Sergeant,  Neither one of us should appear naive here.  You keep talking about letting ones innocent mind wander to where ever it will and that is not the topic under discussion. Let your mind wander all it wants and that isn't  using countermeasures but the minute you attempt to direct your thought process in in any way in order to manufacture or supress a response to a question on a polygraph it becomes a countermeasure. If you engage in countermeasures you are acting in a dishonest and unethical manner whether or not you are caught. You also place yourself squarely in the group Law Enforcement appears to want to exclude from its ranks.

Remember ethics and morals are what govern our behavior especially when no one can see us. 

Sancho Panza

Sergeant, On a slightly different subject but still pertaining to polygraph, I have been doing some reading on pre-employment screening tests for law enforcement. It appears that after failing your first test because of drugs, you should have been given a specific test on the subject of drugs before being disqualified. When you failed your second test due to fighting/assaults you should have been given a specific test on that subject before being disqualified. When you failed your third test due to theft issues, you should have been given a specific test regarding theft before being disqualified. If these tests occurred what were there results?  If they did not occur you might have a legitimate cause for criticism based on the polygraphers not being thorough. 

We've discussed screening exams before, and we've discussed the higher error rates that exist in screening exams. Specifically we have discussed that if you score positive on a TB skin test, they don't start treating you for TB they give you another test to confirm the results of the screening exam. It would appear that this is also the proper protocol for pre-employment polygraph. 

Just thought I would share that with you

Sancho Panza

Mr. Mashke,  Are there any published scientific independant peer reviewed studies that prove that any type of polygraph countermeasure can make a guilty examinee appear innocent or assist an innocent examinee who is having difficulty, pass the exam?

A simple yes or no would certainly suffice if you are busy, but if the answer is yes could you direct me to where I can read it?

Sancho Panza

chrismcphee33 wrote on Jan 9^th, 2008 at 4:00pm:


To keep this response to your comments on topic, it is indeed telling that the polygraph supporters here cannot (or will not) answer straight forward questions honestly, but instead choose to rant and rave about anyone who might want to ensure the success on this arbitrary and capricious procedure commonly called a "lie detector test".

If one goes through my posts, (not suggesting this, but just commenting generally) one will see that typtically the straight forward questions I ask are ignored, or if not ignored, are not answered directly, but emotionally and off-topic.  Or, in the extreme, they do the equivalent of stamping their feet, put their fingers in their ears and say, "I don't HEAR you."  All very childish, in my opinion.

For the record, am pretty much done researching the polygraph, I believe I have a pretty good handle on what takes place during a polygraph examination.  I can now just post for the fun of it, and to help others who come to this site to gain information about the polygraph come to understand it's limitations and the falsity of it all.

In my limited experience posting on this site, it has already become obvious that polygraphers like SanchoPanza tend to make general sweeping statements about morality instead of answering questions. While they are writing these long drawn out responses, which include YELLING and exclaiming! they don't seem to realize that their avoidance of the actual questions is the most telling thing of all about their own understanding of the validity of the polygraph interrogation process.

Chrismcphee33   Your assumption that I am a polygrapher is based on what?

I have considerably more evidence that you are and exhibitionist and voyeur than you have that I am a polygrapher. 

You just can't seem to acknowledge the possibility that intellectually curious individuals can research polygraph without eventually worshipping at the George Mashcke antipolygraph shrine. 

You criticize statements that promote honesty truth and integrity when you came to this forum attempting to learn how to avoid being honest and truthful about your admitted embarrassing sexual behavior in your upcoming polygraph test. 

The vast majority of your questions attempt to establish an avenue of credibilty that you can use to justify your intended attempt to alter the results of that test.

You have my answer to that question. There is no moral and ethical justification for using countermeasures of any kind. 
Asking the quesion over and over changing the words of the questions without changing the substance of the question is unlikely to elicit an different response. 

The use of different kinds of emphasis like the one you call yelling (which seems odd to me considering this board doesn't use sound)is just an attempt at emphasising that "hey you've heard this answer before" or to call attention to a particular point. Your repeated asking of the same questions over and over after you have received responses is just an indication you refuse to read the response or that you are refusing to acknowledge a response because it doesn't tell you what you want to hear. 

Sancho Panza

SanchoPanza wrote on Jan 9^th, 2008 at 4:37pm:


NOW it's getting FUN!

I presume you are referring to the following comment:

"You probably survived by avoiding the hot calls, (like you avoid my posts) and getting into internal affairs as soon as you could brown nose enough brass."

Well, of course the above is not a direct accusation as you state, but instead couched as an opinion, which frankly was beneath my dignity and not worthy of a person with my intellectual prowess.  I guess I got caught up in the moment, and for that I apologize.  I find it curious and instructive though, that you actually don't deny it's truthfulness, but instead misdirect by stating that I directly accused you of avoiding hot calls and brown nosing your way into internal affairs.  No, Sancho, I was just stating my opnion based on my 30 years of active duty police work, (I still carry a badge, BTW). You see,  I have seen many people get to the top, (or at least a cushy ROAD* job such as internal affairs) on the backs of good cops and their carreers.

And, I have said nothing here that I wouldn't say to your face, or anyone elses face.  I would welcome a personal meeting with anyone here.  Perhaps Dr. Phil or Maury Povich could arrange it, it could be a very exhilerating experience for all, and extremely entertaining.

* ROAD means "Retired On Active Duty" for the non-police readers.

Gotta go now, I have a one o'clock court appearance.

nopoly4me

WOW!!!

Many thanks for putting your life on the line for so many years in these dangerous times.

Good job