Ray,
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.
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:I think the NAS study helped our cause more than it helped yours.
Wishful thinking, Ray.
Quote: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?
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: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.
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:Who have I personally attacked? Did I call anyone a bad name? Point it out for me. I'm just stating the facts.
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:Look at who's trying to give you advice on this site. Who are they and what are their motivations? George isn't trying to help you...he wants you to further his crusade. He tells applicants to refuse to take the poly. Why? Because he thinks it's a slap in the face to the polygraph field. How is that going to help you? You have no chance at your dream if you do that. George wants you to "take one for the team."
You also personally attacked Mr. Truth, with the following:
Quote:Mr. Truth, a convicted sex offender, is telling you how to get on the job wtih the LAPD. Are you kidding me?? The type of person you are looking to protect this world from is trying to "help" you. I'm sure he's a nice guy but it is what it is.
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: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.
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: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?
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.