If you're thinking of going to a polygrapher for answers to important questions (e.g., Has my significant other been cheating on me?), you can obtain equally reliable results at a significantly lower cost here:

http://www.mattelgames.com/magic8/flash_index.asp

As with the polygraph, be sure that all your questions can be answered with a simple "yes," or "no."

;D

ROTFLMAO!!
I suggest that we immediately send this out to our intelligence communities so that valuable resources do not go wasted.

Seeker,

What do you mean, "our intelligence agencies?" Your friends and family in the ME?     Admitted snitches and information sluts are not to be trusted.  George might want to employ you in his translation work for Al Queda.

wrote on Nov 1^st, 2002 at 2:53am:

Seeker, What do you mean, "our intelligence agencies?" Your friends and family in the ME?     Admitted snitches and information sluts are not to be trusted.  George might want to employ you in his translation work for Al Queda.

You know, little george, it would be much easier to address you if you'd stick to one name.  Much more honest, too.

skeptic

ratpatrol:
Poor baby....your fear is obvious.  I find it amusing that you would suggest that an information source not be trusted.  Oh...but we are to trust the blatant deceit of the polygraphers?  Why is that?  Or better yet, we trust the lies that interrogators commonly use?  DoDPI's I & I  Manual clearly guides the polygraph students on how to lie successfully!  How absurd!
I continue to be amused by YOUR lies...you can't, for your inability to be honest even with yourself, use the same name for fear of identity...typical polygrapher's innate compulsion to be deceitful, yet everyone in here KNOWS just who you are!!
Your obvious racially and ethnically motivated posts show your total ignorance to the facts.  1993 WTC bombing:  An Egyptian informant told the FBI about the plans before hand.  The FBI, in their attitude similar to yours, ignored him.  Many people died needlessly.  The time will come when thinking people will hold their governmental agencies accountable for their prejudicial and erroneous thinking.

Dear Seeker,


Quote:

Poor baby....your fear is obvious.

What is my obvious fear? Being ratted out by an admitted "information slut?"  I don't think so.  But I certainly don't trust people who sell information either.  Do you?  


Quote:

Oh...but we are to trust the blatant deceit of the polygraphers?  Why is that?  Or better yet, we trust the lies that interrogators commonly use?

Did I say that you should trust what polygraphers or interrogators tell you?


Quote:

you can't, for your inability to be honest even with yourself, use the same name for fear of identity...

Fear of identity?  Seeker?  is that your real name?  What country were YOU born in? Are you a citizen of the USA?  I am.  


Quote:

The time will come when thinking people will hold their governmental agencies accountable for their prejudicial and erroneous thinking.

At least you didn't say "our" governmental agencies.  You should worry about your own governmental agency, and what they will do to you when you get deported, and forced to go back to where you belong.  By the way, how's the translation coming along? I'm sure you will get paid well.

ratpatrol:
Yeah...well, NO, I have never and will never SELL information.  I find that to be self-serving, and unlike yourself, I serve MY country...the USA..of which I am a CITIZEN..NOT naturalized, but born and raised here.  You only assumed that since that is my heritage that I couldn't possibly be an American.  Your assumptions show your true self.  Your racism is seen clearly.  My real name is found on my profile...look me up, we may know one another.
IF I attempted to get paid, yes, MY UNITED STATES OF AMERICA would gladly pay.  They have offered on numerous occasions to pay me for translations.  As a CITIZEN, who is a true patriot, I GIVE willingly and freely to MY COUNTRY, MY CORPS, and MY GOD.  It is my duty.  Perhaps you should attempt to offer something of value to your country.  It is, after all, something that I personally believe to be a required duty of ALL of us AMERICANS!
ratpatrol, you miss the mark totally, but then again, what other choice do you have but to post your ignorance in here?  It is not as if you have had ANYTHING of value in here to date.

October 19 post from seeker:

Quote:

I am even getting the "It's a matter of National Security" speech from them as well.  I have never felt so pressured into doing something in my life!!I don't have a job at risk, nothing really to loose (I am not jammed up and being forced into snitching).  I am told that I can end it at any time, and that I can even refuse the poly.  I really don't know what to do.  My attorney has told me to go ahead and take it for them.  He also told me that they think that I am not telling the truth if they are requesting a polygraph.  After reading that book, I am certain that I am doomed to fail.

Sounds like you really do not wish to serve your country.  You ARE doing an excellent job of serving your "GOD," George Maschke, and since you do translations for free and he has asked for his book to be translated to Arabic, it is logical the translation would be what you think of as "duty."


Quote:

occasions to pay me for translations.  As a CITIZEN, who is a true patriot, I GIVE willingly and freely to MY COUNTRY, MY CORPS, and MY GOD.  It is my duty.

What your "CORPS" is, who knows.  Since you have the time to have made 40 posts, to attend school, and to wire tap state cops in Virginia, maybe you are a in the Army Reserves too. (George was in the Army Reserves, likes to translate Arabic, and failed a polygraph just like you. No wonder you worship him.)

;D
As so graciously put before
Genuis is limited, stupidity is not thus handicapped.

Ratpatrol,

Through your gratuitous ad hominem attacks against Seeker (and to a lesser extent, me), you have merely succeeded in exposing you as a small-minded, malicious bigot. Your regrettable conduct here reflects poorly upon yourself and the polygraph community.

Quote:

I continue to be amused by those who tread in here without concern for the basic knowledge that they CAN be traced back.  It takes only someone with some capabilities in IT to be able to do it.  Then again, we do not need to get into the discussion about mirror imaging, the wealth of information contained in source codes, or any of the other tell-tale signs that one leaves every single time they even visit a site online..... We ignore the ignorant?

Just responding in kind to this malicious, small minded threat.   The credibility of your sycophants is unquestioned, as long as they agree with you.  This reflects poorly upon yourself, George, as well as the anti-polygraph community as a whole.  Just be careful who you align yourself with.

wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2002 at 11:15pm:

Just responding in kind to this malicious, small minded threat. The credibility of your sycophants is unquestioned, as long as they agree with you.

Yes, those disagreeing sycophants are really annoying. I much prefer the agreeable sycophants.

Actually I find the idea of someone tracing your identity, printing out your childish posts, and then leaving them on the desks of your superiors rather elegant.


Quote:

This reflects poorly upon yourself, George, as well as the anti-polygraph community as a whole.  Just be careful who you align yourself with.

Reach out, reach out and touch someone......... I'm guessing you didn't surf in on an anonymizing proxy at least once, right?

Remember, as Seeker and Beech Trees stated, you can be traced, and undoubtedly are being traced, so when your polygrapher asks you, "have you researched polygraph" think very carefully about your answer.  

Whatever you say in here is being monitored from all sides.  Concerned?  Stay away from antipolygraph.org.

http://stopcarnivore.org/  

wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2002 at 4:32am:

Remember, as Seeker and Beech Trees stated, you can be traced, and undoubtedly are being traced, so when your polygrapher asks you, "have you researched polygraph" think very carefully about your answer.   Whatever you say in here is being monitored from all sides.  Concerned?  Stay away from antipolygraph.org. http://stopcarnivore.org/

I recommend that anyone taking a polygraph decide well beforehand how they will answer.  But such a decision should not be based on the bigotted "ratpatrol"'s fearmongering.

As George has rightly pointed out, the average person need not fear that their visit to Antipolygraph.org will be documented and used against them.  To do so would require multiple warrants, not to mention the time, effort and people government organzations simply don't have to spare on such minor endeavors.

Of course, for the paranoid, George has already noted several available anonymous surfing services that may be used.

Skeptic

wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2002 at 4:32am:

Remember, as Seeker and Beech Trees stated, you can be traced, and undoubtedly are being traced, so when your polygrapher asks you, "have you researched polygraph" think very carefully about your answer.   Whatever you say in here is being monitored from all sides.  Concerned?  Stay away from antipolygraph.org. http://stopcarnivore.org/

In fact I never wrote that you 'can be traced'. More obfuscation from the Peanut Gallery.

Skeptic wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2002 at 6:30am:

As George has rightly pointed out, the average person need not fear that their visit to Antipolygraph.org will be documented and used against them.  To do so would require multiple warrants, not to mention the time, effort and people government organzations simply don't have to spare on such minor endeavors.

The multiple warrants would only be required if they intend to use it in court.  In the words of  Seeker, "It takes only someone with some capabilities in IT to be able to do it.  Then again, we do not need to get into the discussion about mirror imaging, the wealth of information contained in source codes, or any of the other tell-tale signs that one leaves every single time they even visit a site online.....


Beech,
I believe your exact taunt was:

Quote:

Reach out, reach out and touch someone.........

Quote:

The multiple warrants would only be required if they intend to use it in court.

Not true. Electronic surveillance of an Internet site requires a court order in the United States (where AntiPolygraph.org's web hosting provider is located). In addition, in order to compel any Internet service provider (ISP) to divulge the name and billing details of a customer who used a certain IP address at a certain time, a subpoena would be required. To routinely identify those accessing AntiPolygraph.org, thousands of subpoenas would be required from multiple jurisdictions. And the use of an anonymous proxy (especially one outside U.S. jurisdiction) would greatly complicate any such effort.

Hmmm.  George, does this mean that Seeker was lying when she said:


Quote:

"It takes only someone with some capabilities in IT to be able to do it.  Then again, we do not need to get into the discussion about mirror imaging, the wealth of information contained in source codes, or any of the other tell-tale signs that one leaves every single time they even visit a site online.....

Does Seeker go out and get all those warrants?   Surely if it is as simple as Seeker says then ANYONE could trace the identity of posters in here.

Whatever you say in here is being monitored from all sides.  Concerned?  Stay away from antipolygraph.org.

http://stopcarnivore.org/  

Back to topic --

As implied by the first post in this thread, polygraph testing is no more accurate than chance in many cases.

The NAS report found the state of polygraph research to be very poor, and even that research which shows polygraph testing to be valid in the laboratory was dependent upon multiple factors unlikely to be present in the field.

The best the polygraph community has managed to do is to latch onto two sentences from the report and quote them out of context.

What it comes down to is the polygraph is highly fallible, easily fooled, and (especially when used for the general screening of large numbers of probably-innocent employees or prospective employees) results in either large numbers of falsely accused people or missed bad guys.

The NAS's bottom line: no spy has ever been caught by the polygraph, polygraph screening is a danger to national security, and should be stopped.

Skeptic

Note the fear with which the polygraph community has reacted to the NAS report.  Their bald attempts to sow paranoia and doubt among visitors to Antipolygraph.org only indicates their vested interest in the polygraph.  These are not honest people, and they do not have our best interests at heart.

"Whatever you say in here is being monitored from all sides.  Concerned? "

Well, no. Should I?

"Remember, as Seeker and Beech Trees stated, you can be traced, and undoubtedly are being traced,

Urr, excuse me. Are you implying that reseaching polygraph at this site is a threat to national security requiring the CIA, FBI and Secert Service to "Trace" every respondent? Well go head knock youself out.

so when your polygrapher asks you, "have you researched polygraph" think very carefully about your answer."

Are you suggesting here that if I truthfully disclose to my polygrapher that i've reseached polygraph that I would be more likely to fail?  Please explain.

Here is my humble opinion. If the polygraph was a reliable and valid scientfic method my polygrapher wouldn't have to worry about whether I've reseached polygraph practice and procedure. He would welcome it.

Have a nice day. ;D

mriddle6 writes:


Quote:

If the polygraph was a reliable and valid scientific method my polygrapher wouldn't have to worry about whether I've reseached polygraph practice and procedure. He would welcome it.

Very well said!

We do welcome it. Just about every examiner I know has been given a copy of  george and dougs nonsense.
I do agree with many of the posts, Georges is better.
However much of this information is inaccurate and very easy to spot.  

wrote on Nov 7^th, 2002 at 6:53am:

We do welcome it. Just about every examiner I know has been given a copy of  george and dougs nonsense. I do agree with many of the posts, Georges is better. However much of this information is inaccurate and very easy to spot.

I can personally vouch for the fact that correctly-done (read: practiced) countermeasures, as taught in The Lie Behind The Lie Detector, are effective and undetectable by the (presumably) best-trained polygraphers.

I have not read Doug Williams' manual, but I presume his advice is also effective.

Skeptic

How often did you practice and how many times did it take? Be honest.

wrote on Nov 7^th, 2002 at 7:58am:

How often did you practice and how many times did it take? Be honest.

I picked several "scorable" reactions and a base breathing rate, and practiced all of them, perhaps every other day over the course of about a month or so.  I doubt they would have required that level of practice, but I wanted to be competent at them.

Skeptic

wrote on Nov 7^th, 2002 at 6:53am:

We do welcome it. Just about every examiner I know has been given a copy of  george and dougs nonsense. I do agree with many of the posts, Georges is better. However much of this information is inaccurate and very easy to spot.

Polylawman,

If polygraphers do welcome their subjects having researched polygraph practice and procedure, as you assert, why is it that none of the pro-polygraph websites (American Polygraph Association, American Association of Police Polygraphists, PolygraphPlace.com, etc.) provide an honest explanation of such? And why do polygraphers routinely lie to and otherwise deceive examinees about the nature of the procedure, as documented in Chapter 3 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector?

And if "much of [the information in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector] is inaccurate and very easy to spot," as you assert, then perhaps you would care to accept Dr. Richardson's polygraph countermeasure challenge and demonstrate just how easy countermeasures are to spot?

;D

wrote on Nov 7^th, 2002 at 6:53am:

However much of this information is inaccurate

Realizing the the smallness of my mind I work very hard to keep it free of clutter by keeping things simple.

Based upon the information posted here and other sources I've attained the belief that the polygraph is unreliable and invalid because:

1) The results are easily manipulated not only by the examinee but also the examiner. Posts by the polygraph community have affirmed this by stating they can easily spot manipulations yet they refuse to accept a challenge from an expert Dr Richardson.

2) The polygraph is not valid because its not yet possible to correlate physiology to specific emotions.

In the real world of espionage you can be sure that these agents would be highly trained in the art of countermeasures.

In the real world of criminal investigation after a suspect has waived his rights, if a polygraph induces an admission more power to ya.

Have a nice day 8)

mriddle6 wrote on Nov 7^th, 2002 at 7:08pm:

In the real world of espionage you can be sure that these agents would be highly trained in the art of countermeasures.

Agreed!

The best way to beat a polygraph would require a proficient polygraph operator, polygraph, and unlimited time to test against such a professional.  The polygraph examiner would be required to give positive or negative feedback to the examinee.  The examinee would have to practice and have complete confidence in his countermeasures.  A spy trying to beat the system would have no shortage of the above resources and would most likely have a good chance of passing a polygraph exam.  Most citizens taking an average exam do not have such elaborate resources.  The logical conclusion being that the average applicant will be more likely to fail than a trained spy.

wrote on Nov 8^th, 2002 at 6:12am:

Agreed! The best way to beat a polygraph would require a proficient polygraph operator, polygraph, and unlimited time to test against such a professional.  The polygraph examiner would be required to give positive or negative feedback to the examinee.  The examinee would have to practice and have complete confidence in his countermeasures.  A spy trying to beat the system would have no shortage of the above resources and would most likely have a good chance of passing a polygraph exam.

So you agree than that its useless for the FBI, CIA and the DOE to use it to fret out spies  :o

Mriddle6,

Yes, I agree with your conclusions which agree with the NAS study results.

I got another confession. That makes 8 since I started the polygraph last year  ;D. I guess polygraph dosn't work.

wrote on Nov 11^th, 2002 at 8:55am:

I got another confession. That makes 8 since I started the polygraph last year  ;D. I guess polygraph dosn't work.

Congrats, polylawman.  I do hope the confession's not false (that does happen sometimes, you know).

BTW, no one here has said the polygraph isn't useful for eliciting confessions.  But a photocopier set to print out "he's lying!" has been used in the same manner.  That's called an "interrogation prop".

Elicited confessions has nothing to do with whether the polygraph can actually detect lying with any accuracy.

Skeptic