Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10 ReplyAdd Poll Send TopicPrint
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) Drew Richardson Never an Actual FBI Polygraph Examiner? (Read 10408 times)
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Wonder_Woman
Senior User
***
Offline


The magic lasso of truth

Posts: 69
Joined: Sep 24th, 2007
Re: Drew Richardson Never an Actual FBI Polygraph Examiner?
Reply #30 - Sep 26th, 2007 at 11:11pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Did I ever say I feared you. lol   

BTW if I was looking at 2 applicants - one showed truthful and the other showed inconclusive....the truthful candidate will win.  Screw up the charts, go a head, we all know you can do that.  Are they real responses - NO.  Will it get you a job - NO

peace
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box EosJupiter
Especially Senior User
*****
Offline


But of Course ...

Posts: 483
Location: Always Out There ......
Joined: Feb 28th, 2005
Re: Drew Richardson Never an Actual FBI Polygraph Examiner?
Reply #31 - Sep 26th, 2007 at 11:47pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Wonder_Women,

Fear is a relative term, in our case its the state you need for your machine to work. Inconclusives are the worst case scenario. Eliminating and removing the choice out of the polygraphers hands. You can not dismiss or deny employment with inconclusives, hiring rules state that you must pass to be hired, failing gets you eliminated, inconclusives mean someone of consequence has to make a decision. Your culling machine becomes ineffective.  You have to resolve inconclusives don't you. Multiple ones make you look bad. You won't do more than 4 tests on any one subject, as the more you do the less the adrenal reactions available. Its the Law Of Diminishing Return. And if the subject is properly conditioned to resist the F3 reactions, he can manipulate the machine to his advantage. Its thats simple. Again change the question formats, change the conditions, but again the process remains the same. And once you know an opponents game plan, defeating it is easy. I do like the avatar you picked, Marston would be proud !!   

And any organization the makes you take a polygraph as a requirement of employment is not worth working for anyways. The courage is to just say no !!!   

Regards ....
  

Theory into Reality !!
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Wonder_Woman
Senior User
***
Offline


The magic lasso of truth

Posts: 69
Joined: Sep 24th, 2007
Re: Drew Richardson Never an Actual FBI Polygraph Examiner?
Reply #32 - Sep 27th, 2007 at 12:16am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
EosJupiter wrote on Sep 26th, 2007 at 11:47pm:
Wonder_Women,

Fear is a relative term, in our case its the state you need for your machine to work. Inconclusives are the worst case scenario. Eliminating and removing the choice out of the polygraphers hands. You can not dismiss or deny employment with inconclusives, hiring rules state that you must pass to be hired, failing gets you eliminated, inconclusives mean someone of consequence has to make a decision. Your culling machine becomes ineffective.  You have to resolve inconclusives don't you. Multiple ones make you look bad. You won't do more than 4 tests on any one subject, as the more you do the less the adrenal reactions available. Its the Law Of Diminishing Return. And if the subject is properly conditioned to resist the F3 reactions, he can manipulate the machine to his advantage. Its thats simple. Again change the question formats, change the conditions, but again the process remains the same. And once you know an opponents game plan, defeating it is easy. I do like the avatar you picked, Marston would be proud !! 

Regards ....



Let me correct myself.  I kind of had a knee jerk reaction.  It least I didn't call you a whore.

Real inconclusive readings differ from the manipulated ones you employ (don't look forward to me telling you how)   When hiring agencies are looking at candidates, they don't make all decisions based soley on the polygraph.  However, if I report the individuals charts did not have normal phsyiolgical data I would lay odds you would be lower on the totem pole.  Then again, the polygraph examiner DOES NOT make the hiring decision!  It would be better to fail an area on a polygraph and let the investigator investigate the issue further.   As for multiple inconclusives making me look bad - you really don't have a clue. lol

BTW I am surprised it took someone that long to make a marston comment.  I hope your proud of yourself.  My sister can fight better than that.   

peace
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box EosJupiter
Especially Senior User
*****
Offline


But of Course ...

Posts: 483
Location: Always Out There ......
Joined: Feb 28th, 2005
Re: Drew Richardson Never an Actual FBI Polygraph Examiner?
Reply #33 - Sep 27th, 2007 at 12:24am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Quote:
BTW I am surprised it took someone that long to make a marston comment.  I hope your proud of yourself.  My sister can fight better than that.


That was a compliment, not an insult. I admire thinking that shows some color to a humorous but grey environment.

Well then only time will bear out who's right and who's wrong. I do keep score with those I help.  Cool

And if its proof you want, stay tuned .....   
I have been very busy as of late, and I wouldn't want to deprive my handiwork from this forum.   Wink


Regards ....
  

Theory into Reality !!
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Paradiddle
Very Senior User
****
Offline



Posts: 158
Joined: Sep 24th, 2007
Re: Drew Richardson Never an Actual FBI Polygraph Examiner?
Reply #34 - Sep 27th, 2007 at 12:52am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
EosJupiter wrote on Sep 26th, 2007 at 11:47pm:
Wonder_Women,

Fear is a relative term, in our case its the state you need for your machine to work. Inconclusives are the worst case scenario. Eliminating and removing the choice out of the polygraphers hands. You can not dismiss or deny employment with inconclusives, hiring rules state that you must pass to be hired, failing gets you eliminated, inconclusives mean someone of consequence has to make a decision. Your culling machine becomes ineffective.  You have to resolve inconclusives don't you. Multiple ones make you look bad. You won't do more than 4 tests on any one subject, as the more you do the less the adrenal reactions available. Its the Law Of Diminishing Return. And if the subject is properly conditioned to resist the F3 reactions, he can manipulate the machine to his advantage. Its thats simple. Again change the question formats, change the conditions, but again the process remains the same. And once you know an opponents game plan, defeating it is easy. I do like the avatar you picked, Marston would be proud !!   

And any organization the makes you take a polygraph as a requirement of employment is not worth working for anyways. The courage is to just say no !!!  

Regards ....


oh Eos, the mind is a terrible thing to waste---and yours is a good mind---thoughtful----even considerate at times----but then you spin your beanie propeller on the subject of polygraph and ----frrrrt. sigh
"Fear"-----let's talk about fear. You can tell someone that if they just control their fear with breathing and yoga that they will become a fluid and fearless public speaker. Then they get up in front of that crowd---and they are extremely nervous---regardless of how they pretend externally. You can claim your Mt Everest skills all you want behind your shield, but 99% of us humans get pretty nervous when our ass is on the line. If Johnny Carson got stage fright, than most of us will also when we are "attached" and in the "light."

4 "tests" or did you mean 4 charts? I am not a geek about type-o's, but if you are going to be a critical theorist, than we need to have a bible class on the difference in terms.

The "Law of Diminishing Return?"----what are you a real estate appraiser? (actually I liked that analogy)


On most polygraph reports right before the "Final Call" section, there is a section titled "Countermeasure Activity:" ----The mere suspicion of countermeasure activity warrants comments and caveats in that section. Many but not all Inconclusives get such a label---especially when they present as "goofy." Now, when an examinee gets the stink of "suspected crude and/or sophisticated countermeasures" attached---it's like wearing a goose around their neck. So, your remarks about "Inconclusives", while interesting and revealing to the modality and/or industry for which you refer, in most agencies and municipalities, Inconclusives are sometimes even unfairly discriminated against. Also,if you can "flatten" your polygrams at will, in most areas (except your inexplicably tardy area) an examiner might write that he suspects pharmeceutical/pharmecological countermeasures due to flat affect. Although I doubt you have such james bond super stoicalness at your will, I suppose because I knew you in a different life that I will give you the superhuman benefit of the doubt----although I'd like to see your charts and your 95 year old examiner.

I need sleep
  

Cheats and the Cheating Cheaters who try to Cheat us.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box nonombre
Especially Senior User
*****
Offline



Posts: 334
Joined: Jun 18th, 2005
Re: Drew Richardson Never an Actual FBI Polygraph Examiner?
Reply #35 - Sep 27th, 2007 at 1:13am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
[quote author=Paradiddle link=1190736013/30#34 date=1190854372
On most polygraph reports right before the "Final Call" section, there is a section titled "Countermeasure Activity:" ----The mere suspicion of countermeasure activity warrants comments and caveats in that section. Many but not all Inconclusives get such a label---especially when they present as "goofy." Now, when an examinee gets the stink of "suspected crude and/or sophisticated countermeasures" attached---it's like wearing a goose around their neck. So, your remarks about "Inconclusives", while interesting and revealing to the modality and/or industry for which you refer, in most agencies and municipalities, [/quote]

and...

You all might want to know that in many federal and state agencies, a countermeasures call by the examiner is the ONLY personnel action/outcome that CANNOT be appealed...

So keep on "helping" Eos, I am sure your friends will appreciate you...

Nonombre Roll Eyes
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box EosJupiter
Especially Senior User
*****
Offline


But of Course ...

Posts: 483
Location: Always Out There ......
Joined: Feb 28th, 2005
Re: Drew Richardson Never an Actual FBI Polygraph Examiner?
Reply #36 - Sep 27th, 2007 at 2:24am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
NoNombre & Paradiddle, whoever .....

As you imply that I am merely all bluster. To this end we shall see !! 
Lets agree to disagree, and see what the future brings. You do what you think is right, I will continue on my path. The best science and laws win ......  Smiley 

And NoNombre after all this time ... you most of all should know I never post anything I can't prove. 

The feds and states are already having a hard time getting qualified people to apply. A recent Federal times has a big story on the hiring problems. People are not going to do what they find unpleasant.  Smart people with courage will just say no. 

Regards ......
  

Theory into Reality !!
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Sergeant1107
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 730
Location: Connecticut, USA
Joined: May 21st, 2005
Gender: Male
Re: Drew Richardson Never an Actual FBI Polygraph Examiner?
Reply #37 - Sep 27th, 2007 at 3:32am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
I have mentioned this before, but I believe it bears repeating.

Among other professional interests, I am a traffic crash reconstructionist.  My work in this area deals largely with Newton’s laws of motion and the fact that all objects involved in a collision will conform to those laws.  These physical laws are well established and firmly grounded in science and their validity can be easily proven.

If a web site existed to help people avoid responsibility in traffic accidents, and that web site purported that wearing a blue shirt while driving would make it difficult or impossible for the police to figure out how fast you were traveling when you got into an accident, it wouldn’t bother me at all.  If the site suggested that drinking bottled water while driving, or listening to heavy metal would somehow prevent your car from leaving skid marks, side slipping scuff marks, or yaw marks on the roadway, I would likely be amused by such claims.

I cannot imagine taking the time to visit such a site and make multiple, lengthy posts trying to shoot holes in what I believe to be the completely bogus theories provided there.  I cannot imagine being so threatened by such an obviously incorrect site that I would go there and try my best to discredit the people posting the information.

Why do so many polygraph examiners feel the need to come to this site at all?  And, once here, what makes them so upset that they spend so much time posting attacks against the sites founders and supporters and then congratulating each other for doing so?

I can only conclude that the information here is not bogus and the free availability of such information is hurting, or at least inconveniencing, the polygraph profession.  I don’t see how any other conclusion makes any sense.
  

Lorsque vous utilisez un argumentum ad hominem, tout le monde sait que vous êtes intellectuellement faillite.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Paradiddle
Very Senior User
****
Offline



Posts: 158
Joined: Sep 24th, 2007
Re: Drew Richardson Never an Actual FBI Polygraph Examiner?
Reply #38 - Sep 27th, 2007 at 3:51am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Perhaps you should reconstruct something other than fender benders chief. Reconstruct the fact that this site has tirelessly assailed persons of a profession that are, like your fellow lawman,  trying to catch the bad guys. BAD GUYS SERGE----Not nitwits trying to skate through red lights out of impulsive selfishness. I worked a serial killer case that had the suspect admit to causing an inconclusive on a previous poly due to his emboldened attempt at monkeychair with another Examiner. Did he beat the test? No more than spitting in a urine sample---crude at best. But you people embolden the worst of our fellow humans. You cherry pick your accepted research studies, call us all liars, thieves, and cons. You even have a message board dedicated for sex offenders to keep their mouth shut and play tongue biting games and behavioral charades so that they can be protected from the "evil box."  I have small children, and I take this site as a parent only---as an act of war. This isn't cute like the old controversial Anarchist Cookbook. This site is no better than an anti-abortion site that contains a bomb building blueprint chat thread. I am an actual activist. Antipolygraph.org is not activism, it is something far more sinister.

To Eos and the rest, things are going to be different. Your site will no longer be ignored and treated as a buzzing little stingerless bee. Be cocky, it makes it more fun.
  

Cheats and the Cheating Cheaters who try to Cheat us.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Sergeant1107
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 730
Location: Connecticut, USA
Joined: May 21st, 2005
Gender: Male
Re: Drew Richardson Never an Actual FBI Polygraph Examiner?
Reply #39 - Sep 27th, 2007 at 4:03am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Paradiddle wrote on Sep 27th, 2007 at 3:51am:
Perhaps you should reconstruct something other than fender benders chief. Reconstruct the fact that this site has tirelessly assailed persons of a profession that are, like your fellow lawman,  trying to catch the bad guys. BAD GUYS SERGE----Not nitwits trying to skate through red lights out of impulsive selfishness. I worked a serial killer case that had the suspect admit to causing an inconclusive on a previous poly due to his emboldened attempt at monkeychair. Did he beat the test? No more than spitting in a urine sample---crude at best. But you people embolden the worst of our fellow humans. You cherry pick your accepted research studies, call us all liars, thieves, and cons. You even have a message board dedicated for sex offenders to keep their mouth shut and play tongue biting games and behavioral charades so that they can be protected from the "evil box."  I have small children, and I take this site as a parent only---as an act of war. This isn't cute like the old controversial Anarchist Cookbook. This site is no better than an anti-abortion site that contains a bomb building blueprint chat thread. I am an actual activist. Antipolygraph.org is not activism, it is something far more sinister.

I will let my team know that the multiple fatality MVA's we investigate are actually, in your opinion, merely "fender benders."  

You are a proponent of a "test" which, by your own admission, can be beaten or confounded by someone who spends a few minutes researching that test on the Internet.  Wouldn't that make any reasonable person question the validity of such a test?

I have children as well, and would feel no safer knowing the child molester down the block "passed" his most recent polygraph.  I can't imagine that you or any other examiner truly would either.
« Last Edit: Sep 27th, 2007 at 4:53am by Sergeant1107 »  

Lorsque vous utilisez un argumentum ad hominem, tout le monde sait que vous êtes intellectuellement faillite.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box EosJupiter
Especially Senior User
*****
Offline


But of Course ...

Posts: 483
Location: Always Out There ......
Joined: Feb 28th, 2005
Re: Drew Richardson Never an Actual FBI Polygraph Examiner?
Reply #40 - Sep 27th, 2007 at 6:11am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Paradiddle wrote on Sep 27th, 2007 at 3:51am:

To Eos and the rest, things are going to be different. Your site will no longer be ignored and treated as a buzzing little stingerless bee. Be cocky, it makes it more fun.


Paradiddle,

I hope you don't ignore us !!! 

Remember nothing this website represents is illegal. Nothing anyone is doing is illegal. Its just  a different opinion and perspective from your own and other polygraphers. If you policed your own, and controlled the abuse, I and others on this site would never exist.  You polygraphers created us !!! Now you have to deal with us. A fire starts with a spark, and it started when Jack Trimarco, wrongly did in George.  People of conscience and courage never take abuse, something you polygraphers took for granted way too long. 

Regards ...
  

Theory into Reality !!
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Paradiddle
Very Senior User
****
Offline



Posts: 158
Joined: Sep 24th, 2007
Re: Drew Richardson Never an Actual FBI Polygraph Examiner?
Reply #41 - Sep 27th, 2007 at 2:42pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Again, you guys continue to avoid the original post regarding Drew Richardson's Alleged Phony FBI Examiner Expertise and Bloated Resume. Undecided The denial in this realm is staggering! i.e. Daddy drinks alcohol because he is happy.

Serge, I apoligize for minimizing your work----sincerely. I never stated that CM's work in the sense that they defeat the test consistantly ---let's not split hairs, I take great issue with the advocation here that examinees, some of whom are very dangerous to country and persons, engage in behavior that interferes with my work. A countermeasur during arrest is to kick the arresting officer in the balls---does it defeat the arrest, no----it does damage, risks lives, and at the least makes the job more difficult. It is not enough for you to hate polygraph and be an activist, but you must disrupt it by siding with child molestors? Focus Serge, focus.......yes, you advocate physical disruption. YOUR BUDDY GEORGE HAS A SEX OFFENDER SECTION AND RATHER THAN ENCOURAGING THE OFFENDERS TO WRITE CONGRESS OR PETITION THE USE OF POLYGRAPH, YOU ANTI-GUYS ADVOCATE WRIGGLING AND DISENGAGING FROM TREATMENT AND HEALTHY RESPITE FROM CRIMINAL ACTIVITY. Your comparison of how if a site were to inform speeders of a kind of fuzz buster insults my work.


Eos---a good point, but you still are distancing the subject away from DREW RICHARDSON'S ALLEGED BLOATED AND LACKADAISICAL APPROACH TO RESEARCH AND POLYGRAPH THEORY AND PRACTICE WHILE AT DODPI, AND HAVING NEVER BEEN AN FBI POLYGRAPH EXAMINER AND FURTHERMORE, DREW ALLEGEDLY COULD NOT EVEN SCORE CHARTS AT THE STUDENT LEVEL. On an aside, the states and feds are having trouble not with polygraph, but with the unrealistic cut offs regarding historic drug use. They are in the process of changing the regs/requirements----and it is about time. Too many good people have been DQ'd because they smoked marijuana more than 15 times while in college----a sanctimonious and arbitrary benchmark if there ever was one.
p.s., Eos, you still advocate that sex offenders disengage from treatment and criminal activity respite by virtue of your support. I am sorry, but you are not associating with Robin Hood in this realm. 




  

Cheats and the Cheating Cheaters who try to Cheat us.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box George W. Maschke
Global Moderator
*****
Offline


Make-believe science yields
make-believe security.

Posts: 6220
Joined: Sep 29th, 2000
Re: Drew Richardson Never an Actual FBI Polygraph Examiner?
Reply #42 - Sep 27th, 2007 at 3:09pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Paradiddle wrote on Sep 27th, 2007 at 2:42pm:
Again, you guys continue to avoid the original post regarding Drew Richardson's Alleged Phony FBI Examiner Expertise and Bloated Resume. Undecided The denial in this realm is staggering! i.e. Daddy drinks alcohol because he is happy.


Your original post has not been avoided. You suggested that Dr. Richardson has misrepresented his credentials. I addressed this allegation head-on in the very first reply to your post, citing verbatim Dr. Richardson's testimony before a U.S. Senate subcommittee and the National Academy of Sciences. In neither case did Dr. Richardson misrepresent his credentials.

Dr.  Richardson has also responded to Mr. Johnson's declaration and politely answered your mockingly phrased follow-up questions.

Despite much hyperventilation, you have made no showing that Dr. Richardson has ever misrepresented his credentials.
  

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"
Back to top
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box EosJupiter
Especially Senior User
*****
Offline


But of Course ...

Posts: 483
Location: Always Out There ......
Joined: Feb 28th, 2005
Re: Drew Richardson Never an Actual FBI Polygraph Examiner?
Reply #43 - Sep 27th, 2007 at 4:35pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Paradiddle wrote on Sep 27th, 2007 at 2:42pm:
p.s., Eos, you still advocate that sex offenders disengage from treatment and criminal activity respite by virtue of your support. I am sorry, but you are not associating with Robin Hood in this realm.



Paradiddle,

So guilt by association is it. Find anywhere in my posts (444), where I advocate or support criminal activity. I have said that criminals have the right to a stout legal defense, no matter what the crime. I advocate that for positions of trust, 100% honesty is required. I believe we need the best Law Enforcement can get, at every level.  But no where will you find such comments or postings to that effect. I have been admonished on this website for my opinions about the use of polygraph on sex offenders. I just don't care if you use it. My fight remains in the employment / job arena. That is where I remain. And the Drew Richardson document, and the allegations. Drew addressed it all. FINI 

And in defense of SARGE, he is the kind of LEO with a heart and conscience, doing what he believes is right. Just like you do. With the exception that his paycheck is not on the line if traffic violations go away. 

Regards ....
  

Theory into Reality !!
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Mysterymeat
User
**
Offline



Posts: 42
Joined: Sep 26th, 2007
Re: Drew Richardson Never an Actual FBI Polygraph Examiner?
Reply #44 - Sep 27th, 2007 at 8:20pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Sargeant,

Wake up and smell the decade here buddy! It is not the pro-poly folks who are doing the slamming here! This web site was set up to do nothing more than to try to discredit polygraph and the people who work in the field. Just look at the players:

George Maschke:
His only REAL polygraph experience is failing two of them! Now he hides behind this site in the Netherlands.

Dr. Drew Richardson:
Less than 12 polygraph exams and he is an expert?? Last time I heard, the good doctor was still standing out on Front Street with his pants down around his ankles.

Gino who?

I think I have made my point. The pro poly people are not picking the fight-they are just fighting back.

Regards
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10
ReplyAdd Poll Send TopicPrint
Drew Richardson Never an Actual FBI Polygraph Examiner?

Please type the characters that appear in the image. The characters must be typed in the same order, and they are case-sensitive.
Open Preview Preview

You can resize the textbox by dragging the right or bottom border.
Insert Hyperlink Insert FTP Link Insert Image Insert E-mail Insert Media Insert Table Insert Table Row Insert Table Column Insert Horizontal Rule Insert Teletype Insert Code Insert Quote Edited Superscript Subscript Insert List /me - my name Insert Marquee Insert Timestamp No Parse
Bold Italicized Underline Insert Strikethrough Highlight
                       
Change Text Color
Insert Preformatted Text Left Align Centered Right Align
resize_wb
resize_hb







Max 200000 characters. Remaining characters:
Text size: pt
More Smilies
View All Smilies
Collapse additional features Collapse/Expand additional features Smiley Wink Cheesy Grin Angry Sad Shocked Cool Huh Roll Eyes Tongue Embarrassed Lips Sealed Undecided Kiss Cry
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:
X