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 › FALSE syllogism?

(Moderator: Administrator)

‹ Previous Topic | Next Topic ›

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6

Add Poll

Send Topic

FALSE syllogism? (Read 67189 times)

sackett Especially Senior User Offline Posts: 347 Joined: Jan 31^st, 2008	Re: FALSE syllogism? Reply #45 - May 22^nd, 2008 at 1:55am	Mark & Quote Quote Print Post
	notguilty1 wrote on May 22^nd, 2008 at 1:18am: sackett wrote on May 21^st, 2008 at 6:13pm: Sarge, you asked the question, what variables? I answered with a couple of examples. This is not enough apparently and you need more. OK. To clarify it better for you, it involves everything from about 5-10 psychological disorders which could affect the accuracy of the test. For example, clinical depression, psychotic behavior, schizophrenia, etc,. Physically, I'm referring to well rested, appropriate hygeine, no mental distrators (which could be numerous), etc. If you think I'm gunna sit here and type out every possible variable because you think you deserve to know, then you are mistaken. Get over yourself, thinking you deserve an answer. I gave you several examples of variables. Use your imagination for the rest. Of course you don't remember discussing them all during your examination. They are observed in your behaviors, the pre-test interview and direct questioning and answers. It is the "abnormal" which sticks its ugly head up and causes alarms to go off; not normalacy. Just because you weren't asked the question related to variables, doesn't mean they were not assessed. Sackett P.S. I thought the "duh" was very appropriate since you already know the answer to the questions you're asking. No!! God forbid we should expect an answer from you ...... Of course there is no answer cause the variables are unknown and uncontrolable. THATS WHY POLYGRAPHS DO NOT WORK AT DETECTING DECEPTION! "notguilty1", you or your few buddies here could ask me a simple question, like what time is it? I might reply with, well, you posted at 1325hrs, today, but it is 1125hrs here at the time I am posting, therefore it is 1125hrs. Your reponse would be SEE Sackett can't even answer a simple question like what time it is. I will never answer any question to your satisfaction. That's OK. I'll keep trying to post appropriately and honestly and you'll keep attacking and disecting and trying to find some way to discredit my posts. I get it. But remember, I'm not here to change your mind. It is closed like a steel trap. I'm hoping to alert those misguided and ignorant examinees of the threats this site presents to their processing and testing, should they choose to believe the diatribe being spilled here. Sackett P.S. No-one has ever proven to the satisfaction of anyone, the ability of TLBTLD to teach and beat a polygraph examination. Not even George has used his own teachings to beat a test. What "student" follows the teaching of an unproven teacher? Theory, is not proven information and George only hurts those he purports to try to help. You see, George's intent is to make polygraph obsolete, not help people "protect" themselves. He will be long deceased before a change in this county's attitude towards polygraph occurs and all this effort will be in vain. Post on...


	IP Logged

notguilty1 Especially Senior User Offline Posts: 300 Joined: Feb 2^nd, 2008	Re: FALSE syllogism? Reply #46 - May 22^nd, 2008 at 2:58am	Mark & Quote Quote Print Post
	sackett wrote on May 22^nd, 2008 at 1:55am: notguilty1 wrote on May 22^nd, 2008 at 1:18am: sackett wrote on May 21^st, 2008 at 6:13pm: Sarge, you asked the question, what variables? I answered with a couple of examples. This is not enough apparently and you need more. OK. To clarify it better for you, it involves everything from about 5-10 psychological disorders which could affect the accuracy of the test. For example, clinical depression, psychotic behavior, schizophrenia, etc,. Physically, I'm referring to well rested, appropriate hygeine, no mental distrators (which could be numerous), etc. If you think I'm gunna sit here and type out every possible variable because you think you deserve to know, then you are mistaken. Get over yourself, thinking you deserve an answer. I gave you several examples of variables. Use your imagination for the rest. Of course you don't remember discussing them all during your examination. They are observed in your behaviors, the pre-test interview and direct questioning and answers. It is the "abnormal" which sticks its ugly head up and causes alarms to go off; not normalacy. Just because you weren't asked the question related to variables, doesn't mean they were not assessed. Sackett P.S. I thought the "duh" was very appropriate since you already know the answer to the questions you're asking. No!! God forbid we should expect an answer from you ...... Of course there is no answer cause the variables are unknown and uncontrolable. THATS WHY POLYGRAPHS DO NOT WORK AT DETECTING DECEPTION! "notguilty1", you or your few buddies here could ask me a simple question, like what time is it? I might reply with, well, you posted at 1325hrs, today, but it is 1125hrs here at the time I am posting, therefore it is 1125hrs. Your reponse would be SEE Sackett can't even answer a simple question like what time it is. I will never answer any question to your satisfaction. That's OK. I'll keep trying to post appropriately and honestly and you'll keep attacking and disecting and trying to find some way to discredit my posts. I get it. But remember, I'm not here to change your mind. It is closed like a steel trap. I'm hoping to alert those misguided and ignorant examinees of the threats this site presents to their processing and testing, should they choose to believe the diatribe being spilled here. Sackett P.S. No-one has ever proven to the satisfaction of anyone, the ability of TLBTLD to teach and beat a polygraph examination. Not even George has used his own teachings to beat a test. What "student" follows the teaching of an unproven teacher? Theory, is not proven information and George only hurts those he purports to try to help. You see, George's intent is to make polygraph obsolete, not help people "protect" themselves. He will be long deceased before a change in this county's attitude towards polygraph occurs and all this effort will be in vain. Post on... Sackett, The reason you can't change anyones mind here (or anywere else) is that I (and we) have had the direct experience that Polygraph des not work as cliamed. Any rambling to the contrary from you Sackett will not change that. As for the P.S. in your post. I never have been on here suggesting that anyone go into a Polygraph and use counter measures to beat the test with the intent of lying. I am not aware that George suggests that either but, George has a mind of his own and can make his own decisions on that. Personally, if I had something to hide I would have simply not have taken the test. Also, if I was applying for a job that reqired me to lie in any part of the process I would not apply for the job. But thats me. That still however does not explian all the false positives and negatives out there many more than just the "proven" ones, Gary Ridgeway come to mind as one. Some elusive list of hunders of "variables" that cannot be found anywhere for anyone does not bolster your postion.


	IP Logged

T.M. Cullen God Member Offline Posts: 858 Location: Hawaii Joined: Dec 5^th, 2007 Gender:	Re: FALSE syllogism? Reply #47 - May 22^nd, 2008 at 6:02am	Mark & Quote Quote Print Post
	Quote: No-one has ever proven to the satisfaction of anyone, the ability of TLBTLD to teach and beat a polygraph examination. No-one had ever proven the ability of the polygraph to detect deception. TC P.S. Unfortunately, many of the country's biggest spies and worst psychopathic killers have beaten the test. Ironically, precisely the type of characters the test was suppose to catch!

	"There is no direct and unequivocal connection between lying and these physiological states of arousal...(referring to polygraph)." Dr. Phil Zimbardo, Phd, Standford University
	IP Logged

George W. Maschke Global Moderator Offline Make-believe science yields make-believe security. Posts: 6211 Joined: Sep 29^th, 2000	Re: FALSE syllogism? Reply #48 - May 22^nd, 2008 at 9:54am	Mark & Quote Quote Print Post
	sackett wrote on May 22^nd, 2008 at 1:55am: P.S. No-one has ever proven to the satisfaction of anyone, the ability of TLBTLD to teach and beat a polygraph examination. Not even George has used his own teachings to beat a test. What "student" follows the teaching of an unproven teacher? Theory, is not proven information and George only hurts those he purports to try to help. You see, George's intent is to make polygraph obsolete, not help people "protect" themselves. He will be long deceased before a change in this county's attitude towards polygraph occurs and all this effort will be in vain. Post on... The countermeasure information provided in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector is based in large measure on peer-reviewed research wherein half of test subject who received a maximum of 30 minutes of instruction in such techniques were successful in fooling the polygraph, and even experienced polygraph operators could not detect their countermeasures. Citations with abstracts are provided in TLBTLD, and skeptical readers are encouraged to check these for themselves. DoDPI/DACA instructor Paul Menges was so satisfied that the countermeasures described in TLBTLD are effective that he went so far as to seriously and publicly suggest that making such information available to the public should be criminalized. And American Polygraph Association past president Skip Webb was so satisfied that such countermeasures are effective against DACA's new Port-A-Poly that he accused me of treason for publicly explaining how it can be beaten.

	George W. Maschke I am generally available in the chat room from 3 AM to 3 PM Eastern time. Tel/SMS: 1-202-810-2105 (Please use Signal Private Messenger or WhatsApp to text or call.) E-mail/iMessage/FaceTime: antipolygraph.org@protonmail.com Wire: @ap_org Threema: A4PYDD5S Personal Statement: "Too Hot of a Potato"
	WWW Twitter YouTube IP Logged

sackett Especially Senior User Offline Posts: 347 Joined: Jan 31^st, 2008	Re: FALSE syllogism? Reply #49 - May 22^nd, 2008 at 3:08pm	Mark & Quote Quote Print Post
	George W. Maschke wrote on May 22^nd, 2008 at 9:54am: sackett wrote on May 22^nd, 2008 at 1:55am: P.S. No-one has ever proven to the satisfaction of anyone, the ability of TLBTLD to teach and beat a polygraph examination. Not even George has used his own teachings to beat a test. What "student" follows the teaching of an unproven teacher? Theory, is not proven information and George only hurts those he purports to try to help. You see, George's intent is to make polygraph obsolete, not help people "protect" themselves. He will be long deceased before a change in this county's attitude towards polygraph occurs and all this effort will be in vain. Post on... The countermeasure information provided in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector is based in large measure on peer-reviewed research wherein half of test subject who received a maximum of 30 minutes of instruction in such techniques were successful in fooling the polygraph, and even experienced polygraph operators could not detect their countermeasures. Citations with abstracts are provided in TLBTLD, and skeptical readers are encouraged to check these for themselves. DoDPI/DACA instructor Paul Menges was so satisfied that the countermeasures described in TLBTLD are effective that he went so far as to seriously and publicly suggest that making such information available to the public should be criminalized. And American Polygraph Association past president Skip Webb was so satisfied that such countermeasures are effective against DACA's new Port-A-Poly that he accused me of treason for publicly explaining how it can be beaten. George, I am stating that a person, coming into your web site, and reading your material, then beating an examiner has never been proven as viable or even possible. Receiving 30 minutes of instruction directly form an examiner is very, very different from sitting behind a computer screen and reading information, then successfully using it. I have never said an examiner can not be beaten. But, thanks to sites like yours, its getting easier to catch them. Sackett


	IP Logged

sackett Especially Senior User Offline Posts: 347 Joined: Jan 31^st, 2008	Re: FALSE syllogism? Reply #50 - May 22^nd, 2008 at 3:10pm	Mark & Quote Quote Print Post
	"notguilty1", you have missed my point. I am not trying to change the mind of anyone (on this board). Sackett


	IP Logged

T.M. Cullen God Member Offline Posts: 858 Location: Hawaii Joined: Dec 5^th, 2007 Gender:	Re: FALSE syllogism? Reply #51 - May 22^nd, 2008 at 8:46pm	Mark & Quote Quote Print Post
	Quote: I am stating that a person, coming into your web site, and reading your material, then beating an examiner has never been proven as viable or even possible. Maybe, but they will a hell of a lot less gullible, naive and subject to the petty intimidation that goes on during a polygraph. For example, if the examinator gives them the typical "this test is 98% accurate, better get everything off your chest Mr. Applicant. I am here to help you!" bullshit, they will know better. TC

	"There is no direct and unequivocal connection between lying and these physiological states of arousal...(referring to polygraph)." Dr. Phil Zimbardo, Phd, Standford University
	IP Logged

nopolycop Especially Senior User Offline Posts: 383 Joined: Oct 20^th, 2007	Re: FALSE syllogism? Reply #52 - May 23^rd, 2008 at 1:31pm	Mark & Quote Quote Print Post
	sackett wrote on May 22^nd, 2008 at 3:08pm: I am stating that a person, coming into your web site, and reading your material, then beating an examiner has never been proven as viable or even possible. Sackett Just what type of proof would you be satisfied with?

	"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

TheKaisho New User Offline Posts: 20 Joined: Dec 12^th, 2007	Re: FALSE syllogism? Reply #53 - May 23^rd, 2008 at 3:40pm	Mark & Quote Quote Print Post
	Now we are so far away from anwering my very legitimate and very pointed question. Sackett, I came to this place and asked you a very fair question, to which I have not received a vlaid answer. I feel like some poor schmoo who called tech support and got some guy in India who is trying to help him work his DVR. I also asked you, quite explicitly, what variables would ahve to be "off kilter" in your opinion, for there to be two different results from a polygraph. Also, I have read all the posts and have come away with the notion, however odd, that many think it possible that I was lying for my second polygraph. Now I was lying for BOTH polygraphs or I was telling the Truth. if your polygraph science is so damned accurate, it should have been able to detect which one was which. To my mind, that it did not do so, even in just this instance, means that it cannot do so. This leaves the conclusion that the polygraph itself is inherently a poor tool, not much better than chance. Also, the second polygrapher (tho one I failed) never asked me what, if any medications, I was on (at the time, I was on several, including blood pressure medicine) and he did not ask me if I was under stress for any other reason than this charge. Do you not at least find that a bit disturbing? I know I do.


	IP Logged

polytechnic New User Offline Posts: 23 Joined: May 23^rd, 2008	Re: FALSE syllogism? Reply #54 - May 23^rd, 2008 at 4:01pm	Mark & Quote Quote Print Post
	sackett wrote on May 22^nd, 2008 at 3:08pm: George W. Maschke wrote on May 22^nd, 2008 at 9:54am: sackett wrote on May 22^nd, 2008 at 1:55am: P.S. No-one has ever proven to the satisfaction of anyone, the ability of TLBTLD to teach and beat a polygraph examination. Not even George has used his own teachings to beat a test. What "student" follows the teaching of an unproven teacher? Theory, is not proven information and George only hurts those he purports to try to help. You see, George's intent is to make polygraph obsolete, not help people "protect" themselves. He will be long deceased before a change in this county's attitude towards polygraph occurs and all this effort will be in vain. Post on... The countermeasure information provided in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector is based in large measure on peer-reviewed research wherein half of test subject who received a maximum of 30 minutes of instruction in such techniques were successful in fooling the polygraph, and even experienced polygraph operators could not detect their countermeasures. Citations with abstracts are provided in TLBTLD, and skeptical readers are encouraged to check these for themselves. DoDPI/DACA instructor Paul Menges was so satisfied that the countermeasures described in TLBTLD are effective that he went so far as to seriously and publicly suggest that making such information available to the public should be criminalized. And American Polygraph Association past president Skip Webb was so satisfied that such countermeasures are effective against DACA's new Port-A-Poly that he accused me of treason for publicly explaining how it can be beaten. George, I am stating that a person, coming into your web site, and reading your material, then beating an examiner has never been proven as viable or even possible. Receiving 30 minutes of instruction directly form an examiner is very, very different from sitting behind a computer screen and reading information, then successfully using it. I have never said an examiner can not be beaten. But, thanks to sites like yours, its getting easier to catch them. Sackett Dear Sackett, Two Questions If an examinee bites his tongue when answering every Comparison question (unseen), how would you pick up on that in the tracings? How accurate is the tongue biting CM? ie, what % of efficacy might it produce ? your response is eagerly awaited.


	IP Logged

sackett Especially Senior User Offline Posts: 347 Joined: Jan 31^st, 2008	Re: FALSE syllogism? Reply #55 - May 23^rd, 2008 at 4:32pm	Mark & Quote Quote Print Post
	polytechnic, George is the self reported "go-to" man on countermeasures. I am sure he read somewhere, something about it and could answer your question. As a matter of personal policy, I do not openly discuss specific actions or countermeasure activity or their efficacy. Sackett


	IP Logged

sackett Especially Senior User Offline Posts: 347 Joined: Jan 31^st, 2008	Re: FALSE syllogism? Reply #56 - May 23^rd, 2008 at 4:38pm	Mark & Quote Quote Print Post
	TheKaisho wrote on May 23^rd, 2008 at 3:40pm: Now we are so far away from anwering my very legitimate and very pointed question. Sackett, I came to this place and asked you a very fair question, to which I have not received a vlaid answer. I feel like some poor schmoo who called tech support and got some guy in India who is trying to help him work his DVR. I also asked you, quite explicitly, what variables would ahve to be "off kilter" in your opinion, for there to be two different results from a polygraph. Also, I have read all the posts and have come away with the notion, however odd, that many think it possible that I was lying for my second polygraph. Now I was lying for BOTH polygraphs or I was telling the Truth. if your polygraph science is so damned accurate, it should have been able to detect which one was which. To my mind, that it did not do so, even in just this instance, means that it cannot do so. This leaves the conclusion that the polygraph itself is inherently a poor tool, not much better than chance. Also, the second polygrapher (tho one I failed) never asked me what, if any medications, I was on (at the time, I was on several, including blood pressure medicine) and he did not ask me if I was under stress for any other reason than this charge. Do you not at least find that a bit disturbing? I know I do. TheKaisho, much to the frustration of another, I have covered the "variables" issue sufficiently. I can not answer for your examiner's behaviors or lack of proper pre-test, if that is in fact the case. And, I do (according to your post) find it disturbing that your health was not addressed during your pre-test. It is a crucial aspect of determining suitability. Sackett


	IP Logged

pailryder Especially Senior User Offline Posts: 441 Joined: Jun 5^th, 2006	Re: FALSE syllogism? Reply #57 - May 23^rd, 2008 at 6:43pm	Mark & Quote Quote Print Post
	TheKaisho Finally. we (you) must ponder the deeper question of how accurate a lie test ought to be for particular applications. If one is hiring policemen or CIA operatives, then perhaps any additional clues, any improvement over chance at all might be worthwhile. These are senstive positions in which the wrong person can do a great deal of mischief, and it may be in the public interest to use a screening procedure that reduces the number of undesirable candidates hired, even if this means excluding also a large number of perfectly acceptable, wrongly called Deceptive by the test. David Thorsen Lykken A Tremor in the Blood p.64 I guess he changed his mind about this too.

	No good social purpose can be served by inventing ways of beating the lie detector or deceiving polygraphers. David Thoreson Lykken
	IP Logged

T.M. Cullen God Member Offline Posts: 858 Location: Hawaii Joined: Dec 5^th, 2007 Gender:	Re: FALSE syllogism? Reply #58 - May 23^rd, 2008 at 7:00pm	Mark & Quote Quote Print Post
	Kaisho, You are correct. The logical answer to you question is that the test is simply not accurate. And you will never get a polygrapher to admit that. TC

	"There is no direct and unequivocal connection between lying and these physiological states of arousal...(referring to polygraph)." Dr. Phil Zimbardo, Phd, Standford University
	IP Logged

George W. Maschke Global Moderator Offline Make-believe science yields make-believe security. Posts: 6211 Joined: Sep 29^th, 2000	Re: FALSE syllogism? Reply #59 - May 24^th, 2008 at 11:31am	Mark & Quote Quote Print Post
	pailryder wrote on May 23^rd, 2008 at 6:43pm: TheKaisho Finally. we (you) must ponder the deeper question of how accurate a lie test ought to be for particular applications. If one is hiring policemen or CIA operatives, then perhaps any additional clues, any improvement over chance at all might be worthwhile. These are senstive positions in which the wrong person can do a great deal of mischief, and it may be in the public interest to use a screening procedure that reduces the number of undesirable candidates hired, even if this means excluding also a large number of perfectly acceptable, wrongly called Deceptive by the test. David Thorsen Lykken A Tremor in the Blood p.64 I guess he changed his mind about this too. pailryder, You've cherry-picked a quote to make it appear that David Lykken supported polygraph screening. He most certainly did not. Concluding his chapter on "Preemployment Screening by the FBI and Other Federal Agencies" (Chapter 15 of the 2nd edition of A Tremor in the Blood), Lykken writes: Quote: I think it is now obvious that polygraph testing has failed to screen out from our intelligence agencies potential traitors and moles. On the contrary, it seems to have served as a shield for such people who, having passed the polygraph, become immune to commonsense suspicions. And it is certainly obvious that polygraph testing has been screening out some of the very kinds of people one would most want to see placed in positions of trust: conscientious people like Major C, Elizabeth M., John Tillson, Michael Pillsbury, and Col. McFarlane--highly socialized people who seem to be especially vulnerable to false positive mistakes.

	George W. Maschke I am generally available in the chat room from 3 AM to 3 PM Eastern time. Tel/SMS: 1-202-810-2105 (Please use Signal Private Messenger or WhatsApp to text or call.) E-mail/iMessage/FaceTime: antipolygraph.org@protonmail.com Wire: @ap_org Threema: A4PYDD5S Personal Statement: "Too Hot of a Potato"
	WWW Twitter YouTube IP Logged

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6

Add Poll

Send Topic

‹ Previous Topic | Next Topic ›

FALSE syllogism?

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.