Wallerstein wrote on Mar 28^th, 2006 at 12:47am:



....still waiting.  I see that your reasoning in answering my repeated question (in response to another poster) has morphed into 

      "No series of questions are so offensive that they cannot be answered first, and then disputed and complained about after. That is the proper way of doing things." 

I think, however, that there is a clear DISTINCTION between engaging a polygrapher in his musings about underage children when these questions can be deflected with a "yes/no" answer.  If the questions posed to Onesismus were posed in such a matter, even though they would still be absurd, then perhaps one could see your reasoning.  However, Onesismus was not asked "yes/no" questions.  He was invited to offer guesses on these underage children.   

So, I repeat my question:  How does Onesismus' refusal to posit guesses concerning girls that he works with constitute "refusing to answer details about his personal life?" 

Quote:




Given that you've chosen to write ad nauseum on this subject I think I could be forgiven for assuming that you've actually read Onesisums' original post.  In it he describes in detail what questions he was asked.  Granted this is not "an official document" but if this is your newest reasoning, i.e., there are no official documents and Onesismus has a good imagination, then let's not be coy...come out and say it. 

So please go back and reference Onesismus' original post and you will find the questions.  He's even taken the time to link to his original post above.

Retcopper,

There are several very good examples of where polygraph results have negatively impacted investigative theory (inappropriately narrowed the focus) and where investigative theory has apparently affected polygraph examination outcomes (the latter (subsequent polygraph results) having flip flopped in concert with changes in investigative theory).  This unfortunate relationship and phenomenon have absolutely nothing to do with ground truth regardless of which is the effector and the effected, nor do the two components of this relationship have any connection to what would be known as a paired screening test and confirmatory test in the world of science.   Because of this relationship, the national security community is foolish if they believe shortcomings in the polygraph process are necessarily corrected by further and complementary investigation.  Clearly a spy/employee who passes a routine re-investigation polygraph exam will not be further investigated (and is even paradoxically less suspect than the innocent employee who has just not yet come up in the cue for his exam) and to some extent is given a free pass until his/her next re-investigation and polygraph examination.  Clearly the damage that can be done in the intervening five years (or whatever the cycle length is for periodic examinations) before the next cycle begins is hard to fathom and most certainly poses a great danger to this nation.  I am glad to report that various private communications are leading me to believe that some in the national security community are beginning to understand the aforementioned relationships.

Quote:


PentaFed,

I have throughout any posting on this medium have never once advocated dishonesty. This website exists because of the outrageous behavior of polygraphers at all levels, (Local, State, Federal).  The machine has no scientific validity and in my honest opinion is used by certain agencies to weed out already chosen undesireables, at least by the agencies standard. These agencies can't stop the hiring / interview processes, but they can be selective and bias on who they want to hire.
And the weapon of choice they use is the polygraph.
Knowlege of countermeasures and the polygraph process guarantees that during a polygraph I know what the rules of engagement are. If the polygrapher just once steps out of line. I know what to do and how to do it. And the polygraphers now have to play by the rules, because they don't know who they are dealing with. But the fact that its less than 100% accurate makes it nothing more than an interrogation parlor trick. And to judge one person with a false positive in any setting is just wrong. And as far as the "Status Quo" for a set in stone system. The system is broke, the LE community can't get enough folks, the federal government (military, intelligence) can't get enough folks. So removing a useless procedure not only saves money but allows for a fairer evaluation process, based on facts not some fiction, produced by some readout of a worthless machine.  And if your such a non believer of the polygraph, then why are you here ? I question authority at every opportunity. You should try it ?? And again I state that reseaching polygraphy, countermeasures and non belief in the system is never wrong. Skepticism and dissent is what keeps a government from sliding into a police state. The first steps towards a police state begins when a system is created to remove undesireables from competing. Especially ones that only allow mindless minions who follow blindly to get hired. The best and brighest move on after they become disillusioned with this mindset. 
Tell me then what you do, or is your nice and safe govt. job the only thing you can do. But do continue posting as the heavy guns on this board have yet to chime in.
But they are coming.

PentaFed - as a public service, I will pick apart your post.

Quote:


The polygraph is hardly an "invetsigation." It is an interrogative tool used to divine information from the subject's own physiological responses. The very term "investigation" connotes rigorous, lengthy scrutiny. A polygraph lasts a few hours and can be beaten by those trained to beat it. That's not an investigation. As for radar detectors, they're legal in many states.

Quote:


Is accusing people of being paranoid your m.o.? This ties into my earlier claim that you are indeed projecting your insecurities on others. Merely questioning authority or the status quo does not make someone paranoid. As for your morning paper, few of us have interest in handling your copy of The Adventures of Tin Tin, despite its comedic tales of adventurism.

Quote:


You're actually correct here - hundreds, maybe thousands pass each year. The horrors and injustices aren't that widespread, but I don't think anyone here is saying that it's the end of the universe. The fact of the matter, a non-ignorable number of dreams are shattered because of a flawed machine. This is where we may differ: I find it unacceptable that otherwise qualified people miss out on a lifetime opportunity because a flawed machine said they're lying. People who served in the military, spent 10, 20 years preparing for such a career, qualified folks - all their dreams evaporated in an instant. This is the only country that uses polygraphs so seriously - it's something you'd expect to be used in Iran or North Korea - not America. A thorough background investigation conducted by good investigators will reveal anything the applicant has hid/is hiding. In many ways, the polygraph gives investigators a false sense of security that shouldn't exist.

Quote:


You ask why he calls you "high and mighty." When you speak like this, and engage in ad hominem attacks, you lose a tremendous deal of credibility. You seem to have something to say - try and ariculate yourself without attacking those who disagree/pose different views. You'd really be amazed what a bit of grace and patience would do for your credibility here and elsewhere.

Quote:


This is a matter of opinion. No one here wants unqualified people in positions of trust. No one. We all love this country. The information here is here for a couple of simple reasons: 1) put nervous minds at ease by demystifying a process that relies on ignorance to work; and 2) provide a means for more proactive people to ensure they pass when they should. As for malicious people relying on this info, give me a break. First, spies are usually turned, Aldrich Ames-style. Second, anyone who wants to beat the polygraph could look elsewhere to find out how to. This site is just a concentrated bastion of anti-polygraphy sentiment. The info is out there elsewhere.   

This reminds me of people who bemoan movies that have intricate terrorist plots - "Oh my, why would you make a movie like that and give the terrorists such an idea?!" 

Quote:


See above. No one wants this country to be harmed. BUT we want it to do the right thing- and polygraphs are simply wrong as a matter of policy, stupid as a matter of course, and deeply flawed.

Quote:


YES. THE SAME QUESTIONS THAT TIE INTO HIS FAILED 3RD PROCESS.  NOW ANSWER THE QUESTION.

Quote:



What is my unconfirmed premise?  I have simply asked 

How does Onesismus' refusal to posit guesses concerning girls that he works with constitute "refusing to answer details about his personal life?"   

Simple really.  Please do answer.