Breeze,

Don't even waste your time (let alone ours) with such meaningless posts.  When you decide (if ever) to address George's and BT's last well articulated posts to you, please do respond.  For your easy referral I have included both for you.

Posted by Mr. Maschke:


Quote:

The public challenges that I have posted here have simply been to polygraphers to publicly document or otherwise support misleading statements that they have publicly made. Those I've challenged include: Milton O. "Skip" Webb, Jr. (President, American Polygraph Association) Frank Horvath (Past President, American Polygraph Association) Harry Reed (President, Illinois Polygraph Society) George Slattery (Past President, Florida Polygraph Association) None have responded. The Breeze asserts "until you prove how easy it is to manipulate the process by your own selfless efforts, few will believe you." But the information about polygraph countermeasures provided in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector is already well-documented, with references (including peer-reviewed research) that skeptical readers may check for themselves. For any who doubt that the polygraph can be beaten, we have the real-world examples of spies Aldrich Hazen Ames, Larry Wu-tai Chin, Karel Frantisek Koecher, and Ana Belen Montes, all of whom beat the polygraph while commiting espionage against the United States. By contrast, the claims of polygraphers that they can detect countermeasures are unsupported. The American Polygraph Association quarterly, Polygraph, hasn't published a single article setting forth a methodology for the detection of countermeasures. And in peer-reviewed analog studies conducted by Professor Charles R. Honts and collaborators, even experienced polygraphers were unable to detect countermeasures at better than chance levels of accuracy. So Dr. Richardson's polygraph countermeasure challenge calling on the polygraph community to demonstrate its claimed ability to detect countermeasures remains quite apropos.

Posted by Beech Trees:


Quote:

The unanswered questions posed to breeze... if any other pro-polygraph types would care to respond I'd be happy to read what you have to say. 1. How is it confusing or obstructing the applicant process to know beforehand that the polygraph as a scientific means of determining truth from falsehood in the screening setting is worthless? 2. Why is it acceptable for 'The State' (in this case the polygraph interrogator) to lie to the citizen (in this case the applicant)? Why is it acceptable one way, but not the other? 3. If George is responsible for criminals defeating a polygraph interrogation, are the makers of lockpicking manuals and tools to blame for burglaries? Are Chrysler and Ford to blame when a master key is used in a vehicle theft? Is the US Army responsible when one of their manuals is used to construct an illegal explosive device? More dear to your heart The Breeze, are the makers of firearms responsible when someone (other than a defenseless deer) is murdered by gun? 4. Wasn't it you who just recently argued that employment should not be witheld based soley upon polygraph results? Didn't you JUST READ ont his board numerous accounts of exactly that happening? 5. Did you ever stop to think that the reason you passed your polygraphs is because you lied during your control questions? 6. Since most of the people posting here with negative stories about their polygraph experience were stopped dead in their tracks by the lying polygraph interrogator, with no recourse and no means of appealing his capricious decision, how can we know those people were or were not 'cut out' for law enforcement? On another note, 'Twoblock' is also a naval term, meaning a safe way to rig a raised object above the deck. It is blocked (block and tackle, i.e. a pulley) both above and below to keep it from smashing into other gear owing to the ship's motion.