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…

Wow!  You have a job/business and spend your days on this site trying to convince people polygraph is a scam.  And I'm told to get a life?  I have one, polygraph IS my business, it IS my life!

BTW, and I've said this before, I'm not here to prove anything to you or your other self inflated crusaders.  I am here for the innocent, ingnorant, honest person who might actually believe the dribble on this board and to try to give those readers a different view which, in the end, might save their job aspiration or keep them out of jail.

In other words, I am here to put a ??? where you guys put a !!!

Sackett

nopolycop wrote on Mar 9^th, 2008 at 5:25pm:


OK, what about the police officer subjected to an IAU examination by citizen complaint?  He reads he has to "help himself" and protect against false positives.  He comes into my suite, attempts countermeasures, is caught and then fired or punished for non-cooperation and/or suspected improper activities.  But in fact he didn't do what he was accused of.  Oh well.... right?

What about the criminal suspect, not guilty, but has peripheral involvement (i.e. witnessed the crime but is not talking, heard someone bragging in a bar, etc).  Same thing, attempts CM's or doesn't abide by the rules of the test.  You know detectives, right?  He must be guilty and they do all they can to establish through circumstantial evidence that he's the guilty one. Meanwhile the truly guilty go on without suspicion or further investigative review by those detetctives who at this time, "have their man."

Need I say more?  The guilty will take care of themselves, I really feel obligated to the honest person who finds themself in my chair...

Sackett

nopolycop said;
Quote:


Ahem. Cops don't talk to other cops like that. Conventional wisdom (and some experience) demonstrates that fellow lawmen who disagree with polygraph argue against polygraph itself, not "the law enforcement profession." Based on your distortion there, you are as much a cop as that guy from the Village People. Can you also sing?

According to you---you have years of duty in the force yet you are suspiciously devoid of any apparent brotherhood with Sackett, a fellow lawman with 90% of the same values. Where is noplycop's commonality with Sackett? Such an obvious vacuum of commoness leads some to believe that well, you are "more shop than cop."

.02

PS FYI, it is a felony to impersonate a law enforcement officer---yes-----even on the internet.

may i suggest you post your standard "mantra" on your main page.  This will release you from the unnecessary obligation of repeatedly posting it everytime someone new comes here.  Just an idea to save you some time.

Quote:


Maybe he could post our standard poly-pro NON-RESPONSE to go with it.