Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9]  ReplyAdd Poll Send TopicPrint
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) "how to sting the polygraph" (Read 64913 times)
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box orolan
Especially Senior User
*****
Offline



Posts: 363
Joined: Dec 25th, 2002
Re: "how to sting the polygraph"
Reply #120 - Jul 5th, 2003 at 3:41am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Marty,
Your latest post causes me to wonder once again why polygraphers have to "know" what a lie looks like on the chart before they can find another one.
If the premise were correct that a lie will cause a significantly "taller" spike than a truth, why not establish a baseline using a series of questions the examiner knows the true answers to, ie "Is today Friday?", "Is your name Marty?", etc. With this baseline established, responses that were significantly stronger would be scored as lies.
What about it, polygraphers?
  

"Most of the things worth doing in the world had been declared impossible before they were done." &&U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis
Back to top
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Marty
Especially Senior User
*****
Offline



Posts: 499
Joined: Sep 27th, 2002
Re: "how to sting the polygraph"
Reply #121 - Jul 5th, 2003 at 4:18am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
orolan wrote on Jul 5th, 2003 at 3:41am:
Marty,
Your latest post causes me to wonder once again why polygraphers have to "know" what a lie looks like on the chart before they can find another one.
If the premise were correct that a lie will cause a significantly "taller" spike than a truth, why not establish a baseline using a series of questions the examiner knows the true answers to, ie "Is today Friday?", "Is your name Marty?", etc. With this baseline established, responses that were significantly stronger would be scored as lies.
What about it, polygraphers?


Orolan,

Assuming you aren't just baiting polygraphers, the main reason polygraphy migrated from the RI to CQT is that what is detected is not lies or truth, but fear of detection (or as Drew says somewhat more accurately, fear of consequences). The chatter about lies producing distinct responses per se is a conditioning technique designed to make the CQT more accurate and create more concern (and response) on the controls than the relevants*. The risk is that exceptionally honest individuals may not be swayed into lying on the controls.

*[edited] Assumes examinee is innocent. For a deceptive examinee, the intent is to create greater response on both Q's, the assumption being that the relevant Q will elicit a greater response even though the examinee is deceptive on both.

-Marty
  

Leaf my Philodenrons alone.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box George W. Maschke
Global Moderator
*****
Offline


Make-believe science yields
make-believe security.

Posts: 6060
Location: The Hague, The Netherlands
Joined: Sep 29th, 2000
Re: "how to sting the polygraph"
Reply #122 - Jul 5th, 2003 at 5:17pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Breeze,

You write:

Quote:
And finally George.  LE work is filled with unscientific methods, as you know-you just focus on one of the tools that has offended you. To continue to throw up "lack of scientific method" at the end of all your arguements is weak.  Because something cannot be proved to your satisfaction in a lab does not mean it is without merit!
For something like polygraph that lacks a scientific basis it sure does get to the right answer an overwhelming percentage of times (in my experience)  You do not have to accept this, but then again, you have never seen the tool used, and your experience base is primarily from the testimony of others.  Our applicants almost without fail will admit disqualifying information after failing an exam, and it will be specific to the area in which they failed.  However this usually takes about 20 minutes of wading through denials.  Sorry, ive just seen it too much to believe its random chance.
And please explain to me how a follow up exam, done for the purpose of verifying use of CM is an admission that detection is unreliable?  Its simply additional evidence.  Follow up exams are standard practice as things come into focus.  The fact that very few people would be subjected to such a test I have already explained in a previous post.  And as I explained to marty, knowledge is not and never will be a problem, augmentation is.


No doubt, law enforcement properly uses investigatory techniques that are not science-based diagnostic tests, such as interviews and interrogations. But the polygraph community presents polygraphy to the public as a highly reliable, scientifically-sound diagnostic test for deception. (No such claims are typically made with regard to interviews or interrogations.) DoDPI and the American Polygraph Association have even taken to calling polygraphy the "psychophysiological detection of deception" or "forensic psychophysiology."

It is hardly "weak" of me to point out that claims that CQT polygraphy is a science-based diagnostic test are patently false.

I agree with you that the fact that a purported diagnostic technique cannot be proven to my satisfaction (or to the National Academy of Sciences,' or the the vast majority of scientists') does not mean that it is entirely without merit. CQT polygraphy does have some utility to the extent that it encourages some subjects to be more candid than they would be absent the polygraph. But I think you confuse utility with validity.

You note that, "[your] applicants almost without fail will admit disqualifying information after failing an exam, and it will be specific to the area in which they failed." It is hardly surprising that applicants who ultimately admit to disqualifying information would do so specifically with regard to the area in which they "failed," because it is precisely regarding that area that they will be interrogated in the "post-test" phase.

You asked me to "explain...how a follow up exam, done for the purpose of verifying use of CM is an admission that detection is unreliable?" First, as I pointed out in my post of 25 June, a GKT itself cannot "show conclusively" that a test subject actually used information that only someone who visited AntiPolygraph.org would know. It can only show that a person is likely to have knowledge of such information. If you could reliably detect countermeasures, there would be little point in running a follow-up GKT that cannot show that a subject used countermeasures.

Note that the polygrapher who suspects a subject of having employed countermeasures is the wrong person to administer a follow-up GKT in an attempt to determine whether a subject has knowledge that only someone who has visited AntiPolygraph.org would possess. The polygrapher will have a bias toward confirming his suspicions that could very well influence the outcome of the procedure.

Finally, you wrote to Marty, "Personally, I would like to see an applicant do all the research he has time for in order to make an informed choice." If that's the case, then why not refer all applicants to AntiPolygraph.org before their polygraph examinations?
  

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
Threema: A4PYDD5S
Personal Statement: "Too Hot of a Potato"
Back to top
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box orolan
Especially Senior User
*****
Offline



Posts: 363
Joined: Dec 25th, 2002
Re: "how to sting the polygraph"
Reply #123 - Jul 5th, 2003 at 10:32pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Marty,
So the rationale goes something like this: Since the examinee "lied" on the control but did not "know" he was lying, it was a "little lie" that would show a small response due to the examinee's lack of "fear". On a subsequent relevant question, a "lie" would show as a stronger response due to the fact that the examinee "knows" he is lying and "fears" the consequences of being caught in his lie?
And no, I'm not baiting the polygraphers. Just trying to understand. BTW, anybody heard from the Caped Crusader lately?
  

"Most of the things worth doing in the world had been declared impossible before they were done." &&U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis
Back to top
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Marty
Especially Senior User
*****
Offline



Posts: 499
Joined: Sep 27th, 2002
whikleRe: "how to sting the polygraph"
Reply #124 - Jul 6th, 2003 at 1:09am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
orolan wrote on Jul 5th, 2003 at 10:32pm:
Marty,
So the rationale goes something like this: Since the examinee "lied" on the control but did not "know" he was lying, it was a "little lie" that would show a small response due to the examinee's lack of "fear". On a subsequent relevant question, a "lie" would show as a stronger response due to the fact that the examinee "knows" he is lying and "fears" the consequences of being caught in his lie?
And no, I'm not baiting the polygraphers. Just trying to understand. BTW, anybody heard from the Caped Crusader lately?


Let me provide a scenario to clarify this. Imagine the following two people who both smoked dope every other weekend in their senior year of HS but had been clean since. Imagine one had, together with a friend, stolen a neighbor's high end stereo and TV and pawned them but were never caught.

Typically, one of the "controls" is a broad question about stealing when you were young while a "relevant" might be a more specific instance of stealing > $200 from an employer. And of course the drug questions would also be "relevants."

It is highly likely that the person who stole and pawned the electronic equipment would be more reactive to the theft question than the drug question and would therefor be the one more likely to be hired by LE, other factors being equal. OTOH, a third person who had never been involved with drugs at all, perhaps as a result of knowing someone that OD'ed but had also never stolen even a candy bar would likley react more to the "relevant" drug question, even if completely innocent, just from being accused since he would be completely comfortable he had never stolen anything while the examiner is *assuming* otherwise.

It should be clear from this just how difficult it is to establish the validity of the polygraph when used in a CQT, and how, in some cases, a CQT may be biased against an innocent person.

-Marty
  

Leaf my Philodenrons alone.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box An ex-felonan
Guest


Re: "how to sting the polygraph"
Reply #125 - Sep 3rd, 2015 at 5:40am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
I have had to take the polygraph test every six months since 2011 I am an ex-felon and if you think that I would tell the truth on every single question that I'm asked you have got to have something wrong upstairs ! I can honestly tell you that Doug Williams how to sting the polygraph truly does work ! And I can honestly tell you that more than half of the questions I'm asked each time is definitely not the truth ! Why would you tell the truth to an individual who is going to relay absolutely everything you say to him to a fraudulent entity that murdered and killed over 188 people in order to become a placing agency yes I'm talking about the feds ! How utterly stupid what a person have to be to tell anything truthful to the feds !

Yes how to sting the polygraph truly works !
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Al Pacino
Guest


Re: "how to sting the polygraph"
Reply #126 - Sep 23rd, 2015 at 12:29am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
To the individual inquiring about the booklet " how to sting the polygraph " the individual that says they both suck has either got to be a polygraph operator or a cop or possibly even a Fed !

I can honestly tell you that this technique does work ! I have been using it for the past four years having to take a polygraph test every six months because of the federal control that I have on me ! I am an ex-federal con and if you think an ex-con would tell the truth to his PO or a therapist that he is forced to have to see and talk to you got another thing coming.! Get real after having been screwed by the federal system and still being screwed by the federal system you come to a new reality, a new way of thinking. Yes be very afraid of the polygraph for it is not a lie detector it can no more detect whether a person is lying or telling the truth then you have the ability to go to heaven until God that you are taking over ! How absolutely absurd is that !

Yes definitely get the book ! From someone who is been using these techniques for four years a total of eight now going on nine polygraph tests which I have passed with flying colors I can definitely tell you the polygraph is most emphatically a farce, a fraud, an absolute lie in and of itself ! The inventor Dr. William Nelson a NASA scientist who developed it said he was only creating a party gig to be used against his brother-in-law to be. The feds stole the patent and turned this device into what is now the biggest lying piece of hardware damages people's lives that the feds could have ever hoped for. Don't let the polygraph interrogator have the upper hand !

" [b]Get the book "
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Ex Member
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 710
Joined: Dec 9th, 2012
Re: "how to sting the polygraph"
Reply #127 - Sep 23rd, 2015 at 2:51am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Quote:
The inventor Dr. William Nelson a NASA scientist who developed it said he was only creating a party gig to be used against his brother-in-law to be.

Say what?
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Drew Richardson
Especially Senior User
*****
Offline



Posts: 427
Joined: Sep 7th, 2001
Re: "how to sting the polygraph"
Reply #128 - Sep 23rd, 2015 at 1:10pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Ark,

When you compare the account that you quoted with the reality of Marston and Wonder Woman, you have a very good example of truth being stranger than an admittedly pretty strange fiction...
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Ex Member
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 710
Joined: Dec 9th, 2012
Re: "how to sting the polygraph"
Reply #129 - Sep 23rd, 2015 at 7:16pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Indeed, Marston was more of a vaudevillian. In my book, Cesare Lombroso was more of a true visionary.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9] 
ReplyAdd Poll Send TopicPrint
"how to sting the polygraph"

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 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:
X