To be honest that is pretty much how the polygraph examiner talked to me. Very rude, he had a high and mighty attitude and said all the negative things written about the polygraph were bullshit...

Sounds like some of the polygraphers on this board.  And when you catch them at their own game, they talk in circles and squeak like mice.   
And they are not dumb.  They know perfectly well the game they are playing.   

And they probably have numerous rationalizations to justify it.  Just like the judges at the "salem witch trials".   

"We are doing God's work!"
"We had to expunge the devil they held within!"
"Tolerate the demon, spoil the soul!  More rocks lads!"

If the test is supposed to be vurtually unbeatable as they say how the hell can getting some info on what the test is possibly affect the results??

Because getting information means uncovering the scam.

That doesn't mean, however, that you should be confrontational when tested.  Actually, you should play along.

IOW, rather than say:  "Bullshit!  I'm telling the truth, I don't care what your $%^^#ing machine says!"

It would be better to remain polite, and just exhibit surprise.  Maintain that you have absolutely no idea why you are "reacting" to the question.  Just don't let them con you into believing you could somehow be lying, and not know it.

It reminds me of the old Apache Lie-detection test.  They would heat up a knife and place it on some poor bastard's tongue.  If the knife stuck, he was assumed to be lying, if not, he was being truthful.

But all that proved was that if the knife stuck, it was because his mouth was dry from nervousness!  But why would he be nervous IF HE WAS NOT LYING?  How about because some dang injun was about to put a red hot knife on his tongue!!   

In the case of a pre-employment poly, one explanation could be:  "SHIT!  I need this job, this is the job of my dream.  But he says I'm lying.  Oh dear, and they say this thing is fool proof!  What am I gonna do?  I WANT THIS JOB!"

But NOOOOO!  Mr. "Edgar Cayce" Sackett knows all.  He KNOOOOOOWS if you are "withholding information".   So he says!

And if the NAS says otherwise, then they are just BIASED!

This is what I find to be the most absurd assertion.  That you, a fanatical anti-polygraph poster could "smear" MY reputation. Roll Eyes  You go boy, keep trying... 

That is really ironic.  A polygrapher complaining about having his reputation unjustly "smeared".   

Sometimes, they are simple ommissions in which the examinee thought was unimportant and were not discussed before the test.  Then, after spending my time to clear it up, retested, cleared up the issue with the subject who then passed.....

So what happens when you get a PERSISTENT "response" on a relevant question, and after repeated follow-up (which for some "false positives" can go on for days), the person will not produce an "omission" or "admission"?  Do they get an "inconclusive"?

And since, scientifically, a "response" does not necessarily equal a "lie" or a "withholding of info", how is this any different from any interrogation in which the interrogator, after hours of badgering, can't get the subject to "crack".

IOW, you SUSPECT the guy is lying, but can't prove it.  Maybe this is why our beloved polygraph test is NOT ADMISSIBLE in court.

In a previous post (forget what thread) you claimed you KNOW when a person is withholding information.  How?

Suspecting and KNOWING are two different things.   

As for the my claim that you are being "deceptive".  I just couldn't resist giving a polygrapher his own medicine (i.e. accusing somebody of deception without any proof).  Doesn't feel very good, does it? 

You have served nothing here but whiny ass opinions.

Is the NAS report a "whinny ass opinion"?

Can you really be unbiased considering the fact that you work as a polygrapher?  It would be understandable if you can't.

Admittedly, one could equally question my bias as a "false positive".

So let's stick with the research.  You've pooh poohed the NAS report. 
So what academic research is there (not published by the polygraph industry), to substantiate the validity of your test?

If it's so reliable, why is it not admissible in court?  And in that case, we are talking about LE polygraphs where there an actual crime has been committed versus a preemployment witch hunt screening.

Simple questions.

I have addressed or answered everything you have put to me


You haven't answered how it is that the polygraph allows you TO KNOW whether somebody is "withholding information".

You also never answered the question regarding cases in which a person is persistently showing a an unacceptable "response" to a relevant question, yet will not produce an admission to account for it.  Presumably, because untruthfulness is only one possiblity for such a response (versus anger, fear, embarassment...etc.)

On a personal note, polygraph is an investigative tool.  I never said it was the be all or end all of fact finding. 


Again, then why did you claim you KNOW when somebody is withholding information?

In many jurisdicitons, polygraph IS admissable in court.  Further, regarding sex offenders, MANY judicial orders include periodic polygraph examination as a maintenance program requirement.  Not admissable?  Not judicially noted?

In MOST juristictions it is not allowed.  In the case of sex offenders, you are talking about "post-conviction supervision".. IOW, the guy has already been found GUILTY.  The polygraph was not used to FIND GUILT.

So as you can see Larry, once again you are incorrect in your presentation of misinformation.  A common theme, I think...

Wikipedia states my position precisely:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygraph

There is little scientific evidence to support the reliability of polygraphs. Despite claims of 90% - 95% reliability, critics charge that rather than a "test", the method amounts to an inherently unstandardizable interrogation technique whose accuracy cannot be established.

Personally, I do not believe in the (blind) admissability of polygraph evidence.  The reason is simple.  Some examiners do not perform in the manner in which they were taught.

Then do you believe it should be used to be blindly used to eliminate a candidate for employment, and smear their reputation?

Most of the polygraphers on this board seem to think we're just a bunch of "cry babies".

Larry, Larry, Larry,

I have in-deed answered, just not to your satisfaction.   

Of course, based on your fanatical, skewed and venemous attacks and responses to me; your satisfaction can never be met..

Please, have the last word...as I believe this thread has run its course.

Sackett

Mr Sackett could open a college for Spin-Doctors.
His posts reek of narcissism - an egomaniac delux.

But he thoroughly checked his resources through the reliable website known a wikepedia...

I've cited the NAS report repeatedly.

Guess I better stop confusing you guys with facts.

Larry, You cannot expect these guys to be impressed by FACTS if they did they would not have a job to go to!!


All they are good for is the occasional "cat call" from the "peanut gallery".