AntiPolygraph.org Message Board - NAS Polygraph Report

(UTC)

Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register

You can enhance your privacy when browsing and posting to this forum by using the free and open source Tor Browser and posting as a guest (using a fake e-mail address such as nobody@nowhere.com) or registering with a free, anonymous ProtonMail e-mail account. Registered users can exchange private messages with other registered users and receive notifications.

In addition, check out our live chat server.

AntiPolygraph.org Message Board › Polygraph and CVSA Forums › Polygraph Policy › NAS Polygraph Report

(Moderator: Administrator)

‹ Previous Topic | Next Topic ›

Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8

Add Poll

Send Topic

NAS Polygraph Report (Read 49632 times)

Skeptic God Member Offline Posts: 549 Joined: Jun 24^th, 2002	Re: NAS Polygraph Report Reply #75 - Oct 22^nd, 2002 at 4:07am	Mark & Quote Quote Print Post
	Here's a question for those with the time: I haven't had a chance to read the whole NAS report word for word. Can anyone discern whether the NAS combined GKT tests with specific-issue tests of the CQT variety in their conclusions regarding the efficacy of specific-issue testing? I know they did note the different types in the body of the report, and I think they remarked on the better false-positive characteristics of GKT's, but I'm not sure whether they differentiated between them in the conclusion nor whether they found any differences in accuracy. Skeptic


	IP Logged

touche New User Offline Posts: 23 Joined: Sep 25^th, 2002	Re: NAS Polygraph Report Reply #76 - Oct 22^nd, 2002 at 6:10pm	Mark & Quote Quote Print Post
	From the NAS report: Background Investigation Not Good Enough to Replace the Polygraph "Available evidence does not suggest that any direct investigation method is likely to provide a reasonable and valid alternative to the polygraph."


	IP Logged

George W. Maschke Global Moderator Offline Make-believe science yields make-believe security. Posts: 6211 Joined: Sep 29^th, 2000	Re: NAS Polygraph Report Reply #77 - Oct 22^nd, 2002 at 6:26pm	Mark & Quote Quote Print Post
	touche, The claim "Background Investigation Not Good Enough to Replace the Polygraph" is your own; that headline does not appear in the NAS report. While the NAS report does indeed state at p. 6-17 that "[a]vailable evidence does not suggest that any direct investigation method is likely to provide a reasonable and valid alternative to the polygraph," neither does the report conclude that polygraph screening is reasonable and/or valid. Indeed, quite the opposite. The report notes with regard to polygraphy in general (and not just screening) at p. 8-2: "There is essentially no evidence on the incremental validity of polygraph testing, that is, its ability to add predictive value to that which can be achieved by other methods." Sorry touche, you're grasping at straws. There is no life ring for polygraph screening to be found in the NAS report.

	George W. Maschke I am generally available in the chat room from 3 AM to 3 PM Eastern time. 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 Threema: A4PYDD5S Personal Statement: "Too Hot of a Potato"
	WWW Twitter YouTube IP Logged

Skeptic God Member Offline Posts: 549 Joined: Jun 24^th, 2002	Re: NAS Polygraph Report Reply #78 - Oct 22^nd, 2002 at 6:40pm	Mark & Quote Quote Print Post
	Quote: touche, The claim "Background Investigation Not Good Enough to Replace the Polygraph" is your own; that headline does not appear in the NAS report. While the NAS report does indeed state at p. 6-17 that "[a]vailable evidence does not suggest that any direct investigation method is likely to provide a reasonable and valid alternative to the polygraph," neither does the report conclude that polygraph screening is reasonable and/or valid. Indeed, quite the opposite. The report notes with regard to polygraphy in general (and not just screening) at p. 8-2: "There is essentially no evidence on the incremental validity of polygraph testing, that is, its ability to add predictive value to that which can be achieved by other methods." Actually, Touche took the quote out of context, too. The section from which he lifted the quote was not referring to the general efficacy of BI's; rather, it was talking specifically about alternative methods of detecting deception. Skeptic


	IP Logged

Fair Chance God Member Offline Posts: 551 Joined: Oct 10^th, 2002	Re: NAS Polygraph Report Reply #79 - Oct 22^nd, 2002 at 6:53pm	Mark & Quote Quote Print Post
	The polygraph proponents are trying to test some headlines on this website before putting them out on the net. I guest they wanted to see how well the NAS report has been read. I have to thank touche for the bad quote. It has brought back focus to the debate. Background investigations were the only method used for all FBI veteran employees hired before 1994. Would those employees want to be subjected to tests during their next five year background check? If not, why? Because they are a poor predictor of future behavior according to the NAS. That is why their next five year check will be a background check and it will be acceptable to the FBI without polygraph "approval." The background check IS an acceptable means according to FBI policy (as long as you have a job already). Seems to be a very confusing and illogical arguement in light of mandatory employee pre-screening polygraph.


	IP Logged

touche New User Offline Posts: 23 Joined: Sep 25^th, 2002	Re: NAS Polygraph Report Reply #80 - Nov 26^th, 2002 at 11:26pm	Mark & Quote Quote Print Post
	George, this posting is primarily for your information. I do not care to engage in any discussions with anyone else on this matter, which is why I am not detailing it here. It would seem that you engage in considerable research and I would like to BEGIN to bring something to your attention. I do not do this to generate any argument, rather to BEGIN to refute a statement that has been made and proliferated on this site. I DO realize that YOU were not the one who made the statement, yet, the challenge will now be to you to acknowledge an error. This error will become evident to you when you read the following: "Lie Detectors - Their History and Use", ; Eugene Block; 1977, page 117-21 ISBN 0-679-50755-0 I look forward to your response.


	IP Logged

George W. Maschke Global Moderator Offline Make-believe science yields make-believe security. Posts: 6211 Joined: Sep 29^th, 2000	Re: NAS Polygraph Report Reply #81 - Nov 27^th, 2002 at 7:16am	Mark & Quote Quote Print Post
	touche, Could you fax me a copy of these pages at (206) 666-4271, or perhaps e-mail me scanned images?

	George W. Maschke I am generally available in the chat room from 3 AM to 3 PM Eastern time. 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 Threema: A4PYDD5S Personal Statement: "Too Hot of a Potato"
	WWW Twitter YouTube IP Logged

touche New User Offline Posts: 23 Joined: Sep 25^th, 2002	Re: NAS Polygraph Report Reply #82 - Nov 27^th, 2002 at 3:54pm	Mark & Quote Quote Print Post
	Unfortunately, at this time I have neither capability. Inasmuch as the statement at issue appears in the much vaunted NAS report AND additionally attibuted to Mr. Mallah by Mr. Park and the American Physical Society, perhaps he (Mallah) can assist you in reviewing and providing you with a copy. Remember, this is but the first one.


	IP Logged

George W. Maschke Global Moderator Offline Make-believe science yields make-believe security. Posts: 6211 Joined: Sep 29^th, 2000	Re: NAS Polygraph Report Reply #83 - Nov 27^th, 2002 at 8:33pm	Mark & Quote Quote Print Post
	touche, Since it may be a while before I obtain the pages you've referenced, could you post a synopsis?

	George W. Maschke I am generally available in the chat room from 3 AM to 3 PM Eastern time. 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 Threema: A4PYDD5S Personal Statement: "Too Hot of a Potato"
	WWW Twitter YouTube IP Logged

touche New User Offline Posts: 23 Joined: Sep 25^th, 2002	Re: NAS Polygraph Report Reply #84 - Nov 27^th, 2002 at 9:16pm	Mark & Quote Quote Print Post
	Unfortunately, no, I cannot assist. I am in an airport on a laptop and do not have the material with me. Suggest interlibrary loan


	IP Logged

Mark Mallah Very Senior User Offline Posts: 131 Joined: Mar 16^th, 2001 Gender:	Re: NAS Polygraph Report Reply #85 - Nov 27^th, 2002 at 9:29pm	Mark & Quote Quote Print Post
	Quote: Unfortunately, at this time I have neither capability. Inasmuch as the statement at issue appears in the much vaunted NAS report AND additionally attibuted to Mr. Mallah by Mr. Park and the American Physical Society, perhaps he (Mallah) can assist you in reviewing and providing you with a copy. Remember, this is but the first one. I'm not exactly sure what you are referring to, but I have a guess: the statement that the polygraph has never caught a single spy in all its history. If that is the statement you are referring to, bear in mind that none other than Ed Curran, on 60 Minutes II, said that even he was not aware of any spies caught by the polygraph. Touche, it would really be so much easier and convenient and courteous if you facilitated discussion by summarizing the information contained within those pages. If you do not want others to see it, you can send George and/or I a private message through this web site with that summary.


	WWW IP Logged

touche New User Offline Posts: 23 Joined: Sep 25^th, 2002	Re: NAS Polygraph Report Reply #86 - Dec 2^nd, 2002 at 2:30am	Mark & Quote Quote Print Post
	Mark....Now why should I do that? You and your friends would not believe me. Actually, I fully expect you to attack the authenticity of the book, when and if you ever read it. But that is okay, because many will go to the source and read it. It has nothing to do with what Curran said. It is what you said to Park and what has been perpetuated on this site. I would appreciate it if you wouldnot lecture me on the iossue of coutesy. If you cannot keep up on the statements you make to people, perhaps you should not make them. I merely asked you to assist your friend George because of his physical location and because I anticipated an attack should it come from anyone other than you allies. If you cannot, or will not, that is between you and him. It may take some time, but sooner of later, he will obtain it and the statement is irrefutable. I am not in a hurry, this book has been in print since 1977 and apparently neither you, George or the NAS took the time to read it or research their claims in the manner which one would expect scientists working on behalf of the government should. I certainly hope that your readers will not think that other things you say may be less than precise?


	IP Logged

Skeptic God Member Offline Posts: 549 Joined: Jun 24^th, 2002	Re: NAS Polygraph Report Reply #87 - Dec 2^nd, 2002 at 5:35am	Mark & Quote Quote Print Post
	touche wrote on Dec 2^nd, 2002 at 2:30am: Mark....Now why should I do that? You and your friends would not believe me. Actually, I fully expect you to attack the authenticity of the book, when and if you ever read it. But that is okay, because many will go to the source and read it. It has nothing to do with what Curran said. It is what you said to Park and what has been perpetuated on this site. I would appreciate it if you wouldnot lecture me on the iossue of coutesy. If you cannot keep up on the statements you make to people, perhaps you should not make them. What a silly thing to say, given that you don't even have the courage to clarify to which statement you're referring. Are you that afraid of fair debate? This hit-and-run argument by innuendo is, indeed, very discourteous. Quote: I merely asked you to assist your friend George because of his physical location and because I anticipated an attack should it come from anyone other than you allies. If you cannot, or will not, that is between you and him. It may take some time, but sooner of later, he will obtain it and the statement is irrefutable. Your clear reluctance to present it here so readers may discuss it and judge for themselves belies your claims of confidence. Quote: I am not in a hurry, this book has been in print since 1977 and apparently neither you, George or the NAS took the time to read it or research their claims in the manner which one would expect scientists working on behalf of the government should. I certainly hope that your readers will not think that other things you say may be less than precise? Another comical statement, given your deliberate vagueness here. Either present your evidence or retract your statements, Touche. You're not going to win any debate with arguments you never make and evidence you won't provide. Skeptic


	IP Logged

touche New User Offline Posts: 23 Joined: Sep 25^th, 2002	Re: NAS Polygraph Report Reply #88 - Dec 2^nd, 2002 at 6:07am	Mark & Quote Quote Print Post
	See George/Mark, this is exactly what I mean. I was having a discussion with the two of you, and Skeptic somehow found it necessary to horn in and offer the same kind of...what did you guys call it..."ad hominem" arguments. Skeptic: if it bothered you THAT much, the citation was there for all to obtain. George couldn't get it because of HIS physical location and I suggested thatMark provide it for him. No offense Mark and George because I believe you read and understood my posting where I commented that given my physical location, I was unable to get my hands on the source for George's purposes. In time, I am sure you will get it and see to what I am referring. Mark, you are correct, it outlines a detailed use of the polygraph in WWII concerning the discovery of a Nazi spy. I just wanted you to read it completely, have an opportunity to check the sources and respond. Skeptic, mind your own business.


	IP Logged

Skeptic God Member Offline Posts: 549 Joined: Jun 24^th, 2002	Re: NAS Polygraph Report Reply #89 - Dec 2^nd, 2002 at 6:35am	Mark & Quote Quote Print Post
	touche wrote on Dec 2^nd, 2002 at 6:07am: See George/Mark, this is exactly what I mean. I was having a discussion with the two of you, and Skeptic somehow found it necessary to horn in and offer the same kind of...what did you guys call it..."ad hominem" arguments. Touche, if you want a private conversation on these boards you can send a direct message. You, on the other hand, have been posting publicly. I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but if you post something on a public bulletin board, by convention it's pretty much fair gaime for anyone. Quote: Skeptic: if it bothered you THAT much, the citation was there for all to obtain. Unfortunately, it's not. The book appears to be out of print and not even available in my local University library (a fairly comprehensive source). Furthermore, it's your evidence; present it! I simply have little wish to buy a used, out-of-print book through Amazon to read one passage. Good Lord, man: if the evidence is "irrefutable" as you say, you should have no qualms presenting it here. Quote: George couldn't get it because of HIS physical location and I suggested thatMark provide it for him. No offense Mark and George because I believe you read and understood my posting where I commented that given my physical location, I was unable to get my hands on the source for George's purposes. In time, I am sure you will get it and see to what I am referring. Mark, you are correct, it outlines a detailed use of the polygraph in WWII concerning the discovery of a Nazi spy. I just wanted you to read it completely, have an opportunity to check the sources and respond. Skeptic, mind your own business. I'm sorry you felt your posts were visable only to George and/or Mark. If you post something publicly, however, you really have no reasonable expectation of a private conversation, and what you're posting is of potential interest to everyone here. Skeptic


	IP Logged

Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8

Add Poll

Send Topic

‹ Previous Topic | Next Topic ›

NAS Polygraph Report

Name:
E-mail:
Your Verification Code is:	Please type the characters that appear in the image. The characters must be typed in the same order, and they are case-sensitive.
Verification Code:
Preview

Message Icon:

Subject:

Message:
You can resize the textbox by dragging the right or bottom border.

Max 200000 characters. Remaining characters:

Text size: pt

More Smilies

View All Smilies

Collapse/Expand additional features

Attachments More Attachments

Allowed file types: txt doc docx ics 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:

Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:

Attachment 4:

Attachment 5:

Attachment 6:

Attachment 7:

Attachment 8:

Attachment 9:

Attachment 10:

Disable UBBC and Smilies:

Check this if you wish to disable parsing of ubbc tags and smilies.