I'm made several comments on this forum regarding "inconlusive" polygraph results.  Too many ignorant people equate the inconclusive result with failure, and some of the people who steer this forum erroneously equate the inconclusive result as an error on the part of the polygraph.  Here's how an inconclusive result is actually viewed by the polygraph community, explained very well by the APA:

Why do Critics Figures Vary?
One of the problems in discussing accuracy figures and the differences between the statistics quoted by proponents and opponents of the polygraph technique is the way that the figures are calculated. At the risk of over simplification, critics, who often don't understand polygraph testing, classify inconclusive test results as errors. In the real life setting an inconclusive result simply means that the examiner is unable to render a definite diagnosis. In such cases a second examination is usually conducted at a later date. 

To illustrate how the inclusion of inconclusive test results can distort accuracy figures, consider the following example: If 10 polygraph examinations are administered and the examiner is correct in 7 decisions, wrong in 1 and has 2 inconclusive test results, we calculate the accuracy rate as 87.5% (8 definitive results, 7 of which were correct.) Critics of the polygraph technique would calculate the accuracy rate in this example as 70%, (10 examinations with 7 correct decisions.) Since those who use polygraph testing do not consider inconclusive test results as negative, and do not hold them against the examinee, to consider them as errors is clearly misleading and certainly skews the figures. 

Preemployment Test Accuracy - To date, there has been only a limited number of research projects on the accuracy of polygraph testing in the pre-employment context, primarily because of the difficulty in establishing ground truth. However, since the same physiological measures are recorded and the same basic psychological principles may apply in both the specific issue and pre-employment examinations, there in no reason to believe that there is a substantial decrease in the accuracy rate for the preemployment circumstance. The few studies that have been conducted on pre-employment testing support this contention. 

While the polygraph technique is not infallible, research clearly indicates that when administered by a competent examiner, the polygraph test is one of the most accurate means available to determine truth and deception. 

For an excellent review of the research involving validity and reliability, including preemployment screening, see: The Accuracy and Utility; of Polygraph Testing. (1984) Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Defense, 1984. Complete reprints may be purchased from the APA National Office. 

AS,

 As a polygrapher, why do you spend so much time on
this site, trying to convince others, that the poly is valid?
Are you employed by the NSA (a government worker,
with too much time on his hands) ?  Each time I visited
polygraphplace.com, I left with the same sickening
feeling, as I did after each NSA polygraph.  Is there a
reason why the web site is censured ?  I have seen
many innocent posts from unknowing people (like the
one where someone was asking, if he should admit to
drug usage to the NSA); I felt sorry, as I saw how a
polygrapher "took him under his wing".  It is obvious,
as I once was an ignorant bastard, that you depend
on peoples' ignorance and fear.  Well,  it is obvious
that you, and your kind, are threatened by this web
site.  Now I can laugh, at all the NSA polygraphers'
little acting jobs (you know, the "good/bad guy",
empathetic, aggessive, etc., routines).  As a funny thing
happened, after being put into limbo by the NSA, I was
granted TS/SCI access by another agency, and I am still
working on NSA systems.

Less than 100% accuracy is worth a bucket of shit.  I'll take nothing over a bucket of shit any day.  The machine is the bucket.

If that is the case, then why do you think defense attorneys have such an intense fear of polygraph as evidence.  Sure, the Daubert case set the precedent with regard to polygraph inadmissibility, but the fact remains that if the polygraph is produced as evidence, the common man or woman who is called to be on a jury has a greater tendency to believe that the polygraph works than that it doesn't.  Often, the only thing that can balance out their preconceived notions is the defense's production of their own "expert" and a clouding of the issue by confusing statisics.

If most people didn't believe in the polygraph, why would so many defense attorneys hire a private polygrapher whose results will be lauded if the defendant passes, and kept hidden if the defendant fails?

AS,

My comments, are out of fustration, with a system that
is dysfunctional.   Little do applicants know, as far as
the NSA is concerned, that there are real risks involved,
in going for NSA SCI access (and probably any other
agencies that use polygraphs).  A failed poly, or
outright rejection, can adversely affect an existing DoD
clearance, or the ability to get one.  Akin to
passive-aggressive behavior, the NSA will not transfer
clearances, when changing companies,  if there are
any issues (of course, the person is never confronted
directly beforehand).  The fact that
polygraphplace.com, censures comments, is to keep
unknowing people, in the dark, about the polygraph.  I
have read a number of posts, where unknowing, 
innocent people are "taken under the wing" by
polygraphers, in trust (such as, the person who was
asking advise whether to admit to drug usage to the
NSA).  It is the same sickening scenario, one experiences
during the NSA polygraph.  I have been lied to, had
fists pounded on the table,  my face gotten into, yelled 
at, and manipulated by their little acting jobs.  One
polygrapher denied knowing about counter-measures
(laughable), even though, it is a required course by the
DoDPI.   It is this type of behavior that has gotten
polygraphers a reputation.  As far as sincerity is
concerned, let's be realistic; this is just another ruse
to get adverse information.  It is also interesting, that
polygraphers feel the need, to spend time on this web
site countering  polygraph criticism; that is the same
reason why polygraphplace.com is censured.  As far as
the contractor world is concerned, the FSOs and SSOs
keep their employees in the dark, concerning the risks
involved in persuing SCI access.  NSA likes to keep
applicants in the dark, and uses the polygraph as an
excuse to get rid of people; the polygraph results
cannot be reviewed or challenged.  This
dysfunctional, abusive  system, I will no longer be a part
of, and will continue to speak out, in warning others.
Having a polygraph, along with a TS/SCI, is not worth
the risks involved, not to mention, having to work with
people with dysfunctional backgrounds.

Quote:


This forum is indeed uncensored.

As I recently noted in another thread, for the first three years, registration was not required and no posts were deleted. 
 
In the summer of 2004, a polygrapher posting under the moniker ”I-SMELL-BS” began to spam virtually ever thread in the forum with personal attacks against George and other contributors to this site. 
 
His posts contributed nothing other than to provide an example of typical polygrapher behavior to our readers that one could not otherwise comprehend before sitting in the “hot seat.” 
   
For this reason, we instituted a new policy where posts consisting solely of name calling and personal attacks will be moved to the AntiPolygraph.org Discarded Posts Forum.   

Take a look at some of the posts made by ISBS. His goal was simply to drag down the level of discussion and decrease the signal to noise ratio of the forum. 

It wasn’t like he was even making substantive posts on polygraphy combined with personal attacks. His posts consisted strictly of ad hominem attacks and he was shown the door.

To my knowledge, aside from the posts located in that forum (and posts consisting solely of advertisements for cigarettes, consumer electronics, etc), no posts have been moved, deleted and or discarded.

AS and any other polygraphers are welcome to post here. As matter of fact, we wish that there were more polygraph operators represented here in the forum. The whole purpose of a forum is to have debate—the whole exercise become somewhat pointless if only one side of an issue is represented.

We see no sense in having a forum like those at www.polygraphplace.com, or worse yet 911jobfourms.com / 911hotjobs.com. On these forums, even respectfully worded posts questioning the validity of polygraphy are deleted. 

We only ask that posts have at least something substantive to contribute to the discussion—this goes for posters on all sides of the issue. As much as you may find it hard to believe, if someone came on here and berated AS in the manner that ISBS assailed George and I, he would be shown the door as well.

AS,

 I am not looking for sympathy, but thank you for your
empathy.  Yes, I along with some other poeple I know,
had some bad experiences with the NSA, not just with
the polygraph.  If they are going to play games with
peoples' careers, should I say, security clearances, then
applicants should know the risks involved.  Years ago, I
started out with just a TS, and luckily, received a
favorable decision for SCI access.  Over the years,
keeping the NSA SCI was not easy, and luckily was able
to be cleared with another agency, and was treated 
fairly.  In dealing with the DoD investigators, there is a
very different attitude, and one where you know, if you
are honest with them, then you are treated fairly.  
Everything at the NSA (and maybe elsewhere) is done
in the dark, with one thing in mind - getting a
confession.  
Applicants have no idea, what they have gotten into,
until it is too late.  It is the same feeling one gets, when
visiting polygraphplace.com; visitors are sucked in,  with
blind trust, of authority figures.  What it boils down to, is
that applicants need to have the information available,
to make decisions to work at the collateral level, or
feel they have a good chance at gaining SCI access.  I
find it almost funny, and not surprising, that there are
hardly any posts from NSA/CIA affiliates.  I remember
those days of living in fear