Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 2 3 [4]  ReplyAdd Poll Send TopicPrint
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) Failed twice (Read 53694 times)
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Ex Member
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 710
Joined: Dec 9th, 2012
Re: Failed twice
Reply #45 - Apr 3rd, 2014 at 7:25pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Pailryder, all of those things you mentioned are very cool and really help with your housekeeping and help with your fading eyesight. But, they have not advanced your ability to detect deception.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box joe311
New User
*
Offline



Posts: 1
Joined: Apr 16th, 2014
Re: Failed twice
Reply #46 - Apr 16th, 2014 at 6:52pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
does the bp tell you if you pass or fail at the time of polygraph
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box George W. Maschke
Global Moderator
*****
Offline


Make-believe science yields
make-believe security.

Posts: 6175
Location: The Hague, The Netherlands
Joined: Sep 29th, 2000
Re: Failed twice
Reply #47 - Apr 16th, 2014 at 7:00pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
joe311 wrote on Apr 16th, 2014 at 6:52pm:
does the bp tell you if you pass or fail at the time of polygraph


If you fail, you'll know it because you'll be accused of deception and interrogated in an attempt to get admissions.

If you pass, you probably won't be directly told that you did, but the absence of a post-test interrogation would be a good indication that you did.
  

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"
Back to top
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box xenonman
God Member
Banned
*****
Offline


May sarin, ricin, and
variola major befall
Langley

Posts: 680
Location: WI USA
Joined: Dec 14th, 2009
Gender: Male
Re: Failed twice
Reply #48 - May 6th, 2014 at 4:08am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
pandasn wrote on Feb 28th, 2014 at 2:53pm:
Twice. I failed it twice. The band that went around my middle was too tight the first time, which prompted me to take really huge breaths. The polygrapher yelled at me. So I started to really try not to take those big breaths, and he yelled at me for using countermeasures. Then I was so flustered from his telling me that I was lying that I started twitching in the chair which apparently looked like MORE countermeasures. Needless to say, I failed that one. He said I was unresolved on everything. They gave me another chance - and I also screwed that one up because I was dreading it so much and of course the band is still too tight. He loosened it once but that did not really help. Then they each grilled me for about two hours about what I was hiding.

FYI: I have done NOTHING wrong. I am a really good kid. I declared minor (5 times) marijuana usage and minor instances of illegal downloading on my form. Everything I reported is true (and I omitted nothing). For what it is worth, the polygraphers seemed to believe me that I wasn't doing it on purpose and that I was telling the truth when I said that I was hiding nothing - but they were still awful to me. I cried a lot in the first one and a little bit in the second one.

I just want to ask everyone - what are my chances that they will still grant my clearance? The rest of my processing has been stellar (to the best of my knowledge).

Also, this is for a job with an intelligence agency. I will be so miserable if I don't get it. I'm extremely qualified and I just feel so cheated that the polygraph is doing me in when it's apparently pseudoscience.


The real determining factor will be how much dirt the investigators will be able to "develop" on you during the BI.
  

What do we call it when every employee of the Agency's Office of Security
and Office of Personnel drowns in the Potomac? A great beginning!

The best intelligence community employee is a compromised IC employee!
Back to top
YouTube  
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Ex Member
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 710
Joined: Dec 9th, 2012
Re: Failed twice
Reply #49 - Jun 30th, 2014 at 8:15am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Ex Member wrote on Apr 2nd, 2014 at 8:33pm:
pailryder wrote on Apr 2nd, 2014 at 8:04pm:
I have not collected a paper chart, of the typedepicted on the home page, in almost twenty years.

This statement is irrelevant; digital and analog polygraph instruments produce the same charts.


Pailryder and/or Quickfix, I have a question to ask you. Can you think of any aspect of the polygraph technique where it would be advantageous to use an analog instrument over a computerized system?
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box pailryder
Especially Senior User
*****
Offline



Posts: 441
Joined: Jun 5th, 2006
Re: Failed twice
Reply #50 - Jun 30th, 2014 at 11:35am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
No, I can't think of any.
  

No good social purpose can be served by inventing ways of beating the lie detector or deceiving polygraphers.   David Thoreson Lykken
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box quickfix
Especially Senior User
*****
Offline



Posts: 365
Joined: Jan 15th, 2006
Re: Failed twice
Reply #51 - Jun 30th, 2014 at 7:14pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Neither can I.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Ex Member
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 710
Joined: Dec 9th, 2012
Re: Failed twice
Reply #52 - Jun 30th, 2014 at 8:30pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Back in the early 90's when Computerized Polygraph systems came into practice, they had a powerful effect on examinees. "Oh no, there is no way we are going to get over on a computerized polygraph, we are toast!"

Fast forward 2 decades--now, even 9 years olds are downloading apps on their iphones and tablets, computers have become ubiquitous, and a laptop with a small DAS is unassuming and routine.

However, the analog instrument with the sounds of the pens whipping about and scratching away on the charts is something that appears scientific and intimidating to those who are accustomed to computers.

Most polygraph literature emphasizes the importance of stimulating the examinee--giving confidence to the innocent (psychological set focused on the control questions) while instilling fear into the guilty allowing them to be oriented to the relevants.

So the use of the analog instrument, in itself can stimulate the subject and enhance question discrimination.

Before rebutting this, I would challenge you to experiment and scrutinize the empirical results..
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Doug Williams
Especially Senior User
*****
Offline



Posts: 284
Joined: Feb 15th, 2007
Gender: Male
Re: Failed twice
Reply #53 - Jul 1st, 2014 at 5:20pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Ex Member wrote on Jun 30th, 2014 at 8:30pm:
Back in the early 90's when Computerized Polygraph systems came into practice, they had a powerful effect on examinees. "Oh no, there is no way we are going to get over on a computerized polygraph, we are toast!"

Fast forward 2 decades--now, even 9 years olds are downloading apps on their iphones and tablets, computers have become ubiquitous, and a laptop with a small DAS is unassuming and routine.

However, the analog instrument with the sounds of the pens whipping about and scratching away on the charts is something that appears scientific and intimidating to those who are accustomed to computers.

Most polygraph literature emphasizes the importance of stimulating the examinee--giving confidence to the innocent (psychological set focused on the control questions) while instilling fear into the guilty allowing them to be oriented to the relevants.

So the use of the analog instrument, in itself can stimulate the subject and enhance question discrimination.

Before rebutting this, I would challenge you to experiment and scrutinize the empirical results..


You're right, the old analog instrument is a very intimidating machine - many polygraph operators still use it for that very reason (among others) . It is what most people associate with the "lie detector".

I remember when I used to be a polygraph operator/interrogator/inquisitor/terrorist, I would use the prop of the polygraph machine to great advantage during my interrogations.

After running a chart, I would tear the paper from the machine and jam it right in their face, a couple of inches away from their nose, and scream at them, "Just look at this shit, you told such a big lie on that question that you actually slung ink all over my tie!" I would point at their increased reaction on the cardio tracing and jam my finger into the still wet red ink smearing it around like a blood stain as I traced their "reaction" with my finger. This little drama was very effective in getting a confession.

Another advantage of the old analog was that even if there was no reaction to any question, you could twist the little cardio tracing centering knob and make it look like they had a gigantic reaction even when they hadn't!
« Last Edit: Jul 1st, 2014 at 8:55pm by Doug Williams »  

I have been fighting the thugs and charlatans in the polygraph industry for forty years. I tell about my crusade against the insidious Orwellian polygraph industry in my book FALSE CONFESSIONS - THE TRUE STORY OF DOUG WILLIAMS' CRUSADE AGAINST THE ORWELLIAN POLYGRAPH INDUSTRY. Please visit my website POLYGRAPH.COM and follow me on TWITTER @DougWilliams_PG


Doug Williams
Back to top
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box quickfix
Especially Senior User
*****
Offline



Posts: 365
Joined: Jan 15th, 2006
Re: Failed twice
Reply #54 - Jul 1st, 2014 at 7:31pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Doug Williams wrote on Jul 1st, 2014 at 5:20pm:
I remember when I used to be a polygraph operator/interrogator/inquisitor/terrorist, I would use the prop of the polygraph machine to great advantage during my interrogations.

You never were a polygraph examiner.  Your behavior below is proof enough:
Doug Williams wrote on Jul 1st, 2014 at 5:20pm:
After running a chart, I would tear the paper from the machine and jam it right in their face, a couple of inches away from their nose, and scream at them, "Just look at this shit, you told such a big lie on that on that question that you actually slung ink all over my tie!"I would point at their increased reaction on the cardio tracing and jam my finger into the still wet red ink smearing it around like a blood stain as I traced their "reaction" with my finger.This little drama was very effective in getting a confession.Another advantage of the old analog was that even if there was no reaction to any question, you could twist the little cardio tracing centering knob and make it look like they had a gigantic reaction even when they hadn't! 

You're actually proud of this behavior?  Only an unethical, incompetent/inept nitwit would engage in such behavior.  Chart manipulation and physical intimidation of an examinee.  Class act.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Doug Williams
Especially Senior User
*****
Offline



Posts: 284
Joined: Feb 15th, 2007
Gender: Male
Re: Failed twice
Reply #55 - Jul 1st, 2014 at 7:58pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Quickfux - "unethical, incompetent/inept nitwit" is only a partial description of a polygraph operator - I would also add charlatan, fraud, con man, inquisitor, interrogator, and torturer - the only difference between me and others utilizing this insidious Orwellian instrument of torture is that I admitted what I did and have tried for almost 40 years to make restitution.  When will you do the same?
  

I have been fighting the thugs and charlatans in the polygraph industry for forty years. I tell about my crusade against the insidious Orwellian polygraph industry in my book FALSE CONFESSIONS - THE TRUE STORY OF DOUG WILLIAMS' CRUSADE AGAINST THE ORWELLIAN POLYGRAPH INDUSTRY. Please visit my website POLYGRAPH.COM and follow me on TWITTER @DougWilliams_PG


Doug Williams
Back to top
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box pailryder
Especially Senior User
*****
Offline



Posts: 441
Joined: Jun 5th, 2006
Re: Failed twice
Reply #56 - Jul 3rd, 2014 at 5:50pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  

Speaking only for myself and not for any other inquisitor, terrorist, or torturer, I would like to wish a happy and safe 4th of July weekend to all.
  

No good social purpose can be served by inventing ways of beating the lie detector or deceiving polygraphers.   David Thoreson Lykken
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Doug Williams
Especially Senior User
*****
Offline



Posts: 284
Joined: Feb 15th, 2007
Gender: Male
Re: Failed twice
Reply #57 - Jul 3rd, 2014 at 8:20pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
pailryder wrote on Jul 3rd, 2014 at 5:50pm:
Speaking only for myself and not for any other inquisitor, terrorist, or torturer, I would like to wish a happy and safe 4th of July weekend to all.

Not to put a damper on your kind wishes, but it would be a true day of celebration if we were celebrating independence from the threat of being tortured and interrogated by polygraph operators. Banning the use of the polygraph would bring true freedom the freedom of individuals from being subjected to the insidious Orwellian instrument of torture.
  

I have been fighting the thugs and charlatans in the polygraph industry for forty years. I tell about my crusade against the insidious Orwellian polygraph industry in my book FALSE CONFESSIONS - THE TRUE STORY OF DOUG WILLIAMS' CRUSADE AGAINST THE ORWELLIAN POLYGRAPH INDUSTRY. Please visit my website POLYGRAPH.COM and follow me on TWITTER @DougWilliams_PG


Doug Williams
Back to top
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 
ReplyAdd Poll Send TopicPrint
Failed twice

Please type the characters that appear in the image. The characters must be typed in the same order, and they are case-sensitive.
Open Preview Preview

You can resize the textbox by dragging the right or bottom border.
Insert Hyperlink Insert FTP Link Insert Image Insert E-mail Insert Media Insert Table Insert Table Row Insert Table Column Insert Horizontal Rule Insert Teletype Insert Code Insert Quote Edited Superscript Subscript Insert List /me - my name Insert Marquee Insert Timestamp No Parse
Bold Italicized Underline Insert Strikethrough Highlight
                       
Insert Preformatted Text Left Align Centered Right Align
resize_wb
resize_hb







Max 200000 characters. Remaining characters:
Text size: pt
More Smilies
View All Smilies
Collapse additional features Collapse/Expand additional features Smiley Wink Cheesy Grin Angry Sad Shocked Cool Huh Roll Eyes Tongue Embarrassed Lips Sealed Undecided Kiss Cry
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:
X