Skeptic wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2002 at 6:30am:


The multiple warrants would only be required if they intend to use it in court.  In the words of  Seeker, "It takes only someone with some capabilities in IT to be able to do it.  Then again, we do not need to get into the discussion about mirror imaging, the wealth of information contained in source codes, or any of the other tell-tale signs that one leaves every single time they even visit a site online.....


Beech, 
I believe your exact taunt was:
Quote:

Hmmm.  George, does this mean that Seeker was lying when she said:

Quote:


Does Seeker go out and get all those warrants?   Surely if it is as simple as Seeker says then ANYONE could trace the identity of posters in here. 

Whatever you say in here is being monitored from all sides.  Concerned?  Stay away from antipolygraph.org.

http://stopcarnivore.org/ ;  

"Whatever you say in here is being monitored from all sides.  Concerned? "

Well, no. Should I? 

"Remember, as Seeker and Beech Trees stated, you can be traced, and undoubtedly are being traced, 

Urr, excuse me. Are you implying that reseaching polygraph at this site is a threat to national security requiring the CIA, FBI and Secert Service to "Trace" every respondent? Well go head knock youself out.

so when your polygrapher asks you, "have you researched polygraph" think very carefully about your answer."

Are you suggesting here that if I truthfully disclose to my polygrapher that i've reseached polygraph that I would be more likely to fail?  Please explain.

Here is my humble opinion. If the polygraph was a reliable and valid scientfic method my polygrapher wouldn't have to worry about whether I've reseached polygraph practice and procedure. He would welcome it.

Have a nice day.

We do welcome it. Just about every examiner I know has been given a copy of  george and dougs nonsense. 
I do agree with many of the posts, Georges is better.
However much of this information is inaccurate and very easy to spot.   

How often did you practice and how many times did it take? Be honest.

Quote:


Polylawman,

If polygraphers do welcome their subjects having researched polygraph practice and procedure, as you assert, why is it that none of the pro-polygraph websites (American Polygraph Association, American Association of Police Polygraphists, PolygraphPlace.com, etc.) provide an honest explanation of such? And why do polygraphers routinely lie to and otherwise deceive examinees about the nature of the procedure, as documented in Chapter 3 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector?

And if "much of [the information in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector] is inaccurate and very easy to spot," as you assert, then perhaps you would care to accept Dr. Richardson's polygraph countermeasure challenge and demonstrate just how easy countermeasures are to spot?

mriddle6 wrote on Nov 7^th, 2002 at 7:08pm:


Agreed!

The best way to beat a polygraph would require a proficient polygraph operator, polygraph, and unlimited time to test against such a professional.  The polygraph examiner would be required to give positive or negative feedback to the examinee.  The examinee would have to practice and have complete confidence in his countermeasures.  A spy trying to beat the system would have no shortage of the above resources and would most likely have a good chance of passing a polygraph exam.  Most citizens taking an average exam do not have such elaborate resources.  The logical conclusion being that the average applicant will be more likely to fail than a trained spy.

Mriddle6,

Yes, I agree with your conclusions which agree with the NAS study results.