hi!

i am new to the sex offender program and i am xxx old. i understand i need to take a polygraph.

can anyone tell me where to go or where not to go when it is time? i am confused and VERY scared!

JUST GO AND TAKE THE TEST. IF YOU ARE TELLING THE TRUTH, YOU WILL PASS. IF NOT, YOU WILL FAIL. YOUR PO, GROUP AND THERAPIST WILL COME DOWN ON YOU (AS THEY SHOULD).

DONT LISTEN TO THESE FOLKS ABOUT COUNTERMEASURES. MOST POLYGRAPH EXAMINERS ARE IN TUNE WITH COUNTERMEASURES AND HAVE DEVELOPED COUNTER-COUNTERMEASURES. I AM AN EXAMINER AND HAVE IMPLEMENTED CONTERMEASURES. I CAN TELL ALL OF YOU THAT YOU WILL BE CAUGHT IF YOU ATTEMPT COUNTERMEASURES! AGAIN, WHAT KIND OF PERSON WOULD USE COUNTERMEASURES?

You're lying to him; even if one tells the truth, s/he may not pass, that's the whole point of this board.  You must be new here, so I thought I'd mention that.

So, there are counter-counter measures, eh?  What, is that like double secret probation or something?

And, what constituted the development of counter-countermeasures, the fact that that poly's are so flawed?

With such inperfection in the polys, once the counter-countermeasures are mastered, are you going to throw another prefix of counter infront of the CCM and make it CCCM? Such crap.

Don't give advise here; you're a novice.

POLYSCORE wrote on Aug 11^th, 2004 at 4:07pm:

JUST GO AND TAKE THE TEST. IF YOU ARE TELLING THE TRUTH, YOU WILL PASS. IF NOT, YOU WILL FAIL. YOUR PO, GROUP AND THERAPIST WILL COME DOWN ON YOU (AS THEY SHOULD).

If only one could ensure that one would pass a polygraph "test" by simply telling the truth, then this website would not exist...


Quote:

DONT LISTEN TO THESE FOLKS ABOUT COUNTERMEASURES. MOST POLYGRAPH EXAMINERS ARE IN TUNE WITH COUNTERMEASURES AND HAVE DEVELOPED COUNTER-COUNTERMEASURES. I AM AN EXAMINER AND HAVE IMPLEMENTED CONTERMEASURES. I CAN TELL ALL OF YOU THAT YOU WILL BE CAUGHT IF YOU ATTEMPT COUNTERMEASURES! AGAIN, WHAT KIND OF PERSON WOULD USE COUNTERMEASURES?

Since you are "in-tune" with polygraph countermeasures, why don't you step up to the plate and prove it by accepting Dr. Richardson's polygraph countermeasure challenge?

hey guys,

been in the business a long time. i am an examiner. you can give them false advice, but you can't fool me.

There is no "Crap" here. If you  try countermeasures, it will be detected. Even IF there are those who can utilize countermeasures to defeat the polygraph..they are VERY FEW and i have never met them.

Sluggo, please be a little more professional. you sound like a child when you attack. Further, you have 11 replies to this message board and two failed polygraphs. Is that what it takes to exclude someone from being a "novice"?

Thank you George for a respectful response. The reason no one will respond to the "Challenge" is because it does not merit a response from serious polygraph examiners.

Good Luck NOPOLY!

Sluggo,

i dont give "advise" i give advice and here it is:

Get yourself a GED!

POLYSCORE wrote on Aug 12^th, 2004 at 5:15pm:

Thank you George for a respectful response. The reason no one will respond to the "Challenge" is because it does not merit a response from serious polygraph examiners.

Why not? Especially considering that the polygraph community has not offered any evidence whatsoever that it has any ability to detect countermeasures?

Someday I can aspire to obtain my GED to become as educated as yourself, since it's obvious "advice & advise" were taught during the curriculum studies when you obtained yours.  A GED is all you need to be an operator, right?

In the meantime, I'll continue to admire folks that have posted on this site stating their use of the countermeasures proposed herein to beat the bogus poly equipment. ;D

Re: professional... are you one of the 'professionals' that get in the examinee's face, pointing and yelling "Liar! Liar!"?  Tell us true, polyman.

As for novice, yeah, buddy, I'm one.  Should have taken the time to read up on the debunking of the equipment before I so foolishly initiated using it to disprove allegations.

George,

The only thing I can GUARENTEE is that if someone is deceptive about the issues at hand and/or utilize any form of countermeasure, they are MUCH LESS likely to pass a polygraph. Those chances are far greater than the opportunity for a "false positive".

George, i catch guys on a weekly basis that try these countermeasures. We are in tune with them. The type of person that would attempt a countermeasure on a chart simply DOES NOT have the ability to "fool" a "qualified" examiner. they don't have the experience. we know what a true reaction is. we know what countermeasures look like. how can one coverup a true reaction with a countermeasure?  I promise you that you cannot! one might beat that particular examiner, but one will not beat a savvy examiner. Again, we are in tune with what is going on.

If you are simply just afraid of a false positive and express that, it will be noted, but PLEASE FOLKS, do not put your faith in "helping" an examiner with grading your charts... it doesnt look good. But if you are guilty of that crime and want to cover that up, i GUARENTEE i will catch you! There is now new information, new players and new equipment that is not available to the vast majority...

thanks folks,

ok Polyscore... i was just nervous about a false reaction beacuase i am nervous about this whole thing. I believe you. you seem far more conviencing than the opposing group!

chau!

Note that both "nopoly," who started this message thread posing as a convicted sex offender, and "POLYSCORE," who claimed to be able to detect countermeasures, posted all of their posts from the same IP address.

Here we have yet another sad example of a frightened polygrapher attempting to spread disinformation.

Interesting... same IP addy.  Looks like our omniscient examiner got caught with his polygraph down!  :P

George, good idea on the IP logging.  I always thought it was used mostly to catch true harassers or people who wanted to damage the site, not just idiots who stand in the line to rob a bank with the bag already on their head.

How, pray, is an examiner to know beyond doubt when someone uses a mental countermeasure?  Neither they nor their cute BFB machine can do so; one can only read physiology, and the other can only opine.

BTW, has anyone noticed how rudely interrogators reply to our concerns and questions?  I took a poly once, and the guy acted the same way as do polygrapher respondents on here.  Swore at me.  Mocked me.

I guess IP logging is George's counter-countermeasure.  WTG, guy :)

The only down side to this forum is that it gives comfort to lying sex-offender cons.

caughtinthe system correctly identifies seveeral items about his nature and abilities.  He is an accomplished liar, has had polygraphs administered by incompetent examiners and believes he is above the law.  That is why I am anti-anti polygraph.  This site tells you how to lie and pass a polygraph.  Great thing for convicted sex offenders, they can continue aberant behaviors and molest your children too, never get caught and then brag on this site about it.  Congradulations to the great persons that designed this method on this site.  

anti-anti wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2006 at 7:42pm:

caughtinthe system correctly identifies seveeral items about his nature and abilities.  He is an accomplished liar, has had polygraphs administered by incompetent examiners and believes he is above the law.  That is why I am anti-anti polygraph.  This site tells you how to lie and pass a polygraph.  Great thing for convicted sex offenders, they can continue aberant behaviors and molest your children too, never get caught and then brag on this site about it.  Congradulations to the great persons that designed this method on this site.

anti-anti,

Considering that polygraph "tests" have no scientific basis, and that liars can easily pass through the use of simple countermeasures that polygraphers cannot reliably detect, is it not sheer idiocy for government to rely on polygraphy to monitor probationers and parolees?

You state

"I failed several because I was lying.."

Which doesn't lead one to have any sympathy for your position.

anti-anti wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2006 at 7:42pm:

caughtinthe system correctly identifies seveeral items about his nature and abilities.  He is an accomplished liar, has had polygraphs administered by incompetent examiners and believes he is above the law.  That is why I am anti-anti polygraph.  This site tells you how to lie and pass a polygraph.  Great thing for convicted sex offenders, they can continue aberant behaviors and molest your children too, never get caught and then brag on this site about it.  Congradulations to the great persons that designed this method on this site.

Antianti,
Don't believe everything you read on this board. You should know that low life polygraph examiners with nothing better to do, often post here either to give bad countermeasure advice to examinees or in an attempt to falsely portray the founders of this site in a negative light.  

Somehow, I get the feeling you know exactly what I'm talking about. ;)

wrote on Aug 11^th, 2004 at 5:55pm:

If only one could ensure that one would pass a polygraph "test" by simply telling the truth, then this website would not exist... Since you are "in-tune" with polygraph countermeasures, why don't you step up to the plate and prove it by accepting Dr. Richardson's polygraph countermeasure challenge?

. George,

His challenge was accepted in another sting.

You don't want to take the chance of losing antipolygraph.org if that examiner had beat the so called "doctor".

Bottom line if the examiner were to lose publicly the polygraph world would end. If the examiner beats your guy all we get is bragging rights. No, I don't think so.

If the Dr. blows it then the domain and all its ownership and rights gets transferred to the American Polygraph Association, and you never start another antipolygraph site.

I think that is fair, don't you?

Both sides have something to lose then. Time to put up or shut up. Accept or decline and do it now. Or are you not a gambling man?

According to most of the misinformed and brainwashed on the message board you have a 50 50 % chance of winning.

That always made me laugh 50 / 50

That would mean that 50 % of the people that are saying/whining "I took the polygraph and failed, and was telling the truth" are lying themselves according to those numbers. Which 50 % are you in I wonder.

Anyway, there it is. Oh my, the cards are on the table. What ever will you do? You may just have to put yours on the table now too.

Boston wrote on Mar 6^th, 2006 at 7:01am:

That would mean that 50 % of the people that are saying/whining "I took the polygraph and failed, and was telling the truth" are lying themselves according to those numbers.

I am interested in the methodology you used to arrive at the conclusion that if people on this board believe the polygraph is only 50% accurate that means that 50% of the people who claim to have told the truth and failed must be lying.  

How is one related to the other?

I told the truth and failed on three polygraphs.  Does that mean to you that there is a 50% chance I am lying about that?

Polyscore and Anti Anti:

I share your concerns also.  There are some people who post here who have a legitimate concern and questions about the polygraph but then there are some whose motives I question.

Polyfool:

You're broad brush smearing of all polygraphers is  part of the resaon two way discussions on here are impossible. You're mind is already made up.

Collider:

Is that your best shot?  How shallow.

Sergeant1107 wrote on Mar 6^th, 2006 at 4:13pm:

I am interested in the methodology you used to arrive at the conclusion that if people on this board believe the polygraph is only 50% accurate that means that 50% of the people who claim to have told the truth and failed must be lying.   How is one related to the other? I told the truth and failed on three polygraphs.  Does that mean to you that there is a 50% chance I am lying about that?

I can go back to many posts where people say that polygraph is like a toss of the coin, 50/50 if you will. This I can back up but don't have to, just look around the posts you'll see it.

As far as you go, I am not accusing you of lying. What I am saying is that there is a good chance based on the "toss of the coin" theory that at least 50 % of the people that are saying that they failed a poly and told the truth are lying on this message board.

The math is rather simple.

I pointed the finger at no one, but the idea that you took issue with it makes me wonder. The odds don't look good on this one.

As for my challenge posted last night. I see that the people affected have posted to others but not my counter challenge. This also speaks volumes. Maybe people are more confident when they have nothing to lose.

Now the pro polygraph side of the fence is counting the days until a response is made. I wonder what it will be? I am willing to bet it will be a cop out, and have all kinds of weak arguments listed as to why they won't take the challenge.

If they did take the challenge I would be shocked if polygraph examiners don't start beating down their doors, and I guess that scares them.

Easy to talk big with nothing to lose. Sounds like something bullies do.

Boston

A couple of questions come to mind.

1. If the polygraph operator wins, would he be required  to expose and prove his method of detecting the countermeasures? Sounds right that he should since he is not supposed to be guessing and is supposed to be making a scientific calculation.

2. Who would you suggest to judge the proceedings and results outside of the two parties? Who would pick the judge? There would certainly have to be this third party to be fair.

It would certainly supprise me if you could get the APA to go for this. Did you poll them before you posted.

TwoBlock,

The challange will not be accepted by this or any anti site with the stipulations mentioned.  Regarding who would judge, well no one has to judge anything, if the examiner were able to detect the countermeasures used and articulate what he observes and how it affects the examination, I would be inclined to believe the examiner observed the countermeasures.  The argument will continue regarding the "Challenge" and there will be no takers, for any reason.  Neither side will agree to the oppositions proposal.  That is the reason the challenge was issued in the beginning.  You cannot loose if no one accepts.

Boston wrote on Mar 6^th, 2006 at 7:01am:

According to most of the misinformed and brainwashed on the message board you have a 50 50 % chance of winning.

Misinformed and brainwashed? -- Well that's still nicer than a lot of the things polygraphers have said to me.  Or am I not among those who you consider misinformed and brainwashed?


Boston wrote on Mar 6^th, 2006 at 7:01am:

That always made me laugh 50 / 50

I don't buy the 50/50 stuff either.  How can you put a number on something like the polygraph's accuracy?  Every test that I take is conducted in a unique manner, which presumably means my odds of passing changes each time.  Based on what I'm told during my tests, I get a sense that most polygraphers don't trust the way most other polygraphers conduct their exams.


Boston wrote on Mar 6^th, 2006 at 7:01am:

That would mean that 50 % of the people that are saying/whining "I took the polygraph and failed, and was telling the truth" are lying themselves according to those numbers. Which 50 % are you in I wonder.

Boston wrote on Mar 6^th, 2006 at 9:18pm:

What I am saying is that there is a good chance based on the "toss of the coin" theory that at least 50 % of the people that are saying that they failed a poly and told the truth are lying on this message board. The math is rather simple.

The math is rather simple, but in order to get to 50% of the people on this board being liars you have to make some additional assumptions.  For example, you could make the following two assumptions:

Half the examiness are lying.

People who failed the test while lying are just as likely to post "that they failed a poly and told the truth" as those who failed the test while telling the truth.

However, if you make the following assumptions:

20% of the examiness are lying.

People who failed the test while lying are half as likely to post "that they failed a poly and told the truth" as those who failed the test while telling the truth.

Then, the number drops to 11% of the people who are lying.

Also, interesting to not that you wrote "at least 50%" rather than 50%, nice spinning.

Oh, and how bout telling us what percentage of people who passed their polygraph exams and never post on this site were completely truthfull?  And what percentage of polygraphers are truthfull during the test?



Boston wrote on Mar 6^th, 2006 at 9:18pm:

As far as you go, I am not accusing you of lying....   I pointed the finger at no one, but the idea that you took issue with it makes me wonder. The odds don't look good on this one.

Interesting way to not accuse him of lying, and a typical tactic of a polygrapher.  Point out an error in their logic, and they suggest you are a liar.  Reminds me of my second polygraph with agency #3.

Twoblock wrote on Mar 6^th, 2006 at 11:24pm:

Boston A couple of questions come to mind. 1. If the polygraph operator wins, would he be required  to expose and prove his method of detecting the countermeasures? Sounds right that he should since he is not supposed to be guessing and is supposed to be making a scientific calculation. 2. Who would you suggest to judge the proceedings and results outside of the two parties? Who would pick the judge? There would certainly have to be this third party to be fair. It would certainly supprise me if you could get the APA to go for this. Did you poll them before you posted.

These are both valid questions.

1, Yes I think that would be fair as long as the same rule applied to the intipolygraph side. I have seen no independent study that showed Reliability and Validity beyond any doubt that countermeasures worked.

On a side note in the interest of being fair, we should also clearly define "scientific calculation". One persons definition for scientific "calculation" may not be the same as another. Hell, I am still trying to figure out "what is "is". Clinton kind of jaded me on defining ambiguous terms.

2, this is a tough one. Needless to say both sides are very distrusting to each other.

I feel the Judge should be a disinterested 3rd party, that would have nothing to lose or gain on either side.

I have an idea! Penn and Teller. My vote goes to Penn and Teller. I believe that if given guidelines agreed by both parties, Penn & Teller would be fair and keep everyone honest.

(Besides I am a BIG fan)

I feel the main reason no one has come forward is because it is a one way "bet" if you will. The anti polygraph side of the fence has something to gain and nothing to lose.

Well, let's change that and see who steps up to the plate. If no one takes the offer then there is no hard and you guys (in general terms) can keep flapping your chops and we can keep rolling our eyes at you. Nothing changes, other then you guys get to say that you upped the ante. On the flip side there will always be a chance that someone will step forward and make the nay sayers worst nightmares come true.

Now we would both have something to lose. I think that is fair.

Willing to bet it will raise eyebrows at the APA.

Onesimus wrote on Mar 7^th, 2006 at 9:39am:

Misinformed and brainwashed? -- Well that's still nicer than a lot of the things polygraphers have said to me.  Or am I not among those who you consider misinformed and brainwashed? I don't buy the 50/50 stuff either.  How can you put a number on something like the polygraph's accuracy?  Every test that I take is conducted in a unique manner, which presumably means my odds of passing changes each time.  Based on what I'm told during my tests, I get a sense that most polygraphers don't trust the way most other polygraphers conduct their exams. The math is rather simple, but in order to get to 50% of the people on this board being liars you have to make some additional assumptions.  For example, you could make the following two assumptions: Half the examiness are lying. People who failed the test while lying are just as likely to post "that they failed a poly and told the truth" as those who failed the test while telling the truth. However, if you make the following assumptions: 20% of the examiness are lying. People who failed the test while lying are half as likely to post "that they failed a poly and told the truth" as those who failed the test while telling the truth. Then, the number drops to 11% of the people who are lying. Also, interesting to not that you wrote "at least 50%" rather than 50%, nice spinning. Oh, and how bout telling us what percentage of people who passed their polygraph exams and never post on this site were completely truthfull?  And what percentage of polygraphers are truthfull during the test? Interesting way to not accuse him of lying, and a typical tactic of a polygrapher.  Point out an error in their logic, and they suggest you are a liar.  Reminds me of my second polygraph with agency #3.

You bitterness is noted.

I didn't come up thith the "50 50" or "toss of the coin" thing.

Funny how when your own words (as a group) are use against you, it causes such a reaction.

I think thuo doest protest too much

Oh yea!

I still don't see a reply.

What is it 2 maybe 3 days by now? Not a peep.

Very telling.

Boston wrote on Mar 7^th, 2006 at 9:30pm:

2, this is a tough one. Needless to say both sides are very distrusting to each other. I feel the Judge should be a disinterested 3rd party, that would have nothing to lose or gain on either side. I have an idea! Penn and Teller. My vote goes to Penn and Teller. I believe that if given guidelines agreed by both parties, Penn & Teller would be fair and keep everyone honest. (Besides I am a BIG fan) I feel the main reason no one has come forward is because it is a one way "bet" if you will. The anti polygraph side of the fence has something to gain and nothing to lose. Well, let's change that and see who steps up to the plate. If no one takes the offer then there is no hard and you guys (in general terms) can keep flapping your chops and we can keep rolling our eyes at you. Nothing changes, other then you guys get to say that you upped the ante. On the flip side there will always be a chance that someone will step forward and make the nay sayers worst nightmares come true. Now we would both have something to lose. I think that is fair. Willing to bet it will raise eyebrows at the APA.

Boston,

I, too, am a big fan of Penn & Teller. I propose the following:

1) You and I write a joint letter to Penn & Teller proposing that they devote an episode of their television show Bullshit! to answering the question, "Who's full of shit? Polygraph critics who offer countermeasure strategies on-line or polygraph operators who say they can detect countermeasures?"

2) A test involving a statistically significant sampling of examinees will be set up. Some will employ countermeasures, some won't. Some will tell the truth, others won't. I will provide the countermeasure training.

3) If the polygraph examiner (you) succeeds in detecting countermeasures (detection = correct identification at better-than-chance levels of accuracy), AntiPolygraph.org will withdraw Chapter 4 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector (the chapter on countermeasures) and advise all polygraph examinees not to employ countermeasures.

4) If, on the other hand, you fail to detect the countermeasures (as I am confident will be the case), you can still keep your polygraph license. It is of no value to AntiPolygraph.org. Your embarrassment and humiliation on national television will be reward enough. ;D

What say you?

My terms are still clear, and I won't bargan. It's all or nothing.

Can't be all that big a fan. I belive they already did one.

"Is this your card?"

Boston wrote on Mar 11^th, 2006 at 3:14am:

My terms are still clear, and I won't bargan. It's all or nothing. Can't be all that big a fan. I belive they already did one. "Is this your card?"

The terms of the original challenge were and still are clear, but you felt free to change them.

Now you adopt a hard line of: "I won't bargain."

You are a fool and a blowhard.  By virtue of your multiple screen names on this site, you are also duplicitous.  By the very definition of the term, you are also a troll.

Do us all a favor and troll elsewhere.

Sergeant1107 wrote on Mar 11^th, 2006 at 5:57am:

The terms of the original challenge were and still are clear, but you felt free to change them. Now you adopt a hard line of: "I won't bargain." You are a fool and a blowhard.  By virtue of your multiple screen names on this site, you are also duplicitous.  By the very definition of the term, you are also a troll. Do us all a favor and troll elsewhere.

Only blowhards are you guys. You flap your chops and don't back it up when someone challenges you. That would make you cowards too.

The terms of the original challenge are very one sided. You guys lose nothing where we bare the loss of our livings. You risk nothing and we risk all.

If Countermeasures are not only detected but correctly identified you guys claim "lucky shot". The endless lies and biased statements don't end.

I am looking for an end to it. Make a public offer to put it all on the table or the challenge is worthless. The challenge should be open to all comers.

On the Penn and Teller thing. This as well should be open to all examiners.

Subjects should be picked at random at a neutral place to be sure the pool is not tainted. Subjects should be given only the resources that anyone else would have, this website and the book.

I highly doubt that George trains everyone how to do this personally.

There should be no practice on an instrument, as an ordinary person would not have access to a polygraph instrument. That would be cheating.

They should be given 48 hours to read the book and understand it. That should be simple.

They must be physically and mentally fit to undergo an examination and if P&T are looking over everything they will arbitrate any disagreements.

You guys simply made a challenge, I am simply making a counter challenge. So sorry you guys don't like it. See you guys can dish it out but when someone comes up with a dish and a fork you guys yell like children "no fair, I called time out" (that was sarcastic).

It shows how one sided you all are and how afraid you are of the truth. In fact you people feel entitled to lie when you have an obligation to tell the truth. Hell, about 50% of you can't even be honest with yourselves or others, even after you fail the polygraph. Right George? You failed a few didn't ya?

Odds should have been that you should have passed one of them. I guess your body it special, you have piss poor luck, everyone is out to get you or you simply lie to everyone including yourself.

I am sick of seeking you people going on and on unchecked and none of the other examiners not having the sand to call anyone to the carpet.

Fine no one wants to play with me, I except that. Put up and maybe that may encourage one of the leaders in the industry to step up to the plate and take this waste of internet space out.

By the way, I caught another one last week. He admitted it and said he read your book and the Okies Book (Doug you tool). Hell be asking for his refund from Doug on Monday I guess. I gave him a special refund form and a copy of my report.

I just keep catching them.

Later tools, I will not be posting any more. Just watching, to see if you put my counterchallenge on the table. You already made it clear you wouldn't, Shows what you are made of.

I exposed YOU, as the cowards YOU are. You don't even want to back up your published claims with something important. If Your book did what it claims to do then there would be no fear to step up.

Now the Polygraph world sees what you are made of.

"Bullshit"

How do you like me now?

Penn Teller if you are reading this. Penn and Teller Get Killed was a great movie. Where is the sequel? (Just Kidding)

Boston

You are asking for this website if it loses. Seems fair, to me, that the APA should give up their website if it loses. Website for website. We have heard nothing official from the APA. Your proposal is that if antipolygraph loses they are officially gone. If APA loses it should be officially gone not just the license of one polygrapher. All of them. After all, if antipolygraph loses, thousands of us will lose a forum which to us is important. One can't be any more fair than this. Keep in mind, I have no authority over this website. I am just proposing a level playing field.

Do you actually think the APA or our government security agencies would seriously consider be involved in such a challenge?

You haven't answered my question of "have you polled the APA about your challenge"? I will add, have you polled the FBI, CIA, etc., to see if they would go along with this challenge? So far, I have seen nothing but a one polygrapher jibberish.

Twoblock wrote on Mar 12^th, 2006 at 6:42am:

Boston You are asking for this website if it loses. Seems fair, to me, that the APA should give up their website if it loses. Website for website. We have heard nothing official from the APA. Your proposal is that if antipolygraph loses they are officially gone. If APA loses it should be officially gone not just the license of one polygrapher. All of them. After all, if antipolygraph loses, thousands of us will lose a forum which to us is important. One can't be any more fair than this. Keep in mind, I have no authority over this website. I am just proposing a level playing field. Do you actually think the APA or our government security agencies would seriously consider be involved in such a challenge? You haven't answered my question of "have you polled the APA about your challenge"? I will add, have you polled the FBI, CIA, etc., to see if they would go along with this challenge? So far, I have seen nothing but a one polygrapher jibberish.

First of all the challenge wasn’t to you, so take your ball and go home little man.

Second, I don't represent the APA But George does represent the Antipolygraph board, than this is directed at him.

I believe if you guys had something to lose someone will step up to the plate, just to be rid of you. George and his cronies shot a fire over the bow and I figured I would fire one back and see how confident you guys are.

Mission accomplished, apparently not that confident.

I have proven that you guys are all talk. I will not consider a lack of response a answer to my counter challenge, and it was the response I expected.

I could have written your responses for you.

Thank you for proving my point. You guys make your dare then hid behind mommy's skirt when someone is brave enough to step up to the plate.

This has proven that you guys are the neighborhood red headed loudmouths that egg people on and run when someone gets sick enough to respond.

Thank you everyone for helping me do this. I am now done with all of you.

It’s just a shame that no one else had the sand to do it.

You have no credibility anymore.

I will continue to catch the readers of your pathetic little book and enjoy it, even take pleasure in it.

Farewell and good bye.

My work here is done.

How do you like me now?
;D

Boston wrote on Mar 12^th, 2006 at 7:23am:

First of all the challenge wasn’t to you, so take your ball and go home little man. Second, I don't represent the APA But George does represent the Antipolygraph board, than this is directed at him. I believe if you guys had something to lose someone will step up to the plate, just to be rid of you. George and his cronies shot a fire over the bow and I figured I would fire one back and see how confident you guys are. Mission accomplished, apparently not that confident. I have proven that you guys are all talk. I will not consider a lack of response a answer to my counter challenge, and it was the response I expected. I could have written your responses for you. Thank you for proving my point. You guys make your dare then hid behind mommy's skirt when someone is brave enough to step up to the plate. This has proven that you guys are the neighborhood red headed loudmouths that egg people on and run when someone gets sick enough to respond. Thank you everyone for helping me do this. I am now done with all of you. It’s just a shame that no one else had the sand to do it. You have no credibility anymore. I will continue to catch the readers of your pathetic little book and enjoy it, even take pleasure in it. Farewell and good bye. My work here is done. How do you like me now? ;D

I thought you wrote that you were done posting.

Don't make idle threats.  Feel free to fire off a last insult and leave feeling as though you "got" us.  

Just leave, troll.

Quote:

I have proven that you guys are all talk. I will not consider a lack of response a answer to my counter challenge, and it was the response I expected.

There was a response. It was that the challenge was issued to the "luminaries" of the polygraph field, i.e. examiners whose credentials are considered unimpeachable by their peers. You have yet to speak a word about your credentials.

Do you not agree that the polygraph elders will run from you like a man on fire if and when you go down in flames, assailing your credentials, calling you a “chart roller,” saying how any EXPERIENCED examiner would have easily detected the countermeasures, etc? Yes, or no?

Every time something goes wrong (which is often when dealing with polygraphy), there arises the same tired refrain: “The test is only as good as the examiner.” Before any type of challenge goes forward, it needs to involve an examiner with gravitas sufficient enough that this cop out will not be available. Somehow, I don’t think you fit the bill.

Boston

1. I'm not a little man in size or stature. I could buy you 10 times over and will put my IQ up against yours any time. Besides, I don't have to lie or use a magic lasso in my vocation.

2. Your work doesn't entail a level playing field therefore, you can't accept one here.

3. You have proven nothing here except your lack of intelligence.

4. You don't have the sand to accept the original challenge and you countered with a weak offense.

5. You can't stand the heat so you're getting out of the kitchen. You will return though. Probably next time as Wonder Woman.

6. So go along now, catch your pimps and bragg to your fellow polugraphers how you called out antipolygraph. Would this be a false negative??

Twoblock wrote on Mar 12^th, 2006 at 6:42am:

Boston You are asking for this website if it loses. Seems fair, to me, that the APA should give up their website if it loses. Website for website. We have heard nothing official from the APA. Your proposal is that if antipolygraph loses they are officially gone. If APA loses it should be officially gone not just the license of one polygrapher. All of them. After all, if antipolygraph loses, thousands of us will lose a forum which to us is important. One can't be any more fair than this. Keep in mind, I have no authority over this website. I am just proposing a level playing field. Do you actually think the APA or our government security agencies would seriously consider be involved in such a challenge? You haven't answered my question of "have you polled the APA about your challenge"? I will add, have you polled the FBI, CIA, etc., to see if they would go along with this challenge? So far, I have seen nothing but a one polygrapher jibberish.

Twoblock,

AntiPolygraph.org has no interest in obtaining the rights to the American Polygraph Association's website (not that Boston/ODIN is in any position to offer such). Unlike Boston/ODIN, AntiPolygraph.org is not interested in silencing those who disagree with us. We don't believe in book-burning.

For me, our First Amendment rights (including freedom of the press and freedom of speech) are something sacred. They're simply not the sort of thing that you make the subject of a wager, even if you're holding five aces.

Note that even if AntiPolygraph.org were somehow to be forced to shut down, as Boston/ODIN so strongly desires, the documentation available here would just be mirrored elsewhere. You can't put the toothpaste back in the tube.

Boston/ODIN complains of "endless lies and biased statements." He remains welcome to point out any such lies or biased statements on this message board, and to support his arguments with facts and reason.

And although Boston/ODIN declined my suggestion that we jointly contact Penn & Teller, I extend this offer to any polygrapher who may be interested.

George

I agree with every thing you said.

I was trying to show Boston what a level playing field looked like since he, apparently, has never seen one.

TwoBlock,

I will venture a guess that our more intellectual polygraphers on this board, must have some opinion on whether they would like ODIN/Boston to represent them as the all mighty / all knowlegeable, antipolygraph dragon slayer. I am sure that the APA, DODPI, etc, would also want such a dynamic, eloquent, and truly inspirational speaker to take on Dr. Richardsons challenge.  I have saved my opinion for a while on this, as ODIN/Boston's rantings have brought much entertainment.  And his show was for free !!!

Regards ....

Quote:

Boston/ODIN complains of "endless lies and biased statements."

What? Complaining about his own posts ;D

I agree with Polyscore.  Just go take the test. If you tell the truth, you will pass the polygraph test.  No if's and's or but's about it.

polyman2006 wrote on May 2^nd, 2006 at 3:00am:

I agree with Polyscore.  Just go take the test. If you tell the truth, you will pass the polygraph test.  No if's and's or but's about it.

You are saying the test is completely accurate?  My word, that is a bold statement.  Perhaps you should run for president of a the APA.  Your current president has a decidedly different view.


Quote:

The president of the American Polygraph Association, T.V. O'Malley, said polygraph technology is held to an unfair standard in many cases, and he compared it to mammograms and other medical screening procedures that are imperfect but valuable in detecting problems.

retcopper wrote on Mar 6^th, 2006 at 6:46pm:

Polyscore and Anti Anti: I share your concerns also.  There are some people who post here who have a legitimate concern and questions about the polygraph but then there are some whose motives I question.

I know that I certainly question the motives of ANY polygrapher that posts on this message board or even reads it.  What would be the point?   Why would a polygrapher care what people thought about polygraphs unless they had something to loss from the truth about them getting out.

I'd also like to hear a polygrapher that has an REAL science degree and actually understands the scientific process. Are there any out there?

Why are the polygraphers that post on here afraid to reveal their real identity?  Again, do they have something to lose by doing so?

This is the first time i'm posting a message on this site.

I have been on probation for over 3 years now and have passed all my polygraph.  Recently, I took a polygraph and the results were "inconclusive" therefore i had to retake the test again and the result from the second polygraphs was inconclusive, so i was offered a third polygraph.  Unfortunately all three polygraph were inconclusive.  Now my probation officer thinks i'm deceptive and hiding stuff from both her and the polygraph examiner.  She has referred the case to her supervisor and now i dont know what actions will be taken against me.  

I want to ask the experts in here if they can help me with these three questions.  I have not comminted any new crimes nor have i violated any of my terms and conditions.

1.  Can a "deceptive" or "inconclusive" polygraph result alone constitute a violation of supervision?
2.  Can a Polygraph examination results and conclusions determine if a violation of supervision has occured and on that basis, can the probation officer request for revocation?
3.  Can a Polygraph examinations results be relied on as evidence of truth or deception if no new crime is reported, and be asserted as proof of any matter of inquiry by the examination in any proceeding. This includes a revocation proceeding or a court review?

Any help is appreciated.

dallascounty wrote on Jan 23^rd, 2007 at 12:09am:

1.  Can a "deceptive" or "inconclusive" polygraph result alone constitute a violation of supervision?

It depends on your written conditions of probation but most states that use the polygraph as part of the containment method stress that it should not be the sole determiner of violation...


dallascounty wrote on Jan 23^rd, 2007 at 12:09am:

2.  Can a Polygraph examination results and conclusions determine if a violation of supervision has occured and on that basis, can the probation officer request for revocation?

Yes, since you're on supervision, POs have a wide latitude in determining who they report for violations. But if you're on probation rather than parole, the sanctions are determined by the court rather than a parole board so you should have an attorney represent you at any hearing.


dallascounty wrote on Jan 23^rd, 2007 at 12:09am:

3.  Can a Polygraph examinations results be relied on as evidence of truth or deception if no new crime is reported, and be asserted as proof of any matter of inquiry by the examination in any proceeding. This includes a revocation proceeding or a court review?

No, but that doesn't mean that a prosecutor or probation officer won't try. That's why you need a good attorney...

dallascounty

How for is it to the end of your probation? The reason I ask is, if it is getting close to the end there could be money reasons for the inconclusives or a way to try to extend your probation. More polygraphs. It doesn't seem reasonable, to me, that you pass three years of polys then all of a sudden you get three inconclusives in a row. Three in a row throws up a big red flag to me. You would probably save money by getting a lawyer to look into your situation. Have him and your PO read this site.

I wouldn't think they could revoke your probation on an inconclusive. However, I believe Texas laws allows deception as a violation. Check with a lawyer to make sure.

I was sentenced to 5 years deferred of which I have completed 3 years.  The inconclusive results are from two different polygraph examiners but from the same firm.  Moresoever, the examiner told me he is not interested in re-examining me, because it is not ethical for him to examine when he cannot produce a result.  I have already consulted an attorney, where he recommends to hire an independent Examiner and use his results.  Now this is from my end, I don’t know if the probation will allow that or not?

You mentioned, “Texas laws allows deception as a violation.” How accurate is that statement, because I would like to know where you read that and if possible post the link here.

Does anyone know, how probation officer deals with 3 inconclusive?

dallascounty

I didn't read that law anywhere. I got my notion from from the media. That's why I said check with a lawyer. I am not sure. However, I don't think any state can revoke your probation for an inconclusive. Or for 3. An inconclusive means no results. It doesn't convict you.

Ask your PO about taking a private polygraph.

Gentlemen Guess what?

My probation officer has recommended to revoke me from probation because i have had 3 inconclusive polygraphs in less than a month.  

This is what she states, "Inconclusive polygraph are considered deceptive"  The only reason why you have inconclusive is because you are holding something back and you need to come out clean.

Well guys, guess what.  I have completed 3 years in probation, No Crime Reported, No Violation and now my whole life is jeopardized.  I may be going to jail for doing everything right.  The only way i can proove my innocence is by polygraph.

God Bless America.

If you would have been truthful, your results wouldn't have been inconclusive.

Sir with all do respect.  How do you know if i was not telling the truth.  I have nothing to hide.  

dallascounty wrote on Jan 24^th, 2007 at 3:45am:

Gentlemen Guess what? My probation officer has recommended to revoke me from probation because i have had 3 inconclusive polygraphs in less than a month.   This is what she states, "Inconclusive polygraph are considered deceptive"  The only reason why you have inconclusive is because you are holding something back and you need to come out clean. Well guys, guess what.  I have completed 3 years in probation, No Crime Reported, No Violation and now my whole life is jeopardized.  I may be going to jail for doing everything right.  The only way i can proove my innocence is by polygraph. God Bless America.

If you are on probation, a judge is deciding your fate, get a good attorney who can point out that the only thing you're being accused of is being inconclusive on a pseudoscientific test...

You are under what is called the "containment model." Kim English, who came up with this model, wrote in her NIJ brief (found at http://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/sexoff.txt) that "polygraph data should be used in conjunction with other information when making decisions about case management of sex offenders."

I take this to mean that unless there is other corroborating evidence, sole reliance on the polygraph is unwise. However, as I argued with Kim on many occasions, probation officers will not do that because they do not have the necessary background in which to evaluate polygraph results and will fall prey to the popular belief that it is infallible. But like many people, Kim also doesn't believe that the polygraph is pseudoscience, irrespective of what the National Academy of Science says...

In addition, regardless of who you go to for another polygraph, you are now sensitized to the questions in which you've been deemed inconclusive. No matter how experienced (LBCB?), a new examiner cannot overcome that...

So hence, you're SOL without a good lawyer...

digithead wrote on Jan 24^th, 2007 at 9:02am:

In addition, regardless of who you go to for another polygraph, you are now sensitized to the questions in which you've been deemed inconclusive. No matter how experienced (LBCB?), a new examiner cannot overcome that... So hence, you're SOL without a good lawyer...

HELLO and welcome to MY world - the world of repeated inconclusive results.  Wow, this scenario is SOOO familiar to me.

This is how it all starts and it only goes down hill from here.  I've seen many probationers in this situation get their lives turned upside-down, or worse, for inconclusive results.  

I made several posts addressing sensitization to polygraph tests.  You should read them dallascounty.  

I resorted to using countermeasures (out of desperation) and have been successful ever since.

Same here. Polygraphy is total bullshit. Countermeasures got me through the last two maintenance exams, which were the only two (just before the end of probation) that really mattered after seven years. I saw lots of people get an "offer" to be extended for two years if they had failed an exam just before end of supervision. Right, give me 16 hours of community service for being inconclusive. Let's see, that motivated me to do what? Figure out why I was getting screwed for telling the truth and what I needed to do to protect myself.

Pick a control question, make yourself have a feeling like you're on fire, or the feeling like you're falling or tripping (slight adrenalin rush), and you're good to go. It's all internal and those dufus polygraphers will never know the difference.

Regarding the countermeasure advice----Christ that's the worst advice I've ever heard!
The person who claims that they were violated for inconclusive tests is full of shit. He/she had already banked enough minor violations to score a violation on their local versian of the violation matrix. The team gave the guy a shot---he couldn't pass 3 polys (what are the odds?) and they bumped him. He simply isn't telling this forum the truth. Late or missing therapy, lackluster efforts to find employment, poor or contaminating group therapy performance (denial of instant offense)---there is something there that got you in the cross hairs. Enough already of your martyrdom.

Polygraphy is a sham, the "test" can be beaten by several means/techniques, and until you've faced having your freedom threatened by the results of what some quack examiner says, anyone who thinks that simply telling the truth (and the polygraph will set you free) is delusional.

palerider,

Join the ranks of the Deluded, I've been branded with the same message.  And posting here is somewhat meaningless unless you agree with the owners and operators of "ANTIPOLYGRAPH"

wrote on Mar 22^nd, 2007 at 1:34am:

palerider, Join the ranks of the Deluded, I've been branded with the same message.  And posting here is somewhat meaningless unless you agree with the owners and operators of "ANTIPOLYGRAPH"

I would just like to point out that none of the pro-polygraph posts on this board are ever edited or deleted by the moderators of this board.  

On the other hand, just try to post an antipolygraph sentiment on the message board at PolygraphPlace.com.  The people over there who are nominally "Dedicated to Truth" won't permit any sort of debate.

On George's message board anyone can post whatever opinions they like.  Plenty of people speak out in favor of the polygraph here.

It is rather ironic that a pro-polygraph person posts on this board that it is meaningless to post here unless you agree with the board's anti-polygraph philosophies.  It would truly be meaningless if any pro-polygraph sentiments were deleted as soon as they were posted, which is precisely what happens to antipolygraph postings on the PolygraphPlace.com board.

Sergeant1107:

You have stated again what I believe is this website most important contribution.  Very few opinions are edited or deleted.

This site will post "The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly" of polygraph operations and opinions.

I challenge any "pro-polygraph" opinionated reader to refer me to a site which is dedicated to the "continued usage" of polygraph which tolerates and post opposing points of view.

Love him or hate him, George rarely censors any postings to this site unless they are just plain lazy, unthoughtful, verbally abusive or off the wall opinions given just for the sake of seeing themselves on a webpage.

Regards.  

"In addition, regardless of who you go to for another polygraph, you are now sensitized to the questions in which you've been deemed inconclusive. No matter how experienced (LBCB?), a new examiner cannot overcome that... "  posted by digithead


I must disagree with Digithead, as a matter of record, an individual was tested that had shown deception to an allegation about sexual abuse of a child on a prior exam.  His results this date were NDI (no deception indicated) on the same case.  We do have some examiners that have problems, others are quit good.  (The documenting evidence overwhelmingly demonstrates the result on NDI is correct).  The examiner did not have that documentation prior to the examination.  

wrote on Mar 22^nd, 2007 at 8:36am:

"In addition, regardless of who you go to for another polygraph, you are now sensitized to the questions in which you've been deemed inconclusive. No matter how experienced (LBCB?), a new examiner cannot overcome that... "  posted by digithead I must disagree with Digithead, as a matter of record, an individual was tested that had shown deception to an allegation about sexual abuse of a child on a prior exam.  His results this date were NDI (no deception indicated) on the same case.  We do have some examiners that have problems, others are quit good.  (The documenting evidence overwhelmingly demonstrates the result on NDI is correct).  The examiner did not have that documentation prior to the examination.

So you're claiming that a person cannot be sensitized to a negative stimulus? Where'd you get your psych degree at?

There are two risks with repeated polygraphs. The first, which is acknowledged by practitioners is habituation where a subject no longer responds to a stimulus because its novelty has worn off. Subjects who continually pass on a question (especially those who are lying) may no longer see that question as threatening, hence they can become habituated to the process...

The second is sensitization which occurs when a subject has negative experiences with certain stimuli and the response increases when faced with those stimuli. A subject who is accused of deception or inconclusive on a question in which they are truthful could become sensitized to that question, regardless of who asks it just from the memory of wrongly failing that question previously...

Note that not everyone will become completely habituated or sensitized as learning and cognition are a dynamic process but given the nature of polygraph and its reliance on stimulation, memory, emotion and cognition, there is a significant risk of both of these things occurring...

So unless you're able to turn over years of research into non-associative learning, your anecdotes carry no weight other than they're an admission of a false positive. Would you like to discuss how many false negatives you've seen?

[quote author=digithead link=board=post;num=1092160731;start=60#62 date=03/22/07 at 17:49:56]

So you're claiming that a person cannot be sensitized to a negative stimulus? Where'd you get your psych degree at?

Texas A&M


There are two risks with repeated polygraphs. The first, which is acknowledged by practitioners is habituation where a subject no longer responds to a stimulus because its novelty has worn off. Subjects who continually pass on a question (especially those who are lying) may no longer see that question as threatening, hence they can become habituated to the process...

Correct statement

The second is sensitization which occurs when a subject has negative experiences with certain stimuli and the response increases when faced with those stimuli. A subject who is accused of deception or inconclusive on a question in which they are truthful could become sensitized to that question, regardless of who asks it just from the memory of wrongly failing that question previously...

Your Key Word is  "COULD" my statement is 'NOT ALWAYS'

Note that not everyone will become completely habituated or sensitized as learning and cognition are a dynamic process but given the nature of polygraph and its reliance on stimulation, memory, emotion and cognition, there is a significant risk of both of these things occurring...

"SIGNIFICANT RISK"  Not a predetermined dynamic process.

So unless you're able to turn over years of research into non-associative learning, your anecdotes carry no weight other than they're an admission of a false positive. Would you like to discuss how many false negatives you've seen?

"FALSE POSITIVE---FALSE NEGATIVE"  why are you so convinced that this is the case?  You have no knowledge of the case facts, procedures used, subject of the examination or anything else associated with this particular case.  You are attempting to prove a point without facts, therefore you are making it up as you go.  

However you do make good points regarding cognition and conditioned responses.  These can be alterred if proper procedures are utilized.  This occurs repeadly in treatment of many different situations, polygraph only being one.  

wrote on Mar 23^rd, 2007 at 1:12am:

"FALSE POSITIVE---FALSE NEGATIVE"  why are you so convinced that this is the case?  You have no knowledge of the case facts, procedures used, subject of the examination or anything else associated with this particular case.  You are attempting to prove a point without facts, therefore you are making it up as you go.

Let's see, where did I get false positive from? Hmm, I think it was this post you made:


wrote on Mar 22^nd, 2007 at 8:36am:

I must disagree with Digithead, as a matter of record, an individual was tested that had shown deception to an allegation about sexual abuse of a child on a prior exam.  His results this date were NDI (no deception indicated) on the same case.  We do have some examiners that have problems, others are quit good.  (The documenting evidence overwhelmingly demonstrates the result on NDI is correct).  The examiner did not have that documentation prior to the examination.

Let's parse this: First statement is that an individual showed deception on a prior polygraph. The next statement is that he showed no deception on a subsequent test for the same issue which was corroborated by documentation...

It seems perfectly reasonable to me from your statements to infer that the first test was a false positive, or did I miss something? But then I didn't go to Texas A&M, my colleges were Rutgers University, the University of Colorado and Washington State University...

And lastly, I asked you to discuss your false negatives in your career, not this specific incident. It must be that lack of Aggie education again which prevents me from communicating clearly...

very good points indeed.

The examination which branded the subject a DI was in fact a bad examination.  QC on the examination was clear regarding this.   The second examination also had QC and the examination had been conducted properly.

Yes we had a false positive as a result of a very poorly conducted examination in which the examinee was accused of the offense by the examiner.  I would agree this was a false positive, and give you that one, no argument.

My record of false negatives?  How would any individual know for a fact they had  a false negative?  Only confession by a second individual with cooberation would answer that question.  My answer is, I don't know.

There are false positivies and false negatives, however without a review of the facts and case, can you truly make the statement you did, prior to my posting other results?  

Aggies are Aggies, and proud as hell, so don't go there.  

Second point, I did not conduct either of the examinations.  I was allowed to QC both after they had already been QC'd by others.  This was an important case that demanded the truth be found, and it was.  The system works when worked properly.  

Just a note, the comments offered were not even connected to the last two posts!  Your original statement was to the effect that an individual would be so sensitized to the relevant question, there would be no chance of passing a second examination.  If I am not mistaken, the information regarding the case at hand demonstrates your error.  

Your post regarding the inability to conduct a second examination and pass when being truthful to both was incorrect, that was my only point.    

Sorry digithead, I missed one point.  

YOUR WORDS IN SEPERATE POSTS

'Would you like to discuss how many false negatives you've seen? '

'And lastly, I asked you to discuss your false negatives in your career, not this specific incident. It must be that lack of Aggie education again which prevents me from communicating clearly... '


My answer is, you needed an aggie education and your communication would have been clear.  First, how many False Negativese I've seen, Second your asking how many false negatives in my career.  Hope you can see the difference.  

My answer to how many have I seen, several.  How many have I had in my career, I don't know.  I am sure it has happened, I just don't have facts and cases that document this.  Polygraph is not 100%, nor is other procedures of this type.  MMPI is a case in fact, yet considererd very reliable to those that use it.  The Able Screen is another.  

Sorry, I am tired from a difficult day and would go further, just don't have the energy at this late hour.  Thanks for the interesting discussion and have a good night.  

wrote on Mar 23^rd, 2007 at 6:38am:

very good points indeed. The examination which branded the subject a DI was in fact a bad examination.  QC on the examination was clear regarding this.   The second examination also had QC and the examination had been conducted properly. Yes we had a false positive as a result of a very poorly conducted examination in which the examinee was accused of the offense by the examiner.  I would agree this was a false positive, and give you that one, no argument. My record of false negatives?  How would any individual know for a fact they had  a false negative?  Only confession by a second individual with cooberation would answer that question.  My answer is, I don't know. There are false positivies and false negatives, however without a review of the facts and case, can you truly make the statement you did, prior to my posting other results?   Aggies are Aggies, and proud as hell, so don't go there.   Second point, I did not conduct either of the examinations.  I was allowed to QC both after they had already been QC'd by others.  This was an important case that demanded the truth be found, and it was.  The system works when worked properly.   Just a note, the comments offered were not even connected to the last two posts!  Your original statement was to the effect that an individual would be so sensitized to the relevant question, there would be no chance of passing a second examination.  If I am not mistaken, the information regarding the case at hand demonstrates your error.   Your post regarding the inability to conduct a second examination and pass when being truthful to both was incorrect, that was my only point.

How does your anecdote negate my statement that a person who has become sensitized cannot pass a subsequent polygraph?

As you said, we have no information regarding your anecdote. Was this person sensitized? We don't know. So your anecdote isn't be evidence against my claim...

However, if someone continues to fail a polygraph on topic for which they are truthful, wouldn't a reasonable person infer that this subject is now sensitized?

As for my question about false negatives, it's something I ask of all the polygraphers on this board. None have given me an answer which is troubling because in the context of this topic - sex offender monitoring - false negatives are the thing of utmost importance. These unknown or unknowable errors allow these guys to continue their victimization and pose a clear threat to society...

digithead wrote on Mar 23^rd, 2007 at 7:07am:

How does your anecdote negate my statement that a person who has become sensitized cannot pass a subsequent polygraph? As you said, we have no information regarding your anecdote. Was this person sensitized? We don't know. So your anecdote isn't be evidence against my claim... However, if someone continues to fail a polygraph on topic for which they are truthful, wouldn't a reasonable person infer that this subject is now sensitized? As for my question about false negatives, it's something I ask of all the polygraphers on this board. None have given me an answer which is troubling because in the context of this topic - sex offender monitoring - false negatives are the thing of utmost importance. These unknown or unknowable errors allow these guys to continue their victimization and pose a clear threat to society...

My statement that a person passed a polygraph that had he had failed on a previous examination does in fact show that not ALL PERSONS ARE SENSITIZED AND NOT ALL PERSONS FAIL A SECOND EXAM ON THE SAME ISSUE.  
It seems you are using sematics to make a point of this.  How do I know that the subject was sensitized on the case I mentioned?  He was in tears and very angry when the second examination started.  The examiner used persuasive coments to calm and resolve the issue.

We do agree that in sex offender monitoring, polygraph should not be the end all/know all of the offenders progress or truthfulness.  SOV treatment is an inclusive system with strict guidlines that SHOULD be followed.  Probation officers should not depend entirely on the polygraph, persons are known to have passed a monitoring examination while violating portions of the probation agreement.  
As mentioned in many threads, a monitoring or pre employment examination is subject to false positivies and negatives.  The reasons have been stated by polygraph examiners that post on this board, as well as persons who dislike polygraph and consider it nothing better than reading tarot cards.  

I may have different views on the validity and reliability, I agree that polygraph has no place in a court room as evidence.  My opinion of correct decisions in screening situations would be in the mid 80% range of accuracy.  This is based on my own personal opinion from experience, studies conducted by the polygraph community, and published research in polygraph journals.  

I know you disagree with this and I have no problem with your opinion.  I would personally like to see studies conducted under the supervision of persons with no intrest in the outcome of such studies.  The problem is having a qualified examiner, properly trained using approved format's, while under the supervision of persons that do not have a bias for or against polygraph.  Find that mixture and I would participate and accept the result of such a study.  

Prior to use of polygraph in SOV treatment, recidivism was over 65% in a few case studies I have seen years ago.  Once standards of treatment were established and polygraph was introduced into the system of treatment recidivism reportedly dropped to about 25%.  I don't have those studies available to me at this time and they were conducted by actual theapists treating convicted sex offenders.  I am not familiar with the manner in which they reached those conclusions, therefore I cannot and will  not state they are factural.  Anything that will reduce victimization of any persons is good.  

Thank you for a genuine conversation which has helped me look deeper at my inner self and opinion of polygraph.  And I will continue to look even deeper, will you make the same commitment?

wrote on Mar 23^rd, 2007 at 8:59pm:

My statement that a person passed a polygraph that had he had failed on a previous examination does in fact show that not ALL PERSONS ARE SENSITIZED AND NOT ALL PERSONS FAIL A SECOND EXAM ON THE SAME ISSUE.   It seems you are using sematics to make a point of this.  How do I know that the subject was sensitized on the case I mentioned?  He was in tears and very angry when the second examination started.  The examiner used persuasive coments to calm and resolve the issue.

Since semantics refers to the meaning of words, expressions, and sentences then yes, I'm using semantics. So are you, it's a pointless barb...

Pointless barbs aside, your statement is still only an anecdote and contains no proof that the subject was sensitized, only that he was upset. They are not the same thing...


wrote on Mar 23^rd, 2007 at 8:59pm:

We do agree that in sex offender monitoring, polygraph should not be the end all/know all of the offenders progress or truthfulness.  SOV treatment is an inclusive system with strict guidlines that SHOULD be followed.  Probation officers should not depend entirely on the polygraph, persons are known to have passed a monitoring examination while violating portions of the probation agreement.   As mentioned in many threads, a monitoring or pre employment examination is subject to false positivies and negatives.  The reasons have been stated by polygraph examiners that post on this board, as well as persons who dislike polygraph and consider it nothing better than reading tarot cards.

You and I disagree on the use of the polygraph in SOT. The only thing the polygraph should be used for is the extraction of confessions from the gullible. Its results should not be used in any decision-making regarding the offender because it is pseudoscience. The government should not employ flapdoodle in any capacity...


wrote on Mar 23^rd, 2007 at 8:59pm:

I may have different views on the validity and reliability, I agree that polygraph has no place in a court room as evidence.  My opinion of correct decisions in screening situations would be in the mid 80% range of accuracy.  This is based on my own personal opinion from experience, studies conducted by the polygraph community, and published research in polygraph journals.   I know you disagree with this and I have no problem with your opinion.  I would personally like to see studies conducted under the supervision of persons with no intrest in the outcome of such studies.  The problem is having a qualified examiner, properly trained using approved format's, while under the supervision of persons that do not have a bias for or against polygraph.  Find that mixture and I would participate and accept the result of such a study.

Do you accept the conclusions of the NAS study? They are an impartial and eminent scientific body only concerned with doing the best possible research. The members of the polygraph panel are some of the best statisticians, engineers, and psychologists in the nation and they concluded that CQT polygraph is flapdoodle. Why doesn't that study from such an august group persuade you?


wrote on Mar 23^rd, 2007 at 8:59pm:

Prior to use of polygraph in SOV treatment, recidivism was over 65% in a few case studies I have seen years ago.  Once standards of treatment were established and polygraph was introduced into the system of treatment recidivism reportedly dropped to about 25%.  I don't have those studies available to me at this time and they were conducted by actual theapists treating convicted sex offenders.  I am not familiar with the manner in which they reached those conclusions, therefore I cannot and will  not state they are factural.  Anything that will reduce victimization of any persons is good.

I have seen these studies and all of them fail to disentangle the treatment (e.g., cognitive behavior therapy, therapeutic communities) from use of the polygraph. Their conclusions are an example of a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy (after this, therefore because of this). If you can't disentangle the use of the polygraph with the type of treatment a sex offender received, you can't make the claim that the polygraph is responsible for the decrease in recidivism...


wrote on Mar 23^rd, 2007 at 8:59pm:

Thank you for a genuine conversation which has helped me look deeper at my inner self and opinion of polygraph.  And I will continue to look even deeper, will you make the same commitment?

I have always been committed to reality and the reality is that CQT polygraph is pseudoscience and poses a threat to society...

And unlike a lot of the anti-people who post on this site, I've never been personally harmed by the polygraph. I became interested in the topic because I'm a criminal justice researcher who studies sex offending. I reached my conclusions from reading all of the literature, pro and con, and the con was definitely more persuasive...

But since your identity is so wedded to the polygraph as a "professional lie detector", it would probably cause you significant cognitive dissonance to admit that you've been practicing pseudoscience all of these years so I doubt that you will ever come to the same conclusion as I have...

I see we have major differences in opinon and it does not appear they will be resolved by further comments or debate.  We are both set in our opinions and will maintain our own opinions regardless of further debate.  I have enjoyed the exchange of information and will do further studies.   And no I do not accept the conclusions of the NAS report.  You must admitt they did not conduct any examinations, they used studies that were selected by the NAS only.  

wrote on Mar 25^th, 2007 at 5:09pm:

I see we have major differences in opinon and it does not appear they will be resolved by further comments or debate.  We are both set in our opinions and will maintain our own opinions regardless of further debate.  I have enjoyed the exchange of information and will do further studies.   And no I do not accept the conclusions of the NAS report.  You must admitt they did not conduct any examinations, they used studies that were selected by the NAS only.

Wow, you really are in denial...

However, the fact that the NAS did not conduct any examinations is irrelevant to their conclusions. Does a physician have to suffer from a disease to be able to research it? The statisticians, engineers and psychologists on the panel had more than sufficient experience with research methods, psychophysiology, and science to deliver a sound and reasonable conclusion. It's too bad that you are so wrapped up in your delusion that you can't see it correctly...

As for their methods, they did an extensive literature review which is a perfectly acceptable method of research. Why recreate the wheel? However, from this literature review they determined that the majority of polygraph research wouldn't qualify for funding from the National Science Foundation or National Institute of Health. That's the academic equivalent of saying that most polygraph research is garbarge. Beside this conclusion they also determined that CQT polygraph lacks a plausible scientific basis and as such has no validity or reliability. Therefore, reliance on the CQT polygraph poses a clear threat to national security...

I do find it funny that polygraphers deride the NAS study by saying that it conducted no new research as if this is what is needed when 100 years of prior research has failed to come up with anything that proves polygraph works outside of eliciting confessions from the gullible...

At what point would any of you concede that CQT polygraph is pseudoscience? What evidence would convince you that nature did not equip us with a "Pinocchio nose"? That truth and deception are complex interactions of situation, emotion, cognition, and memory rather than rote physiological responses?

How many failures with polygraph screening both in employment and sex offender supervision are needed before we toss this peculiar device onto the scrap heap?

The use of poly's in the SOTP is just plain BS. While I was still on probation in Tarrant County, my ex successfully coached my oldest daughter into making an accusation  of me abusing her some 5 years back. When I walked into the polygrapher's office, the very first question he asked me was, "Do you have someone from the police department here with you?", leaving me to believe that I would immediately be arrested and charged with that offense, should I fail the poly. Well guess what. I failed it. I failed it because the entire time I sat there, all  I could think of was going to prison for the rest of my life if I failed it. I finally had to fight the probation dept. on the use of the examiner I had been using the entire time while on probation, and once I got to him, I passed. I passed because I knew this examiner was a no-BS man, and that he played by the real rules. Not the one's created in the minds of every new probation officer that thinks they can make up shit as they go along.

The original polygrapher KNEW that if he asked that kind of question before the test, he could instill fear within me that would absolutely make me fail the test. Screw Texas and their entire probation sex-offender program. The only good I got out of all of those years was the actual counseling.

POLYSCORE wrote on Aug 11^th, 2004 at 4:07pm:

I AM AN EXAMINER AND HAVE IMPLEMENTED CONTERMEASURES.

I don't bullshit or do crap, either.
You are a polygraph examiner, hence, you are a terrorist,
because you hate freedom.

Hence, you should be dealt with as severely and harshly
as British and American troops deal with the terrorist Taliban.

Hence, anyone who fights you
and fights for the freedom of others who are terrorized by the polygraph deserves to be honored and praised for their patriotic courage.

There is no scientific proof whatsoever that there is any harm done by the freedom of anyone who refuses to take a polygraph or who, the polygraph believes, "fails" a polygraph.

From the information given to me they are only 85-88% accurate, so whats up with the other 12-15% any answer?????????

I past the first set of question no problems, then ansked again the same set of question say time qwithin 2-3 minutes and a question show different results, then the third time the same thing.... no past no fail DRAW.... incunclusive.
First time taking test...
RICHARD :-/

ALSO I FORGOT to Say im in GEORGIA>?????

:-?