posted 02-10-2013 12:23 PM         

Thanks for taking the time to respond. However, the items were not intended for discussion here. We've already beaten most everything to death on the forum.

They were provided to Ms Taylor as areas of possible investigation.

I threw a lot of stuff at the wall. Only a few items are expected to stick.

Although, she is looking at another series of articles on polygraph "testing."

That said, I'll address, in brief, some of your questions. Bear in mind that my points were submitted to Taylor in an effort to show the depth and breadth of polygraph "testing" variables.

Re my study:
I've always said the Quadri-Track relies on art, not science. That runs counter to Polygraph Scientology dogma.

Re the "Jimmy story":
Illustrates the need for psychological manipulation of the test subject.

Re "scientifically valid":
In this case, empirically proven to be accurate in actual DV treatment settings.

Re comparison to film mammography:
Our minister of polygraph propaganda, the honorable Herr Krapohl, the man who controls the professional polygraph narrative with Goebbels-esque efficiency, loves to trot out this tired old chestnut in his own dog-and-pony shows. In addition, I've seen mention of it several times in the APA polygraph journal since 2004. If you look around, you'll find it.

Re Skip Webb and Dogpatch Kentucky:
For a southerner such as Skip, there's a certain amount of cache in being associated with Dogpatch KY. It's a little hard to explain, but it's similar to when a present-day Boston Brahmin lays claim to Mayflower cred. But Skip is not from Dogpatch. Still, he talks the talk and walks the walk, as shown by the Youtube clip I cited in a different thread featuring Skip's alter ego in a rousing song-and-dance routine from Lil Abner, "Jubilation T. Cornpone." Just looky heah... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_TfcJ82FAhw

[This message has been edited by Dan Mangan (edited 02-10-2013).]

[This message has been edited by Dan Mangan (edited 02-10-2013).]

posted 02-10-2013 01:27 PM         

Do you mind if I share your last post with Ms Taylor?

Between your last comment and Skip's demeaning screed -- sent smack dab in the middle of the gummint work day -- I can start to illustrate a trend.

posted 02-10-2013 03:33 PM         

I am shocked! You have never asked for permission from anyone in the past when you have "outed" people. Why start now? I say go for it- but don't be surprised if your new found media friend agrees with me. I am also glad that you are finally seeing a trend as to how people respond to your posts.

posted 02-10-2013 05:53 PM            

I have had interviews with news reporters over the years and on numerous occasions my words were cut and censored in a manner that did not reflect what I had actually said or communicated, no I will not grant an interview to a journalist.

“"This Taylor woman" expressed no small degree of disappointment and frustration when she learned I had "outed" her call to me on this forum. I explained to her that if I were quoted in an article that was seen as anti-polygraph, it would look like I was an inside man on a journalistic hatchet job.
Clearly, I chose not to take that route, and in fact encouraged others on this forum to contact Ms Taylor themselves.””

You are good at self-preservation, and took steps to assure yourself you would not be branded as anit-polygraph. (I don’t know how to bold or place italics on this board)

posted 02-10-2013 09:25 PM         

quote:

---

Responding to your posts on this board after you have made the statements you have made regarding your giving information to this reporter that you copied and pasted off this board, could result in disciplinary action against them.

---

Disciplinary action against them? One can only hope.

Hey, why should they get a free ride?

Look, I only "copied and pasted" ONE such PolygraphPlace post: Skip's demeaning screed -- which was most likely composed on the taxpayer dime -- used to validate my prediction about the long knives.

Again, what about the guy who stole the multiple comments from our forum alleging LX4000 EDA deficiencies? Why no mention of him?

Regardless, I wouldn't worry about any "disciplinary action" in Skip's case. He's more than adequately insulated by like-minded individuals.

Same goes for Keith Gaines at NCCA, who, it seems, surfs the web on the taxpayer dime.

By they way, Keith, I'd be happy to talk Corvettes with you. I went through six of them back in the day. Honest injun. (Yes Ted, I have photos, insurance bills, and registrations.)

Finally, Bill, since you enjoy the cloak of anonymity here on the forum, please tell us:

What is your age?
What is your occupation?
What is your highest level of education?

Thanks in advance for your cooperation.

Dan

posted 02-10-2013 10:53 PM            

[This message has been edited by Bill2E (edited 02-10-2013).]

posted 02-11-2013 06:50 AM         

Shirley taught the physiology component when I attended Backster in 2004. She's good people.

Just curious: why haven't you put in for full member? You must have loads of exams under your belt...

Also, I left at least one of your questions unanswered, the one about "who else" could do the validity studies.

Finding a disinterested entity who would take the care to do it right is a real challenge.

As Corey pointed out, the psych department at a reputable university might be a good start.

I have been saying for a while now that in order to get a feel of "real world" polygraph accuracy, examiners should be selected at random. That idea is scorned by the polygraph Scientologists, mainly because it would show what accuracy really is: a notch, maybe two, above hit or miss.

Other than airport layovers, I've only been to AZ once, and that was on business many years ago. Someday, I want to explore some of the state's wide open spaces at my leisure and do a little long-range shootin'.

[This message has been edited by Dan Mangan (edited 02-11-2013).]

posted 02-11-2013 09:28 AM            

We've been over this before, but you seem to either miss the point intentionally or you simply do not understand.

quote:

---

I have been saying for a while now that in order to get a feel of "real world" polygraph accuracy, examiners should be selected at random. That idea is scorned by the polygraph Scientologists, mainly because it would show what accuracy really is: a notch, maybe two, above hit or miss.

---

You are not a realist at all.

It would be great to have a single large-scale randomized double-blind field trial. All professions would love this. Unfortunately it is often very difficult if not impossible. What most professions do is decide not to stay stuck. They look for solutions. What can be learned in the meantime without a large-scale randomized study? As it turns out, the results of many smaller studies can be combined using techniques called "meta-analysis" and can begin to provide better answers to questions than any single study - before we get to the point of large-scale randomized double-blind field studies (which many field never get to).

You can believe what you want, but it is unkind to mislead the profession by suggesting or implying that we know nothing until your perfect study is completed. It is misleading. In fact, imposing an attitude of perfectionism is not realism at all.

If you truly believe the polygraph is only "notch or two" above chance (a meaningless and non-committal statement), perhaps you could tell us whether this means to you that you expect polygraph accuracy to be not signficantly greater than chance. Or would you expect that your unmeasured "notch or two" is statistically greater than chance.

You denigrate attempts to make more sense of polygraph accuracy using scientific methods, but you published a study with 100% accuracy and now suggest polygraph is only a "notch or two" above chance.

So, what you are really selling is this: "it aint' science, but me I'm an artist." Sounds like mysticism to me.

Will the real scientologist please stand up.

.02

------------------
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here. This is the war room."
--(Stanley Kubrick/Peter Sellers - Dr. Strangelove, 1964)

posted 02-11-2013 09:49 AM         

Polygraph is more mysticism than science -- far more.

And that is precisely what Ms Taylor is discovering.

In other news:

What's your theory on how the "LX4000 EDA Deficiencies" PowerPoint presentation -- complete with posts lifted from this very forum -- got into Ms Taylor's hands? And why?

posted 02-11-2013 09:55 AM            

I'd like to see the powerpoint before commenting.

r

------------------
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here. This is the war room."
--(Stanley Kubrick/Peter Sellers - Dr. Strangelove, 1964)

posted 02-11-2013 11:34 AM            

r

------------------
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here. This is the war room."
--(Stanley Kubrick/Peter Sellers - Dr. Strangelove, 1964)

posted 02-11-2013 11:39 AM         

Were/are the LX4000 EDA deficiencies real or not?

posted 02-11-2013 11:56 AM            

raymond.nelson@gmail.com
303 736-9165

r

------------------
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here. This is the war room."
--(Stanley Kubrick/Peter Sellers - Dr. Strangelove, 1964)

posted 02-11-2013 01:02 PM            

Your over-reliance on the quote from Justice Thomas requires discussion.

First, Thomas is a judge, not a scientist.

Second, his statement says nothing in reality. It is the same as saying, that "test accuracy depends on examiner skill" in response to questions about test accuracy. It says nothing. It is avoidant of the question.

Another context: how accurate is that rifle? ... well, accuracy depends on the skill of the shooter...

Or: how safe is it to land an airplane? Well... a safe landing depends on the skill of the pilot...

Sure... but it says nothing, and avoids the question.

Thirdly, polygraph testing, like so many forms of testing, is a matter of probabilities. Nothing is perfect and nothing is absolutely certain. Naive and mis-guided over-emphasis on "certainty" seems to be what led the polygraph profession into the circular logic of over-reliance on confession confirmation (because confessions are certain, right?) to confirm the test results - which lead to highly biased sampling problems that result in 100% accuracy.

Fourthly, Thomas was simply wrong. He thinks like a judge not like a scientist. All exams, not just polygraph exams, have uncertainties (uncontrolled variance). There is simply no such thing as a perfect test of any kind. Tests of any kind work because they make use of explained/controlled variance, while acknowledging uncontrolled/unexplained variance. If the proportion of explained variance is sufficient then we can reproduce the results. Not perfectly, but more reliably than flipping a coin. Then we norm the test using standardized protocols and we CAN calculate the probability that a test result is correct or incorrect. That is how tests work.

I understand this makes no sense to you - as a polygraph mystic who hopes that personal prowess will lead you to achieve 100% certainty like the the Armitage exams reported in your study.

Justice Thomas' statement is a way of saying that the polygraph remains imperfect.

Nice.

But it continues to ignore the real issue: what do we know, based on the presently available evidence, about how certain or uncertain the test might be.

Until we put numbers to it - reproducible numbers - quoting Thomas over and over and over ad nauseum is just an excercise in annoyance at best. At its worse, it becomes an exercise in helplessness in that it appears to discourage anyone from trying to account for ourselves until some benevolent well-funded, completely disinterested, though highly competent researcher can mobilize a large-scale random selection of both examinees and a random selection of examiners to complete a double-blind field study under real life circumstances - in which gold-standard confirmation also exists to define the study criterion. Never mind that if we could get gold-standard study criterion in a field setting then we would not need a polygraph. It is gonna be a long wait for that kind of perfection.

Or we can agree to grow ourselves up a little and do what every other field of science has done... learn how to learn and how to account for ourselves under imperfect circumstances.

Or we can let you and Justice Thomas write the end of the story for us - and simply say there is no way to know with certainty whether a test is accurate.

Duh - there is no way to know with certainty whether my airplane will land safely or whether my luggage will be on it. Nothing in life is certain.

But we can - if we are not afraid to try - begin to do things that increase the odds that it works out OK in the end. And we can begin to quantify the known inevitable degree of imperfection. Once done, improvement is a much simpler matter of continuing to identify, reduce and control the sources and causes of uncontrolled variance and error.

But it will still never be perfect because nothing in this lifetime is perfect. Does that mean we should not bother to try? No. It means we need to be - as you say - realists.

It also means we should probably try to account for ourselves and refrain from caving in to criticism that is actually meaningless - though impressive because it came from a judge.

.02

r

------------------
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here. This is the war room."
--(Stanley Kubrick/Peter Sellers - Dr. Strangelove, 1964)

posted 02-11-2013 01:06 PM            

It appears you are assuming a lot when you start ranting about government workers and when they are responding to your rants.

By the way, this "private forum" is called "private" for a reason. Did you also send your reporter all of your sarcastic rants, youtube videos you posted about me and and your other salicious and disparaging comments about others on this site?

posted 02-11-2013 01:46 PM         

You are a polygraph industrialist.

In terms of indu$try-specific influence, you are on a par with Getty, Rockefeller, Carnegie and Henry Ford.

Go ahead, laugh.

Instead of your goofy Dr. Strangelove signature, you should list what you actually are:

> Lafayette spokesmodel
> Polygraph school owner
> Polygraph evangelist
> Polygraph researcher
> Polygraph consultant
> Expert witness
> APA director
> Lecturer

Clearly, you are paid to polish the turd. You have skin in the game, AND you're dead drunk on Polygraph Scientology Kool-Aid.

You even support the polygraph "testing" of children.

We get all that. But do you expect us to believe it doesn't affect what you have to say about the "test"?

Skip:

Do you deny surfing the web for non-work-related reasons while using government equipment, and while on the taxpayer dime?

Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if you and Gaines play Words with Friends together while on the gummint clock.

And, yes, in my conversations with "this Taylor woman" I made no bones about the freewheeling nature of the forum. I let her in on several of the inside gags.

By the way, did you get permission to call Ms Taylor yet? She'd love to talk with you -- and ask if you have any APA challenge coins left.

They're a collector's item, it seems.

posted 02-11-2013 02:10 PM            

quote:

---

If so, what was done?

If so, are there still flaky units in use out there?

If so, did some people get screwed over by taking the "test"?

---

I don’t think we can rely on Ray’s expertise for clear and honest answers to these questions... let’s hear the message directly from Lafayette’s corporate office.

I’ve appended correspondence and images that clearly show there were deficiencies. All of the problems are acknowledged and identified by Lafayette’s Operations Manager, Mark Lane.

posted 02-11-2013 03:33 PM            

quote:

---

Looks like something put together by a company that sells a product that competes with the LX4000.

r

---

It’s a fact that one of Lafayette's biggest distributors claims over 90 percent of the polygraph market.
http://www.lafayettepolygraph.com/dealers.asp?type=int
http://www.argo-a.com.ua/eng/index.html

quote:

---

Lafayette Instrument Company polygraph instrumentation is accredited by the leading international polygraph associations and is preferred by polygraph examiners from the nearly 90 countries using polygraphs. The company's global polygraph market share is approximately 90 percent. ARGO-A is Lafayette Instrument Company's No. 1 polygraph dealer in Europe and No. 3 polygraph dealer internationally.

---

Monopolies and predatory pricing in the polygraph profession is a topic that deserves its very own thread.

James S. Brown | President
Limestone Technologies Inc.

posted 02-11-2013 04:02 PM         

In my prior gig testing convicted sex offenders at the NH State Prison, that could have the potential to really screw someone up. Yes, in terms of their liberty.

Speaking to Ms Taylor as a practitioner, I offered the opinion that most examiners, once satisfied with a factory-specified functionality check, are inclined to "trust the box." (Why wouldn't they?)

I have no experience (or direct knowledge) of the polygraph monopoly situation, but, as a once-student-now-practitioner, I felt I was sandbagged by the Backster School into purchasing a Lafayette instrument. I even said so in a thread here a year or so ago.

In the fall of 2004, when I was in Backster class PE166, a classy gent from Stoelting named Abe Cross made a great presentation -- but it was too late.

That kind of ticked me off.

Polygraph schools should have various manufacturers' instruments for hands-on training and evaluation by the students, then each student should decide on his or her make of choice as they approach the end of their course.

What do you think the incentive is for schools to push one particular brand? A five percent kickback? Ten percent? More? I dunno.
But I'm sure the numbers add up.

Ray, what type of instrument do you recommend at your school? Do you get a kickback (a.k.a. "commission") from Lafayette? If so, how much per unit?

posted 02-11-2013 04:18 PM         

If it's true, that's orders of magnitude more lucrative than I originally thought.

posted 02-11-2013 04:33 PM            

I get nothing from whatever the students use.

I don't work on commission.

And I don't think you understand my involvement with the school.

I'll wager I do more unpaid work than most - including teaching, reviewing exams, writing, research, helping other analyze data (both within and outside the polygraph profession), defending exams and sometimes running exams. I do paid work too.

Also... I'm married now, and my lovely bride would like me to do do less unpaid work.

r

------------------
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here. This is the war room."
--(Stanley Kubrick/Peter Sellers - Dr. Strangelove, 1964)

posted 02-11-2013 04:34 PM            

We've been in the polygraph business for 11 years.

posted 02-11-2013 04:38 PM         

quote:

---

I get nothing from whatever the students use.

---

OK, you yourself get nothing.

posted 02-11-2013 04:48 PM            

quote:

---

I get nothing from whatever the students use.

r

---

posted 02-11-2013 04:48 PM            

I don't use Lafayette equipment at this time. I originally had an analog polygraph produced by Lafayette. When going computerized I started with Bruce White's AXCITON, then later switched to the Stoelting CPSII. One department i worked for used Lafayette and I saw no difference in the tracings.

I don't seem to have the problems you are reporting. Are you still using a Lafayette? If so why? You are aware of the problems you have reported on this board regarding Lafayette Instruments.

As a result of Mr. Browns remarks, I will never own or use a Limestone Polygraph. This type of advertising totally turns me off and is offensive.

posted 02-11-2013 05:11 PM            

quote:

---

As a result of Mr. Browns remarks, I will never own or use a Limestone Polygraph. This type of advertising totally turns me off and is offensive.

---

Advertising?

Don't shoot the messenger. I've patiently waited since 2007 for examiners to notice major problems in their instrumentation and software.

Before you judge Limestone I suggest you have a look at our testimonial page. We care about the polygraph profession and our contributions are evident.
http://www.limestonetech.com/index.cfm/about/testimonials/

posted 02-11-2013 05:12 PM         

I am not reporting first-hand LX4000 EDA problems.

On the other hand, I don't know what I don't know.

Over the years, I have observed plunging EDA on many occasions and suffered countless DAS disconnects due to static discharge.

Things have gotten much better since Lafayette refurbished my DAS box (at no charge).

Also, I have also seen more than a few "sample number exceeded" error messages. Maddening.

They still open up now and again. God forbid it happens with a heavy case that winds up in court, although that seems unlikely.

Again, I am not reporting the EDA issues. A newspaper reporter gave me the slide show that I in turn forwarded to you.

Come time to upgrade, I am leaning toward Stoelting. That's based largely on feedback I have received from Stoelting users.

Ray:

quote:

---

Maybe someday we'll get back to some interesting and useful discussion.

---

You are dodging the questions.

Polygraph examiners are great at cornering people and making people sweat, but they don't like it when the shoe is on the other foot.

Ray, remember the APA motto: Dedicated to Truth

You're an APA officer. Are you dedicated to truth?

posted 02-11-2013 05:26 PM            

Mr. Brown,

If you were aware there were problems with the Lafayette system, and kept quiet since 2007, shame on you!! I'm not concerned with who you work for or what company you own, you owe it to all concerned to point out problems with a system which you are describing as faulty. This could cause problems which affect our national security. Your testimonial page is much like that of other manufacturers. You are attempting to get customers.

posted 02-11-2013 05:57 PM         

1. I do not "believe" my equipment is faulty. In the past, I trusted the box.

2. Currently, I am very, very concerned about the hundreds of "test" results I have rendered.

3. These days, I always go out of my way to explain the risks, realities and limitations of polygraph "testing" to any subject who is stupid enough to sit for the "test."

4. How do you know Mr. Brown has "kept quiet"?

posted 02-11-2013 06:13 PM            

quote:

---

Things have gotten much better since Lafayette refurbished my DAS box (at no charge).

---

Can you tell us more about when, where, and why you were offered a refurbished DAS?

posted 02-11-2013 06:21 PM         

A day or two after making some comments about my LX4000 frustrations on this forum, I got a call from Sue L.

She sent me a loaner box to tide me over. Upgraded my seat pad too, all at n/c.

The service was exemplary.