Nonombre,

I've never given a polygraph exam, but I've been the receipient of two failed ones while telling the truth.   

Who can tell you more or less if a medical procedure works?  The patient who has to live with the disfiguring  medical mistake for the rest of his life, or the doctor who performed the foul-up and is sipping a pina colada at a remote beach?

EosJupiter wrote on Feb 4^th, 2006 at 4:39am:


Eosjupiter,

I know nothing more about this case than the article you have presented, but I have a question:

Isn't it a bit of a "leap of faith" to extrapolate, "..., it appears the publics opinion on the validity of the polygraph is waning," from .."the parents openly dispute the polygraph results as subjective."

I mean many people consider polygraph results as "subjective."  How does that equate to  "...(the) publics opinion on the validity of the polygraph is waning?"

I don't see the connection...

Nonombre

nonombre wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2006 at 5:16am:


Nonombre,

There you go again with your ASSumptions. I simply stated that I never said that I was a thorough, perceptive investigator and adept interrogator. Having said that, that doesn't mean that I've never conducted interviews and investigations. Unlike you, I don't need a useless tool to aid me as I try to read people. I don't mind working hard and digging until I uncover the truth. I strive to be the best that I can in my profession and feel good about the work that I'm doing. I can honestly say I have no problem looking in the mirror and liking what I see. I don't have to sit around and wonder how many people I've vicitmized.      

With all due respect, I don't think there are many people posting on this board who have purported to be experts and administered polygraphs. However, there are many who have told the truth and failed them. If you'd ever  taken a poly without any prior knowledge, told the truth and failed, then you would know just how truly worthless those machines are.  You state that examinees try to figure out what examiners are thinking. Examiners are also trying to figure out what examinees are thinking. Although I'm sure you would love to be able to--the truth is that you can't read minds, though hard as you may try. Sure you may know things as an examiner that we don't know, but we know things as examinees that you'll never know. 

You might want to think twice before you go ASSuming things about people you don't know and spouting off about them. Sort of like spending a couple of hours with someone, hooking them up to machine and then fooling yourself into believing that you know everything about them. As usual, Nonombre,  you've fallen well short of proving any point. You have been successful at one thing--making yourself look bad as you duck the hard questions, surface for quick jabs and offer very little in the way of substance. 

Nonombre:

I drop in here once in awhile to get amused.  I have been doing investigations and polygraphs for over 35 yrs and the statements  by some of these characters in here leaves me flabbergasted.  They think  have all the answers despite not having ever conducted an investigation.

retcopper,

You seem to maintain the same MO as most of the other flash-in, flash-out polygraphers (there are exceptions) who post here. You make a statement, spew forth BS, then take off like a screaming little girlie man. Why don't you try coming in with some real verbage and debate real issues. But I sense that your not really interested in anything constructive. I bet your relieved to be retired, as now you can relax and not have to face all the folks that are prepared with countermeasures and would make you look silly. Enjoy the time off.

Regards ...

John:

The New York Times.  Now that is a real credible source.  The times and LEO are like oil and water.  They don't mix. I bet 90% of the people who post here beleive the propaganda that the Times prints.

EosJupiter:

I read your feeble attempt at trying to explain the law regarding the polygrapher in the Vriginia excecution case and I rolled on the floor laughing, so I won't attempt to respond to your misinformed and ignorant statements regarding polygraphy.  When you have completed the required training and have administered some polygraph tests I will answer your questions. When you have done that I will know that you at least know a  little of what you are talking about.

I'd just like to point out here that each of the polygraphers that have posted on this thread have NOT supported the scientific basis for the polygraph itself, but rather, have supported the INTERROGATION, which the polygraph gives them an excuse to conduct.

In Soviet Russia, similar "rule through terror-style" interrogation techniques were employed AND WORKED quite well.  In fact, most corrupt governemnt make LIBERAL use to brutal interrogation tactics.  It is a well-known fact that totalitarian regimes can function adequately for a LIMITED time, through only terror-based law, which always includes lies and manipulative interrogations--just ask any Russian citizen who was thrown into the gulag.

The main point here is that this form of governing and/or leadership is eschewed in the free-world and in all human-rights oriented societies.  In such governments, these tactics for leadership and rule are typically seen for what they are--lies that are meant to control and manipulate people.  Lying for the sake of controlling--the ends justifying the means.

I am the first to admit that the polygraph may well, force some admissions from the FEW truly guilty people that undergo the interrogation process.  However, #1--people have also been known to make false confessions under such duress, and (most importantly)

#2--Rule through terror is NEVER a form of leadership that will ultimately yield good fruit.  These agencies will CONTINUE to suffer severe brain-drain, as the BEST and most gifted people will refuse to be mistreated in such a manner, and will take their skills and talents to organizations that will respect them and their basic human rights.