Post Reply

Please type the characters that appear in the image. The characters must be typed in the same order, and they are case-sensitive.
Open Preview Preview

You can resize the textbox by dragging the right or bottom border.
Insert Hyperlink Insert FTP Link Insert Image Insert E-mail Insert Media Insert Table Insert Table Row Insert Table Column Insert Horizontal Rule Insert Teletype Insert Code Insert Quote Edited Superscript Subscript Insert List /me - my name Insert Marquee Insert Timestamp No Parse
Bold Italicized Underline Insert Strikethrough Highlight
                       
Insert Preformatted Text Left Align Centered Right Align
resize_wb
resize_hb







Max 200000 characters. Remaining characters:
Text size: pt
More Smilies
View All Smilies
Collapse additional features Collapse/Expand additional features Smiley Wink Cheesy Grin Angry Sad Shocked Cool Huh Roll Eyes Tongue Embarrassed Lips Sealed Undecided Kiss Cry
Attachments More Attachments Allowed file types: txt doc docx psd pdf bmp jpe jpg jpeg gif png swf zip rar tar gz 7z odt ods mp3 mp4 wav avi mov 3gp html maff pgp gpg
Maximum Attachment size: 500000 KB
Attachment 1:
X
Topic Summary - Displaying 25 post(s).
Posted by: George W. Maschke
Posted on: May 8th, 2019 at 6:19am
  Mark & QuoteQuote
Quote:
I go for my poly tomorrow. Wish me luck


Good luck! I would be interested to know how it goes.
Posted by: Bobby hill
Posted on: May 8th, 2019 at 5:42am
  Mark & QuoteQuote
I go for my poly tomorrow. Wish me luck
Posted by: Bobby hill
Posted on: Apr 24th, 2019 at 7:42pm
  Mark & QuoteQuote
I faild my so ploygraph. I suffer from PTSD, from my childhood. I tryed looking for research about PTSD and polygraph, and only found polygraphs being use to confirm PTSD. Can anyone help me?
Thank you for you time
Email me: worstjerk7@gmail.com
Posted by: abusedbygov
Posted on: Feb 7th, 2012 at 9:23pm
  Mark & QuoteQuote
abusedbygov wrote on Feb 7th, 2012 at 9:17pm:
One plain and simple truth is that Sexual Offenders who are taking polygraph exams,VOLUNTARILY sign a CONTRACT agreeing to do so as a condition of their release.



Oh yeah, P.S. No, you fucking DON'T. You sign NOTHING as a condition of release. At least, I didn't. The judge set the conditions, and I was sent to treatment. It was IN TREATMENT that I signed the "voluntary contract". If I didn't, I would not be allowed in treatment, thus violating the judge's order. This would be construed as a PV and I would, indeed, be transported back to the penitentiary post haste and forthwith.
Posted by: abusedbygov
Posted on: Feb 7th, 2012 at 9:17pm
  Mark & QuoteQuote
SanchoPanza wrote on Dec 11th, 2007 at 7:56pm:
One plain and simple truth is that Sexual Offenders who are taking polygraph exams,VOLUNTARILY sign a CONTRACT agreeing to do so as a condition of their release. 



Grin  Oh jeez, ya gotta LOVE this attitude. Talk about "cognitive distortions" *sigh*. Yeah, it's "voluntary". If you don't sign it, you don't get released. That's like saying "Here, I'll give you a choice. Sign this waiver VOLUNTARILY, or I will kick you in the huts for about a month. Oh, you'll sign? How nice of you." Yeah, like I volunteered for all of this.
Posted by: abusedbygov
Posted on: Feb 7th, 2012 at 9:10pm
  Mark & Quote
nopolycop wrote on Dec 10th, 2007 at 2:50pm:
What occurs to a SO who fails a polygraph which he is compelled to take as a condition of his treatment?For purposes of this discussion, lets not go into any confessions induced as a result of the polygraph test, but instead simply a failed test where the convicted SO states he is not lying.
Back to top 


Depends on both your "treatment provider" and your PO. In my case, my treatment group has a procedure where they "hot seat" you if you fail, and ask a whole bunch of questions about what you could have done so that you passed the test. They, of course, assume if you failed, you simply MUST be doing terrible stuff and lying about it. If you fail too many, they will probably kick you out of treatment. When that happens, you will then be in violation of the judge's order to go to treatment, and you will be sanctioned--possibly sent back to prison or, at least, some time in county jail. Again, depends on your relationship with your PO.
Posted by: mr. man
Posted on: Jan 7th, 2012 at 5:44pm
  Mark & QuoteQuote
if youre found not physically able to take a polygraph and have taken one previously and they say you failed while being under heavy perscription drugs can it be use agaist you
Posted by: EJohnson
Posted on: Jan 2nd, 2008 at 5:09am
  Mark & Quote
Quote:
The examiner will stand by the infallibility of his black box, and the offender will be kicked out of treatment as "non-responsive". Getting kicked out of treatment is a one-way ticket back to prison in most states.


I have NEVER met a Clinical Examiner who claimed infallibility of their or ANY test. Perhaps you are making the Freudian slip. What states do you speak of? Where do you get this data? It seems you are making things up in order to distract or gain favor from others. Sound familiar?

Quote:
And if it is the polygraph that is responsible for this "withdrawal"? If the offender realizes that no matter what he does (or more importantly doesn't do), the examiner is going to often throw out a few "deception indicated" or "inconclusive"('we need to get him back in here in a couple weeks for a new exam because my car payment's due..err.... I mean because we need to get this resolved') then what? You and your colleagues are then responsible for his withdrawal and possible backsliding. Thanks a lot.(George, you need a sarcasm emoticon).


You are accusing hundreds of good people of felonious theft. George doesn't need a sarcasm emoticon for you, he needs an animated steaming pile of HS for me to attach next to your thinking errors and blather.

Quote:
You act as if an offender who has been staying 'clean' for years were to happen upon this site he would suddenly feel an empowerment that it will be easier to re-offend and not worry about the polygraph any more than to remain on the safe path he and his therapist have set him on. Sorry, but that doesn't fly with me. Successful therapy is 70% the offender and 30% the therapist. That leaves no room for the polygraph having any 'value'. And contrary to the drivel you spew, very few offenders are pre-disposed to commit a new offense. The US DOJ says 3.5%. Canada's Karl Hanson says 10%(keeping in mind that 30% of US sex crimes are not even crimes in Canada, so they are talking 10% of the 'worst' kind of offenders here). Florida's study puts it at a trifling 1% (that only applying to the 12,000 offenders considered for lifetime civil confinement, thus the 'worst of the worst' in that state).


You really need to review your data. The national DJ numbers for sexual recitivism are hovered around 6%. The national numbers for criminal (felony) recidivism is over half. Newer research yet unpublished is rumored to show higher numbers of sexual recitivism over 9 yrs after release----data that is slow in coming as the study is long term yet of a more contemporary offender population.

Quote:
Actually I believe the criteria is that it not have a "significant error rate". So what is a "significant error rate"? Most hold it to be 20% or higher although I have seen one case where an 8% error rate was considered "significant". The polygraph can't achieve an 80% absolute and it certainly can't reach 92%. So it has a "significant error rate".


whoa trigger. Why the sudden subject change....man you are all over the board here. I will cut and paste your extremely insightful commentary on Daubert's error rate criteria and send it to the highest courts-------you may have stumbled on to something there! C'mon. Let's come back down from the manic phase orolan.

Quote:
Who is conducting this "research" and with whose data? I can see it now. "New study by the American Polygraph Association using select data from the US Department of Defense Polygraph Institute debunks NAS study."


I would read that one. The US DOD doesn't debunk scientific reviews (not study) whilly nilly.



I have been told that this man's website of legal child erotica and mappings of little girl events has a link to Antipolygraph.org.----as well as several other websites which help child predators do what they do.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_EMmbfUU30&feature=related

This is merely a brutally honest man who is brave enough to reveal his true interests, damn the critics. Remorseless, loveless, selfish and angry about his treatment by society. "Disengaged."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K1eNDIioyx8






Posted by: orolan
Posted on: Jan 2nd, 2008 at 3:45am
  Mark & Quote
Quote:
simply a failed test where the convicted SO states he is not lying.

The examiner will stand by the infallibility of his black box, and the offender will be kicked out of treatment as "non-responsive". Getting kicked out of treatment is a one-way ticket back to prison in most states.
Quote:
What creates the danger is when sex offenders withdraw from treatment

And if it is the polygraph that is responsible for this "withdrawal"? If the offender realizes that no matter what he does (or more importantly doesn't do), the examiner is going to often throw out a few "deception indicated" or "inconclusive"('we need to get him back in here in a couple weeks for a new exam because my car payment's due..err.... I mean because we need to get this resolved') then what? You and your colleagues are then responsible for his withdrawal and possible backsliding. Thanks a lot.(George, you need a sarcasm emoticon).
Quote:
Say an Offender has his next polygraph test in 6 months

You act as if an offender who has been staying 'clean' for years were to happen upon this site he would suddenly feel an empowerment that it will be easier to re-offend and not worry about the polygraph any more than to remain on the safe path he and his therapist have set him on. Sorry, but that doesn't fly with me. Successful therapy is 70% the offender and 30% the therapist. That leaves no room for the polygraph having any 'value'. And contrary to the drivel you spew, very few offenders are pre-disposed to commit a new offense. The US DOJ says 3.5%. Canada's Karl Hanson says 10%(keeping in mind that 30% of US sex crimes are not even crimes in Canada, so they are talking 10% of the 'worst' kind of offenders here). Florida's study puts it at a trifling 1% (that only applying to the 12,000 offenders considered for lifetime civil confinement, thus the 'worst of the worst' in that state).
Quote:
One of these “Daubert criteria” is that techniques must have a known rate of error.

Actually I believe the criteria is that it not have a "significant error rate". So what is a "significant error rate"? Most hold it to be 20% or higher although I have seen one case where an 8% error rate was considered "significant". The polygraph can't achieve an 80% absolute and it certainly can't reach 92%. So it has a "significant error rate".
Quote:
Polygraph appears to be moving forward with new research studies underway at this very moment.

Who is conducting this "research" and with whose data? I can see it now. "New study by the American Polygraph Association using select data from the US Department of Defense Polygraph Institute debunks NAS study."
Quote:
Sir,
If the mackers of the poligraf instruments were to introduce a 500Amp...

Works for me....if it's the examiner hooked up to the machine Grin
Posted by: Jesper Paten
Posted on: Dec 14th, 2007 at 7:08am
  Mark & QuoteQuote
EJohnson wrote on Dec 13th, 2007 at 5:52pm:
Hey Jesper,
Do you have a point, or are you here to just poorly represent the Teutons? Huh


Sir,
My distant ancestors were Celts. If you wish to pidgin hole me, you may refer to  me as an Aryan.
Respectfully,
JP
Posted by: EJohnson
Posted on: Dec 13th, 2007 at 5:52pm
  Mark & QuoteQuote
Hey Jesper,
Do you have a point, or are you here to just poorly represent the Teutons? Huh
Posted by: Jesper Paten
Posted on: Dec 13th, 2007 at 12:36pm
  Mark & QuoteQuote
Quote:
Future Potential
The inherent ambiguity of the physiological measures used in the polygraph suggest that further investments in improving polygraph technique and interpretation will bring only modest improvements in accuracy.


Sir,
If the mackers of the poligraf instruments were to introduce a 500Amp
response to a detected lie, via the fingertip senzors, that might well
increase the efficiency of the technology, even if only by means of an increase in confessions made during the test.
That physical torture would complement the mental torture.

Respectfully,
JP
Posted by: Barry_C
Posted on: Dec 13th, 2007 at 12:39am
  Mark & Quote
Quote:
Polygraph Accuracy
Almost a century of research in scientific psychology and physiology provides little basis for the expectation that a polygraph test could have extremely high accuracy.


Notice the word "extremely."  They didn't say it wasn't accurate.

Quote:
Future Potential
The inherent ambiguity of the physiological measures used in the polygraph suggest that further investments in improving polygraph technique and interpretation will bring only modest improvements in accuracy.


Well, they found the median lab accuracy at 86%, and they found field median accuracy even higher, so I'd say we're getting close to hitting the ceiling for a psychometric test.  How much better can you get?  Don't forget that was median accuracy.  The Utah studies found their methods to be about 95% accurate.

Quote:
Theoretical Basis
The theoretical rationale for the polygraph is quite weak, especially in terms of differential fear, arousal, or other emotional states that are triggered in response to relevant or comparison questions. We have not found any serious effort at construct validation of polygraph testing.


There has been some recent attempts to address this valid criticism.
Posted by: nopolycop
Posted on: Dec 12th, 2007 at 2:09pm
  Mark & QuoteQuote
SanchoPanza wrote on Dec 12th, 2007 at 1:51pm:
Polygraph appears to be moving forward with new research studies underway at this very moment. I am betting that these new studies will address the NAS criticims regarding previous research.  We shall see what this research reveals about polygraph.


That is good news, as long as the studies are reasonably scientific in nature, and be reasonably replicated for validation purposes.

Posted by: SanchoPanza
Posted on: Dec 12th, 2007 at 1:51pm
  Mark & Quote
Sergeant,   I dispute your statement that "The rate of errors or potential errors must be known, certainly, but it also must be zero or close to zero.  The error rate of polygraphy has never been proven to be anything close to zero."

I see that others have pursuaded you to retrtact that part of your statement.   For everyones sake it would be helpful on occasions that you intend to attempt to cite scientific standards, court rulings, or others opinions that you do your research before making the pronouncement.

I would also like to point out that the NAS study is now over five years old and they did not research the polygraph, they only reviewed research that existed at the time of their study. Critics of polygraph seem to pound the NAS findings on the table as though it constutes the end of polygraph, when in fact it may just be a turning point.  By the way, the NAS study titled "The Evaluation of Forensic DNA Evidence" criticised DNA research studies because they failed to evaluate the probability of finding" a false positive. New research was cducted to deal with that criticism.

Polygraph appears to be moving forward with new research studies underway at this very moment. I am betting that these new studies will address the NAS criticims regarding previous research.  We shall see what this research reveals about polygraph.

Sancho Panza
Posted by: SanchoPanza
Posted on: Dec 12th, 2007 at 1:09pm
  Mark & QuoteQuote
Your apology is accepted and the error forgiven.  Anyone can make a mistake.


Sancho Panza
Posted by: nopolycop
Posted on: Dec 12th, 2007 at 12:32pm
  Mark & QuoteQuote
SanchoPanza wrote on Dec 12th, 2007 at 3:37am:
[quote author=0E0F100F0C19540D05600 link=1197298249/0#12 date=1197427984][
Review my posts, if you can show one post where I have previously stated that I was or was not a polygrapher I will apologize to you for my now accusing you of fabricating that statement.


Grin Grin Grin

The above is me laughing at myself, as I obviously confused you and someone else.  You are correct, of course, and I apologize for assuming facts not in evidence.
Posted by: Sergeant1107
Posted on: Dec 12th, 2007 at 9:21am
  Mark & Quote
J.B. McCloughan wrote on Dec 12th, 2007 at 5:37am:
Sergeant,

I don't know where it is that you came up with your “opinion” on Daubert/evidentiary standards but I would like to see it, as it is nothing I have seen in either the form of a high court opinion or even training on the issue for that matter.

Psychological tests and diagnosis fall far short of zero percent error rates you mentioned but those opinions are still admitted.

Could you also please point me to the extensive field research on other forensic disciplines?

I am of the understanding that there are some that have little to no field research and are completely dependent on statistical inference.


From the syllabus of Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals (92-102), 509 U.S. 579 (1993), on the Cornell University Law School web site:

Quote:
Many considerations will bear on the inquiry, including whether the theory or technique in question can be (and has been) tested, whether it has been subjected to peer review and publication, its known or potential error rate, and the existence and maintenance of standards controlling its operation, and whether it has attracted widespread acceptance within a relevant scientific community. The inquiry is a flexible one, and its focus must be solely on principles and methodology, not on the conclusions that they generate.


From Justice Blackmun’s opinion:

Quote:
Ordinarily, a key question to be answered in determining whether a theory or technique is scientific knowledge that will assist the trier of fact will be whether it can be(and has been) tested. "Scientific methodology today is based on generating hypotheses and testing them to see if they can be falsified; indeed, this methodology is what distinguishes science from other fields of human inquiry." Green, at 645. See also C. Hempel, Philosophy of Natural Science 49 (1966) ("[T]he statements constituting a scientific explanation must be capable of empirical test"); K. Popper, Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge 37 (5th ed. 1989) ("[T]he criterion of the scientific status of a theory is its falsifiability, or refutability, or testability").
Another pertinent consideration is whether the theory or technique has been subjected to peer review and publication. Publication (which is but one element of peer review) is not a sine qua non of admissibility; it does not necessarily correlate with reliability, see S. Jasanoff, The Fifth Branch: Science Advisors as Policymakers 61-76 (1990), and in some instances well grounded but innovative theories will not have been published, see Horrobin, The Philosophical Basis of Peer Review and the Suppression of Innovation, 263 J. Am. Med. Assn. 1438 (1990). Some propositions, moreover, are too particular, too new, or of too limited interest to be published. But submission to the scrutiny of the scientific community is a component of "good science," in part because it increases the likelihood that substantive flaws in methodology will be detected. See J. Ziman, Reliable Knowledge: An Exploration of the Grounds for Belief in Science 130-133 (1978); Relman and Angell, How Good Is Peer Review?, 321 New Eng. J. Med. 827 (1989). The fact of publication (or lack thereof) in a peer reviewed journal thus will be a relevant, though not dispositive, consideration in assessing the scientific validity of a particular technique or methodology on which an opinion is premised.
Additionally, in the case of a particular scientific technique, the court ordinarily should consider the known or potential rate of error, see, e. g., United States v. Smith,869 F. 2d 348, 353-354 (CA7 1989) (surveying studies of the error rate of spectrographic voice identification technique), and the existence and maintenance of standards controlling the technique's operation. See United States v. Williams, 583 F. 2d 1194, 1198 (CA2 1978) (noting professional organization's standard governing spectrographic analysis), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 1117 (1979).





You are absolutely correct if you mean that the Federal Rules of Evidence have never codified any further specifications than are broadly defined in Daubert v. Merrill Dow.  However, I believe I have read somewhere that, all other factors being equal, testimony regarding a test with a high known error rate has less chance of being admitted then testimony regarding a test with a low known error rate.  I don’t recall where I read that.

I think it is clear the polygraph falls short as a valid scientific test.  I agree with the conclusions of the National Academy of Sciences in that regard.  In their 2003 research study, The Polygraph and Lie Detection, those conclusions were as follows:

Quote:
Polygraph Accuracy
Almost a century of research in scientific psychology and physiology provides little basis for the expectation that a polygraph test could have extremely high accuracy. The physiological responses measured by the polygraph are not uniquely related to deception. That is, the responses measured by the polygraph do not all reflect a single underlying process: a variety of psychological and physiological processes, including some that can be consciously controlled, can affect polygraph measures and test results. Moreover, most polygraph testing procedures allow for uncontrolled variation in test administration (e.g., creation of the emotional climate, selecting questions) that can be expected to result in variations in accuracy and that limit the level of accuracy that can be consistently achieved.

Theoretical Basis
The theoretical rationale for the polygraph is quite weak, especially in terms of differential fear, arousal, or other emotional states that are triggered in response to relevant or comparison questions. We have not found any serious effort at construct validation of polygraph testing.

Research Progress
Research on the polygraph has not progressed over time in the manner of a typical scientific field. It has not accumulated knowledge or strengthened its scientific underpinnings in any significant manner. Polygraph research has proceeded in relative isolation from related fields of basic science and has benefited little from conceptual, theoretical, and technological advances in those fields that are relevant to the psychophysiological detection of deception.

Future Potential
The inherent ambiguity of the physiological measures used in the polygraph suggest that further investments in improving polygraph technique and interpretation will bring only modest improvements in accuracy.








Posted by: J.B. McCloughan
Posted on: Dec 12th, 2007 at 5:37am
  Mark & QuoteQuote
Sergeant,

I don't know where it is that you came up with your “opinion” on Daubert/evidentiary standards but I would like to see it, as it is nothing I have seen in either the form of a high court opinion or even training on the issue for that matter.

Psychological tests and diagnosis fall far short of zero percent error rates you mentioned but those opinions are still admitted.

Could you also please point me to the extensive field research on other forensic disciplines?

I am of the understanding that there are some that have little to no field research and are completely dependent on statistical inference.
Posted by: Sergeant1107
Posted on: Dec 12th, 2007 at 4:54am
  Mark & Quote
SanchoPanza wrote on Dec 12th, 2007 at 3:37am:
The US federal courts, establishes standards that scientific evidence must live up to. One of these “Daubert criteria” is that techniques must have a known rate of error. In other words, in order for any scientific test to be accepted as accurate and valid, it must have a known error rate, I challenge you to name one that is "Infallible". There is nothing reasonable about your insistence that polygraph be held to an "infallibility standard” in order to be considered a valid forensic tool when both DNA and Fingerprints which are considered the "Gold Standard of Forensic Techniques" have known error rates.


One of the Daubert standards is not simply a known error rate.  The rate of errors or potential errors must be known, certainly, but it also must be zero or close to zero.  The error rate of polygraphy has never been proven to be anything close to zero.

Another of the Daubert standards is that the science being testified to must have been tested in the field as well as in the laboratory.  Polygraphy falls short in that respect because of the lack of confirmation in a large percentage of real world uses.  At the end of the polygraph exam, the only "evidence" that the examiner made the right call is the word of the examiner (unless there is a credible confession or incontrovertible physical evidence.)
Posted by: SanchoPanza
Posted on: Dec 12th, 2007 at 3:37am
  Mark & Quote
nopolycop wrote on Dec 12th, 2007 at 2:53am:
SanchoPanza wrote on Dec 12th, 2007 at 1:34am:
[
If you ever PROVE  the fallibility of polygraph to their satisfaction maybe it will be recognized or at least they will stop adding it to the release contracts.

As to your insinuation that I may have tried to make Mr. Mashke feel bad by lieing about being an examiner, I would ask you to provide some evidence that I have ever stated  to Mr Mashke or anyone else on this forum that I was or was not a polygrapher.

Your insinuation that I have lied or that polygraphers are liars is laughable considering the man you seem to revere co-wrote a book that repeatedly tells the reader it is OK to lie and deliberately conceal information. I sense you are trying to bait me into an angry response.


Hopefully, I have reduced your post to something I can manage.

First, I don't have to prove anything.  The American Polygraph Association recognizes the fallibility of the polygraph, as shown in the below quoted line:

"While the polygraph technique is highly accurate, it is not infallible and errors do occur."

Secondly, I have not insinuated that you have done anything.  You have previously stated you are not a polygraphist, and I said earlier in this thread:

"It seems to me, that instead of poly examiners spending their time and energy trying to make George feel bad, (or give this site a black eye) they would be better served by attempting to clean up their own act. "

I was not including your posts, PS.

Lastly, I have not insinuated you have lied either, nor do I revere George Maschke, although I appreciate his willingness to host this site, and to expose the polygraph industry for what it is.  Afterall, if I asked these same questions over on Polygraphplace, I would have been banned in a heartbeat.  As far as I know, this is the only place I can have discussions about polygraphy with persons who purport to be polygraphists, (although they seem to want to avoid my questions and discussions, I don't know why Wink.

Nopoly4me
I certainly have never claimed that polygraph is infallible. Infallible and infallibility are criteria in your argument, but it isn't  a reasonable standard. I seriously doubt you would be able to quote a polygrapher who states that polygraph is infallible. If you find one who does I will stand at your side and call him on it with you.

The US federal courts, establishes standards that scientific evidence must live up to. One of these “Daubert criteria” is that techniques must have a known rate of error. In other words, in order for any scientific test to be accepted as accurate and valid, it must have a known error rate, I challenge you to name one that is "Infallible". There is nothing reasonable about your insistence that polygraph be held to an "infallibility standard” in order to be considered a valid forensic tool when both DNA and Fingerprints which are considered the "Gold Standard of Forensic Techniques" have known error rates.

Review my posts, if you can show one post where I have previously stated that I was or was not a polygrapher I will apologize to you for my now accusing you of fabricating that statement.

Sancho Panza.
Posted by: Fly_boy
Posted on: Dec 12th, 2007 at 3:26am
  Mark & QuoteQuote
Hello to all.  I think I may have a valid reason for the polygraph which none have discussed that I know of.  As a previous special warfare guy with the Navy, SWCC, I can tell you that Spec War is a good ole boy network.  If they instructors don't like you, you are gone.  I don't care how good you are.  Well, the polygraph is the only step in the process that gives departments the ability to let you go, just because they don't like you.  The way I figure it, if they don't want to work with you, then they fail you.  Sounds simple, but I would not be surprised, and frankly, if that is the case, then I buy off on its use.  I'm not scared of it.  Sorry if I offend anyone, not my intention, but I try to look at both sides of a coin before jumping on a rant.  Sometimes I fail to articulate well on the internet as it is the one place I could care less about articulation.   Tongue
Posted by: nopolycop
Posted on: Dec 12th, 2007 at 2:57am
  Mark & QuoteQuote
Twoblock wrote on Dec 12th, 2007 at 1:19am:
nopoly4me

You ask entelligent questions. A few are answered, but some have started an ack ack barage at your bomber. Hopefully, one day, you will enlighten us as to your MO.


Twoblock:

Unfortunately, I am not at liberty to discuss any personal (or professional)  motive for me being here.  Perhaps some time in the future.  Thank-you for the complement, and I too wish more of my questions were answered.  Sad
Posted by: nopolycop
Posted on: Dec 12th, 2007 at 2:53am
  Mark & Quote
SanchoPanza wrote on Dec 12th, 2007 at 1:34am:
[
If you ever PROVE  the fallibility of polygraph to their satisfaction maybe it will be recognized or at least they will stop adding it to the release contracts.

As to your insinuation that I may have tried to make Mr. Mashke feel bad by lieing about being an examiner, I would ask you to provide some evidence that I have ever stated  to Mr Mashke or anyone else on this forum that I was or was not a polygrapher.

Your insinuation that I have lied or that polygraphers are liars is laughable considering the man you seem to revere co-wrote a book that repeatedly tells the reader it is OK to lie and deliberately conceal information. I sense you are trying to bait me into an angry response.


Hopefully, I have reduced your post to something I can manage.

First, I don't have to prove anything.  The American Polygraph Association recognizes the fallibility of the polygraph, as shown in the below quoted line:

"While the polygraph technique is highly accurate, it is not infallible and errors do occur."

Secondly, I have not insinuated that you have done anything.  You have previously stated you are not a polygraphist, and I said earlier in this thread:

"It seems to me, that instead of poly examiners spending their time and energy trying to make George feel bad, (or give this site a black eye) they would be better served by attempting to clean up their own act. "

I was not including your posts, PS.

Lastly, I have not insinuated you have lied either, nor do I revere George Maschke, although I appreciate his willingness to host this site, and to expose the polygraph industry for what it is.  Afterall, if I asked these same questions over on Polygraphplace, I would have been banned in a heartbeat.  As far as I know, this is the only place I can have discussions about polygraphy with persons who purport to be polygraphists, (although they seem to want to avoid my questions and discussions, I don't know why Wink.
Posted by: SanchoPanza
Posted on: Dec 12th, 2007 at 2:19am
  Mark & QuoteQuote
Twoblock wrote on Dec 12th, 2007 at 1:19am:
SanchoPanza and nopoly4me

This string has become quite informative. I had no idea that SOs had to sign a contract to be polygraph as part of their release. Now if we just could get the same applied to drug pushers maybe my grand-children and great-grand-children would be a little safer still. UAs are not effective on pushers because most are not users. This was taught when I was thinking of becoming a Narc in my early days.

nopoly4me

You ask entelligent questions. A few are answered, but some have started an ack ack barage at your bomber. Hopefully, one day, you will enlighten us as to your MO.


Thanks for the feedback, I'm glad you find our discussion enformative
Roll Eyes
Sanch Panza
 
  Top