Well Jitters it looks like all the misinformation George puts out didn't help you very much.  And it also looks like the polygraph just did a good job of weeding out an obvious loser like you.

Jitters,

Did you use countermeasures?  From the gist of your post, I'm assuming that you didn't.   

Don't let your DQ get you too down on yourself.  Learn from it, and press on.

Good luck.

Kona

Quote:


Who the hell do you think you are to judge me on a message board? You don't know me you imbecile. Are you denying any possibility of a truthful person failing a polygraph? Are you that naive? 
If this machine was the magical marvel you think it is the world would be a totally different place. Imagine the money saved on all these trials, imagine the innocent being guaranteed to go free and the guilty being guaranteed to be punished. No need for a trial, hook them up to the magical lie detector and all is good!
But it is NOT that way is it? Ask yourself why "guest". I admit I did not believe the hype on this site but it made me think. Now I believe it 100%. I thought I could pass without using CM's. I was wrong. I was torn between using them at all, frankly when I did not recognize any control questions I was relieved that I did not have to use them. I did not feel right doing so. 
So now that you have proved yourself a total ass, have a nice day.

Jitters wrote on Mar 6^th, 2004 at 4:23pm:


jitters,

Your experience saddens me.

It was an example of why I think George should put a warning on the site's main page that it is important that those facing a polygraph not delve into this unless they are prepared to take a lot of time to thoroughly read TLBTLD.  Some of the posters here are polygraphers that try to confuse readers in order to protect their craft's secrets. If you have any uncertainty about about how and why polygraphers do what they do you are at a higher risk of being a false positive. It is natural to defer to authority and it is hard for most people, after discovering the dubious practices of polygraphers, to immerse themselves into the field sufficiently to knowledgeably and ethically make decisions. I have found TLBTLD to be obviously partisan (look at the site's name) but quite consistent with other writings on the practice by polygraphers. TLBTLD is threat to polygraphy in more ways than just advocating and describing CM's. It is a threat because knowledge of the information in it tends to undercut the basic assumptions polygraphers make about how an examinee responds. Absent effective use of CM's such knowledge is likely, based on polygraphers own assumptions, to put an examinee at higher risk of being found falsely deceptive.

So let me emphasize this point. If you are facing a polygraph, and decide to read TLBTLD please be prepared to research what is there enough that your understanding of what polygraphers do becomes intuitive. Try to gain enough knowledge that you can mentally place yourself in their shoes and understand why they believe they have to use such practices to uncover truth on the so called relevants. I recommend the National Academy of Sciences' research council's "The Polygraph and Lie Detection" for a non partisan, in depth analysis. There is a free web edition link on the home page.

-Marty

Guest,

Hey, Bozo...who is more stupid--the one who invests up to fifteen weeks learning how to perform quackery or the one who spends an hour to learn how to beat the quack at his/her own game?

Guest,

No, Bozo...if you will examine Jitters story, you will see that he was neither successful nor unsuccessful in beating the quack--he did not attempt to beat the quack.  In fact, the lesson here is that (if we are to believe that Jitters was honest regarding relevant issues--do you see any reason not to?) that one must recognize the quack and prepare to beat him/her at his own game.  Not playing the game was Jitter's mistake, it was not playing and losing.

Quote:


You speak of stupidity and bullshit, well you wreak of both. Do you have nothing better to do than troll these boards insulting people?

What I want to know, guest, is why you are being such an ass toward someone that just failed a polygraph while answering all the questions honestly? I have no right to be pissed off? I am not some God damn child molester trying to stay out of jail, I was trying to get into a noble profession as a Law Enforcement Officer. Who the hell do you think you are judging me based on failing this bullshit test? I was suppose to go in there and tell the truth, and I failed. My job was not to identify control questions, it was to tell the truth which is what I did. And you call me stupid for failing, stupid for failing your test that is so accurate that all you have to do is tell the truth. Right.
And you never answered my question genius. If the polygraph was such a technological marvel and so accurate why have trials? If this machine is so magical why not put it to great use and ensure the innocent go free and the guilty pay? Imagine the different world we would be living in if the polygraph was all it is boasted to be. But it is not, and that is fact, not opinion. Tell me something rational to argue this.