George,

I do not like your site.  The reason is simple.  I believe your site hurts the honest and leads the ignorant and misinformed to act in a way that will likely cause them problems during their testing.  The guilty will take care of themselves...

I do; however,  endorse your right to this site as a freedom of speech issue and while I understand many of your anti-posters will be against me, I hope you appreciate (at some minimal level) my desire to present an alternate and positive polygraph opinion.

Having said that, given the minimal number of people posting in support of your site, I was wondering how many people do you have registered and are capable of posting either pro, anti or neutral/curious?  

I was simply wondering and if you are not willing to disclose that information, I will understand.

Sackett

I found that.  I was wondering if there is any registration reflecting their position on the use of polygraph.  IOW, how many anti/pro/neutral persons are registered here.  Also, with over 3 thousand registered users, how many posted more than once or twice? 

Maybe there is no way to know without querying that.  I was just curious.


Sackett

"polyf",

You previously questioned my presence on this board. I replied why? Of course, with no response. 

Now, I have to ask, why are you trying to hijack this string?  I was asking the owner a simple question concerning the posters on this board, trying to identify their motivations and/or background. I was not trying to be "slick" or esoteric.  I asked it up front and direct..

In an effort to at least appear to be fair, please try to deliniate the difference between honest inquiries and statements made supporting what you clearly oppose...

Sackett

T.M. Cullen wrote on Mar 5^th, 2008 at 4:45am:


"polyf",

now, (in response I say), in an effort to at least appear to be sane, please try to deliniate the difference between my opinion of some of the posters on this board and the honest people duped into entering this site by the misleading claims of polygraph inaccuracies and over-inflated statistics of false positives, prejudice and accusatory examiners, etc.


Sackett

George,

I'm not here to give you credibility or assit in making your site more believable or trustworthy.  But, I will address a couple things to establish my point to avoid the perception that I am just here to piss off the "anti" crowd.  From your main page:


•      The consensus view among scientists is that polygraph testing has no scientific basis? 

     No!  There was a consensus amongst those few who participated in the preparation of the NAS meta-analysis of specially selected research articles supporting their views [three authors I think (not sure) by last count according to one of your posters supporting the report] that pre-employment screenings was less than completely accurate (or words to that effect) and subjected to potential inaccurate findings and faults (All the while ignoring the fact that many “scientists” involved in this report were subject to the very testing they were criticizing. This little tidbit of information introduces questions of motive the report.  Meanwhile, specific issue testing reflects greater credibility and accuracy; a point you meaningfully withhold.

•      The FBI considered the creator of the lie detector test to be a phony and a crackpot? 

     If you have to rely upon reports and findings from the 1930 and 40’s, then I can not attack your position.  Polygraph has come a long way since then and you know it. Of course, that is no doubted the reason you removed the old photo of an examination (not actually taking pace but for the photo op of the moment) and  replaced with your cartoon.  Isn’t it?  Did the photo (which of course was not taken during an examination), look too professional?

•      The man who started the CIA's polygraph program thinks that plants can read human thoughts? 

     And your board members talk about research… Backster, I believe, established through his research that plants have reaction to destructive thought. Coincidence?  I don’t know.  Quirky?  Yep!  Does that remove the potential of reliability and validity from his findings and research? No!  Yet you would simply “poo poo” this information in support of your beliefs and self promotion…  Shame on you!  Remember Star Trek (sic)?  Handheld communicators?  Everyone thought what? BS!  Never happen…. Have you got one now?  Yep!

•      The foremost polygraph advocate in academia was discredited by a federal judge? 

     Now George, the opinion of one judge does not make for fact.  It reflects good lawyering...

•      A prominent past-president of the American Polygraph Association is a phony Ph.D., and this premier polygraph organization doesn't consider it an ethics problem? 

     I believe he has a PhD.  It may or may not be accredited, though I am not sure.  Many people I heard were duped by “licensed” universities and worked hard to get their degree; all the while not knowing they were un-accredited by the DoE. There are many colleges out there that are unaccredited and many more just outright selling their diplomas.  And many people have been duped by      them both, as well.  Look at the “inventor”, seller and maker of the CVSA.  I heard he bought his PhD from the store down the strip mall from his offices.  Now that, I think, is phony...

     Finally, this issue has been addressed not only by the APA but the ASTM as well.

•      The longest polygraph school produces newly minted polygraphers in just 14 weeks -- less than half the time it takes to graduate from a typical barber college?
 
     Cute!  14 weeks of very intensive class room and practical instruction requiring about 70 hours a week of work.  A bachelor degree is required (unlike barber school) and past experiences (though employment as well).  Further, much of their instruction IS accredited by an accredited university (now) and accepted towards graduate program work.  Furthermore, after the instruction comes an intense internship period of continuing instruction for between 2-4 months (on average).  Dang!  How come you don’t mention any of that…?

•      The Defense Academy for Credibility Assessment (the erstwhile DoD Polygraph Institute) suppressed a study suggesting that innocent blacks are more likely to fail the polygraph than innocent whites?

     I’m pretty sure they published those findings, because I remember reading about it somewhere (and I am not in the “inside” crowd).  Meanwhile, published reports of research on the accuracy of polygraph gets “round filed” here… (hummm?)
   
•      The researcher who developed the U.S. Government's polygraph Test for Espionage and Sabotage "thought the whole security screening program should be shut down?" 

Don’t know anything about that and I don't use it.

•      The National Academy of Sciences concluded that "[polygraph testing's] accuracy in distinguishing actual or potential security violators from innocent test takers is insufficient to justify reliance on its use in employee security screening in federal agencies?" 

     Addressed above.  Did you just simply restate the same thing to sound more believable?

•      Spies Ignatz Theodor Griebl, Karel Frantisek Koecher, Jiri Pasovsky, Larry Wu-tai Chin, Aldrich Hazen Ames, Ana Belen Montes, and Leandro Aragoncillo all passed the polygraph? 

     Did they?  Do you have proof of that?  Did they pass, or did something else occur?  I know “Al” likes to post here, proclaiming his truthfulness…

•      Al-Qaeda and Iraqi insurgents know full well that the lie detector is bogus? 

     Really?  Is that why they need your book, already translated in Farsi and Arabic…?  Don't you speak those languages?

George, as I have stated before, I respect you right to freedom of speech.  But do not defend your freedom of speech by declaring a freedom from it.  That is disingenuous and misleading to your readers! 

Sackett

Sackett,

Quote:


Now who is being disingenuous ? Gelb acknowledged that his Phd was from an unaccredited online 'college' - (read: degree mill )

Quote:


That is deflection. But, does that make Humble more, less or equally as phony as Gelb ?

    Quote:


From what I hear (first-hand) its more like 8 weeks in class and the rest is 'internship' outside of class. Further, that 'class' means listening to hackneyed old Instructors war stories and how many DI's he's chalked up; and how damn good he is at it (polygrapy); and how to dupe the examinee (read: victim) into making admissions and confessions. Hell, you dont need a polygraph for that.. a tin hat with
a lightbulb will do the trick !!!

Quote:


MICJ do not require a candidate to have a college degree. A pulse will suffice.

Quote:


Because thats bs, that's why. That also why Marston school let their students out early - because the bs tank runs dry after several weeks.

Quote:


Of course you read it - dont you keep up with the literature and research ? You regularly infer that you do...why not this one ?
   
Quote:


Again, selective retention.

Quote:


Because you have to be continually reminded, because you so conveniently tend to forget or ignore that the most venerable Scientific organisation in the west essentially said that polygraphy is bs. Sort of hurts you donnit ???

Quote:


Sackett - you must be the only senior member of the APA that didnt know....

Quote:


sidesteppping ... a nice dance to remember.

Quote:


NO! NO!  Best to go in with a "blank slate"!  That way you'll be unbiased, and untainted by the venomous claws of the "anti" crowd and their maniacal leader GM! 

Along a similar vein, if you're in the market for a used car, worst thing to do is research ahead of time.  Just go to the closest used car lot and start yacking with the saleman.  They are there to help!  Just "open up"!  Let them know how much money you're willing to spend, and tell them you know NOTHING about cars.  They'll know what's best.

George, in response, 

Regarding Aragoncillo, you wrote, “Assuming the allegations against Aragoncillo are true, if he intended to commit espionage before being hired, the polygraph did not detect it, and it certainly did not deter it after he was hired.

First off, you know very well that polygraph can not divine the future nor can it determine the desires, thoughts or intentions of future (potential) actions.  This is a common misrepresentation of polygraph, especially in the media, as in the recent show Moment of Truth.  In any one show, they may actually only ask one or two “real” potential polygraph questions.  This leads the public to believe the polygraph has the ability to determine if someone is “thinking” about leaving their spouse, etc.  It is nothing but entertainment and blaming polygraph for not catching what someone did, before they did it is a preposterous notion.  As for catching him, after the fact, did he undergo an update examination AFTER his spying began?  How do you know an update examination was not the reason he was caught?  Just a thought as I have no direct knowledge of any intelligence activities; of course, neither do you.

Regarding Chin, you wrote, “Chin's espionage was facilitated by his having presumably passed every CIA polygraph screening examination to which he was subjected during the course of his career.”

Once again, I simply asked the question, did they all really pass or was that an assumption?  You clearly answered the question here.  BTW, you ignore the fact he was a double agent.  How do you or anyone here know, that factually he passed.  Many times the results of polygraphs in the intelligence community (I hear) result in investigations which result in their discovery then information collected is used to manipulate the agent and we, the general public never hear about it.  But that’s not possible here, huh?  Nope!  You have “presumed” and that is good enough!

Regarding Ames, you rely upon the rambling letter of Ames’ distain for the polygraph as “proof” he passed.  First off, I have addressed my thoughts on the matter previously.  Secondly, I never saw where he claimed to have passed or where anyone supports that assertion.  Can it be assumed by his statements, I suppose you make that nexus.  I’m not so sure.  I heard (somewhere) he never truly passed any of his examinations but due to his senior position in the agency and constant promotions that no-one could believe he was having trouble and nobody wanted to challenge such a senior officer.

These observations by me were made simply by looking at your statements through the links on the home page.  I can’t speak for all of the cases you cite.  

I can offer a question though.  What would our intelligence services be without polygraph?  While you decry the usefulness and ability of the polygraph; you provide no alternatives!  You wrench your hands at the prospect of screening test and their numerous false positives.  You research the bowels of the press to find any article that would suit your purpose.  But you offer nothing in the place of polygraph.  Would simple background investigations have prevented any of the spy cases you cite?  Probably not, since background investigations were undoubtedly completed anyway. The spy issue in this country would certainly be overwhelming without polygraph and for you to suggest otherwise is ludicrous. Your complaint seems to be employment.  It is unfortunate that there is in fact a false positive rate, but very low.  Meaning, some folks who feel they deserve a job and maybe they do, are simply not going to get it.  Life ain't fair, move on!  

Regarding your Lykken/Iacono study, their first line of the findings of CQT Error Rate begins, “Unfortunately, it is not possible to use the existing polygraphy literature to accurately estimate the validity of the CQT.”  So why exactly are you using it?

Their conclusions were, “Although the CQT may be useful as an investigative aid and tool to induce confessions, it does not pass muster as a scientifically credible test. CQT theory is based on naive, implausible assumptions indicating (a) that it is biased against innocent individuals and (b) that it can be beaten simply by artificially augmenting responses to control questions. Although it is not possible to adequately assess the error rate of the CQT, both of these conclusions are supported by published research findings in the best social science journals (Honts et al., 1994; Horvath, 1977; Kleinmuntz & Szucko, 1984; Patrick & Iacono, 1991). Although defense attorneys often attempt to have the results of friendly CQTs admitted as evidence in court, there is no evidence supporting their validity and ample reason to doubt it. Members of scientific organizations who have the requisite background to evaluate the CQT are overwhelmingly skeptical of the claims made by polygraph proponents. 

BTW, wasn’t Lykken the developer of the GKT?  A test with proven reliability somewhere in the 80-90 percentile.  Maybe I’m mistaken…

The article certainly outlines some deficiencies in the process, especially amongst research and inability to know ground truth.  I agree it is far from perfect but I also read a lot of insinuations based on other causes.  I read inferences based on opinion, but I read no CONCLUSIVE research results indicating it did not work. I read no CONCLUSIVE proof that it is biased against the innocent and I certainly read no CONCLUSIVE proof or evidence that polygraph can be beaten simply by augmenting the control questions.  This of course removes all consideration of an examiner or monitor and the various abilities we have as a profession to detect them.  This of course, is where you make headway.

And, unfortunately, because polygraph relies upon more than one science and the factors and variables are so very much out of the control of researchers, polygraph may never rise to the “muster” that scientists like to see as “proof” or “evidence” of viability or reliability.  Nonetheless, it still works!

Also, you wrote, "Cleve Backster is nutty as a fruitcake. Follow the link in the bullet point and just listen to some of his interviews. Real scientists have tried without success to reproduce his results."

OK, you got me there.  But, doesn’t every family have their strange eccentric uncle?  Does that make his contributions to polygraph any less important or viable.  He developed the CQT, which is one of the most researched and robust examinations currently in use.  He developed the numerical scoring process.  A process BTW to help reduce false positives and introduced the Inconclusive result.  So rather than throwing charts on the ground and making a decision, we have a more verifiable and replicable process in making determinations.

Again, any judge making a decision is limited to consideration of the information which is presented to him by opposing attorneys. Most lawyers are not supportive of the polygraph simply because it does away with the need for their jobs (relatively speaking).  So any judicial decision is based on the skills and ability of the lawyers involved, i.e. good lawyering...

Regarding educational presentation, the APA and ASTM have enacted rules in an effort to prevent misrepresentation of educational achievements.  If you find anymore, please advise.  BTW, all scientific and art communities having growing pains, and we’re certainly no exception.

I’m not going to argue with you over the education and training received by examiners.  You refer by implication that the DoD Poly Institute was ONLY 14 weeks.  Having attended that school you refer to, I was providing an insight that it was not a day school or walk in the park.  Further, the instruction at DACA (formerly DoDPI) is comparable with graduate course now used in (an accredited university) for inclusion in Master’s programs.  Regardless of length, hardly barber shop trade school. 

Regarding the one research document reflecting innocent blacks were more likely to pass than innocent whites, you wrote, “Nope. DoDPI/DACA did not publish the study. AntiPolygraph.org did! DoDPI/DACA suppressed it.”

You’re now telling me where I read things?  If it was not published, where did you get it?  Hell! Where did I get it?

George, it is fairly easy to see that some information you present it true and can not be argued.  Most information you present here, unfortunately is implied information as a result of innuendo, inferences and presumptions.  No, I’m not here to fix what you write, just point out some facts to make readers ask themselves, why does this site exist?  I know I can’t trust everything I read, so who is this guy that runs this site?  Who can I believe; whiny failures who want to blame the polygraph world for their lot in life?  How can I get at least one person to pat me on the back and say, “I know, I know”, false positive got me too…..

I say "The truth WILL set you Free!"  It will also get you a non-deceptive test result...

Sackett

P.S.  “notguilty1” wrote, 

“Sackett, 

For someone that claims that this site has few anti posters you seem to spend LOTS of time here doing what?? Why would you spend so much time getting "Hosed down" with the truth by people here who have acual proof that fasle positives are REAL!!  Yes, me included. I don't need reports I lived it first hand. If your "science" was so effective and we were so few, you would not be spending this much time on this site making a fool of yourself. Of course unless you really have to fear that your scam will eventually be exposed as just that a scam, and your days of sitting in judgement of others will be over and you'll have to accually get a real job. When I hear things like getting info hre or anywhere can only hurt your poly results and that not being nice to your poligrapher ( scam artist) can only hurt you that tells me that polys are a scam. 
Sackett, get a life!!!! "

Well “ng1” I have a life.  I also have the job I want, apparently unlike you.  And I stand by my statements.  This site has thousands of readers, thousands of registered users (probably most are polygraph examiners and one-time posters) and about four active anti-supporters.  I think that speaks volumes for the true number of “false positive” victims out there who are unable to move on in this world.  Especially considering AP comes in at the top 3 or 4 of every search engine I find.  You’d think you’re victimized brotherhood would be juuusssssttt a little bigger….

BTW, I don't know anything about cars; I just know when they work...

Have a nice life…