Quote:


Temper, temper now Mr. Guest.  All I asked for was a credible source that showed Dr. Richardson was trying to discredit the polygraph in order to "sell everyone his new miracle machine" (your words).  Your "source" does nothing to back up this claim.   

Could it be that Dr. Richardson is possibly a man of integrity, that saw the polygraph for what it really is?  If you think his challenge is bogus, then why don't you step up to the plate, and call his bluff?  Just think......you could represent the entire polygraph community, and really put people like that pesky George and Dr. Richardson in their place.  With your hyper-accurate methods of detecting countermeasures, you could really embarass George, and shut down this damn site once and for all!!!  DODPI would be so proud of you that they would probably erect a bronze statue (just like Rocky in Philly) in front of "The Institute."  You would be .................immortal!!!

Too stupid for words?  Try putting a few "words" together in a coherent sentence that actually contributes to the discussion, instead of bashing another person's integrity.  If you have proof of the polygraph's accuracy, and of those hyper-accurate countermeasure detecting methods, please post them here.  I would love to see the scientific evidence. 

Thanks.

Kona   

Nice find George! I have tried to print the DoDPI-LEPET but have been unable to. My computer freezes everytime I try to print. Help!

Thanks.

Doud13299 and others,

You are quite correct to categorize George’s find (the DoDPI Law Enforcement Pre-Employment Test (http://www.antipolygraph.org/documents/dodpi-lepet.pdf)) as nice…it is quite nice indeed.  In fact, I believe it is the first thing any reader coming to this site should read.  I say that not inasmuch as it provides the background and the solution(s) to the problems and challenges raised within the document (The Lie Behind the Lie Detector (TLBLD) does that quite nicely), but no other polygraph document or text that I have seen in a public forum quite as clearly and succinctly and from the horse’s own mouth (and horse’s perspective) lays out the lies (not only the lies but the instruction on how and when to lie and/or mislead and misinform), misrepresentations, and the script for what you will see in your polygraph examination.  This is an absolute must read for all who will face a law enforcement polygraph screening examination and contains a ready-made case for why these sorts of examinations should be ended .  

As was pointed out in a previous message board post, the appendices of this document quite nicely provide for you the sequences of questions that you will (perhaps "would have" to the extent it can be modified) see in the two major types of screening examinations performed and in particular provide you with the labeled control/comparison questions (and alternative comparison questions contained in a separate appendix) that you will augment responses to via methods described in TLBLD.  I can not recommend too strongly for a reader anticipating being a polygraph examinee this document for your careful attention.  Furthermore I would recommend to George, Gino and others who have the ability to widely disseminate this material that it be put (with any copyright protections in mind) in as accessible a format as possible for readers to download and dissect (perhaps making the individual appendices one page html handouts/mail-outs/posters?).  Great work, George!

Barry P.,

How did your pre-employment polygraph examination differ from that which is described in DoDPI's Law Enforcement Pre-Employment Test document?

Not long ago, I was told about this web site and did visit it a couple of times before I took my test. To be perfectly objective, I think I need to talk about my experience.  My examiner (I applied for a job with a police department in the Eastern US) was a retired government examiner and had been on this police department for a number of years.  Although I was skeptical, I had done some soul searching and made up my mind that I was going to be truthful and not do anything that would screw up my chances.  I told the examiner of a couple of "youthful indescretions" and even expressed to him that I was concerned that these lapses would disqualify me.  He asked me if I was still doing these things (they involved alcohol and marijuana) and I told him no (which was a truthful answer).  We talked for about an hour and actually I felt pretty comfortable about the process, even though I felt bad about telling him about the things I had done and was sure it was going to cause problems.  Well, guess what?...It did not.  The examiner was very professional, he went over all of the questions with me, I never felt that I was being tricked, although I did not quite understand the business with the numbers test. He started any question about my background with "Besides what we talked about" and I knew that I had told him everything I had done, but explained to him that I always wanted to be a police officer.  He did comment that it was unusual for someone to talk about their past like I did, but said he was glad I did.  Anyway, I have passed the test and am now about to start my career as a police officer.  I just wanted others to know that because it isn't hopeless.  I get that impression when I read what some people say here, but it just wasn't the case with me.  I wish others could have the experience I did. I for one am glad that I took the test as I planned to and I am certain that the test works just like the examiner told me it would.

It should be noted that "Policeman's" first message in this thread was posted from an IP address that resolves to "webcache.jackson.army.mil."

Fort Jackson, South Carolina is the home of the Department of Defense Polygraph Institute.

Policeman's posting, in which he concludes, "I am certain that the test works just like the examiner told me it would" seems likely to be a forgery posted by a polygrapher at DoDPI.

-- AntiPolygraph.org Administrator

Quote:


Not surprising that a polygrapher would lie, is it ??? 
And just as typical that a polygrapher would not have the smarts to engage in a little proxy-jumping to cover their tracks so they aren't discovered.

Yes, Good Work George.

I am sure you have much to be proud in making public a good exam such as LEPET.  However, I have faith in the those who strive to do the right thing and stay one step ahead of your infectious anger.  Yes, that is right.  You have anger that became infectious as tuberculosis.  Instead of turning your energies to better things, you created something distorted and evil.  I am sure you sleep well at night...

My faith lies with the good guys....am sure you remember when you were one?  Follow the yellow brick road back to humanity, George, and leave the good doers alone.