- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by Jeffery
- Oct 31, 2004, 12:33 PMIt's interesting that the polygraphers have developed a term of "FOG" or Friends of George to describe those of us who agree with this site.
I'd like to develop a term to describe the anti-George crowed. "FAG" or "Feds against George." Speaking of Friends, I wonder how many friends these polygraphers have outside of work.
And it's hilarious to read Jim Sackett saying "Honest people don't need to cheat." What a crock. How accurate are your polygraphs if honest people are actually honest on the control questions?
If you read this and discount what George says, that is your business; but read the DoDPI Interrogation handbooks posted on this site. I doubt you'll see those referrenced on any Pro-Polygraph site.
And as a further note of adivice: pay attention to the level of intelligence in the discourse between George and the anti-antipolygraph crowd. That should help determine who is correct and who is reacting emotionally. Of course, I may have stooped to their level with the FAG acronymn, but it seemed appropriate.
I'd like to develop a term to describe the anti-George crowed. "FAG" or "Feds against George." Speaking of Friends, I wonder how many friends these polygraphers have outside of work.
And it's hilarious to read Jim Sackett saying "Honest people don't need to cheat." What a crock. How accurate are your polygraphs if honest people are actually honest on the control questions?
If you read this and discount what George says, that is your business; but read the DoDPI Interrogation handbooks posted on this site. I doubt you'll see those referrenced on any Pro-Polygraph site.
And as a further note of adivice: pay attention to the level of intelligence in the discourse between George and the anti-antipolygraph crowd. That should help determine who is correct and who is reacting emotionally. Of course, I may have stooped to their level with the FAG acronymn, but it seemed appropriate.
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Oct 31, 2004, 11:34 AMOn 29 October 2004, Jim Sackett, a polygraph examiner employed by the Kansas City Police Department who is also the treasurer of the Missouri Polygraph Association, posted remarks to the PolygraphPlace.com message board denigrating both AntiPolygraph.org and me, personally. Addressing a third party, Mr. Sackett writes, in relevant part:
Mr. Sackett, you aver that "[d]espite the propaganda, those who try to defeat the examination process are caught, AND on a daily basis." The relevant issue, however, is not whether persons using polygraph countermeasures are caught on a daily, weekly, or monthly basis, but rather whether they are caught at better-than-chance levels of accuracy. At present, there is no evidence that such is the case. No polygrapher has ever demonstrated any ability to reliably detect the kinds of countermeasures described on AntiPolygraph.org, and the available peer-reviewed research suggests that they can't. (In peer-reviewed studies by C.R. Honts and collaborators, about half of test subjects were able to beat the polygraph with no more than 30 minutes of instruction, and even properly trained and highly experienced polygraphers were unable to detect countermeasures at better than chance levels of accuracy. See the bibliography of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector for citations.)
If you truly believe that you can detect countermeasures at better-than-chance levels of accuracy, why don't you accept Dr. Richardson's polygraph countermeasure challenge and prove it?
You also openly wonder "why only (alleged) success stories make into the 'anti' site" and argue that "[m]ost of those are B.S. and self perpetuated propganda [sic] by George and FOG."
While I cannot vouch for the authenticity of all posts on this message board, I can give you my word of honor that I am not fabricating countermeasure success stories, as you seemingly imply. Moreover, the scarcity of countermeasure failure stories is not the result of any censorship by AntiPolygraph.org.
Finally, you write, "I don't recall anyone posting how they tried to use what they teach and got caught and wish they hadn't tried to beat it because they were honest; but somehow they were convinced there is a 99% false positive rate and needed to "protect" themselves."
Off the top of my head, I do recall a post by someone claiming to have used the countermeasures taught by AntiPolygraph.org and been caught. But that post appears to have been from one of your fellow polygraph operators masquerading as a convicted sex offender in an attempt to spread disinformation. See, What you teach DON'T WORK!.
In addition, I would note that nowhere does AntiPolygraph.org suggest that polygraph examinations have a 99% false positive rate, as you suggest. However, considering polygraphy's lack of scientific underpinnings, one cannot have any confidence that simply telling the truth will be enough to pass.
You are welcome to reply here.
QuoteYou were smart enough to find this site, so you're also smart enough to find the "anti" site (and probably first, cuz it's more interesting, but full of garbage). Despite the propaganda, those who try to defeat the examination process are caught, AND on a daily basis. Honest people don't need to cheat!Because the PolygraphPlace.com message board is censored, and polygraph critics such as myself are not allowed to post there, I am responding to Mr. Sackett, who will be informed of this posting by e-mail to execpoly@hotmail.com, here.
Have you ever wondered why only (alleged) success stories make into the "anti" site. Most of those are B.S. and self perpetuated propganda by George and FOG. [Note: "FOG" is shorthand for "Friends of George," a term used disparagingly by some polygraphers who post on PolygraphPlace.com to refer to polygraph critics.] I don't recall anyone posting how they tried to use what they teach and got caught and wish they hadn't tried to beat it because they were honest; but somehow they were convinced there is a 99% false positive rate and needed to "protect" themselves.
Mr. Sackett, you aver that "[d]espite the propaganda, those who try to defeat the examination process are caught, AND on a daily basis." The relevant issue, however, is not whether persons using polygraph countermeasures are caught on a daily, weekly, or monthly basis, but rather whether they are caught at better-than-chance levels of accuracy. At present, there is no evidence that such is the case. No polygrapher has ever demonstrated any ability to reliably detect the kinds of countermeasures described on AntiPolygraph.org, and the available peer-reviewed research suggests that they can't. (In peer-reviewed studies by C.R. Honts and collaborators, about half of test subjects were able to beat the polygraph with no more than 30 minutes of instruction, and even properly trained and highly experienced polygraphers were unable to detect countermeasures at better than chance levels of accuracy. See the bibliography of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector for citations.)
If you truly believe that you can detect countermeasures at better-than-chance levels of accuracy, why don't you accept Dr. Richardson's polygraph countermeasure challenge and prove it?
You also openly wonder "why only (alleged) success stories make into the 'anti' site" and argue that "[m]ost of those are B.S. and self perpetuated propganda [sic] by George and FOG."
While I cannot vouch for the authenticity of all posts on this message board, I can give you my word of honor that I am not fabricating countermeasure success stories, as you seemingly imply. Moreover, the scarcity of countermeasure failure stories is not the result of any censorship by AntiPolygraph.org.
Finally, you write, "I don't recall anyone posting how they tried to use what they teach and got caught and wish they hadn't tried to beat it because they were honest; but somehow they were convinced there is a 99% false positive rate and needed to "protect" themselves."
Off the top of my head, I do recall a post by someone claiming to have used the countermeasures taught by AntiPolygraph.org and been caught. But that post appears to have been from one of your fellow polygraph operators masquerading as a convicted sex offender in an attempt to spread disinformation. See, What you teach DON'T WORK!.
In addition, I would note that nowhere does AntiPolygraph.org suggest that polygraph examinations have a 99% false positive rate, as you suggest. However, considering polygraphy's lack of scientific underpinnings, one cannot have any confidence that simply telling the truth will be enough to pass.
You are welcome to reply here.