I'm a new user--and a polygraph Examiner. I have been a casual observer to his site for years. There are several consistant themes in this "post conviction" post--and that is denial. In the thousands of tests on SO's I've admisistered, I have regrettably seen and heard so many of these distortions, minimizing, and whining. I have a degree of respect for George's conviction---hell, the man is tenacious, intelligent, and has good intentions---but I sure wish posters could spend some time monitoring large caseloads of sex offenders. This is serious work--regardless of your pre-concieved notions of polygraph. The fact of the matter is polygraph works when in the right hands. I'm not the type of Examiner who will wholeheartedly defend fellow Examiners---as I am aware of some real crappy ones out there. At the risk of bringing the full wrath of this site down upon this lone Examiner, I will here and now say that If you are a sex offender on parole/probation, you had better hope that you don't get a talented Examiner. Your countermeasures will appear sophmoric, and your behavior will be scrutinized.----If your reading this message while on no-contact-with-internet stips---get off now--stay the hell away from children --innocent contact or otherwise(you temporarily lost that priveledge.) I would respect George M. more readily if he didn't invite sex offenders---they're people too--but they have more important things to do than linger around this site. Incidently, the whole sexual misconduct issues--18yr old having sex with a 14yr old issue is a concern--but soooo overplayed. As far as polygraph being right wing (my term)--that's bullshit. I'm as right wing as George Clooney. If a sitting president will lie about a mere blow-job, a person with few resources and on the run will lie about much more regarding sexual risk to community. Polygraph isn't god, but it works fantastically to assess risk in the clinical setting .

Lovely. It seems another person who is crying science is spouting claims which have absolutely no repeated basis in scientific fact. Where did you get your "false negative propensity on SO testing " blather? As far as false positives on applicant screening--where are your figures coming from? Walter Reed? Who establishes ground truth for those research projects? The pickle with lie detection research accuracy is always in establishing truth? Are you establishing your claims on the Academy of Sciences study? Are you thinking that lying about a mock crime in a lab by volunteer students who some of which are statistically likely to have committed a felonious crime within days of the project--are a reliable source for polygraph research. By the way, that sort of research setting is the classic sceptical approach to polygraph research---and of course, the results are typical.
As far as the countermeasure balony on this site---it is tantamount to spitting in a urine sample. Can the tester accurately diagnose drug use--probably not. The results will likely be inconclusive. Was the urine test administrater beaten? Please. The best countermeasure against a polygraph is to not take it.  Have any of you self-proclaimed countermeasure gurus actually seen George's (and others')countermeasures on a polygraph chart? It is like comparing a rain-made hole in the ground to a crisply dug grave. I was in a seminar with some other Examiners and we were viewing various charts on the overhead and a countermeasure chart came up unannounced and the group erupted into laughter. The presenter didn't have to announce the type of chart, we all knew what we were looking at. The problem with the countermeasures wasn't that they were bad countermeasures--they were pretty good--it's that it was a chart where a call of inconclusive was the result. For all the calls of "foul" and "pseudo-science" on this site---your countermeasures are tantamount to spitting in a urine sample. Talk about unsophisticated---take a look in the mirror.
Habituation by repeated testing? Yes, if the Examinee is completely indifferent to the test--I will be a little concerned. This is extrememly rare.

Why do so many posters on this site believe that Examiners want to fail people on their test?

Punishment for inconclusives by probation officers? Sounds like a jerk probation officer to me---unless the Examiner stated that he strongly suspected countermeasures.

Like ANY profession, there are hacks. Ask George if he has ran into some piss-poor translators in his profession who have jeopardized peoples lives and/or careers. sigh. yah sara

If telling the truth is called "gullable", than I am gullable. If I'm asked a question I don't like---I say piss off. It never ceases to amaze me why so many people want to get into law enforcement and or federal work and incessantly complain about the infringement of their rights. When you entered the workforce, did you want a BOSS, or a COMMANDER (IN CHIEF)? If it's the latter, than prepare to be bitch slapped--be it by polygraph or otherwise. 
I do not represent the polygraph community---just myself.

Upon having a second look at my post, I must agree that there are some grammitical errors. I'm sorry that you are unable to address any of the pulp in that post. I suppose you are writing that you require having one single point presented to you in order to parrot the "the use of polygraph is a fraudulant.........." statement which is typical of the antipolygraph m.o. of "begging the point." Certainly you are aware of the faulty debate tactic of "begging the question" and "begging the point." It appears to be the theme song for this sight.

I don't need a mental picture of you----as I've seen you before. I've got two words for you '04. 

Hair Plugs.

Also, based on your overwhelming flood of posts since joining the frey, I think you might need a hobby that doesn't involve textbook projection. I'll settle for my rushed and casual web-grammer over what amounts to be your style of embarrassing and even clinically serious displays of aggression. I think it was the last 90 or so comments in the last 3 weeks that have me worried. You are hilarious until you take that extra drink. And like the bimbo dancing on the table, you believe you hear cheers. sigh

p.s. Your keen forensic mind   has failed you as I am not a "surfer dude." As for comments in previous posts about your "natural" gifts and abilities in deception detection --------------------pure bison shit.  



peace........on you

Quote:

No doubt you're one of those who believes that sex offenders have a near-100% reoffense rate, right? So what are the results of your "thousands" of exams? Would have to be either thousands of offenders returned to prison after admitting their latest crimes to you, or returned for failing the exam. Or will you say that "well, maybe they haven't yet but they WILL"
Quote:

LOL. What's a "talented" examiner? One that lies better than the offender?
Quote:

I posted often on this board while on probation with such a restriction. Never got caught by DOC or the polygraph. Guess my PO was stupid and the examiner wasn't "talented"?
Quote:

Hell, I'd respect George more if he didn't invite examiners. Makes us even I guess.
Quote:

And you don't? Sure I have other things to do. And I do them. Don't get by here as often as I used to because I'm too busy working so that people like you have to find an honest way to make a living
Quote:

Risk assessment is about future behavior. Last I heard the poly sucked at telling you what I might have done last week, and here you are saying it not only does that but tells you what I'm going to do next year? I really have been out of touch I guess. Had no idea it had progressed to that level of sophistication.

I was given a polygraph test post-conviction and failed miserably. I spent 3+ hours with the polygrapher going over Trial testimony, Police reports, and my version of "what happened". I brought a series of questions I wanted asked by the polygrapher based directly on the testimony of the "victim".  I did my research and formulated the questions in a Yes/No format which I believed was best suited for the test. I spoke to the polygrapher days before the exam to inform him there were questions I wanted asked and that he could ask whatever he wanted of me. When I arrived for the scheduled exam he had not prepared a single question for the test (or so he claimed) and he explained that any "good polygrapher" would not prepare questions in advance and that they would wait to confer with the person being examined to "formulate the questions together". His reasoning was that he wanted to hear my side of the story and that he only had the "victims statement" to draw questions from. I explained to him that It didn't matter what I had to say, the conviction was based on the "victims" testimony and that I would have expected him to be prepared (as I was). He insisted that he hear my side of the alleged events to get a more balanced view and to formulate the questions more accurately. As I stated earlier this took over 3 hours and what it boiled down to was a series of 10 questions which a monkey could have compiled in a matter of minutes including "What's your name?...and...Did you ever put your thingy in the victim". Apparently it took him 3 hours of re-hashing the entire Trial testimony to formulate these questions. My questions were more specific which would have covered this issue along with the details in which the "victim" lied...but it was explained that my questions were "Judicial questions" and not "Polygraph questions". Again, these questions were in simple Yes/No format...but he simply wanted nothing to do with them. As it turned out I failed with a -10. He explained the scoring method as follows...-15 to -4 is Deceptive...-3 to +3 is inconclusive...+4 to +15 is truthful. He reviewed the questions with me and showed me the score for each individual question and my highest score was a +2 (and there was only one of those)...everything else was lower. Keep in mind that each question was asked 3 times. Also keep in mind that, as I stated earlier, one of the questions was MY NAME! Based on this scoring I apparently even lied about my own name? I couldn't even score a +4 (which is only the begining of the truthful range) ON MY OWN NAME? 

I've realized over the years that Law enforcement has absolutely no interest in the truth in these types of cases. Their only interest is in securing a conviction. By Hook or by Crook...the end always justifies the means. Until we deal with the TRUTH in these cases we will never be able to differentiate good cases from bad. We will continue with useless legislation and "feel good" laws that are not only ineffective but downright dangerous.

When will we as a Nation say...enough is enough? 

When we're all on the registry?   

pailryder wrote on Feb 4^th, 2011 at 10:37am:

Just can't break that urge to extract confessions?