Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 ... 20 21 [22]  Send TopicPrint
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) Polygraph Countermeasure Challenge (Read 245342 times)
LieBabyCryBaby
Very Senior User
****
Offline



Posts: 246
Joined: Apr 28th, 2006
Re: Polygraph Countermeasure Challenge
Reply #315 - May 13th, 2009 at 2:44pm
Print Post  
Interesting information, JPW. I have previously pointed out that Dr. Richardson is a phony with no practical experience in polygraphy, but this latest information does shed some light on his motivations.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
George W. Maschke
Global Moderator
*****
Online


Make-believe science yields
make-believe security.

Posts: 5802
Location: The Hague, The Netherlands
Joined: Sep 29th, 2000
Re: Polygraph Countermeasure Challenge
Reply #316 - May 13th, 2009 at 2:51pm
Print Post  
JPW (A.K.A. Edward B. Van Arsdale),

Dr. Richardson's relationship with Brain Fingerprinting Laboratories was no secret to the National Academy of Sciences' Committee to Review the Scientific Evidence on the Polygraph, which invited both him and Dr. Farwell to speak at its fourth public meeting. Moreover, Dr. Richardson's association with Brain Fingerprinting Laboratories was prominently mentioned in the New York Times a week before he addressed the NAS panel.

Dr. Richardson's criticism of polygraphy predates both his NAS presentation and his relationship with Brain Fingerprinting Laboratories by years. He notably testified against polygraph screening at a U.S. Senate hearing in 1997 and criticized CQT polygraphy in a 1993 article ("The CQT Polygrapher's Dilemma: Logico-Ethical Considerations for Psychophysiological Practitioners and Researchers," International Journal of Psychophysiology, Vol. 15 (1993), pp. 263-67) that he anonymously co-authored with Professor John J. Furedy because the FBI would not allow him to publish it in his own name. Dr. Richardson's public truth-telling about polygraphy at a time when it was†certain to entail adverse career consequences from the FBI is testimony to his integrity.

Moreover, Dr. Farwell's brain fingerprinting technique is a concealed information test, not a lie detection test. As such, it cannot be used for screening and is not in competition with the polygraph as a screening device.

It should also be noted that the NAS panel's remit was to review the scientific evidence on polygraph screening. But they found that there is virtually none. So the panel necessarily expanded the scope of its review to include polygraphy in general.

It is clear, Mr. Van Arsdale, that you are not here to discuss substantive issues, but to impugn characters and motives. As you've done previously while posting under the noms de guerre Sancho Panza and Ed Earl, among others. You are a cowardly troll. And now you have been banned a third time. Be gone!
« Last Edit: May 13th, 2009 at 3:12pm by George W. Maschke »  

George W. Maschke
Tel/SMS: 1-202-810-2105 (Please use Signal Private Messenger or WhatsApp to text or call.)
E-mail/iMessage/FaceTime: antipolygraph.org@protonmail.com
Wire: @ap_org
PGP Public Key: 316A947C
PGP Public Key (offline): 2BF4374B
Personal Statement: "Too Hot of a Potato"
Back to top
IP Logged
 
LieBabyCryBaby
Very Senior User
****
Offline



Posts: 246
Joined: Apr 28th, 2006
Re: Polygraph Countermeasure Challenge
Reply #317 - May 13th, 2009 at 5:17pm
Print Post  
George, you might as well ban me too, since it is apparent that JPW was getting the best of you and the other phonies on this website, and you don't want any serious opposition making you appear foolish. He correctly pointed out that you, Gino Scalabrini and Drew Richardson each lack any practical experience in the field of polygraphy, and that you are not the experts you portray yourselves to be. Call his accurate descriptions of you an attack on characters and motives if you will, but that's just a poor excuse for your own cowardice in facing someone with actual experience and credentials when you have none of your own.

Also, how do you know that JPW, Van Arsdale, and this "Sancho" character are the same guy? Is it your common practice to troll for IP addresses, or what? Does it really make any difference whether someone posts under different names, as long as the two names aren't simultaneously playing off each other for support? You've got Cullen using two names, and I'm sure there are other "anti-" posters who are also using multiple names on this website.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
T.Cullen
User
**
Offline



Posts: 37
Joined: Apr 29th, 2009
Re: Polygraph Countermeasure Challenge
Reply #318 - May 13th, 2009 at 6:24pm
Print Post  
Mr. Cry Baby,

You know nothing of science, yet you question the conclusions of the National Academy of Sciences on polygraph validity because they don't conduct polygraphs. Do you really expect people to take you seriously here?

I hope GM keeps you around as an example of just how pompous old fart polygraphers like yourself are. †A picture is worth a thousand posts.

T.Cullen, T.M. Cullen †Tongue

P.S.  Why do you lie to targets of your pseudo-science by telling them the chart is "indicating deception" when you know full well it doesn't?  Are you being purposely deceitful?
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
LieBabyCryBaby
Very Senior User
****
Offline



Posts: 246
Joined: Apr 28th, 2006
Re: Polygraph Countermeasure Challenge
Reply #319 - May 13th, 2009 at 11:05pm
Print Post  
George sure allows a lot of scum to float here on his little pond. Which makes it all the more cowardly and feeble-minded to ban those who actually have some experience in polygraphy. I guess the name of this website does say it all, just as Sergeant has pointed out: AntiPolygraph.org.  Not a place for serious discussion unless you happen to share George's inexperienced, unqualified views.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Sergeant1107
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 730
Location: Connecticut, USA
Joined: May 21st, 2005
Gender: Male
Re: Polygraph Countermeasure Challenge
Reply #320 - May 13th, 2009 at 11:49pm
Print Post  
LieBabyCryBaby wrote on May 13th, 2009 at 11:05pm:
George sure allows a lot of scum to float here on his little pond. Which makes it all the more cowardly and feeble-minded to ban those who actually have some experience in polygraphy. I guess the name of this website does say it all, just as Sergeant has pointed out: AntiPolygraph.org. †Not a place for serious discussion unless you happen to share George's inexperienced, unqualified views.

I wonder if you would express the same moral outrage if I were to join the message board at PolygraphPlace.com and fill the boards with messages that repeatedly pointed out, ad nauseum, that various other posters are polygraph examiners and therefore they have a vested interest in the polygraph, so their opinion is not worthy of consideration? 

Would it make any sense for me to do that?  Would that be the course of action any civil, reasonable person would take?  Of course not, since people who visit PolygraphPlace's message board are doing so to hear the opinions of people who are or were polygraph examiners.  How much credibility would I be able to establish if I continually attacked numerous members with the same tired diatribe, that since they are professional polygraph operators their opinion doesn't count because they have a financial interest in the use of the polygraph?

Do you think any of the polygraph operators on that board would call me a troll and have me banned?  Or accuse me of senseless ad hominem attacks and point out that I wasn't engaging in any discussion, only attacking other members?  I am willing to bet I'd be banned in record time.

If, after I was banned, I came back using a different name and engaged in the same behavior, do you think anyone would have a problem with it?  Do you think I'd be banned again?

George allows free discussion on this board at a level unheard of on most other boards on the Internet.  He doesn't ban people who disagree with him, he bans trolls whose only reason for posting here is to spew flame-bait and try to sling mud around.  I think most people here are pretty clear on that.  I cannot think of anyone who has been banned simply for posting a pro-polygraph opinion on this board, or for disagreeing with George no matter how often it happened.
  

Lorsque vous utilisez un argumentum ad hominem, tout le monde sait que vous Ítes intellectuellement faillite.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
LieBabyCryBaby
Very Senior User
****
Offline



Posts: 246
Joined: Apr 28th, 2006
Re: Polygraph Countermeasure Challenge
Reply #321 - May 14th, 2009 at 12:40am
Print Post  
Your reasoning is faulty, Sergeant. If you were to go to a "pro-" polygraph site, you would still be unqualified to express any firm opinion other than something you got second-hand. I don't really have a problem with someone like you saying that they don't like the polygraph, that they don't think the process was fair to them, or that there are lab studies that support what they feel. What I do oppose is someone like you calling polygraph a "pseudoscience," a "sham" or a "fraud" when you have no experience or training in the subject. It's one thing to point out what recognized experts in the field have to say and to tell others that you agree with those experts. It's quite another thing to act as though George Maschke and other equally unqualified people are experts in the field simply because they have a website.

Were you to go to a "pro-" polygraph website and contually point out that polygraphers might have a vested interest in keeping the polygraph going, in ADDITION to their experience and belief in the process, which is a possible cause for bias, there's nothing wrong with that.  If you kept at it, you'd sure be a boring non-expert, and you might get some polygraphers riled up, but nothing you claimed as fact about the polygraph itself could be taken seriously because you have no foundation to support your claims.  Maybe you would be banned and maybe not. You might be banned simply because you couldn't come up with anything better than the factual statement that polygraphers might be biased in favor of the polygraph because its their job to conduct polygraph exams, and you might be viewed as just taking up space on a subject expressed ad nauseum in your hundreds of posts. Anything more than that would be viewed as an amateur among experts.

Here on this forum, things are quite different, though. Only the polygraphers who occasionally come here because it's an entertaining, well-designed website really have a leg to stand on in making solid claims about polygraphy. Everyone else is, like George, a non-expert due to no practical experience or training in the subject, a polygraph failure with a grudge, or simply a concerned future examinee who mistakenly stumbles on this website because it's the first one that comes up when he/she types the word polygraph in the web browser.

So, when George bans polygraph experts from this website, claiming that they are only here to attack characters and "troll," it is not really justified, but rather "chicken shit."
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
George W. Maschke
Global Moderator
*****
Online


Make-believe science yields
make-believe security.

Posts: 5802
Location: The Hague, The Netherlands
Joined: Sep 29th, 2000
Re: Polygraph Countermeasure Challenge
Reply #322 - Jan 31st, 2012 at 3:20am
Print Post  
I note that it has now been a full ten years since Dr. Richardson issued his polygraph countermeasure challenge. And still, not a single polygraph operator has ever demonstrated any ability to detect the kinds of countermeasures outlined in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector.
  

George W. Maschke
Tel/SMS: 1-202-810-2105 (Please use Signal Private Messenger or WhatsApp to text or call.)
E-mail/iMessage/FaceTime: antipolygraph.org@protonmail.com
Wire: @ap_org
PGP Public Key: 316A947C
PGP Public Key (offline): 2BF4374B
Personal Statement: "Too Hot of a Potato"
Back to top
IP Logged
 
SecretAgentMan
Guest


Re: Polygraph Countermeasure Challenge
Reply #323 - Aug 29th, 2013 at 8:11am
Print Post  
Reading through these forums, it's people like George that restore my faith in humanity, and people like crybaby that loose my faith in it.

What a bunch of BS if I ever saw it... all these respected institutions, and many investigations showing just how false this practice is, and just how those sad little shits otherwise known as polygraph examiners employ every dirty trick there is to try to get false positives etc, it is truly sickening. All with greed in mind. As usual with corruption, FOLLOW THE MONEY!
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 ... 20 21 [22] 
Send TopicPrint
Bookmarks: del.icio.us Digg Facebook Google Google+ Linked in reddit StumbleUpon Twitter Yahoo