pailryder wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2014 at 5:50pm:

Not to put a damper on your kind wishes, but it would be a true day of celebration if we were celebrating independence from the threat of being tortured and interrogated by polygraph operators. Banning the use of the polygraph would bring true freedom – the freedom of individuals from being subjected to the insidious Orwellian instrument of torture.

Speaking only for myself and not for any other inquisitor, terrorist, or torturer, I would like to wish a happy and safe 4th of July weekend to all.

Quickfux - "unethical, incompetent/inept nitwit" is only a partial description of a polygraph operator - I would also add charlatan, fraud, con man, inquisitor, interrogator, and torturer - the only difference between me and others utilizing this insidious Orwellian instrument of torture is that I admitted what I did and have tried for almost 40 years to make restitution.  When will you do the same?

Doug Williams wrote on Jul 1^st, 2014 at 5:20pm:

You never were a polygraph examiner.  Your behavior below is proof enough:
Doug Williams wrote on Jul 1^st, 2014 at 5:20pm:

You're actually proud of this behavior?  Only an unethical, incompetent/inept nitwit would engage in such behavior.  Chart manipulation and physical intimidation of an examinee.  Class act.

Ex Member wrote on Jun 30^th, 2014 at 8:30pm:


You're right, the old analog instrument is a very intimidating machine - many polygraph operators still use it for that very reason (among others) .  It is what most people associate with the "lie detector".  

I remember when I used to be a polygraph operator/interrogator/inquisitor/terrorist, I would use the prop of the polygraph machine to great advantage during my interrogations.

After running a chart, I would tear the paper from the machine and jam it right in their face, a couple of inches away from their nose, and scream at them, "Just look at this shit, you told such a big lie on that question that you actually slung ink all over my tie!"  I would point at their increased reaction on the cardio tracing and jam my finger into the still wet red ink smearing it around like a blood stain as I traced their "reaction" with my finger.  This little drama was very effective in getting a confession.

Another advantage of the old analog was that even if there was no reaction to any question, you could twist the little cardio tracing centering knob and make it look like they had a gigantic reaction even when they hadn't!

Back in the early 90's when Computerized Polygraph systems came into practice, they had a powerful effect on examinees. "Oh no, there is no way we are going to get over on a computerized polygraph, we are toast!"

Fast forward 2 decades--now, even 9 years olds are downloading apps on their iphones and tablets, computers have become ubiquitous, and a laptop with a small DAS is unassuming and routine.

However, the analog instrument with the sounds of the pens whipping about and scratching away on the charts is something that appears scientific and intimidating to those who are accustomed to computers. 

Most polygraph literature emphasizes the importance of stimulating the examinee--giving confidence to the innocent (psychological set focused on the control questions) while instilling fear into the guilty allowing them to be oriented to the relevants.

So the use of the analog instrument, in itself can stimulate the subject and enhance question discrimination. 

Before rebutting this, I would challenge you to experiment and scrutinize the empirical results..

Neither can I.

No, I can't think of any.

Ex Member wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2014 at 8:33pm:


Pailryder and/or Quickfix, I have a question to ask you. Can you think of any aspect of the polygraph technique where it would be advantageous to use an analog instrument over a computerized system?

pandasn wrote on Feb 28^th, 2014 at 2:53pm:


The real determining factor will be how much dirt the investigators will be able to "develop" on you during the BI.

joe311 wrote on Apr 16^th, 2014 at 6:52pm:


If you fail, you'll know it because you'll be accused of deception and interrogated in an attempt to get admissions.

If you pass, you probably won't be directly told that you did, but the absence of a post-test interrogation would be a good indication that you did.

does the bp tell you if you pass or fail at the time of polygraph

Pailryder, all of those things you mentioned are very cool and really help with your housekeeping and help with your fading eyesight. But, they have not advanced your ability to detect deception.

quickfix wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2014 at 1:17pm:


The fact that federal agents  attempted to entrap Doug Williams and created a watch list from the customer records they seized from him suggests otherwise.

It's a prop to you, a valuable diagnostic tool to us.  Listening to Doug Williams is both FOOLISH and DANGEROUS.

quickfix wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2014 at 12:04pm:


So, we are all in agreement.  The polygraph is not a "lie detector", it is just a prop a good interrogator uses to coerce a person into confessing.

And it seems we also agree that, since there is no evidence that any reaction ALWAYS indicates deception, the polygraph operator should never call a person a liar unless that person has confessed.

I would further state that the confession obtained under duress is of dubious value. 

Two recent cases in the news point out the problems with using the psychological billy club (polygraph) to get a "confession".

Here are two recent examples of blatant abuse perpetuated by these thugs/bullies aka polygraphers!

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/clout/chi-chicago-aldermen-ok-66-mil...

http://wrvo.org/post/would-videotaping-interrogations-help-false-confessions

This is exactly why I have been fighting the use of this insidious Orwellian instruments of torture called the polygraph and why I have been trying for almost forty years to stop the bullies and thugs who administer these so-called "lie detector tests".

The polygraph test is the most important test any of you will ever take. Until you take one, you have no idea how traumatic and grueling it can be - it is that way for a reason. The polygraphers want you to be so frightened that you "spill your guts". In fact, many people are so intimidated that they make statements that the polygrapher will use to incriminate them - some people are so frightened that they confess to things they haven't even done! 

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 - and that's the way it will continue to be until we put a stop to it!  Shame on anyone who administers these "tests" - and shame on the government for continuing to allow this state sponsored sadism!

 

pailryder wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2014 at 11:52am:

That's what we call it too.

Doug Williams wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2014 at 10:19pm:


No.  There is no certainty in this world.  Well, there is one reaction that ALMOST ALWAYS indicates deception.  We call it a confession.

AA

The Objective Scoring System Version 3 (OSS3) is my current favorite.  I use it after I hand score as a backup.  The call is usually the same, but sometimes not.  Occasionally the software disagree with each other.   Most of my clients, who are now much younger than me, seem to prefer to trust it over my hand score.

Although Arkhangelsk disagrees, and I do see his point, as a longtime user, I see a great deal of difference in an ink on paper chart and a digital chart.  Think of the difference between a polaroid photograph and a digital photograph.  The same photo?  Yes, maybe.  But the digital is much easier to crop, zoom in and out, eliminate redeye, adjust color and light.  Things that were impossible with a polaroid.  Measurement of some chart features, such as relative line length, very difficult on paper, is a snap for the software which offer digital calipers.  

My analog recorded four channels, my digital records eight and has in time audio/video recording.

pailryder wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2014 at 8:04pm:

Yes -- I'm asking: have you purchased any, which ones have you used, and what did they do for you?

quickfix wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2014 at 9:58pm:


This is where you are wrong Quickie, I have sufficient aptitude in this area. Perhaps you can elaborate on the sample rate or which DSP filters are used, or even how the Remez Algorithm may come into play. Please enlighten me with your insight as to how digital is superior to analog.

quickfix wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2014 at 9:58pm:


"Advancement in methodology?"  Are you trying to tell us that you can accurately detect deception by measuring nervousness - that there is an "advancement in methodology" that will now allow you to determine with certainty that a specific nervous (fight or flight) reaction ALWAYS indicates deception?   

A simple yes or no to this question will suffice to educate this monkey.  Is there any such thing as a reaction that ALWAYS indicates deception?   

Ex Member wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2014 at 9:09pm:

That's highly doubtful  Since you can't (or won't)comprehend the obvious differences between analog and computerized polygraph, which is only one small aspect of polygraph advancement, explaining advancement in methodology to you would be like explaining the west coast offense to a monkey,  and I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed man.

quickfix wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2014 at 7:02pm:

Please provide your argument that computerization has advanced your ability to detect deception. Please give specific details. I'm listening with an open mind, ready to be convinced.

pailryder wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2014 at 8:04pm:

This statement is irrelevant; digital and analog polygraph instruments produce the same charts.