AntiPolygraph.org Message Board

(UTC)

Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register

News:

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 › Polygraph Procedure › Sad Stats

(Moderator: Administrator)

‹ Previous Topic | Next Topic ›

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4

Add Poll

Send Topic

Sad Stats (Read 21052 times)

Sergeant1107 God Member Offline Posts: 730 Location: Connecticut, USA Joined: May 21^st, 2005 Gender:	Re: Sad Stats Reply #15 - Oct 6^th, 2007 at 12:45am	Mark & Quote Quote Print Post
	Paradiddle wrote on Oct 5^th, 2007 at 3:33pm: You can put your front street doubts on this board, but you and I know countermeasure detection works quite well---- How do you know it works quite well? Because you sometimes catch people using countermeasures and they admit that's what they were doing? If you polygraph one hundred people, accuse twenty of using countermeasures and nineteen of those admit to it, that really doesn't tell you how effective countermeasure detection is. For all you know, all one hundred subjects could have been using countermeasures. How many people have you caught that successfully used countermeasures? I would speculate that the answer, by definition, would have to be zero. Perhaps it would be more accurate to claim that detection of poorly-performed countermeasures works quite well? So if you could explain how you can claim that countermeasure detection works quite well I would appreciate it.

	Lorsque vous utilisez un argumentum ad hominem, tout le monde sait que vous êtes intellectuellement faillite.
	IP Logged

nonombre Especially Senior User Offline Posts: 334 Joined: Jun 18^th, 2005	Re: Sad Stats Reply #16 - Oct 6^th, 2007 at 12:50am	Mark & Quote Quote Print Post
	Quote: Mysterymeat wrote on Oct 5^th, 2007 at 3:29am: George, I just finished my log for September and I thought I would share the following names with you; Jose G, Brian D, Scott V, Bill B, Thomas W, and Chris B. These are my law enforcement applicants for the month of September who used and admitted that they had used, the information contained in the LBTLD. They were all disqualified.... Your recent posting history inspires little confidence in your candor or sincerity. Why should anyone believe your foregoing claim? Your credibility would be increased if you would kindly post audio recordings of the aforesaid admissions. MM, Once again I find myself having to stress that no opinion/statement of facts other than Mr. Maschke and friends will ever get any traction on this site. For YEARS, all I read on this site was "If you have really caught people using my countermeasures, then give me names, I want NAMES!" Soooo, an examiner complies and provides names, and now the omnipotent Mr. Maschke demands audio; he wants video, he wants digital audio with video because they can be "separated." He wants the poor schmuck taped, standing in front of an atomic clock with a newspaper in his hands and a signed affidavit witnessed by Dan Rather and the entire 60 minutes news crew before he would even consider admitting that the dummies he and his friends "train" can be (and indeed are regularly) caught by polygraph examiners day after day, after day... Like you and all the other people trying to infuse a little sanity on this board, I feel the worst for the poor saps that because of this ongoing malicious stupidity on this website, are caught and disqualified with steadily increasing frequency. Fact is that Mr. Maschke and his minions could care less about these people. They are cannon fodder. Much like the fanatical Muslims who don't mind blowing up other Muslims, because they have now "enabled" these other Muslims to become "unknowing martyrs." Yes, they have done these poor saps a "favor." Because to George, his Iranian friends, and the other crazies on this site, the end most certainly justifies the means. It is now clear to me what Mr. Maschke's strategy is. He believes that if he can HELP get enough people disqualified on the polygraph, then agencies will have to eliminate the procedure over the simple frustration of not being able to process enough candidates to fill needed slots... Interesting method of attack George. Keep leading your lambs to slaughter. This is getting more interesting by the day.. I think I am going to be sick...


	IP Logged

Wonder_Woman Senior User Offline The magic lasso of truth Posts: 69 Joined: Sep 24^th, 2007	Re: Sad Stats Reply #17 - Oct 6^th, 2007 at 1:13am	Mark & Quote Quote Print Post
	You know Sarge, I often thought you might be a good guy. Now I have serious doubts. Let’s just take your statement of poorly performed CM's. Do you really believe that all these people visiting this site can maintain calculated CM's? If you are really honest you will admit they can't. Okay, I know you won't admit it out loud but deep down inside you know the truth. They all try and most are caught. Again, this site is a dis-service to honest people. If the guilty want to attempt CM's - let them. Just like the case I mentioned about two days ago. A Pedophile that is intelligent and a wiz with computers, working at a College...attempted CM's and I caught him. Also, Sarge, I am not going to tell you how I caught him nor am I going to release his name, address, phone# – video, audio etc, for your confirmation. Polygraphs are confidential.


	IP Logged

G Scalabr Global Moderator Offline Posts: 358 Joined: Sep 29^th, 2000	Re: Sad Stats Reply #18 - Oct 6^th, 2007 at 1:58am	Mark & Quote Quote Print Post
	Quote: These are my law enforcement applicants for the month of September who used and admitted that they had used, the information contained in the LBTLD. They were all disqualified.... We make it very clear in our book that one should never admit to using countermeasures, as polygraph operators often bluff in attempt to get people to confess to using countermeasures. From your statement, it appears that the persons you allege were caught disregarded this portion of our advice. Since your statement establishes that at least some of our advice was not adhered to properly, why should we believe that these individuals were bright enough to follow the other information in the book?


	WWW IP Logged

Wonder_Woman Senior User Offline The magic lasso of truth Posts: 69 Joined: Sep 24^th, 2007	Re: Sad Stats Reply #19 - Oct 6^th, 2007 at 2:12am	Mark & Quote Quote Print Post
	Because people are people! When they realized they f'd up by coming to this site they ask for forgiveness. You guys have an answer for everything. Do you think only rocket scientists come to this site?


	IP Logged

Mysterymeat User Offline Posts: 42 Joined: Sep 26^th, 2007	Re: Sad Stats Reply #20 - Oct 6^th, 2007 at 3:10am	Mark & Quote Quote Print Post
	Gino my friend, for once you and I can agree. These people were not bright. If they were, they never would have attempted the Cms in the first place. Your work here has been a great asset to the polygraph community. It is kind of like being in the Superbowl and having the other team's playbook two months before the big game. Thank you, MM


	IP Logged

Paradiddle Very Senior User Offline Posts: 158 Joined: Sep 24^th, 2007	Re: Sad Stats Reply #21 - Oct 6^th, 2007 at 3:19am	Mark & Quote Quote Print Post
	Quote: Quote: These are my law enforcement applicants for the month of September who used and admitted that they had used, the information contained in the LBTLD. They were all disqualified.... We make it very clear in our book that one should never admit to using countermeasures, as polygraph operators often bluff in attempt to get people to confess to using countermeasures. From your statement, it appears that the persons you allege were caught disregarded this portion of our advice. Since your statement establishes that at least some of our advice was not adhered to properly, why should we believe that these individuals were bright enough to follow the other information in the book? Fabulous. Gino and the Heartbreakers over here have been singing the repeated chorus that even a child could beat the polygraph like it's their rock anthem. Now he engages in ad hom attacks on people who can't accomplish what modern Examiners have been telling you ahem..."people"... for the last 4 years. Classic-----a miracle diet pill and Gino says the fat guy isn't smart enough to swallow it properly. Perhaps a back-up hobby would be wise. Try Global Warming---a real threat and a noble cause, unlike belching out awful advice and activism that would make the civil rights pioneers embarrassed.

	Cheats and the Cheating Cheaters who try to Cheat us.
	IP Logged

Mysterymeat User Offline Posts: 42 Joined: Sep 26^th, 2007	Re: Sad Stats Reply #22 - Oct 6^th, 2007 at 3:47am	Mark & Quote Quote Print Post
	Paradiddle, An excellent point! I would love to see a video posted here of Dr. Richardson's 10 year old son defeating a polygraph exam with the information contained in the LBTLD. Since the good doctor is a polygraph "expert", he could administer the examination. MM


	IP Logged

Paradiddle Very Senior User Offline Posts: 158 Joined: Sep 24^th, 2007	Re: Sad Stats Reply #23 - Oct 6^th, 2007 at 4:04am	Mark & Quote Quote Print Post
	Splendid point Mystery Meat, although I would advise that a real examiner probably needs to monitor Drew give a test as he might put the pnuemos around the examinee's groin like a thong! He was after all labeled in a sworn declaration the worst examiner Mark Johnson had ever seen in his entire career as a FBI polygraph examiner---so perhaps he would need some help with, you know, the polygraph basics in that he is "too smart to understand" the simple stuff.

	Cheats and the Cheating Cheaters who try to Cheat us.
	IP Logged

Lethe Very Senior User Offline Posts: 233 Joined: Apr 15^th, 2007	Re: Sad Stats Reply #24 - Oct 6^th, 2007 at 4:05am	Mark & Quote Quote Print Post
	Mysterymeat wrote on Oct 5^th, 2007 at 3:29am: Jose G, Brian D, Scott V, Bill B, Thomas W, and Chris B. These are my law enforcement applicants for the month of September who used and admitted that they had used, the information contained in the LBTLD. They were all disqualified. I also disqualified several others however, they denied visiting your academy as well as Doug William's. Without an admission, I won't consider them as "confirmed" countermeasures. These are real people George, who had real dreams and goals of becoming law enforcement officers. I doubt that any other angency will every give them a second chance. I'm curious about your last statement there, MM. A person trying to use countermeasures is doing nothing but trying to deceive the examiner; it is the equivalent of lying. But lying in order to improve your chances of getting a job is just fine, according to polygraph doctrine, which assumes that most, or at least many, of the applicant's responses to the control questions are lies. It seems to me that, if the applicant is otherwise qualified and the interrogation turns up nothing else that would be damning, the person, on whom the department has already spent resources (I'm guessing--I don't know how the vetting process goes), should be educated about how useless countermeasures are and given the choice of taking the test again if he or she agrees not to attempt them. Why not? Why would it be okay for an ignorant person to lie in order to get a job ("oh no, I never exceed the speed limit!") but not okay for a smart person to do so? I trust that you won't be ignorant in your response. We're all adults here, let's act that way--that goes for everybody.

	Is former APA President Skip Webb evil or just stupid? Is former APA President Ed Gelb an idiot or does the polygraph just not work? Did you know that polygrapher Sackett doesn't care about detecting deception to relevant questions?
	IP Logged

Paradiddle Very Senior User Offline Posts: 158 Joined: Sep 24^th, 2007	Re: Sad Stats Reply #25 - Oct 6^th, 2007 at 4:09am	Mark & Quote Quote Print Post
	Common sense Lethe. When you get caught cheating on a test----regardless of how you would have perhaps "aced the test" had you not cheated----you are labeled a "cheater." Cheaters lose. Your pointed insinuation is flawed, but clever as usual. You should have been a defense lawyer-----or an insurance adjuster.

	Cheats and the Cheating Cheaters who try to Cheat us.
	IP Logged

Lethe Very Senior User Offline Posts: 233 Joined: Apr 15^th, 2007	Re: Sad Stats Reply #26 - Oct 6^th, 2007 at 5:09am	Mark & Quote Quote Print Post
	Paradiddle wrote on Oct 6^th, 2007 at 4:09am: Common sense Lethe. When you get caught cheating on a test----regardless of how you would have perhaps "aced the test" had you not cheated----you are labeled a "cheater." Cheaters lose. Your pointed insinuation is flawed, but clever as usual. You should have been a defense lawyer-----or an insurance adjuster. So, lying is okay? But "cheating" in order to pass a flawed test that has serious built in biases against you is okay? I can certainly see the distinction there. Is that the one that you are making?

	Is former APA President Skip Webb evil or just stupid? Is former APA President Ed Gelb an idiot or does the polygraph just not work? Did you know that polygrapher Sackett doesn't care about detecting deception to relevant questions?
	IP Logged

Sergeant1107 God Member Offline Posts: 730 Location: Connecticut, USA Joined: May 21^st, 2005 Gender:	Re: Sad Stats Reply #27 - Oct 6^th, 2007 at 8:24am	Mark & Quote Quote Print Post
	Wonder_Woman wrote on Oct 6^th, 2007 at 1:13am: You know Sarge, I often thought you might be a good guy. Now I have serious doubts. Let’s just take your statement of poorly performed CM's. Do you really believe that all these people visiting this site can maintain calculated CM's? If you are really honest you will admit they can't. Okay, I know you won't admit it out loud but deep down inside you know the truth. They all try and most are caught. Again, this site is a dis-service to honest people. If the guilty want to attempt CM's - let them. Just like the case I mentioned about two days ago. A Pedophile that is intelligent and a wiz with computers, working at a College...attempted CM's and I caught him. Also, Sarge, I am not going to tell you how I caught him nor am I going to release his name, address, phone# – video, audio etc, for your confirmation. Polygraphs are confidential. You really lost me with this one, Wonder Woman. Paradiddle made a claim that countermeasure detection works quite well, and I asked what I think is an objectively reasonable question as to how he came to that conclusion. And that gave you serious doubts that I’m a “good guy?” Okay… I have no idea if “all the people” visiting this site can maintain “calculated CM’s”. I also don’t know how many people use CM’s at all, or how many people use CM’s but have never visited this site. I don’t know how you could possibly know any of the above, either. You claim “they all try”. That doesn’t seem reasonable. Everyone who visits this site attempts CM’s? And most are caught? How do you know that? Your conclusion seems to based on your claim that you sometimes catch people who admit to using CM’s, and who also admit to having visited this web site, right? How many people have used CM’s but were not caught? Neither you nor I have any idea. How many of the people who successfully used CM’s learned how at AntiPolygraph.org? Again, neither you nor I have any idea. So how can any polygraph reasonably make the claim countermeasure detection works well? You simply don’t have the data necessary to make any such claim. There could be a significant percentage of subjects who pass because they successfully use CM's, or there could be one or two a year - there's no way to know. All you can refer to is the number of people who admit to using CM's, and that number by itself is useless unless you can compare it to the number of subjects who used CM's and were not caught and did not admit to their use. Also, if you care to look at my previous posts, I never asked you how you “caught” anyone, and I didn’t ask you to release anyone’s name. Therefore I am uncertain as to why you directed those comments at me.

	Lorsque vous utilisez un argumentum ad hominem, tout le monde sait que vous êtes intellectuellement faillite.
	IP Logged

Sergeant1107 God Member Offline Posts: 730 Location: Connecticut, USA Joined: May 21^st, 2005 Gender:	Re: Sad Stats Reply #28 - Oct 6^th, 2007 at 8:29am	Mark & Quote Quote Print Post
	Paradiddle wrote on Oct 6^th, 2007 at 4:09am: Common sense Lethe. When you get caught cheating on a test----regardless of how you would have perhaps "aced the test" had you not cheated----you are labeled a "cheater." Cheaters lose. Your pointed insinuation is flawed, but clever as usual. You should have been a defense lawyer-----or an insurance adjuster. If I am taking a polygraph exam and I answer all the questions truthfully, and I don't withhold any information at all, aren't I doing everything an ethical person should do? If I recite poetry in my head after each answer, or I do long division in my head after each answer, or if I think of a peaceful beach scene to stay calm throughout the test, would you consider that cheating? Would you consider that to be countermeasures?

	Lorsque vous utilisez un argumentum ad hominem, tout le monde sait que vous êtes intellectuellement faillite.
	IP Logged

Lethe Very Senior User Offline Posts: 233 Joined: Apr 15^th, 2007	Re: Sad Stats Reply #29 - Oct 7^th, 2007 at 3:21am	Mark & Quote Quote Print Post
	Sergeant1107 wrote on Oct 6^th, 2007 at 8:29am: Paradiddle wrote on Oct 6^th, 2007 at 4:09am: Common sense Lethe. When you get caught cheating on a test----regardless of how you would have perhaps "aced the test" had you not cheated----you are labeled a "cheater." Cheaters lose. Your pointed insinuation is flawed, but clever as usual. You should have been a defense lawyer-----or an insurance adjuster. If I am taking a polygraph exam and I answer all the questions truthfully, and I don't withhold any information at all, aren't I doing everything an ethical person should do? If I recite poetry in my head after each answer, or I do long division in my head after each answer, or if I think of a peaceful beach scene to stay calm throughout the test, would you consider that cheating? Would you consider that to be countermeasures? Sergeant, I think if that behavior was engaged in with the intent of manipulating the results that it would qualify as a countermeasure under any reasonable definition of countermeasure. Anyway, back to the idea that it is okay to "lie" in order to get a job but it is not okay to "cheat", I think we could extend that principle. For instance: Okay: "No officer, I just had two drinks and that was hours ago!" Okay: "No, mom, I'm not going to that party, I'm just going to Billy's house." Okay: "This car will be very reliable and, no, it was never in any accidents." Okay: "If elected, I will lower taxes and improve education and health care." So... is that really what you're saying? That it is perfectly fine to lie to people, it only becomes wrong when you try to manipulate some sort of test? Surely you jest, say it ain't so. Or, perhaps I misunderstand the principle that you are actually elucidating. If so, please correct me. Also, what about deception on one's tax return? Is that lying (and thus okay) or cheating (and thus not okay)?

	Is former APA President Skip Webb evil or just stupid? Is former APA President Ed Gelb an idiot or does the polygraph just not work? Did you know that polygrapher Sackett doesn't care about detecting deception to relevant questions?
	IP Logged

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4

Add Poll

Send Topic

‹ Previous Topic | Next Topic ›

Sad Stats

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.