- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by anythingformoney
- Feb 28, 2005, 04:33 PMHmmm, if you say so. I'll have to add that to my lexicon. Time to check out a less elderly cybercrowd, I guess. 
Posted by Marty
- Feb 28, 2005, 03:54 PMQuote from: AnalSphincter on Feb 28, 2005, 03:32 PMBelieve what you want. I considered having old Loop refute your assumptions, but you wouldn't believe it anyhow since we share the same IP address, so what's the use? Remember the clichéd saying about the word ASSUME.A.S.,
The problem A.S, is in your own words. I never stated that you and loopy were the same. While I think you are, it is possible you are, in fact, different posters. What is certain is that your "loopy" story is deceptive.
QuoteI find your "newbie" reference extremely amusing--it's a term used almost exclusively by juvenile video game players.You revealed more about yourself than you intended with that reference. From now on I'll imagine you with an X-Box controller in your hands.
Why thank you!. I certainly enjoyed computer games when I was younger. Unfortunately, that is one of those things that even us geeks lose when we get older, but I appreciate the gesture more than you realize.
As for revealing stuff about myself, I'm pretty open. Just ask if you are curious.
QuoteYou'd be even more credible if you'd use additional gamer shorthand like L33T (elite), LOL (laughing on line), pwned (as in I owned you), PRO (as in I'm a pro, while you are a newbie), Fragged (as in killed), etc.
Cool! LOL means "Laughing out loud" not "Laughing on line." Haven't been exposed to L33T, or "pwned." "Fragged" has been in the general use since 'Nam.
marty
Posted by anythingformoney
- Feb 28, 2005, 03:32 PMBelieve what you want. I considered having old Loop refute your assumptions, but you wouldn't believe it anyhow since we share the same IP address, so what's the use? Remember the clichéd saying about the word ASSUME.
I find your "newbie" reference extremely amusing--it's a term used almost exclusively by juvenile video game players. You revealed more about yourself than you intended with that reference. From now on I'll imagine you with an X-Box controller in your hands. You'd be even more credible if you'd use additional gamer shorthand like L33T (elite), LOL (laughing on line), pwned (as in I owned you), PRO (as in I'm a pro, while you are a newbie), Fragged (as in killed), etc.
I find your "newbie" reference extremely amusing--it's a term used almost exclusively by juvenile video game players.
You revealed more about yourself than you intended with that reference. From now on I'll imagine you with an X-Box controller in your hands. You'd be even more credible if you'd use additional gamer shorthand like L33T (elite), LOL (laughing on line), pwned (as in I owned you), PRO (as in I'm a pro, while you are a newbie), Fragged (as in killed), etc.Posted by Marty
- Feb 28, 2005, 03:18 PMQuote from: AnalSphincter on Feb 28, 2005, 11:29 AMIt doesn't take a rocket scientist to compare my posts to Loopy's to see that they are absolutely nothing alike.
It also doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that the very first thing newbies, especially literate newbies that can spell, do when trying to create deceptive conversations is to degrade their spelling and/or grammar. If you really want some entertainment, hang around stock market message boards where big bucks are at stake and you will see just how often grammar and spelling degradation is tried for deceptive purposes.
Assuming you have some basic interrogation analytical skills, this would have been obvious.
A.S., in some ways you are demonstrating the disadvantage of newbies trying to be deceptive and operating in an environment with which they are unfamiliar. Even smart people get caught. This is one of the reasons CM's can fail.
marty
Posted by anythingformoney
- Feb 28, 2005, 11:29 AMYes, Loopy had a little fun at my expense, but HIS (not her) intentions were good. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to compare my posts to Loopy's to see that they are absolutely nothing alike. I actually knew Loopy in passing previously, and we smile everytime we see each other now. Let me say one thing: Loopy is one hell of a polygrapher, even if he needs to go back to remedial grammar school.
Posted by Marty
- Feb 28, 2005, 01:16 AMQuote from: AnalSphincter on Feb 27, 2005, 11:30 PMAlso, is the term "community computer" so foreign to you, George? You sure stick like a leech to anything you make up your mind about, right or wrong, I'll give you that. One thing that resulted from Loopy is that ever since then I haven't made a single post from that community computer. I guess when you can't really penetrate my credibility through reason you must resort to pretexts.
Come now A.S., You posted a response to Loopy exactly eight minutes after "Loopy's" post. That response contained approx 200 words.
Subsequently, you posted a response to another "Loopy" post 7 minutes later. Not surprisingly, it was somewhat shorter than 200 words.
marty
Posted by anythingformoney
- Feb 27, 2005, 11:30 PMSee my post in the "Upcoming Polygraph in South Florida" thread. This is becoming very redundant.
Also, is the term "community computer" so foreign to you, George? You sure stick like a leech to anything you make up your mind about, right or wrong, I'll give you that. One thing that resulted from Loopy is that ever since then I haven't made a single post from that community computer. I guess when you can't really penetrate my credibility through reason you must resort to pretexts.
Also, is the term "community computer" so foreign to you, George? You sure stick like a leech to anything you make up your mind about, right or wrong, I'll give you that. One thing that resulted from Loopy is that ever since then I haven't made a single post from that community computer. I guess when you can't really penetrate my credibility through reason you must resort to pretexts.
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Feb 27, 2005, 03:17 PMQuote from: AnalSphincter on Feb 27, 2005, 01:50 PMWell, I'm glad you said it makes "little difference" whether the polygraph result is inconclusive or outright failure, George. That simply illustrates what I've been saying all along--it takes a lot to jump the chasm between inconclusive results and deceptive results.
I don't see how my point that it makes little difference to the applicant who is disqualified based on polygraph results whether or not his/her polygraph charts were scored as "deception indicated" or "inconclusive" in any way "llustrates" your claim that it "takes a lot to jump the chasm between inconclusive results and deceptive results." Please explain.
QuoteI personally don't know any departments or agencies that would disqualify someone solely on the basis of an inconclusive polygraph result. An inconclusive result means nothing to a polygrapher--it's not a yay or a nay with regard to truthfulness or deceptiveness. In fact, many departments and agencies, when faced with an inconclusive polygraph result go to a tier 2 polygraph exam in an attempt to clear up the inconclusive, which almost always either pushes the examinee to pass the exam or simply leads to another inconclusive, after which no further testing is done.
For such agencies as the FBI, passing the polygraph is a pre-requisite for employment. Failure to pass is grounds for disqualification. And again, the failure-to-pass ratio for FBI special agent applicants is presently on the order of 50%. This flies in the face of your oft-repeated assertion that "the overwhelming majority of examinees [for law enforcement hiring] easily pass the polygraph."
QuoteAgain, I REPEAT, it takes a lot to outright FAIL a polygraph exam. Don't equate inconclusive results with failure on the part of the examinee. On the contrary, I would call inconclusive results a failure on the part of the examiner to produce conclusive results.
I offer, as I did in another thread, that all it takes for a truthful person to wrongly "fail" is for him/her to be more concerned about the consequences of not being believed with regard to the relevant questions than he/she is with regard to the more general and less serious "control" questions.
QuoteAny department or agency that would disqualify any applicant based solely on an inconclusive polygraph exam--or EVEN A DECEPTIVE RESULT--is putting too much emphasis on the polygraph.
I fully agree with your assessment that any department or agency that would disqualify an applicant based solely on an inconclusive or even a "deceptive" result is putting too much emphasis on the polygraph. Yet such reliance on the polygraph seems to be the rule rather than the exception amongst agencies with pre-employment polygraph programs. It is most certainly the rule with regard to such federal agencies.
QuoteThe polygraph is very good at what it was designed to do, regardless of what your regurgitated views are, George.
I could agree with you that the polygraph has utility as an interrogational prop (with examinees who don't understand that it's a fraud), but as a scientific test for deception it falls flat. On this point there is broad consensus amongst scientists.
QuoteHowever, the polygraph should never be more than just one piece of the screening process.
The fact of the matter is that many applicants for federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies are being disqualified based on polygraph results alone.
QuoteTrust me when I say that I know of many, many applicants whose polygraph exams ended with inconclusive results who are on the job with their chosen departments and agencies today.
Your history of forging posts on this message board makes it difficult to take your word at face value.
QuoteI don't know what your situation was, George. Did you outright FAIL your exam, or was it inconclusive? That would say a lot about your situation and possibly provide further evidence of what my suspicions are with regard to failed polygraph examinees.
As I noted in my public statement, "Too Hot of a Potato: A Citizen Soldier's Encounter With the Polygraph," my FBI HQ file states that I "failed" all of the relevant questions.
Posted by PG111
- Feb 27, 2005, 02:30 PMAnal Wrote: Any department or agency that would disqualify any applicant based solely on an inconclusive polygraph exam--or EVEN A DECEPTIVE RESULT--is putting too much emphasis on the polygraph. The polygraph is very good at what it was designed to do, regardless of what your regurgitated views are, George. However, the polygraph should never be more than just one piece of the screening process. Trust me when I say that I know of many, many applicants whose polygraph exams ended with inconclusive results who are on the job with their chosen departments and agencies today.
I agree with most of this statement, if all departments were this way the polygraph would not have such a bad rap.
I agree with most of this statement, if all departments were this way the polygraph would not have such a bad rap.
Posted by anythingformoney
- Feb 27, 2005, 01:50 PMWell, I'm glad you said it makes "little difference" whether the polygraph result is inconclusive or outright failure, George. That simply illustrates what I've been saying all along--it takes a lot to jump the chasm between inconclusive results and deceptive results. I personally don't know any departments or agencies that would disqualify someone solely on the basis of an inconclusive polygraph result. An inconclusive result means nothing to a polygrapher--it's not a yay or a nay with regard to truthfulness or deceptiveness. In fact, many departments and agencies, when faced with an inconclusive polygraph result go to a tier 2 polygraph exam in an attempt to clear up the inconclusive, which almost always either pushes the examinee to pass the exam or simply leads to another inconclusive, after which no further testing is done.
Again, I REPEAT, it takes a lot to outright FAIL a polygraph exam. Don't equate inconclusive results with failure on the part of the examinee. On the contrary, I would call inconclusive results a failure on the part of the examiner to produce conclusive results.
Any department or agency that would disqualify any applicant based solely on an inconclusive polygraph exam--or EVEN A DECEPTIVE RESULT--is putting too much emphasis on the polygraph. The polygraph is very good at what it was designed to do, regardless of what your regurgitated views are, George. However, the polygraph should never be more than just one piece of the screening process. Trust me when I say that I know of many, many applicants whose polygraph exams ended with inconclusive results who are on the job with their chosen departments and agencies today.
I don't know what your situation was, George. Did you outright FAIL your exam, or was it inconclusive? That would say a lot about your situation and possibly provide further evidence of what my suspicions are with regard to failed polygraph examinees.
Again, I REPEAT, it takes a lot to outright FAIL a polygraph exam. Don't equate inconclusive results with failure on the part of the examinee. On the contrary, I would call inconclusive results a failure on the part of the examiner to produce conclusive results.
Any department or agency that would disqualify any applicant based solely on an inconclusive polygraph exam--or EVEN A DECEPTIVE RESULT--is putting too much emphasis on the polygraph. The polygraph is very good at what it was designed to do, regardless of what your regurgitated views are, George. However, the polygraph should never be more than just one piece of the screening process. Trust me when I say that I know of many, many applicants whose polygraph exams ended with inconclusive results who are on the job with their chosen departments and agencies today.
I don't know what your situation was, George. Did you outright FAIL your exam, or was it inconclusive? That would say a lot about your situation and possibly provide further evidence of what my suspicions are with regard to failed polygraph examinees.
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Feb 27, 2005, 06:47 AMQuote from: AnalSphincter on Feb 26, 2005, 01:58 PMThat's just plain silly, George. The LAPD link leads nowhere, and the others simply lead to posts on this forum. I can read posts on this forum without having links to them.
While the Los Angeles Times article citing then LAPD chief Bernard Parks is no longer available on-line, the link I provided includes the relevant citation. There is nothing "silly" about it. The two links to posts on this forum provide information derived, respectively, from the FBI and the Connecticut State Police, acknowledging high polygraph failure rates. Your suggestion that this information should somehow be disregarded because it is cited in posts on this message board is truly bizarre. Moreover, the fourth link, indicating polygraph failure rates in the neighborhood of 50%, is an article by a polygraph examiner that is posted on a pro-polygraph website. Your glib dismissal of all this compelling evidence without due consideration boggles the mind.
QuoteIf anyone is stating that 50% of all applicants are failing their department's polygraphs, it's probably administrative people calling inconclusives outright failures. I've never heard of such a statistic except on this site. For that to happen, either there would have to be some really off-the-wall techniques being used, or the applicant pool would have to come right out of San Quentin.
For the applicant who is disqualified because of polygraph results, it makes little difference whether the polygraph operator scored the charts as failing outright or merely inconclusive. If you truly had not heard of 50% pre-employment polygraph failure rates in law enforcement hiring before, then you should have done some fact-checking.
Posted by would-becop775
- Feb 26, 2005, 07:28 PMP.S. Anal, having taken the aforementioned number of polys, you can be sure that I will be using the methods listed on this site, because I have nothing to lose. I also have nothing to hide, but apparently that's not enough for the lemmings of law enforcement management who happen to think that polys are SO great.
Posted by would-becop775
- Feb 26, 2005, 07:25 PMI do believe that they list inconclusives as failures, because any inconclusive result is enough to boot a prospective employee from the hiring process. It's happened to me with LAPD, LA Sheriffs Dept, and Chino PD. 5 tests... 5 inconclusives... 3 jobs lost. And other departments are hesitant to touch me because of my "failures" at other departments.
Posted by anythingformoney
- Feb 26, 2005, 01:58 PMThat's just plain silly, George. The LAPD link leads nowhere, and the others simply lead to posts on this forum. I can read posts on this forum without having links to them.
If anyone is stating that 50% of all applicants are failing their department's polygraphs, it's probably administrative people calling inconclusives outright failures. I've never heard of such a statistic except on this site. For that to happen, either there would have to be some really off-the-wall techniques being used, or the applicant pool would have to come right out of San Quentin.
If anyone is stating that 50% of all applicants are failing their department's polygraphs, it's probably administrative people calling inconclusives outright failures. I've never heard of such a statistic except on this site. For that to happen, either there would have to be some really off-the-wall techniques being used, or the applicant pool would have to come right out of San Quentin.
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Feb 26, 2005, 04:29 AMQuote from: AnalSphincter on Feb 26, 2005, 03:55 AM...There's no way in hell that 50% of LAPD applicants FAIL the exam. Inconclusive, perhaps, if they have some lousy polygraphers....
In 2002, Chief Bernard Parks stated that 50% of applicants were being eliminated by the polygraph:
http://antipolygraph.org/news/polygraph-news-008.shtml#leovy-gold-09-02-02
The FBI also has a pre-employment polygraph failure rate on the order of 50%:
https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=592.msg3067#msg3067
The Connecticut State Police have reported employment figures indicating a 60% pre-employment polygraph failure rate:
https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=1449.msg11371#msg11371
And Jack Ogilvie, a polygraph examiner with the Phoenix Police Department, has also spoken of a 50% polygraph failure rate for applicants to his department, noting that such high failure rates are not atypical:
http://www.polygraphplace.com/articles/pre_employment_polygraph_testing.htm