AntiPolygraph.org Message Board

(UTC)

Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register

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 › DNA v. Polygraph

(Moderator: Administrator)

‹ Previous Topic | Next Topic ›

Pages: 1 [2]

Add Poll

Send Topic

DNA v. Polygraph (Read 8436 times)

sackett Especially Senior User Offline Posts: 347 Joined: Jan 31^st, 2008	Re: DNA v. Polygraph Reply #15 - Apr 4^th, 2008 at 4:57pm	Mark & Quote Quote Print Post
	nopolycop wrote on Apr 4^th, 2008 at 3:53pm: sackett wrote on Apr 4^th, 2008 at 4:09am: " Or maybe, just maybe, Gallego used the techniques outlined in TLBTLD to "beat" the examiner?! It suprises me that no-one has made that particular claim. You see, that is exactly what this board is all about, now isn't it? Helping criminals, sex offenders and applicants "beat" the process... Sackett I'll go ahead and address your hyperbole too. I don't see this board as existing to help anyone "beat" the process. the board exists, as I understand it, to serve as a catalyst to get the polygraph process removed from the screening process for LE and National Security employment. Please correct me if I am wrong, GM... Now whose rationalizing???


	IP Logged

nopolycop Especially Senior User Offline Posts: 383 Joined: Oct 20^th, 2007	Re: DNA v. Polygraph Reply #16 - Apr 4^th, 2008 at 5:40pm	Mark & Quote Quote Print Post
	sackett wrote on Apr 4^th, 2008 at 4:57pm: nopolycop wrote on Apr 4^th, 2008 at 3:53pm: sackett wrote on Apr 4^th, 2008 at 4:09am: " Or maybe, just maybe, Gallego used the techniques outlined in TLBTLD to "beat" the examiner?! It suprises me that no-one has made that particular claim. You see, that is exactly what this board is all about, now isn't it? Helping criminals, sex offenders and applicants "beat" the process... Sackett I'll go ahead and address your hyperbole too. I don't see this board as existing to help anyone "beat" the process. the board exists, as I understand it, to serve as a catalyst to get the polygraph process removed from the screening process for LE and National Security employment. Please correct me if I am wrong, GM... Now whose rationalizing??? Here is the official statement from the following link, which a good investigator should have read a long time ago: "AntiPolygraph.org seeks the complete abolishment of polygraph "testing" from the American workplace. Now that the National Academy of Sciences has conducted an exhaustive study and found polygraph screening to be invalid, and even dangerous to national security, Congress should extend the protections of the 1988 Employee Polygraph Protection Act to all Americans." http://antipolygraph.org/ceppa.shtml

	"Although the degree of reliability of polygraph evidence may depend upon a variety of identifiable factors, there is simply no way to know in a particular case whether a polygraph examiner's Conclusion is accurate, because certain doubts and uncertainties plague even the best polygraph exams." (Justice Clarence Thomas writing in United States v. Scheffer, 523 U.S. 303, 118 S.Ct. 1261, 140 L.Ed.2d 413, 1998.)
	IP Logged

Sergeant1107 God Member Offline Posts: 730 Location: Connecticut, USA Joined: May 21^st, 2005 Gender:	Re: DNA v. Polygraph Reply #17 - Apr 5^th, 2008 at 1:31am	Mark & Quote Quote Print Post
	sackett wrote on Apr 4^th, 2008 at 4:55pm: What makes you think those tests administered that day were not done properly? Simple and repetitive whining on this board does not make what you support true in every circumstance. Mistakes are made. Even in DNA, drug, polygraph testing, etc. Nothing is absolute when humans are involved. But to suggest that everything is all "a-whack" because you think so, or because of one recent example, doesn't hold water. Sackett I don't know if the other 4,000 tests done that day were done improperly and I have not claimed that they were. You are the one making the claim that they were all done properly, so I am curious as to the basis for that claim. Clearly, you have no reasonable or logical basis for your assertion. If you did you likely would not have responded with the phrase "simple and repetetive whining."

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

Pages: 1 [2]

Add Poll

Send Topic

‹ Previous Topic | Next Topic ›

DNA v. Polygraph

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.