I was given a private polygraph test which indicated I was truthful.  Much later on, I was given a polygraph by the state police that said I was being deceptive.

In both instances, the questions were the same and the equipment, as far as I could tell, were the same or similar.

The only real differences between the two were location (th efirst at my attorney's office, the other at the county office) and the private polygrapher I had had done this both as a state trooper and in private practice for 25 years.  The state trooper who did the later polygraph had only been fully licensed to perform polygraph exams for about a year before he did mine.

Okay, what I want to know is this:  All things being equal, and if polygraphy is such an accurate and real science, can anyone explain to me how I could pass one polygraph and then fail another over the same subject?

From what I have read here, there are two camps; one pro and one con, black OR white.  I have not read too much about gray here.

Can anyone explain to me what they believe?  Surely, a person has to be either lying OR telling the truth about the same subject, right?

So, my final question is, when a professional polygraph examiner has one test positive and another examiner has one negative, what does that mean and how would polygraph "science" (I use the term very loosely here) explain away the dichotomy?

BTW, despite my apparent tone, I am not really trying to be facetious, but I do have an academic interest.

To a large extent, I agree.   

First, I do not believe that Mr. Webb will respond to me, a lowly and very minor felon.  From his lofty station high at the top of the polygraph hierarchy, why would he deign to respond to me?

There is no "upside" to doing so, though I would consider it polite, if not pragmatic, for him to do so.

Second, I am not even sure there is even a real answer to the question, anecdotal or academic.

Third, I must disagree with you on one point:  I did have a fear of failing the first polygraph; not because I feared being exposed, but because  I do not believe polygraphs to be an accurate enough tool able to determine fact from fiction.

Maybe it would be more accurate to say that I did not fear the first polygraph exam as much as the second one?

The stress level for the second one was heightened exponentially by the fact that I had been originally scheduled to take a polygraph earlier.  I allotted 2 hours (from 1-3PM) out of my day for this test and I drove 30 minutes to get to the appointment.  I arrived at 1252hrs. (8 minutes early).  I went to the front window and told thewomen there of my arrival and why I was there and who I was to see.  They told me to have a seat and they would tell him.

I sat in the waiting area for 42 minutes (I returned to the window every 10-15 minutes to inqure why I was not being tested) and the I decided I had to go.  My daughter was waiting for me at her school and because these things can take two hours or more, I could not afford to wait any longer.

I felt as if this particular examiner deliberately "put me on ice" in order to ratchet up the tension level a bunch.

I feel this is probably true because when I asked at the window why he was not coming out, the ladies told me that he knew i was there and he was "just going over the case notes" and that he would be out in a minute to get me.

Anywho...that is some of the story, the rest can be found in my post under this thread.

Quote:


Because the polygraph is NOT accurate and real science.

Quote:


Rather than ask us, why not read what the nation's top scientists have to say about the test:

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309084369

Yes, as long as you are right handed...

Sackett