AntiPolygraph.org Message Board

(UTC)

Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register

You can enhance your privacy when browsing and posting to this forum by using the free and open source Tor Browser and posting as a guest (using a fake e-mail address such as nobody@nowhere.com) or registering with a free, anonymous ProtonMail e-mail account. Registered users can exchange private messages with other registered users and receive notifications.

In addition, check out our live chat server.

AntiPolygraph.org Message Board › Polygraph and CVSA Forums › Post-Conviction Polygraph Programs › New and Nervous

(Moderator: Administrator)

‹ Previous Topic | Next Topic ›

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5

Add Poll

Send Topic

New and Nervous (Read 42589 times)

Anonymous Guest	Re: New and Nervous Reply #30 - Aug 9^th, 2004 at 9:52pm	Mark & Quote Quote Print Post
	SM, Please... you started off so innocenty questioning this site and what it's all about. No problem. Don't start twisting things around. Where in the hell did I ever say we needed the help of sex offenders to disprove the validity of polygraph screening? And how do you even gather an implication to that effect from my post? You're not thinking logically on this one - if, by simply visiting this site and reading about countermeasures, a convicted sex offender can easily pass a polygraph "test" while being deceptive and still commiting heinous acts, why is the polygraph still being used for these purposes? Obviously you are a non-believer in the polygraph as you are acknowledging that the information on this site arms criminals with the ability to pass the "test." Like I said before, why blame this site (or any of the HUNDREDS of books that summarize everything available on this site)? This was mentioned in another thread - go check out www.911hotjobs.com and look through the literature available for purchase on a LAW-ENFORCEMENT SPONSORED site. In fact, I purchased an electronic book from that site and learned everything I needed to know about the polygraph and how to beat it using countermeasures. Polygraph "testing" should be a thing of the past, plain and simple. Say tomorrow a website pops up advertising a simple, prepared-in-the-comfort-of-your-own-home mixture that would enable anyone to magically pass a urinalysis drug test. Would you blame the website? Hell no! You wouldn't even have time to because that urinalysis drug test would be DONE. Seems like a long shot, doesn't it? Why is that? Because drug testing is based on valid scientific principles. The polygraph is hack science - just look at its' history. Even al Qaeda admits it doesn't work (see the translated literature available somewhere on this site for more info on that...). Don't think you're alone in wanting to protect your kids from sex offenders. Given the failings of the polygraph as well as the harsh (and warranted) punishments for convicted sex offenders, I can't stand the fact that polygraph "results" are so heavily relied upon in these cases. Do you sleep better at night knowing that the polygraph has put innocent people behind bars and required humiliating sex offender registration for non-sex offenders? Think about the consequences of all of these things. But, the polygraph has kept the guilty people behind bars as well, right? I ask you this - how do you really know? Joe Sex Offender came to this site, learned about countermeasures and has been released from treatment and is no longer on probation. But he's guilty as sin. Blame the polygraph, man. The examiner's "opinion" is what set him free. Examiners will spout off about how it's the "best we've got" (check out www.polygraphplace.com and you'll see what I mean). Doesn't matter - it's not good enough. It ruins lives while at the same time not REALLY doing much good. The bad outweighs the good which means despite it being the best we've got it's still not good enough.


	IP Logged

cop Guest	Re: New and Nervous Reply #31 - Aug 9^th, 2004 at 10:18pm	Mark & Quote Quote Print Post
	Quote: SM, www.911hotjobs.com and look through the literature available for purchase on a LAW-ENFORCEMENT SPONSORED site. That site is not "sponsored" by law enforcement.


	IP Logged

dimas Especially Senior User Offline Posts: 278 Joined: Jul 3^rd, 2001 Gender:	Re: New and Nervous Reply #32 - Aug 9^th, 2004 at 11:05pm	Mark & Quote Quote Print Post
	cop, FYI, to sponsor means to provide financial support. The particular site in question receives most of its financing from LE agencies who advertise on the site. While it probably all comes down to semantics, I believe even the most common simpleton such as yourself can probably see that "sponsor" is an appropriate word to use in this case.

	"But I, being poor, have only my dreams. I have spread my dreams under your feet; tread softly, because you tread on my dreams."&&
	IP Logged

cop Guest	Re: New and Nervous Reply #33 - Aug 9^th, 2004 at 11:37pm	Mark & Quote Quote Print Post
	dimas wrote on Aug 9^th, 2004 at 11:05pm: cop, FYI, to sponsor means to provide financial support. The particular site in question receives most of its financing from LE agencies who advertise on the site. While it probably all comes down to semantics, I believe even the most common simpleton such as yourself can probably see that "sponsor" is an appropriate word to use in this case. You are even worse than a simpleton, you are an idiot. That site does not get ANY money from ANY law enforcement agency of ANY kind. They sell stuff! That is the only way they make their money. They try to look official, to fool idiots like you. Guess it worked on you.


	IP Logged

Anonymous Guest	Re: New and Nervous Reply #34 - Aug 10^th, 2004 at 3:57am	Mark & Quote Quote Print Post
	Cop, Think before you speak. Go check the site out yourself - do you see all of those listings for jobs with law enforcement agencies? Okay, step two. Click on the little button that says post a job. Now, what does it say? You have to pay for it. All of those different departments, agencies, etc. listed under featured employers - yes, they all paid money to be listed there. Follow my logic - all of those law enforcement agencies that are advertising jobs have paid to put those ads up. So what does that mean? The site is SPONSORED by law enforcement agencies. Wow - given the number of times you've insulted posters' intelligence, I'd have thought you'd do a little homework before you started typing. So, you're just a poly cop, right? Not an investigator , I hope?


	IP Logged

G Scalabr Global Moderator Offline Posts: 358 Joined: Sep 29^th, 2000	Re: New and Nervous Reply #35 - Aug 10^th, 2004 at 5:00am	Mark & Quote Quote Print Post
	::sigh:: Yet another battle in the war of facts and reason vs. the bluster of angry polygraphers... Quote: spon·sor n. 1. One who assumes responsibility for another person or a group during a period of instruction, apprenticeship, or probation. 2. One who vouches for the suitability of a candidate for admission. 3. A legislator who proposes and urges adoption of a bill. 4. One who presents a candidate for baptism or confirmation; a godparent. 5. One that finances a project or an event carried out by another person or group, especially a business enterprise that pays for radio or television programming in return for advertising time. tr.v. spon·sored, spon·sor·ing, spon·sors To act as a sponsor for. Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition


	WWW IP Logged

cop Guest	Re: New and Nervous Reply #36 - Aug 10^th, 2004 at 5:19am	Mark & Quote Quote Print Post
	Good for you Gino baby, you have learned to read a dictionary. Now let me tell you one more time, none of those things apply to that site. Those are free links not sponsored. But you never did check your facts.


	IP Logged

cop Guest	Re: New and Nervous Reply #37 - Aug 10^th, 2004 at 5:20am	Mark & Quote Quote Print Post
	Quote: Cop, Think before you speak. Go check the site out yourself - do you see all of those listings for jobs with law enforcement agencies? Okay, step two. Click on the little button that says post a job. Now, what does it say? You have to pay for it. All of those different departments, agencies, etc. listed under featured employers - yes, they all paid money to be listed there. Follow my logic - all of those law enforcement agencies that are advertising jobs have paid to put those ads up. So what does that mean? The site is SPONSORED by law enforcement agencies. Wow - given the number of times you've insulted posters' intelligence, I'd have thought you'd do a little homework before you started typing. So, you're just a poly cop, right? Not an investigator , I hope? Once again you show your stupidity dimwit. Those are free links - not paid listings.


	IP Logged

George W. Maschke Global Moderator Offline Make-believe science yields make-believe security. Posts: 6211 Joined: Sep 29^th, 2000	Re: New and Nervous Reply #38 - Aug 10^th, 2004 at 5:55am	Mark & Quote Quote Print Post
	"Cop," Don't piss on our shoes and tell us it's raining. Anonymous gave you detailed instructions on how to confirm that law enforcement agencies sponsor www.911hotjobs.com by paying for job postings there. Perhaps his instructions were too complicated for you to follow. Here's a direct link: http://www.911hotjobs.com/advertise2.htm Do you still deny it? This law enforcement-sponsored website also profits from selling literature on how to pass a polygraph "test." Go to the following page, and in the lower right you'll find a group of listings under the header, "Polygraph Testing Materials": http://www.911hotjobs.com/bookstore/testcenter.htm Although the website is intended for public safety applicants, they'll sell the materials to anyone who'll pay for it...even convicted sex offenders.

	George W. Maschke I am generally available in the chat room from 3 AM to 3 PM Eastern time. 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"
	WWW Twitter YouTube IP Logged

sm Guest	Re: New and Nervous Reply #39 - Aug 10^th, 2004 at 6:26am	Mark & Quote Quote Print Post
	Anonymous, chill for second. I'm not blaming this site. I am simply stating that there are posts from sex offenders with questions on how to avoid being caught and admitting they HAVE BEEN DECEPTIVE. They are posting their dishonesty, and I never said you are intentionally helping sex offenders/criminals learn to beat the poly, however read the posts because that's what you are getting. I'm not even disapointed by the fact others are trying to lie to on the poly to gain employment. If Joe Blow feels he has to to lie on the poly that is his choice and if he gets caught he may be excluded from law enforcement all together. Whether not law enforcement sponsors this site is irrelevant. Just because freedom of speach allows you to provide information without violating any laws is fantastic, however don't we have a MORAL DUTY to do what's right? Do people get screwed on poly graph test? I'm sure they do. Will I ever get screwed on a poly test? I'm sure I will, however because of the responsibility I have to the community I still am not going to support providing any information to criminals that are looking to beat the system. Is there anything wrong with law enforcement using the poly to hire candidates? I would say no. It is their right, however unfair it seems. I recently went to a medical exam and answered yes to questions that may exclude me from the hireing process. Personally I didn't think it was relevant since I know my own health better than any doctor who speaks to me for five minutes does. I could have lied on the questionare and nobody would have ever known, but I didn't, it's called morals. Now, before we debate what being supportive is, my interpretation is when one provides any type of information, advice, suggestions, and answering of relevant questions. I like this site. It makes some very good points about how the poly is not reliable and as stated before I am not as much concerned about the people who are looking for ways to beat the poly for hiring purposes although I feel if you need to lie on a poly then the problem doesn't lie with passing or failing the poly. The problem is that the individual is either ashamed or uncomfortable with themselves. That is a problem. How can one enforce the law if they feel guilty about the times they have broken the law and not been caught. One of my first posts states to be honest with yourself. Admit to what you have done and take your lumps. I think most of the candidates who have made posts about being screwed by the poly are being honest and sincere and if they were screwed by a false reading on a poly is indeed a shame. Unfortunately that is part of the deal when you try to get into law enforcement. and for those people who have been falsely convicted for failing a poly, it is a bigger shame for the system. I would like to address the point that I don't think as many people fail the poly for telling the truth as some of these posts state. I would say most of the story lies somewhere in the middle. If these people would come here to learn how to beat the poly, which may be considered cheating, then why would I believe them to be telling me the truth? I would be more inclined to believe a person who has failed the poly and rather than try to beat the poly the next time, decide to apply somewhere else and just try again. Police Departments don't black ball and most likely a good candidate will get another chance to take a poly. I don't fully understand how the poly works. I know it mainly deals with responses to body functions such as breathing, heart rate, sweating, etc., but I do understand everyones body reacts differently to stimuli. I am not here to make enemies with anyone or accuse anyone of directly helping criminals. What I am asking is not to give criminals the upper hand. If an individual admits he is trying to beat the poly to avoid prosecution, then why would you even reply to his post. The guy is scum! Even if they feel they have been wrongly accused, at least take a moment in deciding if helping them pass a poly is in the best interest of society. Most people who are low income qualify for free legal aid, and If they have a problem with a poly then they should address it with their attorney.......


	IP Logged

Sluggo User Offline Posts: 27 Location: Dallas, TX Joined: Jun 25^th, 2004 Gender:	Re: New and Nervous Reply #40 - Aug 10^th, 2004 at 8:22pm	Mark & Quote Quote Print Post
	Cop; Polys are crap, pure and simple. I wouldn't waste my time on this website if I didn't believe in George's objective of ridding our society of this ridiculous tool. I've done my time attached to the silly contraction, and both times I went in with the, “since I’m telling the truth, why should I worry?” attitude . Though unlike George, I INITIATED the polys in both instances. Moreover, to ensure that results would be undisputable, I used attorneys to employ the services of two TOP firms in the the Dallas area (seems that in Dallas, you have to go through an attorney to access the highest accredited firms). I spent THOUSANDS of dollars to ensure the truth would hold water via the use of two highly credible firms. I’ve never had a criminal record, never arrested, NEVER had other allegations against me, I’ve held a TS clearance w/a BI, am well educated, at a senior management level of the institution I work for, and a volunteer in my community. I falsely failed BOTH polys, on the two separate allegations. After the results the operator of one firm had the nerve to point his finger in my face and start yelling, “You lied! You lied! Admit it! Admit it! Tell me the truth!!!”. ---- And this how a highly credible firm performing this type of work acts? The best in Dallas? Of course, no evidence was found to back either of the poly results, leaving the poly standing out there by itself, unsupported. Child Protective Services never interviewed me on the allegations (sent me ‘dismissal’ letters in both instances), the accusations never went to court, I was never even visited by law enforcement. Yeah, what a great tool a poly is. So, in the 90% accuracy that poly operator claimants have, how many false positives are being excluded? Mine was. Are others? Probably many, as false positives aren’t something one tells the world about or puts forth as statistical data; it’s something that one hides because of the negative connotations associated w/the failures. I'll bet the farm that there are many people out there that end up as defendants that confidentially volunteer to a poly and fail, only to be cleared of charges, later. I’ll bet that they NEVER discuss their false positive results, because of the negative connotations associated with failing a poly, as the operators have LIED to the public on the accuracy and the creditability of the results for so long, and it seems to be taboo to face off against poly community claims of accuracy. Sure, some people will misuse this site, but as Seeker said in a post a yr or so back, “This site does have both sides - good and bad. What anyone chooses to find here will be based upon their intentions when coming to this site.” That philosophy can be applied to anything in life; what’s meant for a good cause can be twisted into evil results. Besides, how many people have been interrogated and released back into our society w/o further investigation because they DID pass a poly when they were guilty? Ask the Ted Bundys of the world. All the more reason to ban polys. Cop, what would you and "I smell" do it you weren't operating polys? Sell tuna behind a fish counter? And thus your justification for being proponents of a vehicle of crap... "I got no where else to go, I got no where else to go..." We’ll get the crap polys out our society one day, you’ll see.
	« Last Edit: Aug 10^th, 2004 at 9:01pm by Sluggo »

	IP Logged

Sluggo User Offline Posts: 27 Location: Dallas, TX Joined: Jun 25^th, 2004 Gender:	Re: mRe: New and Nervous Reply #41 - Aug 11^th, 2004 at 12:22am	Mark & Quote Quote Print Post
	Quote: I am going out on a limb here, but do we arm every person with a loaded gun to prove that it's the person and not the gun that commits the crime? Personally I think the point has been made about poly's, they don't work like they should. SM, the problem w/using a gun as an analogy, is that guns don't go off falsely. I.e., if we did arm every person w/a loaded gun, the statistics would be flawed if the guns didn't work properly (like the poly). Thus, if a gun was like a poly, the gun COULD commit the crime (10% of the time, since polys are SUPPOSEDLY 90% accurate...).


	IP Logged

top-cop New User Offline Posts: 1 Joined: Aug 11^th, 2004	Re: New and Nervous Reply #42 - Aug 11^th, 2004 at 7:07pm	Mark & Quote Quote Print Post
	Sometimes it catches folks like kcr Polygraph adds new twist By Dave Forster, The Forum Published Tuesday, August 10, 2004 As a district judge and former public defender in northwestern Minnesota, Donald Aandal is no stranger to child molesters and rapists. But until a few years ago, he had no idea they struck so often. "Everything we could imagine is worse," said Aandal, a judge based in Warren since 2000. "What we knew 10 years ago and what we know today is night and day, and we're still just scratching the surface." Aandal credits that revelation to lie detector tests, an increasingly common requirement of sex offender treatment programs in North Dakota and Minnesota. Counselors and probation officers praise the exams as crucial for treating offenders, but as was seen Monday in Cass County District Court, the practice can also create difficult questions for prosecutors. In court was Donald James Henderson, a 46-year-old Fargo man convicted in 2002 of gross sexual imposition against children in Bottineau and Cass counties. The charges he faced Monday centered on the abuse of another child in 1997 and 2000, which Henderson admitted to in a polygraph test for treatment following his 2002 conviction. The counselor, as required by law, reported the abuse, the police investigated, and the Cass County state's attorney charged Henderson, 1024 40th St. S., on new counts of gross sexual imposition. Henderson came to court Monday to plead guilty to the new charge. Assistant Cass County State's Attorney Mark Boening said local sex offender counselors worry harsh prosecution of Henderson will discourage future offenders from being open. Boening recommended supervised probation, to be served concurrently with the probation Henderson already is serving. East Central District Judge Georgia Dawson thought the crime called for more, though, and added five years of probation to Henderson's current sentence. "At first blush, this certainly did not appear to be an appropriate sentence," Dawson said. "Frankly, I'm not convinced that it is at second blush." In similar cases statewide, prosecutors usually take the route Boening did and recommend a more lenient sentence, Assistant Attorney General Jon Byers said. They don't want their prosecution to hinder treatment for other offenders, but they don't want to offer blanket immunity, either. "There's really not an easy answer to it," Byers said. Henderson's case also raised a looming legal question surrounding the polygraph confessions. His defense attorney, Bruce Quick, said he isn't sure the test results are admissible in court. One could argue the confessions aren't voluntary, because refusing to take the tests can be a violation of probation, Quick said. Boening disagreed, but the attorneys didn't need to address the issue. Henderson had admitted to the crime a second time, after hearing his Miranda rights and waiving his right to an attorney, when police followed up on the report from the counselor. "If this had been simply the polygraph that was submitted, he would have fought it," Quick said. Boening and Quick said Henderson is the first person they know of in Cass County to be charged with a crime that came out in a probation-mandated polygraph test. In northwestern Minnesota, counselors advise their offenders to be vague about the identity of their victims, said Aandal, the judge from Warren. That way, the offender can be honest about his history and counselors don't have to report the old crime. In some cases, the strategy has revealed up to 100 new victims, Aandal said. The intent of the tests isn't to uncover new crimes to prosecute, though, Aandal said. "Our primary focus is treatment, so we don't get more victims," he said. Readers can reach Forum reporter Dave Forster at (701) 241-5538


	IP Logged

Sluggo User Offline Posts: 27 Location: Dallas, TX Joined: Jun 25^th, 2004 Gender:	Re: New and Nervous Reply #43 - Aug 11^th, 2004 at 11:36pm	Mark & Quote Quote Print Post
	top-cop wrote on Aug 11^th, 2004 at 7:07pm: Sometimes it catches folks like kcr And sometimes it doesn't; and sometimes it catches people who are telling the truth and sometimes it doesn't. What's your point?


	IP Logged

dimas Especially Senior User Offline Posts: 278 Joined: Jul 3^rd, 2001 Gender:	Re: New and Nervous Reply #44 - Aug 12^th, 2004 at 1:32am	Mark & Quote Quote Print Post
	Quote: You are even worse than a simpleton, you are an idiot. That site does not get ANY money from ANY law enforcement agency of ANY kind. They sell stuff! That is the only way they make their money. They try to look official, to fool idiots like you. Guess it worked on you. Cop, First, I would like to put to rest this talk about how you and ISBS are Poly-examiners. While you may indeed be "wannabe" examiners, Polygraph examiners you are not. Second, I was correct in my assumption that you are indeed a simpleton, because only a simpleton would not realize that idiot and simpleton are synonymous. Therefore, Mr. "intelligent", you have once again pointed out to all of us how lacking in that department you really are. The following is simply to help you LEARN, and definitely not to show off my amazing ability to look things up in the dictionary (WEBSTER'S New World). Something I suggest you learn to do. IDIOT: ignorant and common person, layman, ignorant person, a very foolish or stupid person. a mentally retarded person. SIMPLETON: a person who is stupid or easily deceived; fool. FOOL: a person with little or no judgment, common sense, wisdom, silly or stupid person; simpleton, a mentally retarded person. THESAURUS (WEBSTER'S) IDIOT: simpleton, nincompoop, booby, fool. In the future it may serve your cause to educate yourself, before you think yourself intelligent enough to make attacks against the intelligence of others. Now, whether or not you actually have the mental capacity is a whole other problem in and of itself. This I believe is substantiated by your inability to comprehend that whole sponsorship issue with the 911 site.
	« Last Edit: Aug 12^th, 2004 at 1:00pm by dimas »
	"But I, being poor, have only my dreams. I have spread my dreams under your feet; tread softly, because you tread on my dreams."&&
	IP Logged

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5

Add Poll

Send Topic

‹ Previous Topic | Next Topic ›

New and Nervous

Name:
E-mail:
Your Verification Code is:	Please type the characters that appear in the image. The characters must be typed in the same order, and they are case-sensitive.
Verification Code:
Preview

Message Icon:

Subject:

Message:
You can resize the textbox by dragging the right or bottom border.

Max 200000 characters. Remaining characters:

Text size: pt

More Smilies

View All Smilies

Collapse/Expand additional features

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:

Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:

Attachment 4:

Attachment 5:

Attachment 6:

Attachment 7:

Attachment 8:

Attachment 9:

Attachment 10:

Disable UBBC and Smilies:

Check this if you wish to disable parsing of ubbc tags and smilies.