George,

Quote:


Prior to the NAS study, C/M's were really not focused on in the polygraph community.  All I will tell you is that this has changed.  I think the NAS study helped our cause more than it helped yours.  Let me use a sports analogy here for you George.  I'm on defense, you're on offense.  Am I going to tell you what I'm going to do to stop your play?  Would that be wise?   

Quote:


Not entirely.  I'm saying it's a one sided statement.  Are you saying that all of those personal statements are 100% accurate?  Is it possible some things were embellished or perhaps left out all together?  You seem to present them as fact.

Quote:


Who have I personally attacked?  Did I call anyone a bad name?  Point it out for me.  I'm just stating the facts.  Bushido71 has asked for feedback and I'm giving it to him.  I think Mr. Truth's status as a convicted sex offender would have some bearing on his credibility and the validity of his statements, especially for someone looking to get into the field of LE.    

Being that bushido71 is considering following your advice, I think your motivation for publishing this website should be considered.  If your motivation is so genuine, why do you feel as though I've personally attacked you?  Perhaps I've struck a cord?

By the way, my post was not intended for you George.  I was attempting to give Bushido 71 another opinion.   

Mr. Truth,
Quote:


Yes it does.  Walk up to a complete stranger and list all of your accomplishments...then explain to them that you're a convicted sex offender.  Sorry man, that's life.

Ray,

Quote:


So you would have us believe that the polygraph community's ability to detect countermeasures only began after the NAS study -- that you've suddenly come up with a reliable countermeasure detection method? But polygraphers have been claiming to be able to detect countermeasures long before then.

Quote:


Wishful thinking, Ray.

Quote:


With the above, you have tacitly conceded that any approach you may have for attempting to detect countermeasures depends on deceit. No technique that relies on such gamesmanship is going to remain viable for long.

You (and other polygraphers) discourage the use of countermeasures. You want the public to believe that you have the ability to detect them. But you offer no evidence whatsoever in support of this claimed ability.

Dr. Richardson's polygraph countermeasure challenge offers an excellent avenue for demonstrating such an ability without divulging your "game plan." Sorry, Ray, the claim that countermeasure detection cannot be demonstrated for fear of disclosing secrets of the trade will only be convincing to the most simpleminded of audiences.

Quote:


I cannot say with certainty that the public statements made by various self-described polygraph victims are 100% accurate. But I have no reason to doubt them.

You went beyond saying that the statements are "one-sided." You attacked the integrity of those making the statements when you earlier wrote, "I guarantee that some of those personal statements leave out info which isn't so flattering to the examinee."

Quote:


You made a general ad hominem attack against the authors of the personal statements posted on this site. You also attacked me, personally, when you wrote the following:

Quote:


You also personally attacked Mr. Truth, with the following:

Quote:


What you have not done is to provide anything resembling a rational argument in support of your claim that if bushido71 employs countermeasures, he has a "very good chance" of being detected.

Quote:


No, Mr. Truth's status as a convicted sex offender has no bearing whatsoever on the validity anything he says about polygraph matters. Why not address what he has to say with rational arguments, rather than ad hominem attacks? Perhaps because you can't?

Quote:


There you go again with yet another ad hominem attack instead of rational argument. It appears that you do not understand just what the term ad hominem means. You'll find it explained here:

http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/attack.htm

My motivation has no bearing on the truth or falsity of what I have to say about polygraph matters. But my motives in helping to create and maintain AntiPolygraph.org are simple: to expose and end polygraph waste, fraud, and abuse. Part of that involves educating the public about polygraphy and helping those who face polygraph "testing" to protect themselves against the very real risk of a false positive outcome. All information on AntiPolygraph.org is free, and no one involved with this website receives any payment either in cash or in kind for their time and effort. I don't know what purer motive you expect.

I read the post on RealPolice.net and I am not surprised to hear a comment like that.  I don't think it is all that uncommon of an occurence.  Throughout 11 years of being a police officer, I have heard of many instances where fellow officers claim to "have a friend" who lied about serious matters on their polygraph exams and passed.  To any police officer in the know, this is not a surprise.  It would be nice if there were a tried and true means of lie detection, but unfortunately there really isn't.