Normal Topic On federal "supervised release" (Read 874 times)
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box ChillyC
New User
*
Offline



Posts: 4
Joined: Feb 21st, 2018
On federal "supervised release"
Feb 22nd, 2018 at 3:43pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
This past November I was released from the federal system after serving 8yrs and 9 months of a 121 sentence for a computer based sex offense.  Along with all the other inconveniences comes "maintenance polygraphs."
   I spent 22yrs of my life in the US Naval Nuclear Power Program and have a firm understanding of science, test administration, and data interpretation outside of all the information on antipolygraph.org.  With that said, how should I approach my first "test" when it comes up?
  Everything inside me wants to put the screws to the test administrator because I know two things for certain. 1) They can not conclusively prove cause and effect 2) They can not discern the difference between a "true" and "false" positive from a graphical read out.  They will look exactly the same.
  Armed with the information from this web site, I am even more righteously indignant over the waste of time and money.  How should I go into my first test?  As a side note, I have not seen my PO since December 7th and. Last week he came to my house looking for me and I was not home; called him 3 times and left messages - no call back?? Good or bad - not real sure.  Thanks!
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box quickfix
Especially Senior User
*****
Offline



Posts: 332
Joined: Jan 15th, 2006
Re: On federal "supervised release"
Reply #1 - Feb 22nd, 2018 at 7:49pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
You poor thing;  "inconvenienced" by 8+ years in prison for, what was it again, "computer based sex offense"?  Translation- kiddie porn.  And you have the gumption to come on this site and ask for help on how to circumvent the maintenance requirement of your parole.  Let's hope you are violated back to prison real soon, and YOU get violated IN prison.  A scummy little pimp like you deserves no less.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box George W. Maschke
Global Moderator
*****
Online


Make-believe science yields
make-believe security.

Posts: 5827
Location: The Hague, The Netherlands
Joined: Sep 29th, 2000
Re: On federal "supervised release"
Reply #2 - Feb 23rd, 2018 at 9:23am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
ChillyC,

I think you have posted enough personally identifiable information that, if true, your polygraph operator will likely know that you've visited this site and posted here. At this point, editing or deleting your post won't help. It has no doubt been noted and circulated among federal polygraph operators with a "be on the lookout" notice.

The attitude you see from quickfix (a federal polygraph operator) is typical of what you can expect from other polygraph operators.

In Chapter 4 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector, we describe what we call the "complete honesty" approach to polygraph examinations, which entails informing the polygraph operator that you understand the true function of the "control" questions and other aspects of CQT polygraphy. Doing so will likely lead to an arbitrary accusation of deception and/or countermeasure use by an upset polygraph operator. But it might be your best option under the circumstances.

I think it would be prudent to consult a lawyer regarding your rights and obligations with respect to the polygraph requirement included in the terms of your supervised release.

For details of the kinds of probable-lie "control" questions you are likely to encounter, see my post PCSOT Probable-Lie "Control"/Comparison Questions.
  

George W. Maschke
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
PGP Public Key: 316A947C
PGP Public Key (offline): 2BF4374B
Personal Statement: "Too Hot of a Potato"
Back to top
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box ChillyC
New User
*
Offline



Posts: 4
Joined: Feb 21st, 2018
Re: On federal "supervised release"
Reply #3 - Feb 23rd, 2018 at 3:33pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
First and foremost, i am not seeking any circumvention of any of my supervised release requirements.  I am merely stating that the scientific proof of the validity of the polygraph test is not in existence.  You can not undue my experience with the scientific field, which greatly exceeds what any polygraph examiner can produce. Karl Popper would have a field day with this - do you know who he is??
  The overall attitude of the country is in peril.  When we do not learn how to forgive others and help them reach their full potential in life, the country as a whole suffers; and quickfuix, your future will end like mine, with the grave.  Do not think that you are beyond any falls in life.  I've meet too many who thought they were above the fray and found out otherwise.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Dan Mangan
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 631
Joined: Jul 31st, 2014
Re: On federal "supervised release"
Reply #4 - Feb 23rd, 2018 at 4:23pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Typical SO victim mentality. From a polygraph perspective, you're doomed.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box ChillyC
New User
*
Offline



Posts: 4
Joined: Feb 21st, 2018
Re: On federal "supervised release"
Reply #5 - Feb 24th, 2018 at 3:46pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
George,
     Thank you for the helpful advice.  Many years ago, prior to coming to antipolygraph.org I did some extensive research into case law regarding polygraph testing.  I am not all that worried about it at this stage of the game.  I am also waiting on a call back from my lawyer for more specific advice.      I had no idea that gnats could be so narcissistic.  How do you cram so much arrogance into such a small space? It really amazes me.

     I did a term paper in college on parole reform in the mid 90’s.  Within the context of this paper I did some study and research into polygraph testing. I came to the conclusion THEN that polygraph testing was junk science. As far as today, I still have the same convictions; only much more deeply.

     In my estimation, the only reason that polygraph testing is “generally accepted” by the US population as a whole is because of:
1)      General wide spread ignorance of the scientific disciplines
2)      What I call the “deification of science.”

   People must understand that science was brought into existence by imperfect human beings. Therefore, when we say we are “85% certain about X”, we are not REALLY 100% certain about that.  Our epistemological hardware and software has limitations. If we do not humble our expectations we end up putting our faith and trust in things that are not trustworthy (the polygraph produces “test results” therefore it MUST be SCIENCE). Many other factors play a role in our belief structuring; this is one of the many factors.

  In addition, my own profession gives me insight to the lack of validity in polygraph testing.  The test lacks what I call “variable definition and control.”  What on earth does this mean??  Since the polygraph ONLY measures PHYSIOLOGICAL PARAMETERS we must ask ourselves the following: what variables can have an impact on the overall test results (chart readings)?  The answer: numerous.  With this in mind, we must be able to DEFINE, ISOLATE and MAINTAIN those variables in a tight CONTROL BAND in order to have a high degree of confidence that the output test results are the direct result of stress due to someone allegedly lying.

  Anyone with a touch-and-go understanding of data interpretation knows that in order to determine an output reading variable X, you must have a base line comparison variable Y.  Hence, I know through over 50,000 hours experience the ins and outs of the polygraph WITHOUT antipolygraph.org.

   Also, the human brain conducts calculations at a rate of 100 TRILLION per second.  I highly doubt that the American Pharse  Association has the technology to weed out all the “noise” from their supposed test “signal.”

  With the above, I do not need antipolygraph.org to help me determine the total hoax of the polygraph. Also, with over 30+ years experience with the federal government in one shape or form, I know the game quite well.

  I would like to see fix-a-flat, Dr. Mengele, or any other Voodoo Test Administrator (VTA) prove cause and effect without resorting to STATISTICAL CORRELATIONS. I know this takes the legs out of your arguments, and that your only response will be steeped in anger, a desire for revenge, and frustration associated with the inability to accurately guess the number of red gum balls in the fish bowl at your local candy counter. 

Prove your worth by answering the following:

A group of police officers have breathalyzers displaying false drunkenness in 5% of the cases in which the driver is sober. However, the breathalyzers never fail to detect a truly
drunk person. One in a thousand drivers is driving drunk. Suppose the police officers then stop a driver at random, and force the driver to take a breathalyzer test. It indicates that the driver is drunk. We assume you don't know anything else about him or her. How high is the probability he or she really is drunk?

P.S. I love PCSOT - Pickles, Cheese, Sausage On Toast!
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Dan Mangan
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 631
Joined: Jul 31st, 2014
Re: On federal "supervised release"
Reply #6 - Feb 24th, 2018 at 8:44pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
ChillyC,

You remind me of the legendary AP poster Arkangelsk, who also fancied himself the smartest guy in the room.

Polygraph's lack of scientific validity -- with which I largely agree -- is immaterial in your case, as it is with all SOs who are required to take the "test."

You're still doomed.
« Last Edit: Feb 24th, 2018 at 9:52pm by Dan Mangan »  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box ChillyC
New User
*
Offline



Posts: 4
Joined: Feb 21st, 2018
Re: On federal "supervised release"
Reply #7 - Mar 4th, 2018 at 7:46pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
  Why should I fear a test that has no possibility of causing me any worries?? "Failing" a test is not cause for any revocation, this I know to be true far and wide.  Secondly, since I am not doing anything even close to a re offense, why worry??
  What chaps my back side is that "the system"actually thinks they are doing the country something good ... the data just does not support the argument. Full fledged change it possible, those who don't think so end up in a far worse mess later in life. Polygraph testing does nothing to aid this progress from a personal, or collective standpoint. The whole hoax needs scrapped.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Dan Mangan
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 631
Joined: Jul 31st, 2014
Re: On federal "supervised release"
Reply #8 - Mar 5th, 2018 at 12:53am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
ChillyC wrote on Mar 4th, 2018 at 7:46pm:
Why should I fear a test that has no possibility of causing me any worries??


You just don't get it.

Good luck, ChillyC.

You'll need it.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Joe McCarthy
God Member
*****
Offline


Tiocfaidh ár lá

Posts: 525
Location: The Shroud of The Foggy Dew
Joined: Mar 25th, 2008
Gender: Male
Re: On federal "supervised release"
Reply #9 - Apr 10th, 2018 at 8:46pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  

WOW



JUST WOW

I would be shocked if he wasn't already MTR, or will be fighting an MTR by the end of the year. 

If he thinks it's the examiner that can make him miserable, he is going to be in for some harsh wake-up calls  If he hasn't already been snapped back.

I love examinees like this
  

Joe
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Dan Mangan
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 631
Joined: Jul 31st, 2014
Re: On federal "supervised release"
Reply #10 - Apr 10th, 2018 at 11:15pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Joe, here's another scenario...

The SO may have smartened up -- as so many do, dontcha know -- studied CMs, and beat the examiner like a rented mule.

BTW, did you hear the latest from the APA regarding ESS and auto EDA?

  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Bookmarks: del.icio.us Digg Facebook Google Google+ Linked in reddit StumbleUpon Twitter Yahoo
On federal "supervised release"

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 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