What about when someone is accused of a crime and 1 1/2 years later he hires a polygrapher, and he "passes"?

Should he be set free, OR would you be skeptical of him.  Do you think he could read your website in advance and pass a test?

Child porn on his computer agent downloaded from it via limewire and when his house raided, low and behold he had all these pictures of a 7 yo girl on his computer and videos with kids having sex with adults.  in unallocated space he had adult and child erotica and erotic stories of daddys with daughters.Trying to say he just put those used harddrives on his computer.

Now I realize this is the reverse of what most of your posters discuss.

Polygraphers chime in too!!!!

"B-girl",

That is the whole purpose of this web site.  Help everyone, regardless of truth, pass their polygraph test.  This includes applicants, CHILD MOLESTERS, criminals, spies, everybody!!!  George really does not care who he assists, though he will suppose an aire of indignation when the subject is presented.

This site is all about making polygraph illegitimate in order to do away with the polygraph process.  He enlists the assistance of a few whiners who suposedly had false positives, then, Bam!  There you are!  "All these people" (about 4-5 of them, were falsely ID'd as liars (without any proof whatsoever mind you), so polygraph must be stopped!

Then all the spies can get in...   

Sackett

Quote:


We get new people coming to this board all the time claiming recent "false positive" results.  Here are just two from this week alone.

https://antipolygraph.org/cgi-bin/forums/YaBB.pl?num=1211501403
https://antipolygraph.org/cgi-bin/forums/YaBB.pl?num=1211309909

In Sackett's world you have to prove you are not lying.  I think it should be the other way around.  If you accuse someone of lying, YOU  should have to PROVE it.


TC

It seems to me that the number of people on this board complaining about their false positive results has constantly been about 4-7, depending on the day of the week.  Considering there are thousands being examined daily, this really does not seem to be a signficant sampling of reported false positives.  Could some of them be truely, false positives, sure.  But to over inflate the readership to bolster your claims of innacuracy is self grandiosity, nothing more.  BUT, in order to sell your position, you have to promote, I guess.

As for people posting "all the time", How does anyone who reads this board know these are not the same 3-4 people posting "the same old story under different names, in order to make the it all sound legitimate?  This board is hardly scientific.  So the claim that there are ALL THESE FALSE POSITIVES seems self bloviating.  Sort of like your inability to prove a false positive or that countermeasures taught in this on-line book could really be used by a reader.

Theory is not reality.


Sackett

notguilty1 wrote on May 25^th, 2008 at 4:22pm:


Did you require proof before you assumed I only had a GED?  Did Cullen require proof to call me a liar and all examiners liars during polygraph testing?  Did you require proof to assume every other poster here really was telling the truth before posting as a so called false positive?  When did you ever require "proof" before spouting your opinion of polygraph or endorsing the opinions of other angry posters?  How much polygraph research have you really read up on, or is it just what is posted on this "anti" board that fuels your anger?   

No, you are only "entitled" to presentation of proof when accused in a court of law.  Does a boss need "proof" to fire you for wrongdoing? No.  A simple suspicion is all that is really needed.  Does a wife need "proof" or mere suspicion to accuse you of infidelity? Does a mother require "proof" or mere suspicion that a child has done something wrong?  No.  Does a civil court need "proof" before finding a judgement?  No, only a preponderance of the presented evidence! 

You see, "notguilty1", you assume too much.  There is nothing that requires "proof" before a person can be considered withholding information.  Polygraph adds to that suspicion and aides in indentifying the less than forthcoming.

FYI, I do not "sit in judgement", I evaluate all available information, including the results of a polygraph test to identitfy those less than 100%  forthcoming.  George makes a good point.  A polygraph examiner should never enter the test assuming anything, I certainly try not to.

As for your indignation due to your own ignorance of human nature... there is really nothing for me to say.


Sackett       

sackett wrote on May 25^th, 2008 at 4:46pm:


My assumption that you have a GED is just that due to the ignorance you display here. 
As for my and TC's proof of examiners lying we have it, as the general public does. Each and every time you tell us that the test is 95-98% accurate YOU KNOW THAT IS A LIE!! and claimed to bolster the idea in the unsuspecting examinee that it is.
Also, My opinion without proof does not keep you from a job. Fortunatly the legal system has understood the BS nature of Polygraph and therefore, my false positive was just a waste of taxpayer money.

Quote:


That is a little misleading.

Sackett made the CLAIM that there was a ton of research showing that the polygraph is very accurate (or words to that effect).  I called him on it, and asked him to cite this alleged research.  He didn't.

TC

pailryder wrote on May 25^th, 2008 at 7:52pm:


Fair enough, I am soley going on my experience and those similar ones one on here accually had 2 polygraphs one + and the other -
When I failed my test I cmae to the logical conclusion that if the test was supposed to be accurate and it failed (misereably) I had  to assume that the result was pure chance.
Examiners and the Polygraph industry routinely claim 95-98% accuracy ad it has become basically public knowledge ( though false)
If the test is based on a process of collecting data that has not been proven to accuratly detect deception then a 50/50 accuracy is not as far off than the 95-98% that the industry claims.