posted 10-12-2007 03:09 AM            

The case of Harold James Nicholson, a CIA employee later convicted of spying for Russia. In 1995, Nicholson had undergone his periodic five year reinvestigation where he showed a strong probability of deception on questions regarding relationships with a foreign intelligence unit. This polygraph test result later launched an investigation which resulted in his eventual arrest and conviction. To state polygraph has never caught a spy is false. Jonathan Pollard was advised by his Israeli handlers that he was to resign his job from American intelligence if he was ever told he was subject to a polygraph test. As part of his plea bargain agreement for his case of espionage against the Soviet Union, Robert Hanssen would be made to undergo a polygraph at any time as part of damage assessment. In Hanssen's 25-year career with the FBI, not once was he made to undergo a polygraph. He later said if he had been ordered; he may have thought twice about espionage.

posted 10-14-2007 05:27 PM            

I have posted extensively on the anti site I was doing it in 2002 when there didn't seem to be anyone else from here talking to the dark side.

here is a sample of when I caught beechtrees out lieing about his/her polygraph experience.

Beechtrees,

Your response proves you have embellished on this site

huh?

Quote:
You State:
I knew it existed, Mr. Woolley. My post was a ploy to absolutely confirm we were discussing the same piece of equipment. You may confirm my prior knowledge easily enough by reading this thread. You will note that message, posted on September 5th, 2001 initiated my search for information on the type of polygraph equipment on which I knew I was to be interrogated.

I had a look at your thread you offer as proof of your prior knowledge there is no mention of the activity sensor.
This is because Lafayette tell me the activity sensor in question was NOT listed on their site in September 2001.
You could not of known about it as it was not available at the time you state. Once again I say you embellish.

beechtrees
The catalog I hold now in my hands was created on 10/04/01, a scant 15 days or so after my polygraph interrogation. The activity sensors are listed there, as they were on the previous edition I downloaded. You're right, Mr. Woolley, I make no mention of possible countermeasure detection devices in my post asking for information on the Lafayette Instrument Co. That hardly proves anything, other than the fact that I knew as of that date that I would be polygraphed using Lafayette equipment. In numerous emails, Internet searches, and visits to the library I sought out all information I could on that company's equipment, including accessories like chairs, strain gauges, and 'sensor pads'.

I find your suspicious nature suspicious in and of itself-- to quote Hamlet, "The [lady] doth protest too much, methinks." Knowing that a good offense sometimes makes the best defense, you have repeatedly offended by calling my simple statements of facts 'embellishments'. Why would I embellish? What possible reason would I have to lie about such a thing?Unlike you, I have no monetary interest at stake in this whole affair. Unlike you, I have no compelling interest in the argument to save my livelihood.

If it should persuade you (and I doubt seriously it will), I swear on the life of my son that my ass sat upon your activity sensor pad during my entire polygraph interrogation.

And, lest we forget, Mr. Woolley, my polygraph interrogator lied to me. Repeatedly.

You have repeatedly called me a liar, Mr. Woolley. Isn't it true that my polygraph interrogator expected me to lie? Yes or no, please.

paul woolley states

Of course examiners expect you to lie or at least be uncomfortable when answering controls,but this does not mean we have to lie to get you to. Your examiner would not of been expecting you to lie to relevants. If we use the directed lie control format there is little chance this will happen with any examiner.

You admit to lying on your polygraph to relevant questions and seem proud of it so my repeated reference to you fits.

You state:
The catalog I hold now in my hands was created on 10/04/01, a scant 15 days or so after my polygraph interrogation. The activity sensors are listed there, as they were on the previous edition I downloaded.

The activity sensor in question was put on their site on the 10/1/01 so you would of had no idea about this device until you took your test. You claim you were intimately aware of this device prior to your polygraph, that cannot be true.
Seeing you made such a point about finding out if we were talking about the same piece of equipment and you have now shown you have embellished on this board.

The previous edition did not have the sensor in question particularly if you downloaded it in Sep.

You ask:
Why would I embellish? What possible reason would I have to lie about such a thing?Unlike you, I have no monetary interest at stake in this whole affair. Unlike you, I have no compelling interest in the argument to save my livelihood.

First of all to prove me wrong .
If you have no monetary interest in polygraph was your test a pre-employment test ? If it was I think you have monetary interest if you like it or not. That is why most of the users of this board are here their job prospects were affected in some way and hence income that is why they hate anything to do with polygraph so much.

I am not here to save my livelihood it is not in question, and I am not being paid to come here. I only want to point out that not everything stated on this site is correct.

Particularly the statements that there is no peer-reviewed literature on single issue testing formats that support CQT polygraph applications. Also all examiners lie to subjects to get them to lie to controls another misleading statement, which you have bought into, not ALL examiners do.

I have no doubt you were tested, the thing I doubt is your claims about the activity sensor, as indicated above, if your examiner had the activity sensor he must not have been using it as you would of been asked to do certain things to calibrate it. So maybe you were right about that particular examiner if what you say is true.

When this device was released at an APA conference Lafayette had it setup so anyone could see how good it was at detecting the ever popular sphincter contraction or any other covert type countermeasure. It detected all of them even the slightest (sphincter) movement showed up.

Beech trees didn't respond to me after that seemed to loose the vigor.

I also had posts deleted when they merged stop polygraph or no polygraph to the anti polygraph site they kept i think it was Drew Richardson's replys but deleted mine.

I started spending too much time there and
the same old arguments rehashed and it was obvious to me that a lot of the stories they tell about polygraph experiences are fiction
as beechtrees demonstrated.