A review of AntiPolygraph.org's referrer log led to a post titled "just beat a polygraph test!" on Overgrow.com, a website used by marijuana growers to share information. In this post, "frostibud108" states that he used countermeasures learned on AntiPolygraph.org to pass a police-administered polygraph examination regarding a crime regarding which he falsely denied having knowledge:


Quote:

you heard it right folks. polygraph tests are bullshit. i cant give details but here goes the short story. my buddy did something illegal and left something of mine at the scene of the crime. this thing of mine led cops to me and basically made me a suspect. the police said that if i took a polygraph test for them and passed, they would basically drop me as a suspect. thanks to http://www.antipolygraph.org/ i was able to pass the polygraph pretty nicely, despite saying i didnt know anything about the incident and such. (when i really do know about it) good shit man. smokin a fat one tonight in celebration

AntiPolygraph.org makes information about polygraph countermeasures freely available to provide truthful persons with a means of protecting themselves against the risk of a false positive outcome. But unavoidably, the same information is also available to, and may be used by, deceptive persons. Let this post serve as a reminder regarding the danger of relying on polygraph results to guide criminal investigations.

Although, the use of information obtained at antipolygraph.org was used for the wrong reasons, this does serve as notice that polygraph testing is flawed through and through.  This is testimony that someone with intent "fooled" a police polygrapher while outright lying.

If someone intentionally being deceptive can successfully complete the test, what of those honest persons that don't complete the test with success?

Thanks for the "ammunition" pot-head.

Quote:

AntiPolygraph.org makes information about polygraph countermeasures freely available to provide truthful persons with a means of protecting themselves against the risk of a false positive outcome. But unavoidably, the same information is also available to, and may be used by, deceptive persons. Let this post serve as a reminder regarding the danger of relying on polygraph results to guide criminal investigations

We, the makers of thalidomide, are very sorry that it caused birth defects; however, we should not be held accountable because your doctor prescribed it for your use.

This web site provides information to those seeking to insure they pass a polygraph, plain and simple.  Who those individuals are or to what ends they seek the information for, you have no knowledge; but you are responsible for providing the knowledge to them...so do not try and make your efforts legitimate [wash your hands of Joe Pot Head] by placing a disclaimer with Joe Pot Head’s web post highlighted.  

What will the post by the child molester/rapist/murder [choose one] who the cops let go look like when he/she posts saying thank you for the help???

Knowledge is power, but posting knowledge [providing power] with out any concern for the repercussions makes us no better than those who wrong the innocent in screening polygraphs.

I agree, a polygraph should never be the short cut to good police work; but what happens when it is used in that manner [and you/we helped]?

Not a sermon, just a thought

It is hardly fair to be hinting that the people who provide information on how to "pass" a polygraph could be helping criminals.  If the police or an intelligence agency chooses to use a polygraph in place of an actual investigation the entirety of any blame lies with them, not with anyone who provides information on how to get favorable results when "tested" with a polygraph.  If the police routinely opted to have a someone read the palms of suspects, would a website that suggested "cup your palm slightly and you will get a more favorable reading" be even slightly liable if a criminal "passed" the test?
Any police agency that chooses to utilize a "test" which can be defeated by simply altering your breathing during certain questions is acting foolishly and is, in my opinion, not fulfilling their sworn obligation to protect the public.  Blaming whoever suggested the change in breathing pattern is equally foolish.

Shadow,

So what do you suggest we do differently? Are you suggesting that the countermeasure information on AntiPolygraph.org should be withdrawn? Regarding the ethical issues involved in publishing such information, see my Response to Paul M. Menges Regarding the Ethical Considerations of Providing Polygraph Countermeasures to the Public.

George & Sergeant 1107,

Gentlemen, I am not saying this web sit is wrong; however, the posting of Joe Pot Heads’ comment cut me both ways.  Yes, this site provides a greater good, at the same time it also aids those who seek to do harm.  

I agree with Sergeant 1107, shame on the PD or Intel Agency that uses polygraph and fails to explore all the dimensions, but it does not mean we need to facilitate the bad guys.

George, I have read your response to Mr Menges.  I find you both saying the same thing about the use of countermeasures but from diametrically opposed ends of the spectrum.  


Quote:

“Menges states that "some polygraph opponents have gone a step further to advocate the use of countermeasures to defeat polygraph examinations." AntiPolygraph.org does not advocate the use of countermeasures "to defeat polygraph examinations." Our suggestion to anyone suspected of a crime has always been (and remains) to refuse to submit to polygraphic interrogation. With regard to polygraph screening, we have never advocated that anyone use countermeasures to "defeat" a polygraph examination. Nor have we made the argument attributed to us by Menges that "even innocent subjects need to employ countermeasures in order to be deemed innocent by examiners." Rather, we have simply suggested countermeasures as a possible strategy for protecting oneself against a false positive outcome. “

Mr. Menges as a polygraph advocate, you as a polygraph foe.  Potato vs Pototo…


Quote:

It should also be noted that Menges adopts a different definition of "countermeasures" than does AntiPolygraph.org. For Menges, "[c]ountermeasures refer to deliberate attempts by a guilty person to preclude the accurate outcome of a testing process." By contrast, in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector, AntiPolygraph.org defines countermeasures simply as "deliberate techniques that may be used to 'pass' a polygraph interrogation," without regard to guilt or innocence.

Did not Joe Pot Head do exactly what Menges referred to as a “countermeasure” that he learned on this site.. so are they not the same?

I just felt that acknowledging the fact that Joe Pot Head used this sites information is providing fuel to the adversaries of this site.  I applaud you for not shrinking from the truth; however, at the same time had you not published it, no one would be the wiser and our “enemies” would not have that bit of information.  I acquaint this to Albert Einstein’s  statement made years after the advent of the H-bomb [I paraphrase] “If I had known that the Germans were that far off, I would have not taken part in opening that Pandora's box.” [in reference to the letter he sent to FDR foretelling the possibility of Germany building an atomic bomb]

A possible solution would be to have a subscription section on this site with strict admission policy for which entries such as the initial post could be placed.  You can still get the word out, but at the same time provide “insider” info for those who truly want to know… or continue to operate in the manner presently established and press forward.

I only offered my comments as food for thought,
"Not a sermon, just a thought”

Quote:

A possible solution would be to have a subscription section on this site with strict admission policy for which entries such as the initial post could be placed.

What would the admission criteria be?  How do you propose to verify information provided by those priveleged few to access this secure area?  This is not a professional issues site where strict standards can be met, making your suggestion nearly if not completely impossible.

There is no way to ensure that only persons with good intentions obtain the information available from antipolygraph.org.  A poster could give the impression that he/she is seeking information to avoid being mislabeled as a liar, when in fact the person desires the information to facilitate lying his/her ass off to obtain a favorable polygraph result.

The only way to ensure that those people seeking information for the wrong reasons do not obtain it is to make the information publicly unavailable.  This hopefully, and I expect, is not an option.

wrote on May 24^th, 2005 at 3:22am:

I just felt that acknowledging the fact that Joe Pot Head used this sites information is providing fuel to the adversaries of this site.

I disagree.  Stipulating that joePotHead was truthful when he stated he used CM's to successfully pass his Polygraph, that harms the Pro-Polygraph community more than this site, by proving that Polygraph screening is highly fallible and in this case, dangerous (a PotHead passing).  

The greater good served by this site is in allowing truthful people to not be burned (labeled liars incorrectly) by exposing the lies behind polygraph testing.
If crooks beat the poly - I say shame on the lazy system that supports polygraph testing.  Honestly, I'd rather have a few crooks 'beat' the polygraph and have more honest people pass without being labeled liars (by protecting themselves with counter measures) than have many honest people be labeled liars because CM information wasn't available to them.

Jeffery wrote on May 24^th, 2005 at 4:46am:

I disagree.  Stipulating that joePotHead was truthful when he stated he used CM's to successfully pass his Polygraph, that harms the Pro-Polygraph community more than this site, by proving that Polygraph screening is highly fallible and in this case, dangerous (a PotHead passing).   The greater good served by this site is in allowing truthful people to not be burned (labeled liars incorrectly) by exposing the lies behind polygraph testing. If crooks beat the poly - I say shame on the lazy system that supports polygraph testing.  Honestly, I'd rather have a few crooks 'beat' the polygraph and have more honest people pass without being labeled liars (by protecting themselves with counter measures) than have many honest people be labeled liars because CM information wasn't available to them.

Yeah, I was an honest guy who failed his poly and was branded a "LIAR."  It makes me angry and bitter to think about it.  I have lost alot of faith in the system.

Quote:

The greater good served by this site is in allowing truthful people to not be burned (labeled liars incorrectly) by exposing the lies behind polygraph testing.

Jeffery, do not those who practice the "black art" espouse the same logic when they condemn all who post information on this site?

I agree screening exams are a waste of time.  They serve two purposes, provide a false sense of security to the keepers of the kingdom; as well as provide inroads for interrogations into the anxiety closets of ones life.

The use of polygraph in law enforcement on the other hand, provides but one tool for an investigator to use in the investigation of a crime.  A tool, that when used correctly, produces valued results. You would not use a hammer to screw in a screw; polygraphs should not be the only investigative step in an investigation.  The posting of information on this site does allow individuals to “prep” themselves for a screening exam, but it also aids the less reputable individuals of society to game the system.

Brandon:
I agree the requirements to restrict access would be counterproductive [it could be done via the use of certificates and such] to the entire reason this site exists.  I only offer my comments up because as I stated in my previous post, I am not saying this web sit is wrong; however, the posting of Joe Pot Heads’ comment cut me both ways.  Yes, this site provides a greater good, at the same time it also aids those who seek to do harm.  

I just wanted to express my concern to all who post to this site that every comment made here can be used for both good and bad.  Sometimes the greater good means one may need to parse his words before posting public.

"Not a sermon, just a thought"

Shadow,

The reason I posted frostibud108's here is that it sheds some light on a dark corner of polygraphy. Very few deceptive persons who use countermeasures to pass a polygraph examination publicly say so. Frostibud108's post is a rare exception, and I thought it noteworthy.

At the same time, I thought it was important to note (especially for new visitors to this website) that  our motivation in making countermeasure information publicly available is to protect the innocent against the random error associated with an invalid test and not to aid the guilty, even while recognizing that the information provided here may benefit the latter to the extent that polygraph results are relied upon.

I think your sarcastically delivered comparison of me to a thalidomide manufacturer seeking to avoid liability is inappropriate. Indeed, I find it highly offensive.

We're not selling a product here. We're engaging in 1st Amendment protected speech about a procedure that the scientific community agrees is invalid.

Now you seem to be suggesting that perhaps I should not have publicly mentioned frostibud108's post because it "provid[es] fuel to the adversaries of this site." I disagree. On the contrary, frostibud108's post vividly illustrates the danger of relying on polygraph results.

darkcobra2005 wrote on May 25^th, 2005 at 7:49am:

...Did "POT HEAD" defeat a polygraph or is this someone boasting about something he did not do?  Just food for thought.

While it is certainly possible that frostibud108 fabricated his post on Overgrow.com (like you did here on AntiPolygraph.org when you posted as thevet2/checking), it is hard to see what motivation he may have had for doing so (unlike you, who are a polygraph operator).

My, my -- a tendency towards hurt whining at the slightest provocation, and jumping to conclusions regarding whether someone "supports their country", based upon nothing more than where he or she lives.  Yep.  Sounds like a polygrapher.

I see very little has changed in my hiatus from the site: polygraphers are still the single best exhibit for the site regarding whether or not judgements about careers, crimes and the fate of the country should be in polygraphers' hands.

darkcobra2005 wrote on May 26^th, 2005 at 4:35am:

Skeptic, do some research on George, you may be very suprised what you find and suprise yourself.  No not a whiner, just defensive, as are others on this site.  And you are not turning your country over to me or anything else over to me.  You are in control of you, I am in control of me.  You are a very senior user, should understand that aspect of placing yourself in harms way.  And are you aware of where George moved, what languages he speaks and what his present day activities are?  Do a little research and you may be very suprised.

Cobra,
As you noted, I've been around awhile.  I've seen just about all of it: polygraphers pretending to be "victims" of Antipolygraph's information, pretending to be naive questioners, posting under multiple usernames, you name it.  All of which, in just about any internet forum, is considered bad form, to say the least.  On many message boards, it would get you banned permanently.  I've always found such immature and dishonest behavior very, very telling, and can honestly say that it's among the worst I've seen online.  And that's coming from someone who's spent a lot of time on Usenet.  I've seen bad.

Perhaps I wasn't clear: what I meant when I discussed whether or not "the fate of the country should be in polygraphers' hands" was simply this: too many intelligence and law enforcement agencies put undue faith in the polygraph, both to screen potential applicants and as a factor in criminal investigations.  This faith has very likely resulted in spies and traitors going undetected.  I'm not sure how much more serious one could get, in terms of  ramifications for the country.

As for George, yes, I'm aware of where he has lived and what he's done for a living.  I've met him in person and found him very personable, intelligent and earnest.  I've also never seen anything from him, as a U.S. citizen, to suggest disloyalty to the U.S.  Were it otherwise, I wouldn't have anything to do with him: I work for the U.S. government myself.

George,

Quote:

The reason I posted frostibud108's here is that it sheds some light on a dark corner of polygraphy. Very few deceptive persons who use countermeasures to pass a polygraph examination publicly say so. Frostibud108's post is a rare exception, and I thought it noteworthy.

Agree it is noteworthy, as I said previously it just struck a cord in me and caused me to re-think public postings.

Quote:

At the same time, I thought it was important to note (especially for new visitors to this website) that  our motivation in making countermeasure information publicly available is to protect the innocent against the random error associated with an invalid test and not to aid the guilty, even while recognizing that the information provided here may benefit the latter to the extent that polygraph results are relied upon.

Again, I agree with what you are saying and I track with your line of thought; however, as I have said, it caused me to take pause and think.

Quote:

I think your sarcastically delivered comparison of me to a thalidomide manufacturer seeking to avoid liability is inappropriate. Indeed, I find it highly offensive. We're not selling a product here. We're engaging in 1st Amendment protected speech about a procedure that the scientific community agrees is invalid.

My intent was not to offend; however, the analogy, not the kindest, still stands.  I truly feel we all must take responsibility for our actions.  By publicly posting information to the WWW on how to beat a polygraph, you are aiding [not intentionally] the more nefarious factions of our society.  By saying, "We're not selling a product here. We're engaging in 1st Amendment protected speech about a procedure that the scientific community agrees is invalid.", you cannot erase the fact that criminal elements benefit from your posts.  In fact, you almost sound like the defense attorney who plays word games with the law to win for his client.  You offer a service on this site for which you cannot control the end use.  This use can be for both the common good and for the lesser side of honesty.  You must always be aware of that and not hide behind the vile of “greater good” or "First Amendment rights."  As stated in my previous post, “Sometimes the greater good means one may need to parse his words before posting public.”  To quote Bill O’Reilly, “This is a no spin zone.”  

Quote:

Now you seem to be suggesting that perhaps I should not have publicly mentioned frostibud108's post because it "provid[es] fuel to the adversaries of this site." I disagree. On the contrary, frostibud108's post vividly illustrates the danger of relying on polygraph results.

Opponents of this site would offer that it shows just how dangerous this site is.  Again, two diametrically opposed ends of the spectrum using the same issue to support their argument.  I would be interested in your take on my comments to your reference to the "Menges post".
"Not a sermon, just a thought"

Darkcobra,
Your comments to George are your opinion, but let us not forget, an American Citizen, living within the country or not, still has the same rights that are afforded all citizens of this nation.  Some citizens just chose to exercise those rights from afar.  George served his nation in the military and has earned the right to grouse/bitch/and complain just like any other veteran, whether you [or anyone else] agree with him or not.  That is what defines us as a nation.

wow, he failed an FBI poly. HE MUST BE GUILTY! THat's nothing, I failed 4 of them. I MUST BE REALLY GUILTY. How did the FBI know that I control the ecstacy trade of the entire eastern seaboard. That damn polygraph foiled me again.

DarkCobra, you are an idiot, wrapped in a moron, covered by a fool. take your polygraph and shove it up your @ss.

Im just not feeling intellectual about this argument anymore. You idiots think those of us who get shafted out of careers by this moronic machine are just making it up for fun? wake up and smell the coffee.

Skeptic,  Why don't we see what George has to say?  Afterall, Darkcobra posted to him and I think everyone who reads this board should allow Mr. Maschke the opportunity to respond.    You claim to work for the government.  Then you of all people know then that Mr. Maschke was presented an opportunity to explain, refute or mitigate the allegations which resulted in his clearance being revoked by the Army.  In "Too hot of a potato"  George clearly states that the FBI reported derogatory information about him to the Army.  If this is the case, and George states that the FBI's false allegations cost him his carrer, then he should have easily sued and won, as these "false" allegations would be a matter of record with FBI, Army, and the DSS.  

Lets review.  George claims he is a talented linguist with strong skills in several languages.  He should be in high demand, but instead, he applied only to the FBI.  Why not any of the other agencies which could use such talent?

FBI declined to re-test and did not offer employment to George, no matter how useful his skills were or how many letters of appreciation he received.  

Army revoked his clearance.  George would have you believe he was without opportunity to do anything about this.  Not true.  He absolutely had an opportunity to fight the action.  

LAPD declined to use his services.  

Quite a track record.  I think the truth lies in what that derogatory and allegedly flase information was.  But I doubt we, the readers of this site, wil ever know the truth.  

I also get a kick out of the way George and others immediately point to detractors, such as Dark Cobra and scream "Polygrapher!"  It seems so reminiscent of Joe McCarthy and "Communist!"  

One thing I do agree with.  The Polygraph is not perfect.  So if any rants and ravings of George and any other on this board can get the various agencies which use it to screen applicants or interrogate criminals to invest in research and develope a reliable tool, then I say it's a great thing.    

HSIA wrote on May 26^th, 2005 at 5:30am:

Skeptic,  Why don't we see what George has to say?  Afterall, Darkcobra posted to him and I think everyone who reads this board should allow Mr. Maschke the opportunity to respond.

I think the long history of attacks on Mr. Maschke on this board make it very clear he's capable of defending himself :)  One does get tired of seeing the same refuted, wild accusations leveled at him over and over, especially as it becomes clear that's only done in an attempt by nervous polygraphers to discredit the information found here.


Quote:

You claim to work for the government.  Then you of all people know then that Mr. Maschke was presented an opportunity to explain, refute or mitigate the allegations which resulted in his clearance being revoked by the Army.

I don't work for the Army or any intelligence agencies.  However, I did go through the application process at NSA, which included three polygraphs.  I've been there as regards the polygraph process.

Moreover, George's situation is hardly unique.  With the FBI rejecting approximately half of its applicants due to failed polygraphs, and with that rejection showing up in NAC's, and with well-documented cases of ongoing suspicion cast on subjects due to that black mark, it makes little sense to throw extra suspicion on George's account.


Quote:

I also get a kick out of the way George and others immediately point to detractors, such as Dark Cobra and scream "Polygrapher!"  It seems so reminiscent of Joe McCarthy and "Communist!"

I think, perhaps, that reviewing the exchanges on this site over the last several years would cast a little more light on why such accusations are made, and how often they've hit the bulls-eye.  Those claims aren't made lightly, and they're usually accurate.  We've even elicited quite a few confessions. :)

I agree with your last point; however, I truly doubt that any bona-fide "lie detector" will ever be created.  There simply isn't a common, standard mental state that is associated with lying.  Much better to rely on thorough background checks and ongoing monitoring, even if it costs a lot more and takes more time.

DarkCobra2005,

Thank you for your post.

Your criticism is very much similar to that which was leveled against Washington Times columnist Bill Gertz when he released Breakdown: How America’s Intelligence Failures Led to September 11th. Government and intel types assailed Gertz through proxies, claiming that the information in his book provided help to America’s enemies in understanding our intelligence agencies, blueprints for a second attack, etc. “That type of disclosure hinders the ability of our intelligence and law enforcement agencies to do their jobs,” the logic went.

Well, if the jobs were done properly, over 3,000 people wouldn’t have lost their lives. Bill Gertz (and many other rational people) didn’t trust giving the spooks a second shot in a criticism-free secret little world, and rightfully so. Public shame provides an impetus to do things better like few other motivating factors.

The same thing goes for polygraphy. “Don’t expose things because you are giving the bad guys information” is simply not going to fly here. Intelligence, government and law enforcement types have had their way long enough, and with disastrous results for both national security and individual reputations.

As George noted, there are a tremendous number of people who need the information provided on this site to protect themselves against false accusations because they are being judged by an invalid “test.”

For example, in many places, rape victims are often forced to take polygraph “tests” before the police will pursue their cases (fortunately, this practice has been outlawed in many states). Should we keep this information from them?  

Or how about individuals who work for a large Midwestern LE agency that reportedly conducts polygraph dragnets of MOS over scratches and other minor damage to patrol cars? Should I sleep well at night knowing that we withheld this information because criminals could make use of it as well?

Regrettably, there is no way to get countermeasure info to those who need it while preventing the bad guys from getting to it.

The only workable solution to the polygraph fraud is the abolition of polygraphy. When it comes to such frauds, sunlight is truly the best disinfectant.


Quote:

When used properly, polygraph is a good tool and I have personally been involved in getting inocent subjects freed from prison and aquited prior to trial, (pre-trial hearings).  I know persons are arrested for crimes they do not commit, and should be afforded an honest polygraph test to aid them in their plight.

This argument would have helpful to you if debating polygraph matters twenty years ago. Against George and I, it floats like a lead balloon.  

In the mid 1980s, the polygraph debate pitted liberal champions of criminals’ rights and the right to lie against arch law and order conservatives and big business. While there was some discussion of accuracy when the EPPA was crafted, the primary issue was civil rights vs. employers’ rights.

The 21st century polygraph debate is far different. It simply pits those who realize that polygraphy is a pseudoscientific fraud against those who do not. George, myself and those who support us are not soft on crime. Putting things in terms of helping people go free from criminal accusations is not going to appease us. Setting people free from prisons on the basis of an unreliable “test” that is easily defeated is the last thing that should be going on in our criminal justice system.

I can think of no more glaring abuse of polygraphy than it’s increasingly widespread use on convicted sex offenders. What bothers me most about this travesty of justice is not that these individuals are the lowest of the low in society, and that polygraphers can abuse them with impunity because the offenders have absolutely no credibility whatsoever. It is the fact that the results of a “test” completely unsupported by science (there is virtually universal agreement that polygraphy is invalid for screening purposes) are being relied on in determining whether or not these individuals are re-offending, often at the expensive of traditional investigative techniques.

Still, as long as polygraphs are being used against rape victims, law enforcement officers and others with good names, the answer is not to withhold information and let “the experts” handle things.

The answer is to shout that the polygraph emperor is naked and to keep shouting it from the rooftops until people listen and the “evil art” is abolished.

darkcobra2005 wrote on May 25^th, 2005 at 8:31pm:

George, I generally would not respond to you.  In this case you again stepped on my feelings.

I merely pointed out that you, who suggested that frostibud108's post on Overgrow.com might be a forgery, yourself forged posts on this message board (as thevet2/checking). While the former had no obvious motive for doing so, you, as a polygraph examiner, did. Don't you think that it was hypocritical for you to be suggesting that frostibud108's post might be bogus (an obviously inherent quality of anonymous posts) when you yourself have engaged in such fakery?


Quote:

Let us look at you for a bit.  You failed a FBI polygraph, then later after investigation by the Department of Defense, your security clearance was taken away by the Department of Defense.  They do not  take your FBI polygraph as a reason to remove a security clearance.    They do an indepth investigation and remove clearances.  You then moved outside the United States and have been knocking polygraph ever chance you get.

I have described this experience at length in my statement, Too Hot of a Potato: A Citizen Soldier's Encounter with the Polygraph. I am not ashamed to have failed an FBI polygraph examination, or that the Army moved to revoke my security clearance five years later (but only months after AntiPolygraph.org went on-line).


Quote:

Personal attacks are not what I enjoy doing, however the facts are the facts.  I believe you currenlty live in a country that has little to do with the United States, and you are expousing 1st amendment rights!!  Now that is interesting, you move out of the States and then claim the constitutional rights of all Americans, while living as a foreign national.

I am not "living as a foreign national." I remain a United States citizen.


Quote:

It appears that you do in fact have views in opposition to those of the Citizens of the United States or you would be here supporting your country.

What views are you suggesting I "do in fact" hold that are "in opposition" to those of United States citizens (as if all Americans shared a single viewpoint)?


Quote:

Now I have attacked your credibility again, so respond with more accusations....

If you wish to attack my credibility, a good place to start would be by pointing out anything I have said or written about polygraphy that you sincerely believe to be false or misleading, and supporting your argument with facts and reason.

wrote on May 26^th, 2005 at 4:56am:

...I would be interested in your take on my comments to your reference to the "Menges post".

I don't understand what you meant by, "Mr. Menges as a polygraph advocate, you as a polygraph foe.  Potato vs Pototo…" If you'd care to explain, perhaps I could comment.

You had also asked, "Did not Joe Pot Head do exactly what Menges referred to as a 'countermeasure' that he learned on this site.. so are they not the same?" Although frostibud108's self-reported actions are consistent with both Mr. Menges' and AntiPolygraph.org's definitions of "countermeasures," that does not make our definitions the same. Mr. Menges' definition is restricted in scope to guilty persons, while AntiPolygraph.org's is not. This is not a trivial point.

You seem to have focused exclusively on my preliminary discussion of terminology rather than my arguments concerning the ethical considerations associated with providing countermeasure information to the public that are the core of my response to Mr. Menges.

You are mistaken if you suppose that we were unaware of or unconcerned about the possibilty that information provided by AntiPolygraph.org could be used by deceptive persons to pass their polygraph "tests" before we went on-line some five years ago. But we believe the greater public interest is better served by the truth about polygraphs (including countermeasures) being publicly told.

DarkCobra2005:

Why don't you answer this question for everyone on this site: Why did you initially post here pretending to be someone with very little knowledge about polygraphs and intentionally mislead others looking for sound, honest advice? You know, it's just that every time I read one of your posts I'm leary of you because of this unanswered question.

You should be ashamed of yourself--questioning the patriotism of someone whom you've never even met based on a few slivers of information. Reminds me of the way polygraph examiners think they can peg a person based on a few questions, some time alone with them in a warm, sterile room and several worthless polygraph charts.

If you are indeed the fair person that you attempt to portray yourself to be, then why not use this opportunity to engage in  open, honest discussion about polygraphs instead of offering tacky personal insults.

I suppose expecting a little intelligence from you is too much to ask. I apologize for the mistake. It won't happen again.  

darkcobra2005,

Replies below:


darkcobra2005 wrote on May 27^th, 2005 at 3:35am:

Polygraph examiners are skilled in detecting countermeasures and most do a good job at it.  Some are not so good.

This seems to be a commonly held view amongst polygraph examiners. Yet the polygraph community has offered no evidence to support its claimed ability to detect countermeasures.

If you were called upon to provide expert testimony in a court that a subject had employed polygraph countermeasures of the kind outlined in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector, how would you go about doing that? What supporting documentation could you provide for your opinion that the subject had employed countermeasures?


Quote:

I have now read "A Citizen Soldier's Encounter with the Polygraph".  I do have questions regarding the decisions that were made by you in not filing any legal procedings to rectify what you describe as an injustice.  There are remedies you could have persued and did not.

Actually, I did exhaust all administrative avenues of appeal with the FBI, LAPD, and Army. I chose not to become a plaintiff in the ongoing federal polygraph lawsuits currently being litigated by Mark Zaid largely because by the time they were filed, I no longer desired to work with the FBI.


Quote:

I do apolagize for stating you are living as a foreign national, however you have moved to another country that has differences with the United States, that does concern me and causes me to beware of you.  That is a personal choice I make, not an accusation against you.

Yes, the Netherlands has differences with the United States, as do all foreign countries. If that makes you suspicious of me, so be it.


Quote:

I will not attack you, I will continue to point out that what you are advocating with this site is in opposition to the opinion of the majority of the citizens of this county.  Do I have studies that validate my point of view?  No, I only listen to persons and ask questions regarding the purpose of the antipolygraph.org site.  A majority of the persons I have discussed this with are oppositional to the site, of course they have not had a bad encounter with the polygraph. For your information, I am talking about individuals with no knowledge of polygraph and limited exposure to criminal justice procedings.

This is a welcome step back from your earlier blanket statement that I "have views in opposition to those of the Citizens of the United States." No doubt, many US citizens will disagree with what AntiPolygraph.org advocates. Whether they are a majority or not, I do not know. But in my experience, when people are told the truth about polygraphy (including an honest explanation of CQT procedure), they tend to agree that polygraph screening is a bad idea.


Quote:

The statements that you make regarding courts not allowing polygraph are false.  I know, I have testified in several court procedings regarding the results of polygraph testing.  In some cases for the prosecution, in others for the defense.  I believe in justice for all, not some.

While polygraph results are generally not admissible as evidence in American courtrooms, I recognize that in a number of jurisdicitions, and in a variety of circumstances, they may be.


Quote:

Is polygraph the answer to all investigations?  No it is not and should never be considered to be.  Investigation is the key and polygraph then to narrow down the field and find the individual or individual's involved in a crime.

I agree that the polygraph is no cureall, and that investigation is key. But I think it is risky to rely on polygraph results to narrow down the field, as police apparently did with frostibud108, who was wrongly cleared after "passing" a polygraph examination while using countermeasures.


Quote:

It is valuable in screening applications also, but should not be used as the sole determining factor in the hiring process.  It is a "Tool" that if used properly can assist in the investigation of backgrounds as well as crimes.

I agree with you that if polygraph screening is to be used at all, it should not be used as the sole determining factor in making hiring decisions. But for those who "fail," it generally is. No further investigation is made. The applicant is branded a liar and his application for employment is terminated. This is morally wrong and should be stopped.


Quote:

You still have not answered the question regarding why you left the United States and now reside in another country.

I don't recall your asking this question. I came to The Netherlands to pursue an employment opportunity. I'm not in some sort of self-imposed exile, if that's what you are thinking.


Quote:

Your reference to your soldiers story is interesting and somewhat informative.  I would like to know what in particular the investigators found in your background that caused your clearance to be revoked and why the law enforcement agency found you to be unsuitable.  It may be that you cannot answer these questions because you don't have a ready answer,  and the information has not been made available to you  That would be an acceptable explination, it should be stated in that manner, rather than as an accusation against all polygraph examiners.

I have little to add to that which already appears in my public statement. I would just remind you that the acting chief of the Defense Security Service's polygraph unit opined, "It does not appear that specific allegations have been provided by the other government agency (OGA) [that is, the FBI] upon which to recommend the conduct of a DSS polygraph examination." Unlike the FBI, the DSS did conduct a thorough background investigation of me. The Army investigator who interviewed me covered all points that were later stated as reasons for revoking my clearance and gave a positive recommendation.


Quote:

This is not meant as an attack on you, it is questions that I do have for which there may be no answer.  I will still have the same questions on my mind when I read posts from you on this site.   That is my right.

Of course you have the right to doubt me. And if I say anything with which you disagree, you also have the right to say so here and explain the basis of your disagreement (a right that I and other polygraph critics do not enjoy on the PolygraphPlace.com message board.)

darkcobra2005 wrote on May 27^th, 2005 at 3:35am:

Polygraph examiners are skilled in detecting countermeasures and most do a good job at it.  Some are not so good.

Bullshit.  Most the time they simply make wild accusations.  I'll bet half the victims accused of using CM's don't even know what they are.


darkcobra2005 wrote on May 27^th, 2005 at 3:35am:

I do apolagize for stating you are living as a foreign national, however you have moved to another country that has differences with the United States, that does concern me and causes me to beware of you.

This (and the other post on the previous page you made a few days ago) is probably the stupidest line of logic I've seen.

So the guy works overseas... So what.  DarkCobra - you really should get out more.  What about the Netherlands differences from the US makes you suspicious?  The different food?  Time Zone?  Language?  Lattitude?  Climate?  Altitude?  Tolerance and respect for diversity?  Or their record for supporting human rights?

The fact that an American Citizen has a job overseas makes you suspicious?  Grow up.

darkcobra2005 wrote on May 27^th, 2005 at 5:26pm:

Regarding abilities to detect countermeasures:   We are not perfect in this area, however we have been detecting numerous counter measures and the subjects tested have admitted to this.  They, in many cases have recieved information from antipolygraph.org.  This is disturbing to me because most of the subjects are otherwise good candidates.  The use of counter measures does disqualify them from further consideration which is unfortunate.

Once again, I say Bullshit.  You may accuse them of countermeasures.  in which case, their mistake was in confessing to using them and not using them in the first place.  I'll bet there is a large sample of people accused of CM's that indeed aren't using them.  They don't confess and are still DQ'd.  The fact that there are people who'd actually cough up the fact they indeed were using CM's indicates they were probably good people do begin with (a true sociopath wouldn't have confessed to using them).

If you get confessions for people using CM's, congratulations.  You've probably eliminated another nice guy who was nervous or skeptical about the system.  But I wouldn't place too much self confidence in your ability to detect CM's, but rather extract confessions from would-be "cheaters/bet hedgers/whatever you label them" subjects not strong enough to resist an interrogation.

How many times have you accused somebody of using CM's only to see their bewildered face in return?  Did you still DQ them for cheating?


Quote:

I respect your service to your country and currently do have thoughts about living in the Netherlands that cause me concern.  Again, this is my issue, not yours and I will resolve it in time I am sure.

Are you afraid of the dikes breaking and being swept out to sea?  Or are you afraide of being run over by an old lady on her bicycle?  ;D

I believe as countermeasures become more widely known, more polygraphers will "fish" for people to admit to their use of them (whether they are employing them or not).

DarkCobra,

The FBI doesnt investigate anything. if you fail the poly you are done. it is an absurd practice for what is considered to be such an elite agency. Even polygraphers will admit that a multi issue screening CQT is one of the least accurate tests, tho people will debate what the actual % range is.

What many of find repulsive is the serious consequences which are attached to someone calling you a liar with no evidence except an increased heart rate or sweat gland activity based on being asked an acccusatory question. My experience with the FBI leads me to believe that polygraphers assume without question that only lying produces the physiological response of sweating, breathing faster or your pulse increasing. Furthermore, they are always convinced that the control questions they develop after knowing you for 20 minutes are totally effective in twisting you to react to them if you are innocent. 2 very foolish and outlandish assumptions. I simply cannot believe that the FBI and other agencies rely on this. I think the real value of the polygraph is that a skilled interrogator can get into someone's kitchen that much easier if the prop of the polygraph has them thinking they cannot escape detection. this is a good thing if the person is guilty. but if the person is innocent, to cause them serious consequences because of this test alone is foolish and immoral.

darkcobra2005 wrote on May 28^th, 2005 at 2:56am:

I do not interrogate regarding use of countermeasures, or during employment screening.

Well then I guess we've never met.  The Polygrapher I had accused me of using CM's.  I'd never heard of them until afterwards when I looked them up.  I guess the contempt I had for you was misplaced.  I generalized and lumped you in with all <insert deragotory adjective here> polygraphers.  You are likley in the minority and for that I apoligize.


darkcobra2005 wrote on May 28^th, 2005 at 2:56am:

I do obtain admissions regarding use of countermeasures from individuals I have tested, I ask what they did and how, on what questions and then verify that I am seeing the same responses to the same questions they have identified.  There is no pressure applied to the individual.

Anybody that cops to using CM's after visiting this site is either a complete idiot or simply brain dead.  I'd use them, probably not get caught and certainly never admit to using them.  Polygraph is a game.  It works to the polygraphers advantage like a hunter to sneak in at night, lie in wait and then beam the deer with headlights before ambushig it.  They don't like deer that are sneaky too (as in test subjects with knowledge).

I still think your suspicion of George simply because he is a US expatriot living in the Netherlands is highly prejudicial and based on ignorance (but not surprising based on your profession -- be suspicious of everybody and draw conclusions).  On that we will continue to disagree.

If you did a polygraph on an American that had lived in the Netherlands, and that was about all you knew from the hour interview, would you build control questions asking them if they'd ever smoked pot?  (assuming that all Americans in Holland are druggies, and would deny it?)

Can you actually blame the guy for leaving a country that he served, who in turned screwed him over solely on the basis of polygraph results?

darkcobra2005 wrote on May 27^th, 2005 at 5:26pm:

Regarding abilities to detect countermeasures:   We are not perfect in this area, however we have been detecting numerous counter measures and the subjects tested have admitted to this.  They, in many cases have recieved information from antipolygraph.org.  This is disturbing to me because most of the subjects are otherwise good candidates.  The use of counter measures does disqualify them from further consideration which is unfortunate.

I'd just like to add that, in my own experience, this sort of thing appears to be raw guesswork on the part of polygraph examiners (unless, of course, someone does something obvious like observably tensing, noisily modifying one's breath, etc.).  My evidence for this was my three polygraph examinations with NSA (which presumably hires competent examiners and has access to any and all research on countermeasure detection).  My use of countermeasures went entirely undetected through all three examinations, even though the first polygrapher noted what nice charts I was producing.  The second said nothing at all about it.

And to answer the inevitable questions: I didn't lie about countermeasure use (or about anything else, for that matter).  I was never accused of using them.  Prior to my third examination, the polygrapher noted that it's common for people, after coming back for multiple polygraph exams, to do some research, and asked me whether I had.  I chose to answer this question truthfully, and told him I was familiar with countermeasures.  He told me that if I used countermeasures, he'd kick me right out the door!  

It's worth noting that he didn't kick me out.

DarkCobra2005,

By my reading of your response you seem like a reasonable type.  Can we agree that it is not unreasonable to look to George's under lying motives in creating this website, while aso looking at Polygraph itself in the abstract ?  A Jury can do so about the motives of a murderer in a murder case, as well as look at the evidence of murder itself.  

Did it strike you as odd that George talked about both the Examiners E. Youngblood and J. Trimarco as having failed him in their respective polygraph tests without any motive on their part.  I wondered why George did not get a re-test using his countermeasures to prove them wrong.  

My assesment of George is that he is a classic over achiever who probably never failed at anything in his life until he tried to outsmart these guys.  I further wondered if his countermeasures simply failed him then !  In reality we have only his half of the respective stories about his tests.  Otherwise, these Examiners seem to have well established careers with numerous awards.  Youngblood = The Examiner who tested and caught the greatest seriel killer of all time- The Angel of Death Case in L.A. .  Trimarco = a classic over achiever in his own right within the FBI, as well as now in the private sector.  Further, each of which are known to me to be good family men and patriots.  You and I seem to have less than this opinion of George, and we have only his words and actions to measure this without having met him.

In my estimation, and in all that I have read on this site, George's writings and actions are indicative of someone who simply would not have worked out in the FBI and/or greater intelligence community.  Althought he swore an oath to the constitution of the United States as a U.S. Army Intelligence Officer, and further understood that he was tasked with protecting the sources and methods of intelligence gathering, he has attempted to "Compromise" that, a choice he must now live with.  It would not surprise me that when he sets foot on U.S. soil again that he may be facing some investigative efforts and/or prosecution; civil or criminal.  

In closing, can we agree that "Curious George" is a wasted life.  The irony is that his actions have now labled him as unreliable in the minds of any reasonable background investigator who might seek to hire him for intelligence work, regardless of his polygraph test.  The very mission we U.S. Taxpayers invested in for George's training ( Intelligence & Arab Language skills) can no longer be put to use by him as an American for his country.  Not because of the Polygraph he blames, but when looking at the overall picture of him, his methods, and timing !  There will never be another time in George's lifetime wherein his country would have needed him more, and his belief that only the polygraph stood in the way of the needs of the United States is naive, and deceptive to us all !  

I agree with you that George should stay in Holland or some other Socialist nation.  He is apparently more comfortable in a nation like that, or France, which has lost its / their respective identities to massive Arab / Islamic immigration.  

In the end I can only arrive that George I took the same oath as George, but I meant it with my heart, and I write you with the feeling that in doing so I, like you DarkCobra2005, am protecting my country (no substitutes) from all enemies foreign and domestic, for which George qualifies as both !

TheNoLieGuy4U

darkcobra2005 wrote on May 28^th, 2005 at 8:02am:

I also served my country with honor, will you attack me because I decided to stay in the US??

You were attacked not because you chose to stay in the USA but because you inferred George was a traitor for accpeting work overseas.  Only a paranoid polygrapher would see a remote possibility with this.  When you served your country, were you ever deployed overseas?  Or are you a New Yorker who has never been west of the Hudson, or somebody from Kansas who's never been west of Denver or east of St Louis?

TheNoLieGuy4U wrote on May 28^th, 2005 at 9:05am:

Did it strike you as odd that George talked about both the Examiners E. Youngblood and J. Trimarco as having failed him in their respective polygraph tests without any motive on their part.  I wondered why George did not get a re-test using his countermeasures to prove them wrong.

I think he didn't know about countermeasures until being accused of lieing in his first two polygraphs.


TheNoLieGuy4U wrote on May 28^th, 2005 at 9:05am:

My assesment of George is that he is a classic over achiever who probably never failed at anything in his life until he tried to outsmart these guys.  I further wondered if his countermeasures simply failed him then !  In reality we have only his half of the respective stories about his tests.

Once again, I don't think CM's applied to his own situation.  I'm sure we'd all like to get the polygraphers "side to our own story" but what are the chances of getting a truthful account of their version of "the facts"?


TheNoLieGuy4U wrote on May 28^th, 2005 at 9:05am:

In my estimation, and in all that I have read on this site, George's writings and actions are indicative of someone who simply would not have worked out in the FBI and/or greater intelligence community.  Althought he swore an oath to the constitution of the United States as a U.S. Army Intelligence Officer, and further understood that he was tasked with protecting the sources and methods of intelligence gathering, he has attempted to "Compromise" that, a choice he must now live with.

Please.  Perhaps he's trying to help hius country by exposing the corrupt polygraph process and how it can easily be defeated with minimal effort, while at the same time rule honorable and decent people deceptive on no rationale basis.


TheNoLieGuy4U wrote on May 28^th, 2005 at 9:05am:

In closing, can we agree that "Curious George" is a wasted life.  The irony is that his actions have now labled him as unreliable in the minds of any reasonable background investigator who might seek to hire him for intelligence work, regardless of his polygraph test.  The very mission we U.S. Taxpayers invested in for George's training ( Intelligence & Arab Language skills) can no longer be put to use by him as an American for his country.  Not because of the Polygraph he blames, but when looking at the overall picture of him, his methods, and timing !  There will never be another time in George's lifetime wherein his country would have needed him more, and his belief that only the polygraph stood in the way of the needs of the United States is naive, and deceptive to us all !

The country cast him aside and didn't want him.  He decided to use his skills where they were in desire.


TheNoLieGuy4U wrote on May 28^th, 2005 at 9:05am:

I agree with you that George should stay in Holland or some other Socialist nation.  He is apparently more comfortable in a nation like that, or France, which has lost its / their respective identities to massive Arab / Islamic immigration.

Complete ignorance to confuse government economic policy (Socialist) with a governments form of government (democratic/monarchy etc).  So holland provides gov't paid helathcare?  So what.  Ever hear of medicaid?  I'm assuming you work fo rthe government in the US, and with government growth, more and more people are on US government paid helathcare.  Does that make the US socialist?  The Dutch government may own the railroad.  So what.  Ever hear of Amtrak?

Comparing Holland with France is indicitave that you've been to neither.  And even if they were similar -- so what.

TheNoLieGuy4U wrote on May 28^th, 2005 at 9:05am:

In the end I can only arrive that George I took the same oath as George, but I meant it with my heart, and I write you with the feeling that in doing so I, like you DarkCobra2005, am protecting my country (no substitutes) from all enemies foreign and domestic, for which George qualifies as both ! TheNoLieGuy4U

George left the service honorably.  And how does his exposure of government waste, fraud and abuse qualify him as a traitor in your eyes (your pathatec job being directly effected by his criticism aside?)

darkcobra2005 wrote on May 28^th, 2005 at 9:19pm:

Now to Jeffrey, I served in war time with a unit in battle, I do have a number of decorations for my actions in battle situations.  I am also discussed in two books by reliable authors regarding my activities in battle.  Do not attack in that manner, it is unbecoming of you and detracts from the message you are trying to communicate regarding polygraph.   Please refer to all of my communications above and see what I am asking, why I am asking and make an intelligent decision regarding my motivations.  I have asked questions and I am getting answers, your postings are somewhat uninformative regarding the subject matter, of course that is your right, I simply don't appreciate it.

Cobra,

Your Service, like George's, is deserving of respect and for that I commend you.  I'm not sure what you intrepreted as an attack; whether it was that I implied you were paranoid or I implied you were a polygrapher (I'm assuming you are).  I simply found the implications that on the basis of a person seeking employment overseas would even raise your eyebrows  a bit amazing, and was trying to see why and thought perhaps it may be because you hadn't been around the block much.  Obviously you have.  There are hundreds of thousands or loyal, patriotic Americans who work overseas, even a few in Holland.  That alone should not be any reason to question their love for the USA, which is one thing I assume we both have in common (yes one can be vehemontly opposed to polygraph and still be a loyal citizen; some think it is our patriotic duty to oppose polygraphics and expose the fraud it is).

Happy Memorial Day (I mean that sincerely).

J.

Thenolieuy wrote to Darkcobra2005:


Quote:

By my reading of your response you seem like a reasonable type.

Unfortunately that was the only intelligent portion of nolieguy's post and the only portion with which I am in agreement.  Without details I can vouch for the cobra's willingness to be reasonable and open.

As to the nolieguy:  I must ask, do you look for a conspiracy in all facets of your life?  Perhaps if you would care to reveal details of your life we all could similarly make assumptions about you.  Your misdirection regarding the topic of this thread is simply childish and moreover, lacking in intelligence.  I suppose in your view the exposure of, for example, the Iran Contra debacle was unpatriotic and against American values.  Now that's quite stupid isn't it?  We as Americans, anywhere, have the right to stand up and give voice when we see or percieve injustice.  Most of us on this board view polygraphy as an injustice and an obstacle to just decision making.  If you would care to add to that discussion by all means please do so.  If you care only to insult those of us in opposition of your views and attempt to spread rumor and misinformation please crawl back under the rock from which you slithered.

Many fascinating posts.

On this Memorial Day, let us remember all who died, all who were willing to die, all who served, and all of the family members and friends who are affected by their decisions to serve.

Let us remember that our Founding Fathers of the Consititution who placed their life on the line for their signatures on a paper.

We all have ideas on how this is best served.   I protected the right to disagree with me my whole life.  I hope to give this right to my children when I leave.

The posters on this site for the most part (and only in very rare cases) are unedited.

How many sites (and countries) can boast of such freedom?  

Such freedom was paid for by so many people.

To all the service men and women and their families:  thankyou for the privilage of posting on an uncensored website my ideas.

Thank you.

It is misleading to state that polygraph examiners are skilled at detecting countermeasures when the only proof is that some of the examinees accused of employing countermeasures later admit to doing so.  The clear problem is a lack of scientific control on the method of verification.  A polygraph examiner faces no negative repercussions should he or she wrongfully accuse someone of using countermeasures.  Therefore, there is no incentive for them to withhold their accusations from anyone who arouses even the faintest suspicions that they may be employing countermeasures.

Ironically, the reasoning behind the countermeasure detection issue is remarkably similar to the reasoning behind the use of the polygraph itself:

Countermeasure Detection – Examiners are free to accuse anyone of countermeasure use.  Anyone who is accused and later admits that they were using countermeasures is held up as living proof that countermeasures can be detected.  The unproven accusations are forgotten.

Polygraph Accuracy – Examiners are free to accuse anyone of deception during the “test.”  Anyone accused of deception who later makes a damaging admission or is convicted in court is then held up as a shining example that polygraphs are accurate.  The unproven accusations are forgotten.

Regardless of the specific issue, the methodology is completely illogical and inaccurate.  If one hundred people are polygraphed, fifty of them are accused of countermeasure use, and five of them admit to it, pointing to those five as proof that countermeasures are detectable is laughable.  Likewise, if one hundred people are polygraphed, fifty of them are accused of deception, and five of them later admit to being deceptive, it is ridiculous to point to those five cases as proof that the polygraph can be used to detect deception.

The unproven accusations are forgotten ????????

George, were the unproven accusations against you FORGOTTEN ?  Certainly the FBI did not Hire YOU, or the LAPD want anything to do with you afterward !  Further, those writing in sit back and wait to see if they further progress in the hiring process, and all indicators seem that most will only get older and not wiser waiting for that call or rejection letter.  We have read of only a few success stories here about countermeasure successes, and mostly from those seeking low level positions, or child molesters on probation / parole.  

How do you measure your own success George when you had to leave your own country to find employment in a time when the USA has never needed more Arab / Iranian, & other regional languages in it's history and while engaged at war.  

When I add it all up it seems you really missed the boat in life and your advice to others is only seeking to serve your own self centered zealot revenge on the computer polygraph community.  You even have gotten into repeating the same old mantras over and over to the point that nobody can find any middle ground here.  You are clearly an obessed expat who has sought out a new socialist reality for your existance, a sad loss of American brain power.  It is not your Phd which opens doors alone, or the talents you possess; but rather the packaging of character you lack.  Want Proof ?  Imagine this website as your advising the enemies of the United States Government.  Not that what you say here all works, as has also been proven by those who have been detected or did not get hired despite your advice.  The TRUTH is Attempts Count in this world, and despite a fine I.Q., a Paper Phd degree, and some other training in the U.S. Army; your real character and obsession is revealed here for all to see.  You are enraged and blind to the point that you would even attempt to advise Child Molesters as allies.

If I had a child who was ever molested by someone you advised, who in turn somehow got through a PDD exam , there is no place on earth I would not go to extract that foul piece of your brain which allowed that to occur.  As far as I am concerned the program of testing convicted to child molesters should be extended to include drug dealers as well; as the recitivism is so high for them.  

Lastly, Your future as an American is over !  I request that you renouce your citizenship and remain in socialist Holland with some liberal Dutch wife or something.  Better yet, why not convert to Islam and get four Islamic wives over there.  Whatever it takes, as when your country needed you most in time of war, you positioned yourself as "Undesireable" despite your skills, not because of a polygraph test or two, but in showing your obsessive compulsive addictive personality on this website.  You can't hide behind the mere "Wanting to share information" 1st amendment anymore, as when you side with and advise convicted felons you become an accessory to their future acts.  

Live with that George.  "The Unproven Accusations are Forgotten ? " I don't think so, and you won't be forgotten soon by our Government or Intel Aparatus'.  Enjoy each sunrise as the guy who missed his calling for his country when it needed him most, but now just can't use him due to self inflicted (security clearance) wounds !  Word !!!!


TheNoLieGuy4U
:-* 8) :D

TheNoLieGuy4You,

I would suggest to you (and others who may share your point of view) that truth-telling in the public interest is not unpatriotic.

The centerpiece of America's counterintelligence policy -- polygraph "testing"-- is a pseudoscientific fraud. It has no scientific basis and is easily defeated by simple countermeasures that polygraphers cannot reliably detect. Reliance on this bogus technology has caused considerable harm to both national security and individuals, examples of which are cited in Chapter 2 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector.

If anyone's patriotism is to be questioned--perhaps it is that of those who, in the face of overwhelming evidence of the polygraph's unreliability--(ab)use their positions of power to promote continued reliance on it.

Of course, by writing “the unproven accusations are forgotten” I was indicating the lack of scientific control and the overall inadequacy of the “evidence” that either countermeasure detection or the polygraph itself is accurate.  I was certainly not implying that those people falsely accused of deception on a polygraph “test” quickly forget about the incident.

The apparent hostility many in the polygraph community have for George seems to weigh against them, in my opinion.  George is questioning the accuracy of a “test” which they claim is firmly grounded in science, and they often respond by launching a personal attack on him.  If their profession is based on solid science why would they be so reluctant to discuss its accuracy?

If someone at the scene of a motor vehicle accident questions how I determined they were at fault, I can and often do spend as much time as required explaining the science behind my conclusions.  If they doubt the scientific validity of my methods, I can easily explain to them the derivation of the mathematical equations I use and how they originated with basic Newtonian physics.  I can show them the measurements I took at the scene and they can feel free to go back to the scene and measure it all themselves to make sure I didn’t make a mistake.

What I can’t imagine is attacking them personally for daring to question me.  I can’t see myself accusing them of “being against law and order” or “not being patriotic” for questioning how I do my job.  However, if I was just making everything up as I went along, and I hadn’t done any real measurements or used any real equations, then I might get upset if someone starting questioning my methods.

That’s what I see when certain members of the polygraph community are so openly hostile.  They are reacting to the shouts that the Emperor has no clothes by going into the crowd and attacking the shouters.

wrote on May 23^rd, 2005 at 5:59am:

What will the post by the child molester/rapist/murder [choose one] who the cops let go look like when he/she posts saying thank you for the help???

Excellent point shadow...this is where we are at as a society…disgusting.    

Quote:

What will the post by the child molester/rapist/murder [choose one] who the cops let go look like when he/she posts saying thank you for the help

spark wrote on Jul 15^th, 2005 at 3:45am:

Excellent point shadow...this is where we are at as a society…disgusting.

If cops are letting people go simply because they "passed" a polygraph, then the problem lies with the police for their overreliance on the polygraph.

That's weak jeffy.  Your ahh shucks oh well someone else’s fault is typical.  It has always been someone else’s fault, just like the “machine was broke” when you failed your test right?  

Spark:

It's not a matter of the machine being broken. It's about an unreliable, faulty, good for nothing so-called testing procedure that lacks scientific validity.  The only thing weak around here is your arguement.

Blaming this site in the event a criminal “beats” a polygraph and goes free is pretty weak.

It is the job of the police to locate and collect evidence that will prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the suspect is the one who committed the crime. They must be prepared to do that without a confession and without any information from the suspect.  A confession or other information is all you could ever get from a polygraph.

The Fifth Amendment grants the suspect the right to never say a word in his own defense; he is not compelled to speak during the investigation or even during his trial.  He does not need to offer an alibi or state his innocence; the law states that he is presumed innocent until the state proves he is guilty.  If your case is based on bringing the suspect into the interrogation room or the polygraph room and extracting a confession from him, then you don’t have much of a case to begin with.  Would it make my job easier if everyone who ever committed a crime came to the PD and voluntarily confessed?  Sure, but even if they don’t I still have a job to do.  I certainly shouldn’t expect even a single person to assist me in my investigation by providing a confession or other pertinent information.

For all the people who would blame this site, would you also blame the suspect’s attorney who advises him not to talk, or to talk about one subject but not another?  The attorney is also thwarting police efforts to trick the suspect into a confession, so is he being irresponsible?  If the attorney advises his client to go ahead with the interrogation but to refuse to answer specific questions, or if he warns him about what the interrogators will be looking for to see if he’s being truthful or not, is the attorney acting irresponsibly?  I certainly wouldn’t think so, because it’s my job to gather evidence without the shortcut of a suspect’s confession.

Confessions usually make our job easier.  But we should never count on them, and we should never get upset at anyone who counsels suspects not to be so stupid as to confess to the police.  Cops who “hate” defense attorneys for their advice not to make a statement are immature, in my opinion.  Same would hold true for anyone who “hates” the anti-polygraph community for their advice on how not to take or how to beat a polygraph.

Spark,

You are giving all appearances of having difficulties, not with this site, but our constitution.  Our constitution applies to all, including those suspected of criminal acts.  Our constitution also provides for freedom of speech among other topics.  Perhaps you would like to return to years past when other accepted behaviors now considered unacceptable where the norm.  Maybe we could have some McCarthy-like hearings for those that verbalize their disdain for polygraphy.  Maybe you could lynch us.

Let's just do away with investigation all together and utilize polygraphy to convict or vindicate all criminal suspects.  If that were to occur, I will let you know that I will be laughing my head off as you go to prison for an act you did not commit but were convicted of by the merits of polygraph.  Not such a good idea is it?