle at some of the things we see on television.  Polygraphers cannot control who or what appears in these media.  If an examiner does something untoward and is a member of an association, that association does take action in that regard.  If a state  has a licensing provision and this type of behavior is prohibited then that organization takes care of the offending person.  Unfortunately, there are too many states that do not have licensing laws.  Most of the professional organizations have lobbied hard for universal licensing, but some states just won't accept that premise.  In my opinion, I harbor serious doubts that when a federal examiner is accused of some transgression, it is true.  They are under far too much scrutiny and most simply would not risk their careers to do some of the things of which they have been accused.

Okay, there is some discussion points fromme.  Despite what some have said I have stated some cogent points.  Like I said, they will not be accepted.  I know this...and it matters not to me.  I know that when I give an examination, it is the very best that I can provide based on the training that I have received.  I can sleep well at night knowing that I have done the right thing.  I work hard top protect the innocent examinee and work just as hard to ensure that the guilty examinee does not slip through my fingers.

Torpedo wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2003 at 6:37pm:


Torpedo, 

Again, you provide no intellect in your posts, and again you favor the ad hominem attack.  

No one respects you when you do this, and it is only funny to your schoolhouse mentality.

If you want your posts to get some respect, add some content.  I know it is a novel concept for you.  You might want to check out posts of The_Breeze to see how it is done.  Even Batman adds content to an argument (although these instances are very infrequent).  

Why don't you start by telling all of us how you stand on all issues regarding the polygraph.  For example, I'll start:

Pre-emplyment screening -- I'm against it
Security screening -- I'm against it
Event specific testing -- I'm for it
Use of Countermeasures -- I'm against it

Now, Torpedo, if you did the same, we could discuss some of these issues.  

Or if you want to play the playground rank out game, well , then no one will respect or listen to you, and you will continue to tarnish the name "polygrapher."

Chris