Poly,

Since you are new and fresh , I ask you a question our resident polygrapher has asked.  Why would you come to a site populated by people who have FAILED the polygraph, for advice on the polygraph?

TC

Quote:


Techniques for doing this include cognitive activity such as thinking frightening or exiting thoughts, doing mental arithmetic, or biting the side of the tongue. You'll find more on this in Chapter 4 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector:

https://antipolygraph.org/lie-behind-the-lie-detector.pdf

Mr. Cullen, Once again you try to change the question so you can construct a convenient answer. But your answer doesn't address the question.

I think that it's time that you face the fact that your view of polygraph is based only on your limited experience and that in order to discuss the topic you have to manipulate the discussion to fit your circumstance. Because your knowledge and experience is so limited it prevents you from discussing the related issues that a more investigatory approach to the subject would allow. Notguilty1 and Sergeant have similar issues in this regard.

You have shown that you absolutely cannot answer this simple straightforward question because it doesn't fit your experience or allow you to speak about failure in your personal context. Instead you spout the same old "bullet points" even though they aren't responsive. You seem to want to make people believe they are relevant to this question and they aren't. 

Yet, even though you lack the apparent ability to conceptualize the question from its existing point of view , instead of realizing that the question may be outside your ability to answer, you find yourself unable avoid offering SOME kind of response. You just can't seem to resist an opportunity to spout the same old stuff, and in doing so try to inhibit someone who might have a fresh point of view from answering the question. 

The quote I use sometimes "Frogs at the bottom of a well see only a small part of the sky" really points at those who try to define a subject based on a severly limited point of view. 

You, Notguilty1, Sergeant, and Dr.Maschke have taken polygraphs and failed them. Dr. Maschke has researched possible countermeasures and collected stories that seem to support his point of view even though some require a little twisting to fit. 

I on the other hand have taken polygraphs, I have observed polygraphs including people who passed, people who failed and confessed and people who failed and didn't confess. I have seen people who failed and didn't confess later convicted of the crime they were tested on. In addition I have read and researched quite a bit of the existing literature, but I didn't limit myself to excerpts from the NAS study, I even read Dr. Maschke's and Doug Williams books to make sure I looked at BOTH sides of the issue. 

Whether we agree or disagree, I submit that my point of view is a bit broader than your own.  

Sancho Panza

PS  The most obvious difference between Dr. Maschke and Doug Williams is that I would describe one as a mis-guided but sincere crusader and the other as an unscrupulous profiteer. 

SP

I see polytek has returned barking one-liners from under the porch.   

Have you ever in your entire life, (not just on here) contributed anything substantive to a discussion?


Sancho Panza

SanchoPanza wrote on Sep 26^th, 2008 at 4:00am:



OK Sancho I will play your game since the shell game has been exposed.
A person that was trying to pass a Polygraph would seek advice from a bunch of people that have failed because since, many have at least heard of the invalidity of the "test" would want to know what others have experienced in this regard. And if in fact telling the truth would not assure a pass ( which it doesn't). 

There are enough people who have failed despite telling the truth that we do have advice to give, if nothing more than tell them what happens during the test in all it's glory. Even tough you don't see it that way. 
Your example of people seeking to pass a field sobriety test getting advice from convicted drunk drivers has absolutely no validity here since, breathalyzer evidence alone has, and does convict drunk drivers in ALL 50 states daily, polygraphs ........ NOT 

So, Sancho, if your going to make comparisons lets's compare apples to apples not apples to crystal balls!
There now, your question has been answered but I am sure not to your satisfaction.

SanchoPanza wrote on Sep 26^th, 2008 at 4:00am:


To learn from other's "mistakes"? Is it really that difficult to understand?

Wow, I just came here for a little advice and it seems a pissing contest has broken out. For everyone's information.... yes, I have failled the polygraph... twice. So that gives me every right to be here seeking advice and learn from other people's mistakes. 

I can't help but wonder why Pancho is here other than to chastise people? I may not have broad experience in the field, but I know that I have told the absolute truth and still failed two times. I don't need any more data than that to know that the polygraph is complete rubish!