Quote:


You are quite correct, a polygraph is based entirely on pseudo science – in short, it’s nothing but a fraud. It’s a massive, evil fraud which is perpetrated by thugs and charlatans who don’t give a damn how many people they hurt as long as they can continue to unjustly enrich themselves. But there may be a time coming when they will be held accountable. I’ve got the beginnings of an idea about a class action lawsuit on behalf of all the hundreds of thousands of people who have been denied employment or falsely accused of deception based on this pseudo-scientific test. Check this out and let me know if there’s anything you can help me with by way of suggestion. Anyone is welcome to chime in. https://polygraph.com/sue-the-bastards.html

@ Ed Earl

Ed Earl,

You are a complete idiot with that example of police using a field sobriety test. Field sobriety test can be denied by the person and then given a test of a breathalyzer that IS scientific to determine their intoxication level. When you take a poly, you are fully at the control of the examiner and there is no disagreement allowed and no way to take something SCIENTIFIC to verify the results of the poly. I would assume you are/were a polygrapher, and I just want to say it is a joke profession that ruins many good applicants from working great jobs. You should or should have gotten a real job rather than making subjective opinions about examinees based on pseudoscience.

We could go round and round on this, Mr. Cullen. I could point out studies that show what I believe, and you could point out studies that show what you believe. None of the studies would be conclusive, and there are definite problems with trying to correlate lab studies with real-life. I've argued studies before, and it's like two people from different religions trying to convince each other that theirs is right.

But I ask potential polygraph examinees this question: Who do you think is more credible--someone who can point out questionable studies but who has absolutely no experience in conducting polygraph exams, or someone who can also point out questionable studies, but who has the experience of having conducted a very large number of polygraphs?

And about "Sancho." I asked why Ed Earl was banned. I've never read anything posted by "Sancho." Are they one and the same? One thing's for sure, though: Mr. Earl (if indeed that's his real name) had you running in circles like a dog chasing its tail. Very impressive, banned or not.

Quote:


How do you know it is "extremely unlikely" for a person to be a false positive?

The fact is, you don't know whether a person has lied or told the truth based on the results of a polygraph.  

Quote:


In other words, you make  a very weak argument that falls to dust after being asked to answer some simple questions to back up your claims.   Namely, that false positives are "extremely unlikely", and that a person who fails a polygraph (which only measures some rudimentary physiological data) is lying and must be interrogated to "get to the bottom of those lies".

But we woldn't  want to waste your precious time.  

Quote:


You were the one who brought up the topic of his banning.  But you don't know who he is, nor care?  Ah, okay.  That makes as much sense as anything else you've posted here.

TC

Yes, he did make that claim. He said that polygraphers should have no role in interrogating those they test. Why do you keep asking the same question? I thought I was clear, but apparently not clear enough.

How do I "know" he lied? Well, if he's a subject in one of my polygraph exams and he failed, it's certainly possible that he's a false positive, but extremely unlikely.  And no, I don't want to once again get into a big discussion about this study and that study with one more person on this forum who has absolutely no experience as a polygraph examiner but who will open his smelly box of old, worn-out tennis shoes he borrowed from someone else who has no experience either, so please don't expect me to waste my time that way.

Sorry, Mr. Cullen. I don't hang around this forum all the time, so I have no idea who "Sancho" is, nor do I care. Am I supposed to back him up? Did you misunderstand him too?

T.M. Cullen wrote on Apr 24^th, 2009 at 9:24pm:


So did George really make that claim or not?

Quote:


Examinee lies?  How do you know that the examinee actually lied?

Why would Sancho be against allowing one of his fellow polygrapher operators getting to the bottom of these ALLEGED lies?

TC

Whoops, hit save by accident

Quote:


So did George really make that claim or not?

TC

Perhaps if you're talking about independent polygraphers, Mr. Cullen.  But not when you're talking about polygraphers who are part of a police department or federal agency, where they are often themselves investigators for their departments or agencies.

Now, before you talk about conflicts of interest, let me continue. One thing that the "Anti-" crowd on this forum never talks about--and perhaps doesn't realize--is that most good polygraphers go into every exam with an impartial viewpoint.  You have to not care one way or the other whether your examinee, even an accused defendant, passes or fails the exam. A good polygrapher will tell the investigators, the attorneys, and the examinee that the polygrapher is not there to pre-judge the examinee. In fact, prior to all such exams I've conducted, I've always told everyone, including the examinee, that I don't care one way or the other how the exam turns out. It is not the polygrapher's job--prior to the end of the data collection phase of the exam--to pass judgment or to even interrogate the examinee.

Now, once an examinee has clearly failed an exam, things will and should change, whether the polygrapher represents his/her department or agency, or the polygrapher is independent. At that point, unless there has been some kind of pre-exam agreement between attorneys, the polygrapher will definitely want to get to the bottom of the examinee's lies, and in fact will generally be expected to attempt to do so by all parties involved.  Just as the CSI investigators who work for departments or agencies, who conduct those other types of evidence collection are an extension of the investigative process, so are polygraphers, but only after an examinee has broken his/her promise to be truthful during the exam.

Quote:


It makes no sense, because that is not what he posted.

He posted:

"If polygraphy were truly a scientific test for deception, then those administering that scientific test should have no role in interrogating those they test, any more than do those who conduct DNA, latent fingerprint, or ballistics tests."

TC

There should be no reason why a polygraph examiner would typically stop between question sets and "interrogate" the examinee. In fact, doing so before the data collection phase of the exam is finished would likely have the effect of sensitizing the examinee to the relevant questions, which any polygraph examiner worth his salt would know to avoid doing. The fact that you claim this occurred during every polygraph you have taken suggests a defect in the polygrapher's training or his own methods. There should be no interrogation during the data collection phase of a polygraph. Such practice reflects poorly on the individual examiner, not on the polygraph itself. I'm curious. Was your polygrapher at the federal or state level?

While Mr. Maschke (in his last post on this thread) claims that if the polygraph had a scientific basis there would be no need to interrogate a subject, this makes no sense at all. The other methods of evidence collecting DO often lead to interrogation of a subject because they point an investigator in the right direction and encourage the investigator that he/she is on the right track. Likewise, the polygraph, if you accept it as having a scientific basis, which many of you on this forum don't but which almost all polygraphers do, then it also points the investigator in the right direction. Feeling that he/she now has evidence against a subject, the polygrapher will, and should, go into interrogation mode.

Polygraphers would have you  believe that unless there is a "post test interrogation", the polygraph is not an interrogation.  However.....

During each and every polygraph I've taken the examiners interrogated me in between the three chart runnings (where they ask the questions while you are hooked up...etc.), I was interrogated.  

Usually, they would start out by looking at the chart and saying that the  chart was indicating I was being deceptive.  "Why is that Tom?  Why would you be having trouble with that question?  Are you telling me everything about your foreign contacts?  Is there anything you have to tell me?!"

It IS all about interrogating which is why polygraph operators, Like Mr. Holden and VanArsdale, tend to be former/retired police interrogators.  Duh?

This is why I am so interested in why Sancho, such a pro polygraph defender, would recommend his clients NOT submit to a post test interrogation and TERMINATE the test is the person behind the machine gets aggressive or accusatory.  Which they usually do?  

Am I the only one who finds that more than a little REVEALING?

Anyone facing a police polygraph might well conclude, from Sancho's advice, that it would be in there BEST INTEREST not to play the police polygraphic interrogator's game.  To simply show up, politely and cooperatively answer questions posed during the pretest interview (so long as answering them would not self-incriminate them), give the perfunctory "yes" or "no" answers during the chart data collection phase, then LEAVE! 

TC

LieBabyCryBaby wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2009 at 1:05am:


If polygraphy were truly a scientific test for deception, then those administering that scientific test should have no role in interrogating those they test, any more than do those who conduct DNA, latent fingerprint, or ballistics tests. The fact of the matter is that polygraphy, which has no scientific basis, is all about interrogation.

He (Mr. Van Arsdale Queeg Panza) was banned months ago when posting as Sancho Panza.  I forget why. So he had already been banned before coming back under new aliases.  

Quote:


Sounds reasonable to me.  So why would Mr. VanArsdale be against his client submitting to a post test interrogation, or walking out if the examiner get's aggressive or accusatory?

That doesn't explain why he was banned. Multiple aliases, I suspect, are also used by administrators of this forum, but that doesn't affect the validity of an argument. The only time that would be a reason for banning someone would be if one alias was communicating with another alias (all by the same person) in a dishonest effort to support an argument while pretending to be two or more people.

Also, polygraph is NOT an interrogation. It may LEAD to an interrogation, especially in a criminal polygraph, when a subject fails and then doesn't terminate the process or demand his/her attorney. I mean, what would someone expect from the polygrapher when he/she fails the exam? Whether or not you believe in the validity of the polygraph, the examiner certainly does, so he/she feels that the liar has been caught, so why not try to get to the bottom of the lie?

Ed provides some pretty good advice to attorney client prospects trying to decide on whether or not to have THEIR clients voluntarily submit to a police polygraph:

1.  If the police polygraph examiner becomes "aggressive or accusatory",  IMEDIATELY TERMINATE the polygraph.

2.  Do NOT submit to a POST TEST INTERROGATION.

This speaks volumes coming from a retired police polygrapher/detective.

Of course it only applies to police polygraphs not employment polygraphs,

TC

P.S.  He denied vehemently while posting here under his many aliases that the polygraph was an INTERROGATION.

Why was Ed banned? He made a lot of sense in his arguments and was getting the best of Mr. Cullen and others most of the time.

Lethe,

Ed "E.B." Van Arsdale, Ponca City, OK. (aka Ed Earl, Sancho Panza, Anonymous too, Phillip Queeg) was banned again.  So you are posting to a ghost.

Give him a call and schedule a polygraph!  Talk over old times.  Just do not squeeze your (or his) cheeks!

TC

Ed Earl,

It is a simple fact that no polygrapher has ever adduced any evidence that departments or agencies that use pre-employment screening have workforces that are in any way better than those of agencies that do not.  

As I pointed out here, it would be easy to obtain such information, but polies don't do so and don't even care about doing so.  That is strong evidence that their claims to want to improve the personnel at these places is bunk--they just care about their own enrichment and aggrandizement.

If you do have actual statistical data that pre-employment screenings improve the quality of a places workforce in any meaningful way, you will do us all the greatest favor by sharing it.  I'm not going to hold my breath.

Quote:


Oh really?   

Recent post from applicant today:

Quote:


Here's another posted just today:

Quote:



"Deception indicated" is used routinely and to describe specific answers to specific questions.  The above is an example.

You failure to acknowledge the demonstrable fact that polygraphers routinely claim the polygraph machine capable of "detecting deception" hurts your credibility.  But by all means, keep it up.   

TC

Quote:

Please see my response at the top of this page.  Your question about me have nothing to do with the topic of this thread and are irrelevant to my previous posts.

If you have an issue with someone accusing you of deception you should probably take it up with whomever is accusing you.  I have not done so, but apparently my questions have nonetheless struck a nerve.

Sergeant, I can certainly understand your unwillingness to discuss the similarities between SFST and Drug interdiction to the tactics polygraphers are accused of using by the members of this forum.

To acknowledge those similarities would be a tacit admission that police officers routinely use intentional deception and psychological manipulation in conjunction with an error prone screening process to identify "wrongdoers". I'm betting that you have been trained in and practiced both techniques(SFST and the Drug Interdiction "pitch"). Am I wrong?

Quote:

Perhaps you should go back and read my posts again.  I wasn't trying to divert your attention from anything, I didn't write about the efficacy of countermeasures, and I hardly think my posts regarding the "error rate" you referred to could reasonably be considered an "incessant demand" of any sort.

Maybe you will have a different response after rereading my earlier posts.

Sergeant, I not only told you where to find the numbers you asked for, I provided you numbers from the NAS study and the FBI and then explained them for you.  If you are going to learn, you need to figure out how to look things uo.

Polygraphers have been repeatedly accused of lying and psychological manipulation on this board. I think a discussion about a nationwide program that teaches 100 or 1000 times more police officers how to lie and psychologically manipulate people into surrendering their rights not only germain to the topic. It also provides perspective. It isn't going off on a tangient at all. I'm sorry if it hits too close to home for you to provide a comfortable response, but the question was not about you. If you look at the questions I first asked about interdiction it was about your experience and knowledge of the program.

When a police officer suspects someone of drunk driving the driver is the only person who knows if they have been drinking too much or using drugs, but the officer still puts them through a screening test without even informing them that they have the right to refuse. He  then uses a subjective "scoring system" to render an opinion as to whether or not the subject is under the influence. Without any further information the officer can handcuff them, tow their car and haul them off to jail. If a blood test is used, the suject is booked and in order to obtain release the subject has to post bond. weeks or months later if it turns out the subject was stone cold sober, He doesn't get an apology, he doesn't get back the money he paid his bondsman, and he doesn't get back the money he paid the towing company all because of a subjective opinion rendered as a result of an error ridden screening test. The only way he can get anything back is to file an expensive law suit that costs him more money and the same error ridden screening test is used to defend the officer from accusations of false arrest. 

Everyone knows that there is no single or group of observable physical characteristics that only be attributed to drug or alcohol intoxication. Are there? Likewise there are no observable characteristics of a driver or vehicle moving down the highway that only be attributed to drug trafficking. An inderdiction officer screens the driver and vehicle and renders an opinion based on his observations. An applicant who fails a polygraph fills out another application and goes to work elsewhere. Isn't that what you did?

The only thing preventing you from seeing the similarities that exist in screenig drunk drivers, drug traffickers and liars is a set of blinders.

In any case the question that changed this line of discussion from a clear and convincing example of why pre-employment polygraphs should be mandatory, http://www.pe.com/localnews/inland/stories/PE_News_Local_S_biotox06.4609a6f.html  (you should read this if you haven't. If it wasn't for polygraph this guy might have gone to work for your agency.) was this one: Quote:

George must have found it "too hot a potato" and once I explained to Gino why a truthful person attempting countermeasures and passing their polygraph test DOES not prove that countermeasures work, here come you and Cullen attempting to divert attention from the fact that they can't prove their countermeasures work in the field. 
Cullen regurgitating ad nauseum generalizations an your incessant demand for "numbers" you can easily find for yourself. 

I am becoming more and more convinced that you guys are using the back end of this forum to plan response strategies. Unless of course some or all of you are just some of George's "alternate personas"

TWOBLOCK        The height of STDs??? Interesting.  Are you perhaps comfused concerning the difference between Astrolabe and Astrolube?
( the obvious ANALogous quips concerning your confusion would probably get me accused of an AD HOMINUM attack)

Oh well I'm not that surprised. Did you know there were people on here who think Columbus discovered the earth was round?