I took the test last week and I don't know if i passed or not. He asked me two sets of questions, told me that i responded to the question "other than what you have told me, have you had any thefts", asked why, and i replied (i don't want to disclose what i said for security reasons) ,then let me go with no other discussion.  This was a wierd test.  Only one or two control questions, NO stim test, lots of irrelavent questions ( month, date, year, name)NO post interrogation besides what i just said. He accused me of nothing, and said nothing about all the other questions.  I saw the chart, was smooth looking until the previously mentioned question, then a spike during, then smooth again.  I had no abuse from polygrapher, no accusations or tricks, no raising of voice.  Is this normal? what does everyone think? did i pass?

You passed don't sweat it. You reacted to a control question (which is expected).

Anxiety

Quote:

He should have said you were NDI as well, the fact that he didn't is unethical.

this is not necessarilty true. The FBI, for example, doesnt tell you anything because the results have the be reviewed at HQ and an examiners opinion may not stand. Tho my experience was if you press them a little they will tell you if they think you "failed", but its not an issue of being unethical.

I had a poly about 6 months ago and assumed I had passed because they didn't require me to come back the next day to take the test again.

Is this a safe assumption or is it possible that I could have failed the poly, even though they didn't require me to come in and test again?  In other words, isn't it true that if you fail the poly on your first try, they give you a second opportunity?

I'm only doubting myself now because I don't specifically remember the polygrapher telling me that I "passed" the test, only that I was done and didn't have to come back for further testing.

Any ideas...?

Well, its possible i just got lucky with a good examiner, as i said, i recieved no abuse, yelling, accusations or anything.  I thought i was treated more than fair.  The examiner did try to establish dominance, but that is part of the job.  

I want to say that I found the examiner was paying more attention to how I was acting and my demeanor then anything else.  I believe that my examiner was convinced I was being truthful before the test began.  I really would recommend paying lots of attention to the behavioral section of the manual to anyone taking a polygraph test in the future.  I kept vigil of the way i was replying to questions, always answering in a very final way. My advice to anyone would be to be confident, sit up straight, look the examiner in the eye and answer questions firmly and without a doubt.  I believe I took the test in the pre-test interview rather than the polygraph exam itself.  

I would like to thank the creators of TLBTLD for helping me and providing information to prevent me from a bad test.  I think without the knowledge of the "trickery" that examiners use, I would have been very nervous and scared, but knowing the game, I was rather comfortable.

By the way, I PASSED. Much thanks. I am a normal person, and a real life person, not a spokesperson, and I passed using the knowledge of TLBTLD.  You can do it to, just study hard.

ODIN wrote on Dec 2^nd, 2005 at 8:12am:

Mentioning you "hit" to the control questions was your post test. He should have said you were NDI as well, the fact that he didn't is unethical. If it was a pre-employment, a stim test is not required in a pre employment format in some cases. I can tell you, if it was your first polygraph you ever took I would have done a stim test. Then again, I belive in giving people a fair test that will benifit them not hang them. Note: Most false positive results aren't because of the polygraph its self. It's because the examiner is not following standards, is taking shortcuts, or is otherwise lazy or unethical. A Polygraph examination is only as good as the examiner, his pre test, insturment, and format being used. I won't hide that I am an examiner and am proud of what I do and the good custumer service I provide. I can honestly say that no mater how my examinee leaves my office (DI or NDI) that examinee always says "That guy bent over backwards to treat me fair". Well except for the one bonehead that read the Williams "book". I hope he gets his money back. I set my controls properly, there is never a single exam that lasts less than an hour and a half, and in most cases I spend more time with the real nervous examinee's. Most of that time is spent in pretest where my goal is to set great controls for the non deceptive person, and calming the examinees so the controls work correctly as they should. should someone fail I like to talk to them about the possibility of an outside issue that may be bothering them. If the examiner does a piss poor job, the result will be piss poor too. Don't lump all examiners in one group. Some of us out here are doing good work. I would like to think I am one of them. Two Space Shuttles blew up in my life time. Does that mean that space travel should stop? Bad Doctors kill people every day. Does that mean we should out law the medical feild? Cops also kill, beat and fabricate evidince everyday. Does that mean we should do away with all law enforcment? No. You weed out the bad ones some how or another. There are false results that do happen, but we live in a time that people with cancer and aids are misdiagnosed. It happens, but it does not mean that caring examiners don't do everything they can to make sure that our examinees don't get a fair test

ODIN,

It's a nice change to have an examiner post on this site without first pretending to be someone else and hiding his true motives. Welcome to the discussion. However, I must take issue with a portion of your post.

Your comparison of space shuttles exploding, bad docs and rogue cops to false positive polygraph results seems a bit short-sighted. I've also seen two shuttles blow up during my lifetime. However, I also remember shuttles being grounded for years, thorough investigations, intensive testing and improvements made to the space program to prevent the same mistakes from happening again.

In regards to bad docs, there are ways of dealing with them. They are licensed by medical boards that have the power to yank their licenses to practice medicine if they show a flagrant disregard for the health and safety of their patients. There are also malparactice suits that hit them where it hurts.  

As far as rogue cops are concerned, their unethical behavior can be uncovered through investigations and they can be sanctioned accordingly by their departments and/or taken off the force.

How in any way do these examples compare to polygraphy? Space travel, medicine and law enforcement are all based upon valid scientific principles--well established truths. Polygraph screening has been declared invalid and unreliable by the National Academy of Sciences. There is no scientific basis for it. Even polygraph testing in criminal investigations is on shaky ground at best as their results are rarely ever admitted into court as evidence.  

Secondly, in all the examples you mentioned, there are avenues for righting the wrongs when mistakes are made--ways to determine truth and punish those at fault. In polygraph testing, these do not exist. There is no viable  recourse when examinees are falsely labeled liars and treated unfairly.

While I commend you for your professed sincerity in treating examinees with respect and fairness, might I remind you that  not all examiners are like you. You would not be so flip about false positive results if it were your a$$ on the line.

Odin,


doesn't your name mean in Norse the "god of war and death?"

 funny you should call yourself a "god"  can this be delusions of grandeur?

 in scriptures it states "Pro 26:5  Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes. "

 and "Pro 29:23  One's pride will bring him low, but he who is lowly in spirit will obtain honor. "


 something to think about.

ODIN,

I do appreciate your honesty and candor, and do believe that you will be a valid and useful source for the opposition opinion on this website. If you can, can you tell us what level of  examiner you are ? IE LEO, FED, AGENCY ?  It helps me to know where and what your opinions are to be based on. Do keep it vague, as we do not wish you any harm from your employer. Again as I am very vocal and consistantly voice a strong anti-polygraph opinion, which is always my honest heartfelt thoughts, If your opinions are honest and valid, they will be considered and debated. My hot buttons are examiners that come to this website hiding out as a valid interested users, and then cause entirely wasted debates.  Welcome and be prepared !!!
.

Regards

ODIN,

  touchy aren't you?   take it easy, we take the polygraph and its examiners to be mythical too.  Just like Odin, the Norse god of death and war! ;D ;D ;D

ODIN wrote on Dec 4^th, 2005 at 2:37am:

I assure you that this examiner is very real. Many things are mythical as far as I am concerned as well such as; the statistics that the antigun lobby fabricate. Global warming. The foolish myth that every vote counts. The myth that big oil isn't padding profits. Who Killed Kennedy. That elvis is dead. That the REAL Paul Mcartny is alive. and the UN, and is't so called agenda of peace.

Ok, so let's see.

You believe Elvis is alive, that all the science and evidence demonstrating global warming just doesn't exist, and that the UN's black helicopters are coming to get you.

And yet, you claim that it's the anti-polygraphy side that is leaving a bad impression.

"Odin", people like you pretty much do our job for us.
 I couldn't come up with this stuff if I tried.

But I do want to echo the comments above: at least you didn't childishly pretend to be something else -- which, unlike Shuttles not exploding in flight, is pretty much a rarity here for polygraphers.

this is funny, i started some kind of war, just wanted to tell people that there is hope when taking a polygraph test.  Sorry, jeez.   I just wanted to thank people for helping me pass the polygraph and get the career that I wanted and deserved

ODIN,

 seems like an open mind is what you really have, try filtering some of the things that you open yourself up to.  seems like most of stuff coming out is babble, so far you aren't telling us anything any other polygraph examiner hasn't told us.
 I am sure you are the greatest polygraph examiner out there, if we aren't sure, we can always ask you!

GIGO=garbage in, garbage out.

SoontobeLE wrote on Dec 4^th, 2005 at 9:58am:

this is funny, i started some kind of war, just wanted to tell people that there is hope when taking a polygraph test.  Sorry, jeez.   I just wanted to thank people for helping me pass the polygraph and get the career that I wanted and deserved

Don't worry about it.  You didn't start it -- it's a long-standing thing.

The basic problem is that, instead of honestly discussing the polygraph, the vast, vast majority of the time polygraphers like to come on here and play games.  It's been going on for years.

Perhaps that's inevitable: every scrap of scientific evidence and opinion that's come out has uniformly pointed to the polygraph's unreliability and invalidity.  While the polygraph has some utility at eliciting confessions, the simple fact is it doesn't do what it purports to do: detect lies.  That threatens livelihoods, to say nothing of quasi-religious beliefs in the device and the process.

It's rather like trying to debunk claims of ESP, etc.  You really can't convince true believers that what they're seeing isn't evidence of ESP; even worse, many times true believers don't even have the basic tools necessary to make such a judgement (not to say that there isn't or can't be such a thing as ESP; just that overwhelmingly, evidence for such really isn't and trying to convince believers otherwise is pretty darned difficult).

So again, don't worry about it.  It was going on long before you, and will undoubtedly continue long after.  And congrats on getting past the polygraph!

ODIN wrote on Dec 2^nd, 2005 at 8:12am:

Note: Most false positive results aren't because of the polygraph its self. It's because the examiner is not following standards, is taking shortcuts, or is otherwise lazy or unethical.

I'll simply note that the considerable available scientific evidence indicates that the polygraph itself, using established standards of determining deception, has a high false positive rate.  In the case of R/I-style tests, it's up to 80% or more.


Quote:

A Polygraph examination is only as good as the examiner, his pre test, insturment, and format being used.

Any scientific instrument should be designed such that the person using it is taken out of the equation.  There should be standards such that anyone who follows those standard procedures (and can document this) can't influence the results.

When this isn't the case, it's a pretty good indication that the instrument is being used for purposes for which it isn't fit.

Please don't dismiss this easily.  There is a real tendency in the polygraph community to claim that properly-calibrated and operated polygraphy equipment just "isn't being used right" when it incorrectly indicates whether or not a subject is lying.  Yet, there is also a real inability to quantify exactly what's being done wrong.

Compare this with making an EEG or meteorological instrument.  The measurements are what they are.

Odin, I believe you that you try to do a "good job" when it comes to polygraph exams.  What I would propose, though, is that what you're trying to do is the impossible, and your care, while admirable, could be put to better use elsewhere.

Odin,

 Give up your pseudo profession, join us in our fight against the polygraph, sleep better at night, know that you'll be a better person for it.  I assure you, that you will look into a mirror better and like who you see too.

ODIN wrote on Dec 5^th, 2005 at 3:28am:

No, some of this is what you assumed I belived. I was mearly pointing out what soem belive to be myth. You twisted my words and made assumptions. You personally are no longer worth my effert, you showed your colors. Nothing I would ver say would mean nothing to you. I am done, with you now. You are no better than the people you hate because of what they do for a living. Now I know what kind of man you are.

I'm not sure from the above whether you're speaking specifically to me or to others, but assuming the former:

I'm sorry that you found what I wrote so overwhelmingly offensive.  I would suggest, however, that if you intend to spend any time at all on the Internet, you grow a slightly thicker skin.  What I wrote to you was pretty darned tame :)  Especially since your prior post certainly did make it look like you believed all that I wrote about in my response.

ODIN wrote on Dec 5^th, 2005 at 3:44am:

Allow me to point ot that the R&I and it's current Global scoring method is very unreliable and very difficult at best for the "not guilty" examinee to get through.

Yes, it is.  Unfortunately, it's also used by the NSA (and probably others).

However, it's also the case that the Control Question Test suffers from unacceptably high false positive rates, too.

ODIN wrote on Dec 5^th, 2005 at 6:18am:

By the way I use a GQT with deguised controls for pre employment. This test is easy to Rank order score and gives me the ability to help the generally nervous person to get through the test.

In control question tests an informed examinee is able to discern the types of questions by the content of the questions being asked.  The more serious the subject matter, the more likely it is a relevant question.  Disguised or not a control question will rear its head waving a big white flag every time, just as a relevant waves a big red flag.  In a sense, each says, "Hello, it's me!"

ODIN wrote "I am a very good person and I am a better person to come on here, risking my job to talk to you guys. "

 Jeez, ODIN, you sure are a humble guy aren't you?  DON"T RISK YOUR JOB!  Just stop talking to us!!   At this point we don't need delusional polygraph examiners, in fact, we don't need polygraph examiners at all.  We need to A B O L I S H this polygraphic nonsense.

Okay, Gelb.  Let's take it easy on the guy.  He is here trying to discuss polygraphy in a civil manner.  At least people with differing views can come to this site and post without the fear of being banned (like polygraphplace.com).  We need polygraphers on this site so we can ask them questions.

ODIN,

Can you be more specific about what makes you a better polygrapher than others?  You mention that you "spend more time" with examinees and "set controls properly" but those seem pretty vague and I'm not sure how that makes the test more accurate.  Why do you think your tests are more accurate?  What is your accuracy rate?

Thanks

wrote on Dec 5^th, 2005 at 5:49pm:

ODIN wrote "I am a very good person and I am a better person to come on here, risking my job to talk to you guys. "  Jeez, ODIN, you sure are a humble guy aren't you?  DON"T RISK YOUR JOB!  Just stop talking to us!!   At this point we don't need delusional polygraph examiners, in fact, we don't need polygraph examiners at all.  We need to A B O L I S H this polygraphic nonsense.

gelb disliker,

ODIN's politely expressed viewpoints are most welcome on AntiPolygraph.org. Ad hominem attacks such as the above, which you have been posting with increasing frequency, are not. Please review and abide by AntiPolygraph.org's posting policy.

wrote on Dec 5^th, 2005 at 6:41pm:

gelb disliker, ODIN's politely expressed viewpoints are most welcome on AntiPolygraph.org. Ad hominem attacks such as the above, which you have been posting with increasing frequency, are not. Please review and abide by AntiPolygraph.org's posting policy.

Fair enough, and for my part, I apologize as well.  Evidently, I misconstrued Odin's earlier meaning.

ODIN wrote on Dec 6^th, 2005 at 5:45am:

You got it, you know it is no wonder why other examiners hide behind fake screen names. Guys like you! Well I wanted us to learn frome each other clearly you don't. You want to ban polygraph, bring it. I will now work to make sure this is the end of this web sight. Thank you. I now know my lifes work, to make polygraph "mainstream". People like you do nothing but make us belive you are a bunch of crackpots that think "the man" is comming to get them. To the rest of you, you guys have alot of loose cannon around you. You need to do something about them. Because of bad examiners, I pay dearly through what they have done in the past and do now. This pinhead is a ranting rectial cavity and you will be seen as one of him if you don't do something. So much for a helpful debate of ideas. I hoped this was going to turn into something. All it has turned into is a bitch fest. Latter. I will keep learning from you. Just to be a thorn on your side. See you guys around.

Too bad you're leaving.  I was looking forward to a polygraph examiner's perspective on "bad examiners" versus "good" examiners, such as yourself.  Good luck.

.

wrote on Dec 6^th, 2005 at 6:44am:

ODIN- I simply cannot believe your posts. You are welcome to exchange ideas here, but first... 1. learn to spell 2. learn to argue and debate - there ARE classes you can take 3. ask your mommy for some tissue 4. reattach your ba11s or grow a pair (apologies if you're female) The above are constructive criticisms only meant to help you. That list should keep you busy for awhile.

LessMoore,

Comments such as the above are not constructive criticism but rather constitute a personal attack that does nothing to further the debate. Please review AntiPolygraph.org's posting policy and keep it civil.

ODIN,

I did warn you to be prepared. It appears you have brought out the anger of those who have been burned by your bad examiner associates or the polygraph in general. I too would like to know the difference of GOOD VS BAD, examiners. And why you feel your better than than most  examiners. I want to know how you can correlate your work with that of NAS study, knowing full well that some premier scientific minds and researchers have completely invalidated the polygraph and anything the APA has to say to counter it.

THe other thing to keep in mind, is that every time someone is burned by a false positive or passes a polygraph interrogation using countermeasures, the noose tightens in doing away with polygraphs. Humans by nature dislike being messed with, and will either avoid or nullify a painful experience anyway possible. Especially if it means having there integrity or honor questioned by a pseudo-scientific practice. I know for a fact that at a certain east coast company, most of the scientists and engineers are very well versed in countermeasures and routinely beat the machine. Effectively making it a moot threat at best.

Regards

Quote:

You want to ban polygraph, bring it. I will now work to make sure this is the end of this web sight.  I will keep learning from you. Just to be a thorn on your side. See you guys around.

Goodness ODIN.  Are you that upset over people dabating ploygraphy?  If ploygraphy is so great and acurate and if you know that, why are you getting so upset?

ODIN wrote on Dec 6^th, 2005 at 5:45am:

You got it, you know it is no wonder why other examiners hide behind fake screen names. Guys like you! Well I wanted us to learn frome each other clearly you don't. You want to ban polygraph, bring it. I will now work to make sure this is the end of this web sight. Thank you. I now know my lifes work, to make polygraph "mainstream". People like you do nothing but make us belive you are a bunch of crackpots that think "the man" is comming to get them. To the rest of you, you guys have alot of loose cannon around you. You need to do something about them. Because of bad examiners, I pay dearly through what they have done in the past and do now. This pinhead is a ranting rectial cavity and you will be seen as one of him if you don't do something. So much for a helpful debate of ideas. I hoped this was going to turn into something. All it has turned into is a bitch fest. Latter. I will keep learning from you. Just to be a thorn on your side. See you guys around.

Odin,

You have used quite a wide brush to paint those of us against the use of polygraph because of one person.  Now you may better understand our reasons for our antipolygraph sentiments.  It just doesn't seem fair does it?  It is obvious that your reasons for logging on and joining the conversation were not purely to learn our reasons for being against polygraphy but simply to gain some ammunition in your quest to promote polygraphy into the mainstream.  I have enjoyed the opportunities in which I have been able to engage in conversation with examiners and discuss our varying beliefs based on our experiences.  You seem too willing to bail out because of a minority of posters here.  Many of us have been burned as a result of polygraph testing so it is most certainly a hot-button topic.  That is a realization that should come to everyone simply based on the site's title.

Please, if you wish to continue in debate by all means do so.  Don't be so easily disuaded.  That is unless of course the colors you have shown are true.

.

wrote on Dec 6^th, 2005 at 10:58am:

Administrator- I'll concede that items 3 and 4 were out of line. While reviewing this site's regulations the following sentence caught my attention. "Guest posting has been disabled effective 10 August 2004." 1. Please explain how ODIN is able to post as a Guest. Also please explain why this site runs in a loop. To be more clear: The same posts repeat after several months... Not similar posts... the same posts. Some of the posts were recited to me about 18 months ago by several people of questionable integrity. Naturally, when I found those same posts months later, I immediately snagged that data. 2. How do you explain the loop? Note: Don't ask for any copies. My storage net is input only (from my point of view) and not on my local computer. I already know your answer - denial.

To answer your first question, I can tell you that Odin is shown as a guest as he has closed his user account.  You will find the same with others such as Anal Sphincter.  While active he was shown as a user and subsequent rankings.  However, upon his decision to close his user account you will now see his status as a guest.

I cannot answer your second question, however I can tell you that in the time I have been visiting this board, which includes time before I registered I have not seen the activity you mention.

You were admonished by the Administrator for violating posting policy, no more.  Don't try to read into it, there is nothing further to read other than what is written.

odin,

  lots of people here aren't arguing that child molesters should be taken to task.  its just that the polygraph is NOT totally reliable for that task.  this is the 21st century, we sent men to the moon,  the Berlin wall has been demolished and even athletes can run under a 4 minute mile.    but, the polygraph has never proven to be effective in detecting lies. period.  
  i understand you believe in it because you are part of it.  those of us that were shortchanged by this machine will never justify its existence.  period.  
  you feel strongly about that "magic" box, we do too.

ODIN wrote on Dec 7^th, 2005 at 4:52am:

Understand that I don't have alot of time to bicker with people that have been "burned". Many people have been "burned" by many things or people, most get over it. The only colors that I have showen is of wanting to understand the views expressed here and my unwillingness to deal with people that have no intent to listen to others without trying to silence them with insults, bitterness and hate. I can get that at a Family gathering with the in laws. I am sorry you feel that I am being disuaded. This is not the case. I just don't see the point of talking to a wall. If all my typing yeilds nothing, why should I bother?

You are correct in that most people get over being burned.  However, when you consider what a life altering event an incorrect polygraph opinion can induce it is quite understandable for a "long burn" be it criminal or employment testing.  An incorrect result had a definite impact upon the life of the wrongfully accused.  I don't take such and impact lightly and hopefully you don't as well.

My question regarding your true colors was your seemingly premature  and hasty wish for failure upon those against polygraph testing (specifically pre-employment testing for myself).  You had proposed to an attempt to discover the distaste for polygraphy many posters here share by questioning those posters' experiences.  However, as soon as you encountered resistance to your position you quickly retreated wishing us all a vacation in hell.  Not quite what you had initially indicated.

You are not talking to a wall.  I have listened to and considered other polygraphers opinions and writings on this site.  I never counter without careful consideration, thusly your not encountering direct post from me in the past.  I welcome any constructive conversation you may provide.

Also, I couldn't care less about your spelling.  Without spell-check my spelling suffers quite often.   ;)

Quote:

Lets also assume that that molester is reading your tips how to beat the box and is successful, how do you justify teaching him/her something that may allow that molester to stay out there and damage more children? Maybe a child you know or love.

That is a very good point Odin, however, if you want to argue that, why don't we run criminal background checks on anyone who applies to take a Criminal Justice Course bacause criminals (i.e. Child Molesters) taking criminal justice courses may learn "loopholes" to beat the system to avoid punishment for the crimes they commit.

ODIN,

Welcome back.  The problem with using the polygraph in the scenario you describe is that a false-negative result may leave the polygrapher, police, and community with a false sense of security.  On the other hand, a false-positive result for a cleaned up criminal may cause more severe problems than he or she is already dealing with.  But forget about the molester angle for a minute, this scenario can be applied to any criminal investigation or pre-employment screening.  For every admission an examiner might get during a polygraph exam, there could be just as many false-positives and false-negatives.  Without an admission, what does the polygraph prove?  

As far as countermeasures are concerned, people, even molesters, have a right to defend themselves against possible false-positive results.  That said, when a polygraph can be affected by countermeasure use, who is truly at fault?  The polygrapher for relying on an inherently flawed process?  Or the examinee for trying to protect his or her self from permanently being branded a liar?  I would say the former.

In your post you appear to admit that countermeasures can be used effectively in a polygraph exam. First, you accuse this site and its supporters of providing "tips how to beat the box."  Then you continue,

Quote:

So, if they got the book here and was successful, doesn't that make some people here a party to that by assisting him in evading the detection of his/her behavior, and if so how do you justify that?

Are you intimating that countermeasures do, in fact, work?  That begs the next question, to rephrase yours: How do you justify using a "tool" that can surreptitiously be manipulated by the examinee?  

ODIN wrote on Dec 7^th, 2005 at 5:19am:

I have a question for all of you. There is a child molester living near you and chances are that molester is being polygraphed to attempt to be sure that he is not doing anything to your child while no one is watching. If polygraph goes bye bye, what tool will replace it? Lets also assume that that molester is reading your tips how to beat the box and is successful, how do you justify teaching him/her something that may allow that molester to stay out there and damage more children? Maybe a child you know or love. I am sorry I have run into low lifes that are a danger to children every where that have tried some of these countermeasures. I am glad they couldn't read "cat in the hat" much less a well written book like what is offered here.  Many of these sicko's do read up on it to beat it to keep their freedome. So, if they got the book here and was successful, doesn't that make some people here a party to that by assisting him in evading the detection of his/her behavior, and if so how do you justify that? At the very least I would hope we can agree that it is a tool that can be used on these sicko's to at least try to keep tabs on them. Personally I think we should go with dunking chairs and pots of hot oil on this one, then again this is a kinder world. Maybe at the expense of our children? I hope not. I do hope some of us can agree that there is nothing else out there to replace polygraph to do that job. If there is other then rubber hoses, I would love to know what it is.

ODIN,

I can only speak for myself, but I do believe that most of the folks that post regularly here are :

1. Anti-polygraph, not Anti-Law Enforcement
   Which means that I will under all circumstances support the work of all levels of law enforcement. I have never broken the law and never will.

2. Anti-polygraph, not Anti-Government:
This website wouldn't even exist if it wasn't for the freedom of speech. But the use of a polygraph by any level of government is in my humble opinion a violation of my 4th amendment rights against unlawful search. Its an interrogation without a lawyer present, could also be a violation of the 5th amendment as well.

3. Anti-polygraph, not Anti-Equal Opportunity:
I truly believe that the polygragh is used as a culling tool to weed out (so called) undesireables that are not hand picked for employment positions. Circumventing EEO and Fair Hiring laws. Everyone deserves a chance, and hiding behind a pseudo-scientific machine to eliminate people is just wrong.

I firmly believe too that the information on this website is a double edged sword. It has both positive and negative ramifications if used properly or improperly as the case may be. A risk that must be taken if we live in a land where the rule of law prevails.

Now as far as a child molester and use of the polygraph, then I hope all bad things come to this scumbag !!  But this molester too is entitled to a just defense and the ability to use any information available too him. If Law enforcement infringes on the rights of any citizen, then the law has no other choice then to dismiss the charges or litigation. It may not be the optimal answer, but how many law breakers have been set free by screwups during pre-trial and discovery phases by district attorneys, or the arresting officers, who are more interested in getting a conviction, then protecting the defendants rights. When the system works, it works well and the guilty are punished. And this all can be done without a polygraph being involved.

As far as replacing it, its the phony tool for the job. As a pressure tool it will work on the unknowing, as you can sell its invincibility. To the experienced, its just another challenge to be beat. The right tool is still not available. Technology has yet to come up with the ability to read minds.  The answer for this is not out there. And a bad tool like the polygraph is not a good stop gap either.

It will be interesting to hear your comments after you read the NAS report. I am looking forward to it.

Regards .....

.

Odin,

First of all, thank you for posting to this site. As the administrator noted, all viewpoints on polygraphy are most welcome on this board. This cannot be said about many other online forums, most notably www.911hotjobs.com. The whole point of a discussion forum is to have debate. Very little of that happens when all the posters have the same viewpoint.

I apologize on behalf of the other posters making personal insults, and I implore them to cease that behavior. I hope that you will consider sticking around and representing your views.


Quote:

There is a child molester living near you and chances are that molester is being polygraphed to attempt to be sure that he is not doing anything to your child while no one is watching.

Pursuing this line of argument may have been effective against 1980s polygraph opponents, who were mostly liberals attacking the polygraph as an invasion of privacy.

It is however, not effective against the arguments put forth by George and I. The modern day opposition to polygraphy that we lead very little to do with protecting criminals, the right to lie, etc. Today's polygraph opponents simply know that the polygraph is highly inaccurate even when used on uninformed subjects, and a downright joke when used on those with knowledge of the process and countermeasures. We seeks its abolition because reliance on this inherently inaccurate process can cause (and is causing) grave harm to our national security and criminal justice system.

One of the last places that polygraphy should be relied on is for the post-conviction monitoring of our society’s most dangerous and recidivist criminals. Inaccurate results produced by the process are likely to focus investigative resources away from those who continue to re-offend and divert them toward those who are complying with terms of probation.

Convicted child molesters (some states even label somebody caught urinating in public as a sex offender) should be given long prison terms. These prison terms should be followed up by aggressive monitoring using conventional shoe leather, not a pseudoscientific fraud like polygraphy.

As far as our making information on polygraph countermeasures available, AntiPolygraph.org was far from the first to do so. We are simply make the information available for free, as opposed to requiring someone to purchase a book from say Amazon.com.


Quote:

So, if they got the book here and was successful, doesn't that make some people here a party to that by assisting him in evading the detection of his/her behavior, and if so how do you justify that?

No. As I said above, the information was already available. Those who really should have trouble sleeping (but don’t) are the polygraph examiners who represent this process as being highly accurate (high 90% accuracy, etc) to the public, when peer-reviewed studies conducted under field conditions do not support these claims. Anything for the almighty dollar.


Quote:

Polygraph is here to stay guys. It is not a perfect tool, but it is the only tool, other than dunking chairs and pots of hot oil. Given the choice I will take the box anyday.

Polygraphy is no more a “tool” than crystal balls, tarot cards, or the methods of torture described above. Logic would not dictate that we have to keep a totally inaccurate process like this around until we find one that works (this day may never come). Things can be substantially improved by admitting that the current process is a fraud and getting rid of it without coming up with a replacement.

George and I will freely admit that like the methods above, polygraphy does have one utility. It allows interrogators to elicit confessions from those ignorant about the process.

We are frequently assailed for directing sunlight onto the polygraph fraud, essentially making the process a joke against any informed subject. Regrettably, there is no way to keep the information on this site from pedophiles, terrorists, professional criminals and other reprobates while providing it to those who need it.

Still, as long as there are law enforcement officers and applicants, military personnel, intelligence officers, and scientists falsely being accused through polygraph nonsense, we will continue to push this process into the sunlight and provide these individuals the information they need to survive when they are forced to play Russian Roulette with their reputations.

LessMoore,

 you are funny!   thanks for the last thread.  I'm still laughing.  I think levity and a sense of humor is always appreciated.  

  thanks  ;D

ODIN wrote on Dec 7^th, 2005 at 4:40am:

I am sorry you went DI on a polygraph, and you hate us all. Either you got an examiner that didn't set good controls didn't do a good post test to chek for outside isues Or you out and out LIED, and can't or won't admit to it.

You did, of course, omit another option: that the device simply doesn't work as advertised, and all that's left is an interrogation prop and a polygrapher's best guess as to whether or not a subject is lying.

The available scientific evidence would seem to indicate this is the most likely scenario.

ODIN wrote on Dec 7^th, 2005 at 5:19am:

There is a child molester living near you and chances are that molester is being polygraphed to attempt to be sure that he is not doing anything to your child while no one is watching. If polygraph goes bye bye, what tool will replace it? Lets also assume that that molester is reading your tips how to beat the box and is successful, how do you justify teaching him/her something that may allow that molester to stay out there and damage more children? Maybe a child you know or love.

The polygraph might as well be replaced by nothing at all.  Since the polygraph doens't work, it isn't useful for detecting whether or not the child molester is engaging in criminal activity, and very likely is providing a false sense of security if that individual is "passing" the "tests".

As for reading tips here on how to "pass" the "test", as Gino has already pointed out, the information contained here was already widely available, or could be guessed at.  The polygraph is extremely unreliable when used against an individual who doesn't believe in it, and frankly, isn't all that reliable against anyone else, either.  It's foolhardy to rely on it in any way, shape or form to keep child molesters from molesting.

Oh, and knock off the childish ad-hominem comments about politics, please.  If you want to talk about the polygraph, talk about the polygraph.  We have a section here for non-related talk, and I'd be more than happy to discuss politics with you there.

ODIN wrote "Polygraph is here to stay guys. It is not a perfect tool, but it is the only tool, other than dunking chairs and pots of hot oil. Given the choice I will take the box anyday. "

So what I read from this is that "dunking chairs and pots of hot oil" are medieval means of torture.  So let me get this right, Polygraph is a civil way of torture???  I think your view of interrogation is a bit askewed.  I believe that to the uninformed, taking a polygraph without being well informed, is just plain suicide.  

ODIN,


If responding to childish personal attacks is eating up all of your time on this board, then why are you wasting your time doing it? There have been some good questions put forth and valid points made by civil posters throughout this thread, but yet, you choose to ignore most, if not all of them, instead wasting your time on petty put-downs and slams. It makes those posters doing it look bad, but it makes you look bad as well if you give in to it. You're letting them push your buttons. Reminds me of my first  polygraph examiner. ;)  No offense intended.

You said that you are here to learn and several posters here have expressed interest in engaging in fair, honest exchanges with you. Be the better man--ignore the white noise and get down to some real debate and discussion.

ODIN wrote on Dec 7^th, 2005 at 11:42pm:

I agree and none taken. I am working on well put together, well researched answers. It just seems amazing to me that I understand most of the view points expresses and where they come from. Lot's of good points are made. But I try to bring about the other side of the debate and a stone wall gets put up and everything I say is for nothing. I am sorry you guys believe the way you do. I am however confused about the sex offender thing. Any tool is a good tool for protecting our children. now with the 4th and 5th amendments. Liberials care not for the constitution. 2nd amendment, they are trying to repeal, 1st amendment only applies to he who can yell over other people the loudest. No one is ever forced to take a polygraph, it's volentary. You don't belive in it, don't take it. simple as that. You don't like the questions or post test, walk away. unless you are in jail, the doors are not locked. People have choices in this world. People should make them and live by them. I would welcome a lawyer in the room during pre test and post test, and in my office to watch the in test on CCTV. I don't hide anything. I have helped many people doing what I do, and if it is voodoo, then I guess I am the magic man. I keep making criminal charges disapear for the not guilty and make jobs appear out of thin air for those who are fourth comming in their applications. I am however very scared that you would tale polygraph and PCSOT tools away and replace them for nothing to suit the needs of a few who have a woody for getting rid of polygraph. I have an idea for the sex offenders. Lets turn New Orleans in to a prision for them insted of rebuilding. with all the sexoffeders we have in my area from that city, it is clear they would feel right at home. Wow, already a good replacment. Well maybe exacution.

ODIN,

I thought we were done with the unprovoked attacks? You should discuss your political views elsewhere. This is not anti-liberal.org, though I'm sure something like that exists out there.

Anyway, on to the rest of your post. Before I took my first polygraph, I would have agreed with you one-hundred percent--about the polygraph, not your other views--just to be clear.. However, the fact of the matter is, people in this country are being victimized by a procedure that is inaccurate and unreliable. You are correct in that everyone has a choice in taking a poly, but there is no other choice if you want the job or suppose you want to be cleared in a criminal invesitgation? Perhaps, your child has been kidnapped and you want authorities to clear you, so they'll move on to find the real culprit who took your child. Doesn't feel like much of a choice, now does it? Now, suppose you agree to submit to this procedure without knowing much about it. There is no such thing as informed consent when it comes to the polygraph. During the job applicant process, the examinee receives zero information about the polygraph, the only thing he/she is told is to tell the truth, but yet, the examiner doesn't really want the whole truth, only what he cares about. That is all the information given to the examinee. I also believed that since the polygraph was part of the application process, that I was bound by my signature on my application to not make any false statements--a violation of the criminal code. I told the truth of all questions asked and my procedure turned into an ugly interrogation. I didn't deserve that and neither do the countless others that this happens to. Now that I know polygraphs don't work, I won't take one. I'll also let others know, so they won't make the same mistake I did.

People's lives are forever changed when they submit to a polygraph that falsely brands them as liars. It's not just liveliehoods at stake when it comes to polygraphs, it's also freedoms--the very principle upon which this country is founded. Such a tool does not belong in the workplace and should only be used in criminal investigations when the procedure is audio/videotaped with a standardized set of regulations set forth. The Constitution doesn't pick and choose who it wants to protect--it applies to everyone.

Tools designed to protect children of course, are a good idea, but not when they infringe upon the rights of others.  Polygraphs are not objective, they are subjective--an OPINION is required to arrive at a result. It's not fair to use such a system to determine the freedoms of others.  The rules must be fair and they must apply to EVERYONE.      

As far as your "woody" comment is concerned--have a little class, why don't you?  Again, you're only making yourself and your profession look bad. Comments like that only detract from the debate and discussions.

ODIN wrote on Dec 7^th, 2005 at 11:42pm:

ng. Any tool is a good tool for protecting our children. now with the 4th and 5th amendments. Liberials care not for the constitution.[Quote] I'll agree with that 110%. [quote]I thought we were done with the unprovoked attacks? You should discuss your political views elsewhere. This is not anti-liberal.org, though I'm sure something like that exists out there.

I agree that political views should be dicussed elsewhere (as there are places in this forum for that talk), but liberals are pretty much anti-Americans anyway.  Now back to the topic

Quote:

I have never heard a conservitive say "lets ban an important investigative tool".  Only the most far left wing fringe is trying to pass these laws.

I consider myself a strong conservative and feel that child molesters should have no rights what so ever.  But the main reason why I come to this site is because I don't feel that it is necessarry to subject a law enforcement candidate to the ploygraph "test."  Is it not enought for a job candidate to go through a thorough background check, fingerprint check, drug screen, and psycological without having to undergo mental torture just to get a job in their profession of choice? I, myself, have nothing to hide but have already been accused of using cocaine on a CVSA.  I will admit to experimenting with marijuana as a teenager, but thats it.  But I have heard too many cases of honest people getting branded as liars because of the ploygraph........They've passes a thorough background check that may have gone as far as to see if they've taked a dump in a bathroom that was not their own without first asking; passed fingerprint check, psychological and drug screen..........Tell me, is it REALLY necessarry to add a psycological torture test on top of all that???

Odin, thanks for the response and for voicing your opinions and personal experience. But,  no matter what kind of background check or tests are done, there are always going to be those who "slip through the cracks."  That is an unfortunate thing in any profession, but why risk those who are honest?  Public school teachers work for the government..........Should we polygraph them?  There has been a lot of them making the news lately for sexual offenses with their students.  Would you want these kind of "professionals" educating your children???  I won't even get started on Bill Clinton for crying out loud (Not trying to bring politics into the discussion, but this was a leader of our country who had his share of "fun" while he was in office.)  Correct me if I'm wrong, but G.W. Bush did have a DUI at one time didn't he?  Should we ploygraph presidential candidates and see if they have committed other undetected crimes?????  Or, as mentioned in TLBTLD, what would be wrong with employing a "lie" detector on potential judges (to see if they've ever let their personal beliefs influence their decisions in court) or lawmakers (to see if theyve misused campaign funds or, better yet, if they've ever committed the crimes that we elect and pay them to make laws against......Are we afraid that most of them may not make it through that process???????

Smokey,

Note also that the experience of states such as Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, and Oregon, where law enforcement agencies are prohibited by law from giving lie detector "tests" to applicants, demonstrates that the polygraph is not a necessity.

wrote on Dec 8^th, 2005 at 8:46am:

Smokey, Note also that the experience of states such as Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, and Oregon, where law enforcement agencies are prohibited by law from giving lie detector "tests" to applicants, demonstrates that the polygraph is not a necessity.

Meaning that there are other means of choosing a candidate without the use of pseudo science of polygraph.   Thorough background checks are most likely the best means of verifying an individual, along with character references and psychological histories.  So it seems the aforementioned states are heading into a polygraph-free society in hiring candidates.  Hopefully other states follow suit.

.

ODIN wrote on Dec 8^th, 2005 at 9:43am:

Lets also note that most of those states, have high rates of police officers abusing their power, alchoholisim, corruption and drug addiction when compaired against some states that do alow it....

Please document this claim. I am aware of no evidence that states that prohibit polygraph screening have significantly higher rates of police abuse of power, alcoholism, corruption, and/or drug addiction than states that don't. I strongly suspect that you're talking through your hat.

ODIN wrote on Dec 8^th, 2005 at 9:43am:

Lets also note that most of those states, have high rates of police officers abusing their power, alchoholisim, corruption and drug addiction when compaired against some states that do alow it. that shoots that argument out of the air I feel. Those states as well have a way of steping on rights too. I would trust a cop from a state that polygraphed over any cop from the Peoples Republic of Massachusetts any day of the week, with the exception of LAPD and Dallas cops

Either provide evidence for the above (statistics, cites, etc.) or withdraw the claim.  Making such claims is easy.  Back them up.

And once again, drop the political crap.  This "liberals want to ban the Constitution" baloney needs to stop now, if you want to discuss the polygraph.  Any such discussion is irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

All such claims serve to do is to invalidate your statements to the roughly 35% of the population who call themselves "liberal" or "progressive".  Banning the polygraph isn't a liberal or conservative point of view.  It's simply common sense.

Odin wrote:"Lets also note that most of those states, have high rates of police officers abusing their power, alchoholisim, corruption and drug addiction when compaired against some states that do alow it. "

How did you come about with this data?  Police officers who haven't taken the polygraph to obtain their postions have abused power, drink heavily, take bribes and are stoners??    If this is true, they then have a bigger problem than not taking this test!

Its just a simple question.  Where did you get your findings about Law enforcement officers who have not taken the polygraph to obtain their positions, having a looser set of morals than those who have taken the polygraph?

Its not an argument, just a fact finding mission here.  Is there truly published findings or just mere conjecture?

Odin,

We are proud of you for standing up for what you believe in and having the courage to come here and stand on your own.  But after reading your many posts, I doubt you would be selected by the pro-polygraph community as its poster child.

By asking us to "back up" our claims that we were wrongly accused of being liars, a nearly impossible task, you have proven the fallibility of the polygraph.  You can no more prove that I am a liar than I can prove otherwise!  I can say, however, that the dolt polygrapher that accused me of being a drug user proved his incompetence to me because I have never used an illegal substance-- any drug test to which I have ever submitted will prove that.

ODIN wrote on Dec 8^th, 2005 at 6:53pm:

As far as the facts I will get them. Maybe I will do what the anti gun and anti polygraph comunity (as well as the pro polygraph comunity) if I don't like the statistics, I'll just skew the numbers.

This confirms my suspicion that you were indeed talking through your hat when you claimed "that most of those states [where polygraph screening has been abolished], have high rates of police officers abusing their power, alchoholisim [sic], corruption and drug addiction when compaired [sic] against some states that do alow [sic] it.... "


Quote:

I am not backing off anymore I am stepping up. It is time to put up or shut up. So Gorge you first. Can you 'back up" your claim that you were indeed telling the truth and got a bad test and if so, how can you verify that you were indeed telling the truth?

As mustbaliar indicated, it's impossible for a person accused of unspecified crimes not known to have occurred to prove his or her innocence. While I cannot prove that I am not a spy, that I've never used or sold an illegal drug, and that I didn't falsify any information in my FBI application, a Single Scope Background Investigation failed to corroborate any of the supposed behaviors regarding which my FBI polygrapher determined me to be deceptive. I also passed all of my numerous drug tests while in the Army and Army Reserve.

ODIN wrote:

Quote:

I have an idea you want to be the ones backing up facts? ok. Everyone here that has failed a poly, back up that you weren't lying. Including Gorge and his FBI polygraph that I heard he faild, thus starting this little crusade. The gloves are off now.   Back up that none of you were lying in your polygraphs, for if you can't than I do belive that you will need to retract any libelous statments you have made against any examiner. The same way you will expect me to retract my statement if I can't back up what I said. Or is it, "do as I say and not as I do"? Back up your claims that you were falsely branded as liers, or retract. Lets see if you expect the same of yourselves that you expect of other people. I will look for more examples in other struings of outragous statments that will need to be verified with numbers. Now that I know that is a "rule" here, written or unwritten. I will expect that something like  will be enforced across the board.

Well I was fine in not replying to you until I read this portion of your post.  This cuts to the bone and is at the very least insulting.  If I had concrete proof that I wasn't lying I would prove just that.  However, since employment screens are used as a means to discover information that is otherwise unattainable your point is moot.  Had an extensive background investigation been conducted to include all contacts with persons I have known in my life I would without any doubt have the ability to prove that I did not lie.  I would challenge you to prove that those you have falsely branded as liars are in fact such.  But therein lies the problem, as they don't have the ability to prove truthfulness in some areas, you don't have the ability to prove deceit...the polygraph doesn't do it...it is not proof of anything.

Maybe this will prove my honesty and integrity were stained as a result of polygraph.  Maybe this will be proof for you that I was in fact falsely accused.  First polygraph - failed one relevant questions and was subsequently ousted from the application process.  Second polygraph (different agency) - asked same relevant question which was previously "failed" only this time I was considered NDI.  Same question, what gives.  An important fact for you to note is that for neither exam did I use or attempt countermeasures or any other means to foil the process.  I depended on my honesty for both.  So with such accuracy in regard to polygraph which is it, in your opinion, am I a liar or not.  I know the truth as was concluded in one of two polygraph examination.  50% is no where near acceptable.

ODIN

I think most of us here share your disdain for sex offenders especially pedofiles. My philosophy on child molesters is the hammer, nail, burning stump and a dull knife. Those of us who have daughters that are victims feel this way. For the ones who rape and murder children, I could gut shoot them and sit on their quivering, dying carcuss and eat a hamburger. Cold but true.

On the other hand, I read a research paper on recidivism of criminals of different crimes (don't ask me where I read it because my 75 year old grey matter has trouble recalling some data) and child molesters was not at the top. They were under 30% and the other 70%, who are not reoffending, are being put through the same hell by punitive polygraphers who believe all are guilty of reoffending and are intentually failing them. If you have updated statistics on the recidivism rate I would certainly like to read them. The research paper that I read was 5 or more years ago.

As to your comment about states that do not polygraph for LE jobs, I read a lot of newspapers on the net and you are correct about rogue cops in Oregon. I don't know about the other states. I have a friend, living in Oregon, who says that a judge and DA was in partership in a meth lab. The reason he knew?? he dated their cooker. Lousisana, who does polegraph LE apps. is just as bad and maybe a little worse. So I guess,  give some  -  take some.

If you have read my past post, you know I strongly advocate lawsuits against polygraphers who wrongly label people liars. That's the only way to save ones integrity. Make him prove one is a liar. I get the response of "I can't do that because I signed his waiver". That is BS. That waiver is only good for emergency asswipe. If I could prove that I had never done drugs or passed TS documents to foreign agents, ect., You better believe I would have him in federal court faster than he could say "other than what you told me ??"

I can't debate you on the intricacies of the polygraph because of my very limited knowledge, but I can't accept one man one maching being judge a jury. I don't care if it is employment or a criminal setting.

ODIN wrote on Dec 9^th, 2005 at 2:23am:

I would love to see any of them prove that I was negligant in my duties in pretest and in test it which I go above and beyond what standards are. Most of my DI's usualy are followed with a taped and or written confession. That is all the proof I need

Just as I would love for the first examiner to prove I was lying.  He couldn't do it because I was not lying.  Can you explain the difference in my two exams or at least your opinion of possibilities?  I did not undergo a post-test for either if that is of any use.

And know I am not trying to set you up just to fire a mortar in your direction.  I am interested in your answer.

ODIN wrote on Dec 8^th, 2005 at 5:47am:

I am sorry but anti polygraph is a liberal point of view. It does fit this conversation. I guess we will need to agree to dissagree there. I have never heard a conservitive say "lets ban an important investigative tool".  Only the most far left wing fringe is trying to pass these laws. With a more conservitive court, it may be a matter of time before Frye will be nothing more than a foot note in a history book. The two types of test ormats that I feel should be used in pre employment is the GQT or the DLCT depending on the examinee and how the pre test goes. Most of the time I use a GQT with desguised controls. I have found this test to be very effective in taking care of General Nervous Tension. There are some examinees that setting controls on have proven difficult at best, in these cases I have used a Directed Lie Format. The examinee is directed and instructed to lie to the question. There is no trickery involved and is a very very fair test. I do a few pre employments a day for 5 days a week. out of this I get only about 2 DI's a week. I sometimes get 3 if someone is caught useing countermesures. In most of these cases they read the Doug Whiliams book. I have a stack of these books at my office that examinees have brought to me after their detection and failure. I don't say this to brag, but to warn others. A fool and his money are soon parted. That book is useless. I am sorry if anyone is offended by the fool comment but if the shoe fits. Anyway Sounds like you had an examiner that didn't spend at least an hour going over your application with you. I am willing to bet he was dominering, rude and made you feel very uneasy. All this acomplishes is a highly upset examinee that not only can't stand their examiner, it also wants to make the examinee want to get the heck out of there. If that ius the case, that was not a fair test. Bet the guy used an R&I and scored it Globaly as well. I do agree that EVERY test should be recored from the pre test to the end. Examiners should use a standard format in criminal cases. I like the ZONE, MGQT, or in some cases the GQT where it is needed. The SPOT should also be utilized when needed. Everything  (I feel) should be scores useing spot analysis and Rank order scoring and only then check the computer to confirm the hand scored charts. Saddly some examiners are lazy and depend on the computer, way to much. I feel no one should ever submit to to a Law Enforcement polygraph. It pains me to say that. I have said this before on this board though, and belive me there has been alot of heat about me saying it from my end of the fence. I must speak the truth, you expect that from me and that is what I will give you. If you take a law enforcement polygraph, you are 9 times out of 10 already accused of something. They have a vested intrest about how that polygraph comes out. I am ashamed to say in MOST cases, NOT ALL, when someone is accused of a crime that person is guilty until proven otherwise. In a day and time where Law Enforcement hides exculpatory (spelling?) evidance just to get that conviction or keep themselves from looking like they made a mistake. There has been cases when officers have planted evidence to make arrests in a few bigg cities. If you get a lawyer like the ones I have worked with that have gotten great results with my polygraphs, Get that lawyer to find out who the examiners that the DA likes are (private examiners). Do this pre Grand Jury. Take a private exam, the examiner  (if he is worth his or her weight in salt) will spend about an houre to an hour and a half prepairing you for the exam. If you pass, ask the examiner what you can expect in the law enforcement exam that you now know you can pass as long as you don't let the law enforcement examiner "get you wound up". If you fail you can explore why you failed. Maybe the controls werent set well. maybe the format was not right for you, the examiner didn't pay atention to your responces in the pre test Maybe there is an outside issue that is simmilar to the crime in your past that you need to get off your cheast. Maybe the examinee is lyeing and tried to "beat the box" and faild in his efforts. ( I run into these types once and a while ) Either one, it doesn't matter anymore. It was a private test and as such is the tree that falls in the woods that no one is there to hear. If you pass you scream it from the highest building in town. As for jobs, there are agencies that don't polygraph. Get a job with them. If you are going Fed then suck it up and know the R&I, and let everything out you can. Leave nothing to chance. If there is something in that persons background, maybe that person is someone I don't want as a Agent/Officer entrusted with my life. Sorry that is how I feel my living set aside. Convicted child molesters have no rights! They should consider themselves lucky to be attached to any insturment to keep their freedome secure. They gave up that freedome when they ruined the lives of their victims. Let them live with the chance that every six months may be their last on the outside for the last time. The same way the victims have to live with their pain that has scared their minds way into adulthood. If you ask me the sex offender still gets off light. I gust don't think it is fair for one adult to condem a child to a lifetime of pain and emotional problems. I have no sympathy for the child molester that polygraphs as a condition of probation. Useing the "fair theam" in that case is a lost fight with me. I feel a polygraph for people that hurt the defenseless would be the least of that persons worries if I had my way. I always hate to hear about guys like you getting shafted by a bad test. I hope you found something else great. You sound like quite the gentleman, and I am glad there are guys like you in hear that are willing to listen to a opposing veiw point. I hope I didn't leave anything out. God bless my new friend.

ODIN,

I think you just about covered everything. I appreciate your kind words in regards to my situation. I do believe in listening to counter points of view--you never know when someone may pose an arguement that you've never considered before, perhaps, swaying a view. Some views will never be swayed, but that's just the way things are, I suppose.

I didn't leave my job after my failed polygraph, which in hindsight, has turned out to be for the better. If I had left my job at that time, I would have no doubt, regretted it.  To answer your questions. My polygraph examiner,  (who was not friendly from the beginning, but atleast civil in the beginning) used the control question format and spent about 40 minutes on my pre-test. I gotta say, he was pretty damn convincing during the pre-test. He had me hook, line and sinker. So much so, that I told the truth in response to every question asked, even though it didn't make me appear very flattering. I only had to purge on two controls--all the others--I guess, about 5 or 6, I could answer truthfully without purging. I had already made up my mind to tell the truth before I went in, but when he threatened the hell out of me I gave up all information without hesitation. I wanted to do well, so I followed  instructions. I completely cleared my conscience and sat down to take the test worry-free. For this, I found myself the focus of an intense hour and a half long interrogation. My examiner was a complete jerk, but looking back, I think the truth is, he just couldn't figure me out to save his life--he got pretty worked up--earned his money that day, if you can call it that. Anyway, I was found INC and DI. No job for me, despite the fact that I was a top applicant, received a conditional job offer and would have brought a skill to the table that's very hard to come by. I had passed all other phases of the employment process, but ONE POLYGRAPH EXAMINER (plus a rubber stamp from Headquarters) had the final say. Like I said, in my case, it turned out for the better--I don't think that job was a very good fit for me. I am lucky enough to get to do the one thing that I always wanted to do. However, what about others who wait their whole lives to achieve their dreams and get so close, only to succumb to a false positive on a pre-employment polygraph? One person should NEVER, EVER have that much unchecked power--that's so wrong. Surely, you must concede this?

From one "gentleman" to another, it seems you are going out of your way to push a few buttons. Does that really seem fair? I mean, think about it. How would you feel, to tell the truth and be falsely branded a liar? You would be incensed just as many on this board are and they are within their full rights. How could we prove that we are  telling the truth? What kind of proof are you looking for exactly? Background checks are not conducted until the applicant passes the poly. Allow me to pose a question. How would you feel as an examiner, if background checks were conducted before the poly and your results compared to the outcomes of the previously conducted investigations? Would you be confident enough in the test and your abilities? Do you think such a process would make examiners a little more careful when arriving at their opinions?

ODIN wrote on Dec 9^th, 2005 at 6:16am:

Me pushing buttons saddly is a last resort. You are the only person that has thus far been truly fair in listening to other points of view.

You really don't get this, do you?

Odin, this is very straightforward.  You're discrediting yourself by:
1) Bringing in irrelevant crap and making insulting political quips (something that you started, by the way),
2) Making claims that you don't back up

Both are obvious to the casual reader.

I have nothing invested in debating the polygraph with a "true believer" polygrapher--the evidence is what it is, and unfortunately, it refutes belief in the polygraph's efficacy.  Nothing you or I say will change that.

The problem is, your comments have been largely ad hominem, which is completely at odds with your claim of having an open mind and wanting to discuss the polygraph in a civil manner.

So no, you're not pushing buttons, unless you count rampant dishonesty (dislike of which I'll readily admit).  You're coming off as someone who can't discuss an issue without making irrelevant, insulting comments or making claims he can't back up, then whining about how everyone else is insulting him when called on it.  And all after you claimed to want a civil, open discussion.

Is that your intent?

ODIN wrote on Dec 9^th, 2005 at 2:18am:

EXELENT POST! I like this guy. Well one state down in proving my statments, a few more to go.

You seem rather selective in your evidence, Odin.  I'll note that Twoblock also mentioned Louisiana, which does polygraph LE and (from the anecdotal evidence, which seems to be all anyone has come up with thus far) has serious corruption problems.

But if you can't prove your claims, just say so.  Others have already demonstrated more honesty by admitting they can't prove whether or not they lied about their polygraph experiences--and frankly, you should have a far easier time of proving your claims, if you can.  By your own standards, it's time for you to "put up or shut up".

How about it, Odin?  Going to come clean?

It's your turn, Odin.

Odin,

 what i find is that you want us to believe you, but when asked any kind of question you get hostile in answering us.  should we just take every thing you say without question?  
 you being an examiner puts most of us on the defensive, we need for you to prove to us that polygraphy works as you tout.  
  the majority of posts here are anti-polygraph as you well know.  the majority of posts come from an eye opening view of how the polygraph have, has, or about to ruin a career, even someone's life.  
 so its really your turn to run with the ball, we just look for proof of what you say, not just a one sided emotional view.  its your floor now.

ODIN,

I must say never have I seen a message thread go from 1 to 5 pages in such a short time. Congrats on setting some kind of record.  I am kinda miffed that you didn't see fit enough to mention me as one who has been more than gracious and fair. But then agian you have been up to your neck in Alligators looking to have you for dinner. Again I did say beware in an earlier message. I have been being civil and reading your posts because you have been up front and honest.

Now lets get down to business.

1. THe polygraph is not voluntary !! either in Law Enforcement or Pre-employment. In law enforcement using your molester model. ANd believe me I have no love of these lowlife bottom feeders. But none the less all are entitled to far treatment under the law. IF he refuses the test, bang,  back to jail, if he is found DI, bang, back to jail, if he is hung with a false positive for what ever reason, its (you guessed it) bang,  back to jail.
This person is left very little room for error. Now if you get him to admit to doing something again, then he is more than welcome to (you guessed it) bang,  back to jail.Hence why this person looks to alternatives to beat the box. BUt if you do get him, feel free to screw him  over as much as possible, Lock him up and throw away the key, staking this scumbag to a red ant mound might be highly entertaining too.

And refuse to take a polygraph in a criminal investigation is like branding yourself, guilty even though your not.

For employment, if you don't take the polygraph, you don't get the job. And the consequences of dealing with a false positive by a Federal or State agency has lifelong consequences. You say your fair, and I will give you the benefit of the doubt. But I have little or no want to gamble with my intergrity and honor at the hands of a polygrapher, that considers him/herself as judge, jury and executioner.  Had too many of my people denied there jobs because of polygraphy. Smart people need to be filling the jobs watching out and defending  this country. And not being reclassified because a polygraph branded them for the rest of there life. Every time we lose a person to a machine that has no scientific basis is truly wrong, all the money, training, and potential benefits are gone. And I hate wasting money.

2. You have said that you have caught countermeasure users, I can understand why with the Doug Williams rag. But how many have you caught with the book from this website ? And interesting number based on your work record. And how do you deal with folks, that are trained in counter interrogation techniques. If you have ever even run into anyone like that. THere are quite a few of us out here by the way.

3. You have your own rules and tests that you follow for each situation. How do you handle those folks that are even above countermeasure training. Who know deep down in there souls that the machine doesn't work without the big three stimulators being used. SUch as a) No Fear or Anxiety b) No buy in to the accuracy of the polygraph  c) no consequences .
With out these three stimulators the box just produces a bunch of lines.  Because I do believe that no matter how you may want to try various stim tests. They simply can't be reached because in their minds they are in control and the polygraph is a non entity.

Psychology works again as a double edged sword.

Regards  

wrote on Dec 8^th, 2005 at 8:46am:

Smokey, Note also that the experience of states such as Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, and Oregon, where law enforcement agencies are prohibited by law from giving lie detector "tests" to applicants, demonstrates that the polygraph is not a necessity.

I agree 110%, but since it appearently serves as a wonderful pre-employment tool for the other states, ploygraph screening should be emplied for every elected official and government worker (especially public school employees).  Quote from TLBTLD: "After all, our national security is at stake"


Quote:

ODIN WROTE:       Lets also note that most of those states, have high rates of police officers abusing their power, alchoholisim, corruption and drug addiction when compaired against some states that do alow it.

I am currently working in the private sector and in my state, most, if not all, LE agencies use some form of "lie detector."  I know a numerous amout of respectable cops who drink like sailors during a hurricane.  As long as it don't interfere with their jobs or behavior on/off duty, who gives a rats ass? Last time I checked, drinking was legal.  

 As for the abuse of power, the only power abusers I see are the polygraphers (not all, but a good many) who are branding honest potential LE officers liars and the background investigators who are too lazy to do REAL investigatory work and want to depend on a BOX to appraise the honesty of applicants..............And after all, who really gives a crap if someone took a hit from a joint 5-10 years ago...............If they want to find out who has done drugs, they can pluck a hair and check it for any drug in the past 7 years.

 As for PO's who are "stoners, " thats the point of Random Drug Testing in the work place.  There are many realistic ways of getting to the truth without use of a pottygraph

 Specify what "Abuse of Power" is.  Is it maliciously activating blue lights to get through a crowded intersection for the purpose of pulling into a 7-11 to get a coke and a can of skoal?  I'VE SEEN THAT, AND MY STATE PLOYGRAPHS!!  
 Is it stopping an attractive law-abiting motorist just to see some titties?  I'VE SEEN THAT OCCUR TOO, AND MY STATE PLOYGRAPHS!!!
 OR, is it when an off-duty officer goes out to a bar, has 20 beers and gets behind the wheel of a car and drives home (or elsewhere) the same day or day before he locks up someone for DWI who has had less than 7 beers, but happens to be a little tipsy???   WOW. THAT HAPPENS IN MY STATE TOO!!!!!....................................AND MY STATE PLOYGRAPHS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

ODIN wrote on Dec 9^th, 2005 at 9:39am:

OK I will say this only one more time and then I am done with you. Politics, does have a part in this converstation, because you want to out law polygraph. I don't know if you know this, but they make the laws. Don't say you want to out law polygraph if you don't want to discuss the personal motivations self serving elected officals that you count on to pass the law. Political quips are only insulting if they are true and you guys make claims that you were telling the truth with no fact to back it up.

Sigh.  Well, I really did try.  The administrator of the site has the final say, after all, as to whether or not what you're posting is relevant to the subject at hand.  To my mind it's clearly not, and it's obvious that you lack the courage to carry on a discussion of the polygraph without straying into side issues and ad hominems.

As for me, well, if I wanted to argue with the "leading lights" of right wing extremism, I'd go to Free Republic.  In fact, it's how I've spent the majority of my time online for the last decade or so.  However, I'll note that:

- Promoting effective security measures, and eschewing wasteful, snake-oil efforts are conservative values
- Promoting individual liberties and opposing an overbearing, intrusive government are conservative values.

These values argue for the elimination of the polygraph.  But then, conservatism ain't what it used to be, so I can understand why you'd not get this.


Quote:

The Drug test thing doesn't fly. It is so much more easy to beat a drug test than a polygraph. I am not saying there is not false positives.

The main difference, of course, is that drug tests actually measure what they're supposed to measure, and are used as such.  Polygraphs don't measure lies, yet they're used that way.


Quote:

One of these days I hope to be experianced enough to take the so called challenge. But how would I be assured that if I do catch countermeasures Gorge won't lie and say "I did not", and golly gee I guess I will just have to take his word for it.

This can easily be controlled-for.  Typical scientific study stuff -- you don't have to "just trust him".


Quote:

On top of that if someone were to take the challenge I would hope that one condition would be if the person gets caught in counter measures, ownership of antipolygraph.org and all rights should be surendered to that examiner and Gorge should offer a press release that he got caught by polygraph and it is valid.

To my mind, that's a bit extreme, given the overall weight of scientific evidence that says the polygraph isn't reliable. However, I would expect the results to be posted here for all to see.  I suppose it's up to Mr. Maschke as to how he would handle that.

Thus far, no polygrapher has had the guts to even try the challenge, despite it being outstanding for more than two years.  I'd guessing you guys have more to lose than Mr. Maschke, and wouldn't be surprised if, upon deciding to take up the challenge, other polygraphers discourage you from doing so.


Quote:

I am discussing an issue you just want to twist words, insult, yell and throw fits because I won't blindly follow, and don't expect you to blindly follow me.

So you say.  Yet, you can't resist the ad hominems, it seems.


Quote:

I have shown I am willing to listen. only you have show your unwillingness of inablity to to keep an open mind.

Saying it doesn't make it so.  Your posts speak eloquently enough as to your approach to this discussion.


Quote:

I wonder is the 3 cops I helped put on the streets today feel I ruined their lives?

Congratulations to them.  I hope they told you the truth, and I hope the ones you haven't passed actually lied.  But I wouldn't bet on either, without outside evidence.

Odin,

  these threads seems to have answered all the things you don't want to tell us.  in the future, know that what sustains a debate are facts, not just feelings.  you've told us you are fair and good and to trust you, but you haven't given us anything to go by.  trust is to be built, not given.

wrote on Dec 9^th, 2005 at 6:38pm:

Odin,   these threads seems to have answered all the things you don't want to tell us.  in the future, know that what sustains a debate are facts, not just feelings.  you've told us you are fair and good and to trust you, but you haven't given us anything to go by.  trust is to be built, not given.

GD,
Well put.  I'll readily admit that all my contact with polygraphers (both on this board and off) has greatly colored my views of them as a whole.  I think I could count the number of known-honest (and not proven dishonest) ones on one hand and without using four of five fingers.

Rather, the vast majority of the time they seem to have absolutely no problem with bald-faced lies.  It almost seems a preferred method for dealing with others.

The entire polygraph profession is built on the idea of "just trusting" polygraphers, from the polygraph session itself to whether or not polygraphs work in general and should be used.  And so far, what I've seen has solidly convinced me that such trust, to say the least, isn't warranted.

Perhaps, instead of challenging others to "prove" their honesty, Odin should consider how he can do the same.  Considering his colleagues, he's starting from a bit of a deficit.

Skeptic wrote:

Quote:

Thus far, no polygrapher has had the guts to even try the challenge, despite it being outstanding for more than two years.  I'd guessing you guys have more to lose than Mr. Maschke, and wouldn't be surprised if, upon deciding to take up the challenge, other polygraphers discourage you from doing so.

I agree. Moreover, if the challenge is done with just any polygrapher, and he goes down in flames, the polygraph community will surely attempt to hang its hat on the weak “examiner inexperience” argument.

For this reason, Drew was very careful in the structure of his challenge. Please note the second to last sentence:

Quote:

I would suggest that the polygraph examiners participating come from the ranks of federal polygraph instructors or operators, leading civilian polygraphers or any other group whose credentials and experience would be deemed impeccable in polygraph circles.

Quote:

All the psychological experts I see being quoted in the reading room, have never even run a test. They know nothing of polygraph other than what they get from a book.

John Furedy has never conducted a test? Drew Richardson has never conducted a test? David Lykken has never conducted a test? There may be places that you can structure your arguments upon made-up facts. This is not one of them.

You admit that you need to get more experience before taking the challenge—I’d say that it’s safe from that to say that all three of these esteemed individuals have each conducted more polygraph “tests” than you have.


Quote:

There are many points that I have made that have gone unreplied to because you focus on only what you can attack, rather than a good point.

If anyone is guilty of this behavior, it is you. For example, you were called out numerous times to support the statement that you made that cops in states that polygraph are less corrupt than those in states that do not.

Numerous posters asked you to back that up with some facts. We’re still waiting.

ODIN wrote on Dec 10^th, 2005 at 12:46am:

You give yourself away. You calling me a lier is like the pot calling the kettel black. I have been trying to prove my honesty and integraty. However at every turn I am attacked and forced to defend myself. I don't respond emotionaly to "yea, how does it feel", because you made me care less that you were branded a lier. I am willing to bet you did lie and are just made because you got caught. The only lier between the two of us is you. I pass all my polygraphs and I had to take two before I even went to the school. You failed yours, and your bitter. You let these emotions bleed over, had project your hostility onto others you don't even know as a result. "The entire polygraph profession is built on the idea of "just trusting" polygraphers, from the polygraph session itself to whether or not polygraphs work in general and should be used.  And so far, what I've seen has solidly convinced me that such trust, to say the least, isn't warranted. Perhaps, instead of challenging others to "prove" their honesty, Odin should consider how he can do the same.  Considering his colleagues, he's starting from a bit of a deficit" This has made it clear to me that I am waisting my time here. Anything I say no matter how well researched or right will ever be thought about. There are many points that I have made that have gone unreplied to because you focus on only what you can attack, rather than a good point. I haven't seen a response from Gorge either, I am willing to bet if an examiner steps up to his so called challenge he would never risk his crusade. If you all are so very conifident that what you use works the step up to the first examiner that steps up and offer up antipolygraph.org and all the rights up as a prize. I am willing to be someone will. After my reseach in counter measures is done and I have more experaince, I will step up. Only to stop this jibber jabber. Don't tell me the results will be posted on the sight, because they either won't be posted or will be posted with coments about it being "invalid Voo Doo" any way. I know when I am ready and step up. I will put My license on the table and Gorge should put everything on the table, then we will see who comes up with a royal flush. In the mean time I see that I'm waisting energy here. I will reply to a few mesages that I haven't gotten around to and after that you won't hear from me untill I am ready to call your guru out on the carpet. I will delete my profile and watch these boards to learn. To the Gentlemen on this board I hold no ill will and it has been a pleasure. I won't have my words or intentions manipulated by people how have become below me. To the others, I won't be responding to any fits of rage about this post. It is not worth my time. Your next posts are going to be telling. I know you will say 'see we made him run away, he is just another one of them" I am not running away, I am walking away from a conversation from the deaf, blind and dumb that has yeilded and aparently will yeild nothing. The old addage is true. It takes more a man to walk away from a fight. In the end there is only the truth, and the truth will set you free. The gauntlet has been thrown down. It will be intresting to see the back stepping. Put antipolygraph.org and the rights up. Put up or shut up. peace out

As I have said in the past.  The polygraph is a good interrogation "tool" in criminal specific settings.  However, it is my belief that is has no place in an employment setting.  The type of test is too broad based leaving the very real possiblity for the examinee to continue to think on a particular subject while answering completely unrelated questions thusly "tweeking" the needles.  Do I believe the polygraph works as proposed?  Yes, but only for those examinees who believe it does and subsequently provide an admission or confirmation deceit.  I do not believe polygraphs work for even slightly informed examinees.  Do I believe in countermeasures?  Not for myself, especially without the ability to attempt them while "hooked-up" and working with a polygraph examiner. Do I think polygraph has a place in monitoring of convicted sex offenders?  No, it is my opinion that there is no need for such if laws were in place which dealt fair justice to such persons (life, no parole).

In all honesty I am not sure quite what to make of your motivations in posting.  The first posts seem genuine to find out what it is that makes the anti-polgraph community tick in an attempt to better your methods for administering exams.  The later posts appear as though you decided to take your ball and go home when your writings were not readily agreed with and taken at face value.  I will give you this, you held back for quite a while on some of the less than polite and extremely inappropriate replies.  I too wish some of those rants could be ignored and I understand your frustration.  However, you must acknowledge that a great many of the posts in your direction were civil even though they were not in agreement with your position.  I hope you will come back despite some of the more rantful posters.

regards

ODIN wrote on Dec 10^th, 2005 at 12:46am:

You give yourself away. You calling me a lier is like the pot calling the kettel black.

I haven't called you, in particular, a liar, and you have no evidence, nor even any reason to suspect, that I've lied to you or anyone on this board.

I did say I felt you weren't being honest, however, when you said you were here with an open mind, then proceeded to attack those around your for disagreeing with you and make irrelevant, insulting comments.  I also noted that in my experience, polygraphers don't tend to be honest.

If you're going to quote me, at least quote me accurately.


Quote:

I have been trying to prove my honesty and integraty. However at every turn I am attacked and forced to defend myself. I don't respond emotionaly to "yea, how does it feel", because you made me care less that you were branded a lier. I am willing to bet you did lie and are just made because you got caught.

I also haven't made any claims to you regarding my polygraph experiences, and am very willing to bet (based upon your statements) that you haven't bothered to go back and read what I've written about them in prior posts.


Quote:

The only lier between the two of us is you. I pass all my polygraphs and I had to take two before I even went to the school. You failed yours, and your bitter.

So now you're inventing stuff about me out of whole cloth (now I allegedly failed a polygraph, according to you) and yet you say I'm a liar?

I've never claimed, to you or anyone else, that I've ever "failed" a polygraph.


Quote:

You let these emotions bleed over, had project your hostility onto others you don't even know as a result.

I have a personal dislike of polygraphers thanks to my experiences with them.  My main sentiment, though, is that I dislike illogic and dishonesty, and that's basically all I've seen from polygraphers--with a very few notable exceptions.


Quote:

This has made it clear to me that I am waisting my time here. Anything I say no matter how well researched or right will ever be thought about.

You've said this several times, and yet you keep posting.  Are you waiting for people to beg you to stay?

Here's an idea: quit attacking others, quit reacting to disagreement like you've been insulted, and debate people honestly.

Thought this might go nicely with the conversation concerning polygraph use in the employment selection process for law enforcement.  

A Virginia state trooper on the job for a little over two months is locked up in a Newport News jail, accused of having sex with two fourteen-year old girls. 25 year-old Juan Carlos Zaragoza was arrested at his home yesterday morning in Fredericksburg. He's charged with three felony counts of illegal carnal knowledge with a fourteen-year old. The alleged incidents occurred before he joined the agency. Zaragoza graduated from the state police basic training session in October and was in the final phases of on  the job training while assigned to the department's Fredericksburg office. He faces up to thirty years in prison if convicted of the charges. Zaragoza has been suspended from his job without pay until the cases are resolved.

The full story can be found on dailypress.com, click on  "News" and then "Peninsula."        

***It's important to note that all Virginia state trooper candidates must submit to a polygraph test BEFORE moving on to the background investigation phase in the hiring process.

Skeptic wrote on Dec 10^th, 2005 at 3:27am:

I haven't called you, in particular, a liar, and you have no evidence, nor even any reason to suspect, that I've lied to you or anyone on this board. I did say I felt you weren't being honest, however, when you said you were here with an open mind, then proceeded to attack those around your for disagreeing with you.  I also noted that in my experience, polygraphers don't tend to be honest. If you're going to quote me, at least quote me accurately. I also haven't made any claims to you regarding my polygraph experiences, and am very willing to bet (based upon your statements) that you haven't bothered to go back and read what I've written about them in prior posts. So now you're inventing stuff about me out of whole cloth (now I allegedly failed a polygraph, according to you) and yet you say I'm a liar? I've never claimed, to you or anyone else, that I've ever "failed" a polygraph. I have a personal dislike of polygraphers thanks to my experiences with them.  My main sentiment, though, is that I dislike illogic and dishonesty, and that's basically all I've seen from polygraphers--with a very few notable exceptions. You've said this several times, and yet you keep posting.  Are you waiting for people to beg you to stay? Here's an idea: quit attacking others, quit reacting to disagreement like you've been insulted, and debate people honestly.

You have no intent to debate honestly yourself. I can only think of two persons who have taken an honest debate.

Your dislike is more like hate my little friend, and no I can care less now if people want me to stay or go.

I can't believe that most of you wouldn't even advocate polygraphing child molesters (with a few exceptions).
That made me sick. That is also when I relized there is no logic amoung the ones who defending the rights of people that attack children.

I am willing to bet you would not feel that way if some one the diddled your children was going on probation.

By the way, the convicted sex offender does have the choice when he sings the probation terms agreement at conviction.

Polygraph
Sex Offender Treatment
Register
Stay away from all children

or

Go to Prison

see there are two options. what do you call two options?

AH a choice.

Pre employment

take the poly and phych

or

get a job some where else

or find another vocation.

wow three choices


persons charged with a crime

take the test with a police examiner (bad idea to do first)

Take the test with a private examiner (good idea)

take a test with both private examiner / police examiner in that order. (Exelent Idea if you pass the first test, and may very well save your hide)

Fight the case based on the facts. The Cops and the DA will make sure to have the cards stacked against you there.

wow
1
2
3
4
choices AH AH AH

Bottom line some have said there is no chioce in taking a polygraph.

I have laid out the choices. Debate that one has no choices. I will enjoy your response

OK you never failed a poly, so you say, something I'll just have to take you on your word I guess, as your word is all I have. So take your "dislike" and stop projecting it on me.

You are one of the people in here that set me on a war path, and I bet that is what you wanted all along.

You say debate fair, OK tell me what you think is fair debate so I can play by your rules that you live by.

Better yet don't, you'll only change them once I make a point you will have to agree with.

I don't see anyone step up to the plate with the chalenge for antipolygraph.org and its rights.

guess the counter mesures don't work good emough to risk it all.

I see alot of excuses and double talk. I see alot of stone walling, I see alot of misdirection.

I have intended on responding to each well intended question, and have responded some. Others I can't get to because i am forced to respond to verbal masterbation like yours. (take it how you want)

I am amazed how one sided everything is in here.

I have answered questions.

I have even agreed to a few of your views.

I have been Far more open minded then most in here. I have been warned when I came in here that it was going to be like this, both in public forum and private message by someone I know.

I was hoping these warnings would be wrong, they weren't. OK, well now I am responding to what I am given. Clearly you can't handle it, because I bet no one ever told some of you that you were as closed minded as I did and prove it.

Go/stay, I can do either or. The only begging I will hear some day is "Please don't take my web site". Because it is my mission now to not only make polygraph commonly admissable, but to take that chalenge and take this web site. If I don't I will give up my license and by then I will be bigger than Backster or Reid. That is my Goal.

polyfool wrote on Dec 10^th, 2005 at 4:04am:

Thought this might go nicely with the conversation concerning polygraph use in the employment selection process for law enforcement.   A Virginia state trooper on the job for a little over two months is locked up in a Newport News jail, accused of having sex with two fourteen-year old girls. 25 year-old Juan Carlos Zaragoza was arrested at his home yesterday morning in Fredericksburg. He's charged with three felony counts of illegal carnal knowledge with a fourteen-year old. The alleged incidents occurred before he joined the agency. Zaragoza graduated from the state police basic training session in October and was in the final phases of on  the job training while assigned to the department's Fredericksburg office. He faces up to thirty years in prison if convicted of the charges. Zaragoza has been suspended from his job without pay until the cases are resolved. The full story can be found on dailypress.com, click on  "News" and then "Peninsula."         ***It's important to note that all Virginia state trooper candidates must submit to a polygraph test BEFORE moving on to the background investigation phase in the hiring process.

I would like to see the applicant packet, chart and video of the polygraph before I make judgement. I want to see all the FACTS before I judge. Something went wrong somewhere or he didn't do it. There is no way something like that would have gotten past me.

ODIN wrote on Dec 10^th, 2005 at 4:30am:

I would like to see the applicant packet, chart and video of the polygraph before I make judgement. I want to see all the FACTS before I judge. Something went wrong somewhere or he didn't do it. There is no way something like that would have gotten past me.

LOL.  Good luck to you, Odin.  

Skeptic wrote on Dec 9^th, 2005 at 7:16am:

You seem rather selective in your evidence, Odin.  I'll note that Twoblock also mentioned Louisiana, which does polygraph LE and (from the anecdotal evidence, which seems to be all anyone has come up with thus far) has serious corruption problems. But if you can't prove your claims, just say so.  Others have already demonstrated more honesty by admitting they can't prove whether or not they lied about their polygraph experiences--and frankly, you should have a far easier time of proving your claims, if you can.  By your own standards, it's time for you to "put up or shut up". How about it, Odin?  Going to come clean?

If I remember correctly the New Orleains PD has internal examiners. Cops stick together A polygraph that is never seen is like a tree that falls in the woods when noe one is there.

If you can't beat the box, you might be able to beat the examiner. more so if the examiner is one of your "own". Cops polygraphing cops is always a bad idea, and should never be done.

It is a good ole boys network over there. If you know someone you're in.

Anyway, congratulations to SoontobeLE and others who have "passed" the polygraph, either through luck or by the proper use of polygraph countermeasures.  It's clear that countermeasures do work, and it's clear from the longstanding "countermeasure challenge" that polygraphers don't have the means to detect them, all bluffing notwithstanding.

The polygraph doesn't work.  It's fool's gold, and it's foolish to trust your fortune to such snake oil.  Countermeasures are a viable way to ensure that this device, which is really only good at measuring a few bodily characteristics, isn't used to disqualify people who shouldn't be disqualified.

It's time that this political crutch be dropped, and that agencies either do their jobs correctly or admit they need more resources to do so.

mustbaliar wrote on Dec 10^th, 2005 at 4:33am:

LOL.  Good luck to you, Odin.

will need it in this pit of vipers

Skeptic wrote on Dec 10^th, 2005 at 4:38am:

Anyway, congratulations to SoontobeLE and others who have "passed" the polygraph, either through luck or by the proper use of polygraph countermeasures.  It's clear that countermeasures do work, and it's clear from the longstanding "countermeasure challenge" that polygraphers don't have the means to detect them, all bluffing notwithstanding. The polygraph doesn't work.  It's fool's gold, and it's foolish to trust your fortune to such snake oil.  Countermeasures are a viable way to ensure that this device, which is really only good at measuring a few bodily characteristics, isn't used to disqualify people who shouldn't be disqualified. It's time that this political crutch be dropped, and that agencies either do their jobs correctly or admit they need more resources to do so.

people using countermeasures, in most cases have something to hide. Hiding the truth is lyeing.

If so confident the put up. speak up for the REAL challenge.

We have something to lose is we fail, so you say. The only thing you guys are willing to do it "post it on the sight"? Yea next to a weak excuse.

Put something on the table. If your minions fail there should be a price and that price should be antipolygraph.org and it's rights to be given up to the winning examiner.

[glb]It's clear that countermeasures do work, and it's clear from the longstanding "countermeasure challenge" that polygraphers don't have the means to detect them, all bluffing notwithstanding.

The polygraph doesn't work.  It's fool's gold, and it's foolish to trust your fortune to such snake oil.  Countermeasures are a viable way to ensure that this device, which is really only good at measuring a few bodily characteristics, isn't used to disqualify people who shouldn't be disqualified.[/glb]

wow talk about side steping. You must be good at dancing.

I can tell you no examiner will ever step up so long as you have nothing to lose other than a little pride. Put it on the table, otherwise all this shuffleing will make people wonder if you are all somke and mirrors yourself.

lol I see some sweating, and it's not mine

ODIN wrote on Dec 10^th, 2005 at 4:30am:

I would like to see the applicant packet, chart and video of the polygraph before I make judgement. I want to see all the FACTS before I judge. Something went wrong somewhere or he didn't do it. There is no way something like that would have gotten past me.

ODIN,

Get real--don't you think the Newport News Police Department would be smart enough to have the goods on this guy before charging him? Give me a break--he's a state trooper--you know they crossed their "t"'s and dotted their "i"'s.

With all due respect, ODIN--I'm sure you're not the first examiner to claim someone like this wouldn't get past them. Have you seen him? He doesn't look like a pedophile--very clean-cut, but you never can tell with these types. Not that examiners could ever be accused of being biased.  ;)

Your beloved polygraph failed to weed out this alleged pedophile.

polyfool wrote on Dec 10^th, 2005 at 5:06am:

ODIN, Get real--don't you think the Newport News Police Department would be smart enough to have the goods on this guy before charging him? Give me a break--he's a state trooper--you know they crossed their "t"'s and dotted their "i"'s. With all due respect, ODIN--I'm sure you're not the first examiner to claim someone like this wouldn't get past them. Have you seen him? He doesn't look like a pedophile--very clean-cut, but you never can tell with these types. Not that examiners could ever be accused of being biased.  ;) Your beloved polygraph failed to weed out this alleged pedophile.

Yet again no one listened.

If you can't beat the polygraph then beat the examiner, that is what alderich Aims did from what I understand fome my class notes from school.

I am also aware that child molesters look like my friend. I deal with them every day. If you can't say the same I don't think you have a leg to stand on by trying to educate me on what they look like . No offense.

I have seen lots of cops get the shaft just because the right person pointed the finger, and once it gets to the press it becomes a witch hunt. Once the press brands you as guilty you are guilty.

Unless you are OJ, MJ, Blake, or some other drug taking, drunk, nut job celeb.

By the way it is the buzz in the comunity that OJ went DI. guess he really didn't do it.

Just because you are clean cut does not mean I won't do my job. all the execs at enron were clean cut, but they were still theives that should be tared featherd and shot.

Point is, It's the clean cut ones I am more suspecting of.

ODIN wrote on Dec 10^th, 2005 at 4:51am:

people using countermeasures, in most cases have something to hide. Hiding the truth is lyeing.

More unsupported claims.  It's virtually your hallmark, Odin.  Back them up, or withdraw them.  Others have already done so, when you made up the excuse that you wouldn't until everyone else did so.

Have you considered the possibility that people might use countermeasures because the polygraph is known to be a poor instrument for detecting truthfulness?  Have you even considered the possibility?


Quote:

If so confident the put up. speak up for the REAL challenge. We have something to lose is we fail, so you say. The only thing you guys are willing to do it "post it on the sight"? Yea next to a weak excuse. Put something on the table. If your minions fail there should be a price and that price should be antipolygraph.org and it's rights to be given up to the winning examiner.

That, of course, is up to the site's proprietors.  But for the record, IMHO you're being ridiculous.  As the challenge stands, the winner gets PR and bragging rights.  Moreover, there's no reason to suppose anyone will be more "honest" about the results of the challenge if the Antipolygraph.org web site is on the line than if it isn't.  So what's really going on here?

Are you simply trying to bluster your way out tough questions as to why you won't take up the challenge to prove your claims?


Quote:

wow talk about side steping. You must be good at dancing. I can tell you no examiner will ever step up so long as you have nothing to lose other than a little pride.

Oh, come on.  Let's make it really interesting.  Why not play for houses?

Look, you and other polygraphers have made the claim that you can detect countermeasures.  Now you are furiously backpedalling, saying the only way you'll back up your claims is if others risk far more than you're willing to do.

You know what?  I think you're playing games and spinning excuses.

You say you've caught people using countermeasures.  We're asking you to prove it.  I doubt you will, since you've thus far made lots of claims and haven't backed them up.  So you know what?  From now on, as long as you post here I will remind you and others of the claims you've made and haven't backed up.

Thus far, we have (among others):

1) Claims that states without the polygraph for LE jobs tend to have higher corruption in LE
2) Claims that those who use countermeasures have something to hide
3) Claims that you can detect countermeasures.

These are claims you've made, and it's incumbent upon you (that means it's your obligation) to back them up or withdraw them.

Show you have the intellectual integrity, courage and honesty to make good on your claims or withdraw them.  I will hound you about it until you do.

ODIN wrote on Dec 10^th, 2005 at 5:20am:

Yet again no one listened. If you can't beat the polygraph then beat the examiner, that is what alderich Aims did from what I understand fome my class notes from school. I am also aware that child molesters look like my friend. I deal with them every day. If you can't say the same I don't think you have a leg to stand on by trying to educate me on what they look like . No offense. I have seen lots of cops get the shaft just because the right person pointed the finger, and once it gets to the press it becomes a witch hunt. Once the press brands you as guilty you are guilty. Unless you are OJ, MJ, Blake, or some other drug taking, drunk, nut job celeb. By the way it is the buzz in the comunity that OJ went DI. guess he really didn't do it. Just because you are clean cut does not mean I won't do my job. all the execs at enron were clean cut, but they were still theives that should be tared featherd and shot. Point is, It's the clean cut ones I am more suspecting of.

ODIN,

So, it's the clean-cut ones you're more suspecting of? Maybe that was my problem--perhaps, I was too clean-cut. I wish someone would have told me looking a little shady would have helped with the examiner. Darn.  ;)

So, you admit that you bring bias to the table as an examiner by being more suspecting of the clean-cut examinees. Great--you helped prove my point that examiner bias exists. Bias comes in many forms--perhaps, you're biased against the clean-cut ones because they're better looking than you and you're just jealous? Like I said, bias comes in all shapes and sizes--it's not just about stereotypes.  

Though, I don't deal with child molesters everyday, it's fair to say I've had some dealings with them. I know what it's like to have your skin crawl while listening to the sick words uttered by a man admitting to raping his eight year old daughter. The point of my post was not to educate you on what child molesters look like--like I said, "hard to tell with those types, " though from your  posts, looks like you could use some additional education. No offense.   ;)

Face it--the polygraph didn't do what it was supposed to do--weed out a criminal from the law enforcement selection process.

Nice swipe at the press. I'm sure the media is your best friend, when it helps you spread false information regarding the polygraph's validity.

ODIN,
Please say this isn't the end of our beautiful friendship.   :'(

polyfool wrote on Dec 10^th, 2005 at 6:33am:

Though, I don't deal with child molesters everyday, it's fair to say I've had some dealings with them. I know what it's like to have your skin crawl while listening to the sick words uttered by a man admitting to raping his eight year old daughter. The point of my post was not to educate you on what child molesters look like--like I said, "hard to tell with those types, " though from your  posts, looks like you could use some additional education. No offense.

My problem with the polygraph and bona-fide, convicted child molesters is that it gives them a loophole.  It gives them a way out, countermeasures or no countermeasures.  The polygraph simply doesn't work, and it's foolish to rely upon it to tell you whether the molester is re-offending.

Why would anyone want to give molesters an easy way to "demonstrate" their innocence, when the process doesn't work?

Odin said "Point is, It's the clean cut ones I am more suspecting of. "

Bias = prejudice  

 is this really what an examiner should bring to his table?   seems like anyone sitting at your table might have already lost.

 Odin, seems like everytime you answer, you paint yourself into a little corner, and when you are in the corner, you scream and scream.  
 Answer with facts, not emotion.  Facts have integrity.

Quote:

Polyfool wrote: Your beloved polygraph failed to weed out this alleged pedophile.

An unfortunate thing that occurs (This is from what I've been told from som LE folks) is that when some pedifiles, particularly child molestors, take the poly, the fact that they are careless enough to commit the crimes they commit may also contribute to the fact that their vital signs will not react enough to the poly to get a "DI."  For example, I talked to an officer who works with the Georgia police department where John Couey, the man charged with molesting and Killing a 9 Year-Old girl in Florida earlier this year, was arrested and he said that Couey acted as if it was no big deal as he was being arrested.
    Thats the problem with false negatives on ploygraphs is that you may get someone who's mind is truely warped and they may "beat" the machine while lying through their teeth while employing no countermeasures whatsoever.  I am aware that this convicted sex offender did undergo a ploygraph, but from the news reports I've heard, after the poly, they asked him something to the effect of did he commit the crime and he stated something to the effect of "I thing you know the answer."  I believe this man deserved to be executed in a slow and painful manner if he did commit this crime, but the issue at hand here is that the ploygraph simply is not sufficient.  

ODIN,

Your position is clearly noted.  You would have polygraphy instituted into the mainstream with reckless regard to consequences resulting from incorrect examiner opinion.  Perhaps we should also institute a  state of socialism.  With you I respectfully disagree.  You have posted here with nothing but ill-will and ulterior motive.  I have noted your continual misspelling of George as Gorge, which is at minimum insulting and most likely derogatory in nature (one or two mistakes are understandable, every post with mention of George's name is unacceptable).  I wish you well in your endeavor to continue to demoralize and demolish dreams.  It is examiner's like you that have become destroyers of career paths that are well deserved.  Keep your faith in polygraphy and do not weep when that faith is turned to vapor.  I have invited you more than once to contribute constructively, however you continue to post with malice.  Good day sir, if you no longer participate it will be appreciated.

Skeptic wrote on Dec 10^th, 2005 at 6:53am:

My problem with the polygraph and bona-fide, convicted child molesters is that it gives them a loophole.  It gives them a way out, countermeasures or no countermeasures.  The polygraph simply doesn't work, and it's foolish to rely upon it to tell you whether the molester is re-offending. Why would anyone want to give molesters an easy way to "demonstrate" their innocence, when the process doesn't work?

Skeptic,

You make an excellent point here. It's also important to note that the polygraph is dangerous in allowing child molesters to walk away from their crimes in the very beginning by throwing investigators off their trails. I personally know of one such child molester who was guilty as hell and passed his polygraph. The mother, who was forced to take a poly, initially had problems with hers, but the examiner gave her the benefit of the doubt, talked with her and re-started the test and she passed. This child molester never paid for his crimes. Very sad.

Odin wrote "If I don't I will give up my license and by then I will be bigger than Backster or Reid. That is my Goal. "

  why would you give up your license?  have we in anyway swayed your belief in the inaccuracy of the polygraph?  if your goal is to become bigger than Backster or Reid, that may be a lofty goal in the Polygraph examiner's world.

http://www.michbar.org/journal/article.cfm?articleID=501&volumeID=37

some bed time reading boys. talk you every onr soon.

ODIN wrote on Dec 11^th, 2005 at 1:06am:

http://www.michbar.org/journal/article.cfm?articleID=501&volumeID=37 some bed time reading boys. talk you every onr soon.

Odin,
These are some of the claims you've made without evidence to back them up:

1) Claims that states without the polygraph for LE jobs tend to have higher corruption in LE
2) Claims that those who use countermeasures have something to hide
3) Claims that you can detect countermeasures.

Please back up these statements, or retract them.

Odin,

 the link to your article touts " In 1997, the American Polygraph Association(www.polygraph.org) published a compendium of research studies on the validity and reliability of polygraph examinations conducted since 1980. Ansley, summarizing its content regarding field examinations (real tests, not simulations), wrote the following:

Researchers conducted 12 studies of validity following 3,174 field examinations, producing an average accuracy of 98 percent. Researchers conducted 11 studies involving the reliability ,f independent analyses (one examiner reviewing another’s charts) of 1,609 sets of charts from field examinations confirmed by independent evidence, producing an accuracy of 92 percent.


James Bassett has been a polygraph examiner in private practice since 1972. He is a full member of the American Polygraph Examination and maintains an office in downtown Cincinnati. He can be reached at (513) 421-9604 or on the web at www.theftstopper.com  

   funny thing is, it is written by a polygraph examiner!   can you get anymore self serving?

 

http://users.rcn.com/jonmarin/Polygraph1.htm

You keep posting that, that is good. I am doing further reaseach on everything.

I will be distracted by you no further.

Translated

I am done with you, although I will answer each issue. I will find it amusing of your response.

As far as me proving I have caught countermeasures in the past, that would expose my identity thus puting my job at risk.

No thank you.

I will hide behind the same vail that some of you do.

Or am I not worthy of that same right?

Your further responses will go unread. Thank you for your time.

Have a nice day

"Sir" :-/

Oh yea.

How it the "law suit" going with the FBI?

Funny how I can't find it on file at the court.

Odin,


  Please continue with your links.  They are much more informative than the conjectures and speculations that you post.  Those textbooks that you get your articles from are very one-sided.  Well, of course that they would be, all written by polygraph examiners.  

  Thank you in advance for future links.

ODIN wrote on Dec 11^th, 2005 at 2:38am:

http://users.rcn.com/jonmarin/Polygraph1.htm You keep posting that, that is good. I am doing further reaseach on everything. I will be distracted by you no further. Translated I am done with you, although I will answer each issue. I will find it amusing of your response.

And I will find it surprising if you actually address them, since all you continue to do is avoid backing up your claims.

1) Claims that states without the polygraph for Law Enforcement jobs tend to have higher corruption in Law Enforcement
2) Claims that those who use countermeasures have something to hide
3) Claims that you can detect countermeasures.

Please back up these statements, or retract them.


Quote:

As far as me proving I have caught countermeasures in the past, that would expose my identity thus puting my job at risk. No thank you.

I suppose you think we haven't heard such excuses before.

Polygraphers claiming they can detect countermeasures, then making excuses as to why they won't prove their claims, are a dime a dozen around here, bud.

Either prove your claims or retract them.


Quote:

I will hide behind the same vail that some of you do. Or am I not worthy of that same right?

Since the others who "hide behind a veil" of secrecy have already admitted they can't prove their claims, it seems to me you're claiming special priviledges here.

Proving your claims as regards countermeasures would be easy: take up the Polygraph Countermeasure Challenge.  It's structured and scientific in its approach, and you should have no good reason not to do so.  Otherwise, retract your claims.


Quote:

Your further responses will go unread. Thank you for your time.

No problem.  My responses are directed mainly at our esteemed readers, who I will continue to remind that you have made claims that you won't (and evidently can't) back up, and won't retract.

Polygraphers continue to be their own worst enemies.

wrote on Dec 11^th, 2005 at 2:34am:

Odin,  the link to your article touts " In 1997, the American Polygraph Association(www.polygraph.org) published a compendium of research studies on the validity and reliability of polygraph examinations conducted since 1980. Ansley, summarizing its content regarding field examinations (real tests, not simulations), wrote the following: Researchers conducted 12 studies of validity following 3,174 field examinations, producing an average accuracy of 98 percent. Researchers conducted 11 studies involving the reliability ,f independent analyses (one examiner reviewing another’s charts) of 1,609 sets of charts from field examinations confirmed by independent evidence, producing an accuracy of 92 percent. James Bassett has been a polygraph examiner in private practice since 1972. He is a full member of the American Polygraph Examination and maintains an office in downtown Cincinnati. He can be reached at (513) 421-9604 or on the web at www.theftstopper.com      funny thing is, it is written by a polygraph examiner!   can you get anymore self serving?

I'll simply note that the APA's findings (which, as you note, have a vested interest in promoting the polygraph) are at odds with those of the National Academy of Sciences.

To all the anti-polygraph distinguished posters:

It appears our polygrapher ODIN, by estimation and analysis must be a young and newly annointed polygrapher. Long on breath, questionable  on patience, and short of fact.  His exuberance and ranting to any challenge gives him away, Myself having asked many questions and gotten nothing back in return.  His links are to other polygraphers references and inputs, who by definition have a vested interest in perpetuating the lie that is the polygraph.

ODIN

Your more than welcome to keep posting but I truly suggest that if you wish to be listened to, that you start by posting facts. Otherwise if you haven't noticed the principles of this website are ignoring you. I intend to do the same.

Good luck in your hunt to catch countermeasures, For you will only get them if you are lucky, Exceptionally lucky.

Regards

Odin,

  why do you come on this discussion board just to throw one-sided views to us, expecting for us to believe everything you say?  are you from the APA just to goad us?  you come on, say something, we ask for proof, then POOF!  you're gone!  
  you've gone as far as researching textbooks on polygraph (albeit one-sided) telling us how it can be used by lawyers, courts etc.  why don't you show us in your books what the polygraph does to law-abiding citizens seeking employment all the while telling the truth , then found DI at the hands of most examiners?  does your books show that side of the equation?  or does it only aggrandize the polygraph examiner and his machine?  
 we are still awaiting your response to the amazing ways that you can catch people in using CM controls.

wrote on Dec 11^th, 2005 at 10:52am:

Odin,   why do you come on this discussion board just to throw one-sided views to us, expecting for us to believe everything you say?  are you from the APA just to goad us?  you come on, say something, we ask for proof, then POOF!  you're gone!     you've gone as far as researching textbooks on polygraph (albeit one-sided) telling us how it can be used by lawyers, courts etc.  why don't you show us in your books what the polygraph does to law-abiding citizens seeking employment all the while telling the truth , then found DI at the hands of most examiners?  does your books show that side of the equation?  or does it only aggrandize the polygraph examiner and his machine?    we are still awaiting your response to the amazing ways that you can catch people in using CM controls.

Your "facts" are very one sided as well, and very bias.

I have been far to busy responding to cowardly attacks and insults of children. I can back up these claims of personal attacks, even upon my apperance.

I am not in the mood for this right now people.


Before I leave to handle a family situation I will leave you with this.

Most of the boneheads that read your book don't know that sometimes the box is still running after the test is over. Then the breathing rate changes dramaticly from 13 cpm to 19 cpm in amp and rate, breathing countermeasures are clearly being performed.

The Book is good so long as the readers have an insturment to perfect their new found knowladge.

That is all you will get as far as how I get those performing countermeasures. there are other ways, but that is all you will get.

Your studies are just as one sided. You show me a study that says one thing, and I will show you a study that says another. I have found that studies mean nothing. ON BOTH SIDES.

Enough for a while, right now I just want to get through this very hard time in my life. I am not running and will answer every question, as if it will matter because anything I come up with will be "one sided" and thus not good enough.

That is clearly how you avoid debate. That is clear.

I never attacked one of you personally, but clearly skeptic didn't get hugged enough as a child, or maybe got hugged too much. Yes that was an attack.

I am very upset right now and am in more pain than any of you know.

I think every one of us need to grow up and learn how to "talk" to eachother rather than sling insults. I should have ignored the insults and stuck with the research I have access to, but that would have done no good because it would have been deemed one sided.

No specifics to those one sided studies studies have been addressed, because you can't prove them wrong without referring to your one sided studies, then I respond with my one sided studies and it becomes a never ending fight.

I don't have it in me after last night for a fight like that.

Now if no one minds, I need to take care of an important family matter that is in need of my undivided attention. I do hope that is not one sided of me. Any further insults would just be classless right now. I hope you guys are bigger than that, but I won't expect it.

It will tell me what kind of people you are.

Now excuse me I have a plane to catch.

Odin said "Most of the boneheads that read your book don't know that sometimes the box is still running after the test is over. Then the breathing rate changes dramaticly from 13 cpm to 19 cpm in amp and rate, breathing countermeasures are clearly being performed.  "


  so is the test really over?  is it being deceptive to tell the applicant that the test is over and you still go on to measure the breathing rates?  could it be that the breathing level changes due to the fact that anxiety and nervousness is less noticeable because of the finality of the test?
   "boneheads"  name calling may be childish too.

Gelb,

I agree. One would think most people's breathing would change when the test is over due to the simple fact that the test is stressful even for truthful examinees.

If I'm not mistaken, I believe TLBTLD instructs examinees to refrain from changing their breathing rate until the chest tubes are removed for the very reason that the examiner could still be recording in an attempt to recognize countermeasures.  

polyfool wrote on Dec 12^th, 2005 at 4:45am:

Gelb, I agree. One would think most people's breathing would change when the test is over due to the simple fact that the test is stressful even for truthful examinees. If I'm not mistaken, I believe TLBTLD instructs examinees to refrain from changing their breathing rate until the chest tubes are removed for the very reason that the examiner could still be recording in an attempt to recognize countermeasures.

Yes, but they forget that or can't keep it up. Other times they just plain slip up.

I will agree that the breathing rate will change to a degree. However, when this change is so dramatic that it is obvious to a child what is going on, it's easy to tell what the person is doing.

I hade one guy that was so overdoing it, his galvo was matching the deap breaths he was taking. Then when I released the cuff and his amp and rate went down about 50 - 70% (I kid you not.) I damn near laughed my ass off at him. It was that obvious. BTW, I did get an admision that he learned that "on some web sight".

I also got an admission on the issue he was being tested on. I felt bad for the kid, he got caught up with the wrong croud.

Thanks for your kind reply. This is how things are debated

wrote on Dec 12^th, 2005 at 4:25am:

Odin said "Most of the boneheads that read your book don't know that sometimes the box is still running after the test is over. Then the breathing rate changes dramaticly from 13 cpm to 19 cpm in amp and rate, breathing countermeasures are clearly being performed.  "   so is the test really over?  is it being deceptive to tell the applicant that the test is over and you still go on to measure the breathing rates?  could it be that the breathing level changes due to the fact that anxiety and nervousness is less noticeable because of the finality of the test?    "boneheads"  name calling may be childish too.

Yes it is. I won't lie.

But when I see that someone is going to "play the game" then they should expect I will play my game to catch them. There is nothing unethical about it.

Nervousness is one thing but deep gulps of air are obvious, and got deeper for certain contraols. I caught him with that stunt in the second chart by inserting an irrelevant just before the last control of the test that he was going to distort the chart.

In the two charts it was the same controls consistantly, and on the third chart when he knew the game was up he stopped doing it. He has not been the only one.

"boneheads"  name calling may be childish too"

I figured I would stoop to all your levels.

You hate me because I am an examiner, I hate people that pull countermeasures because of you guys. You guys should feel bad. I give most I catch at counter measures a second chance.

No more.

I see now most of you show us no kindness or understanding, just hate and bitterness. It's time people attemping countermeasures are shown the same intolerance. Everytime I see it I will nail them to the cross.

got to go, see everyone in a few days.

Remember all God still loves you, though I do not.

See bitterness is a two way stree, but I bet you will tell me I am out of line and leave your own alone unadmonished.

polyfool wrote on Dec 12^th, 2005 at 4:45am:

If I'm not mistaken, I believe TLBTLD instructs examinees to refrain from changing their breathing rate until the chest tubes are removed for the very reason that the examiner could still be recording in an attempt to recognize countermeasures.

Yes, it does specifically mention this.  So properly-done countermeasures, as taught by TLBTLD, would deal with this.

During my three NSA polygraphs, I employed breathing countermeasures, including controlling my breathing while the tubes were on and apnea at certain points.  At no point was I accused of employing countermeasures.

ODIN wrote on Dec 12^th, 2005 at 2:16am:

Your "facts" are very one sided as well, and very bias.

The most competent study done on this topic was done by the National Academy of Sciences.  Are you accusing them of biased, one-sided results?


Quote:

I have been far to busy responding to cowardly attacks and insults of children. I can back up these claims of personal attacks, even upon my apperance.

You haven't responded at all.  You have made claims that you haven't backed up or retracted.  Those are your claims; they've simply been quoted back to you.



Quote:

The Book is good so long as the readers have an insturment to perfect their new found knowladge.

I'll readily admit that having an instrument to practice on is helpful.  However, I took three polygraphs with the NSA, employed countermeasures, and neither failed nor was accused of using countermeasures.


Quote:

Your studies are just as one sided. You show me a study that says one thing, and I will show you a study that says another. I have found that studies mean nothing. ON BOTH SIDES.

A study isn't "one-sided" merely because its conclusions aren't what you like.

Studies by polygraphers clearly suffer from a potential conflict-of-interest confounds.

However, the National Academy of Sciences did the most comprehensive review of scientific studies on the polygraph.  If you have evidence their report was "one-sided" or "biased", please present it.

If not, it looks like we have yet another unevidenced claim.


Quote:

I never attacked one of you personally, but clearly skeptic didn't get hugged enough as a child, or maybe got hugged too much. Yes that was an attack. I am very upset right now and am in more pain than any of you know.

I'm sorry to hear about it, and I had a very happy childhood, thanks for asking.

I'll readily admit that I'm fairly ruthless when it comes to debating polygraph examiners.  The reason is really simple: a lot of people go through lots of pain due to the polygraph and polygraphy practicioners.  These aren't harmless lies that we're talking about.  Claims that the polygraph works, that polygraphers can detect countermeasures (one of the few ways people can protect themselves against the polygraph's capriciousness) do real harm to people.

That, my friend, is why I insist you back up your claims, or retract them.  Because as long as I am posting on this site, such claims won't pass without challenge.


Quote:

I think every one of us need to grow up and learn how to "talk" to eachother rather than sling insults. I should have ignored the insults and stuck with the research I have access to, but that would have done no good because it would have been deemed one sided.

I truly am sorry that you find it insulting when you are called upon to back up your own words.  However, I think the average reasonable person can see that this isn't an unreasonable request.


Quote:

Now if no one minds, I need to take care of an important family matter that is in need of my undivided attention.

Best of luck dealing with whatever you need to take care of.  Personal tragedy strikes us all.

Odin,  
   
    Was there actual name calling?  or did it just feel like it?  was it because of the frustrations of not being able to answer us in a logical or "trust me, I know what I'm talking about" fashion.   We have been trying for you to get evidence of some of the allegations that you have put out here.  But seems like you see it as superfluous, but facts are facts.  
In your posts, it seems as if you are going to take out your anger and frustrations on the person taking any polygraph that you'll administer.  I pity that person who even looks at you cross-eyed.   I don't know if there are codes of ethics that polygraphers adhere to, but seemingly you will play the judge, the jury and the executioner.