- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by sackett
- Apr 19, 2008, 11:37 PMYes, as long as you are right handed... 
Sackett
Sackett
Posted by Twoblock
- Apr 19, 2008, 09:50 PMTheKaisho
Sackett and I occasionally gig each other, but it's done goodnaturedly and with no animosity.
Having said that, for the most part, he will talk to you about your concerns to the best of his ability short of giving away his "secrets". I'm just not sure, yet, how far his ability goes. If a question gets to close to his secrets, he can write three paragraphs about it and you'll scratch your head wondering what he said. With this great ability, I expect him to run for U. S. Senator some day. Other than this, he's pretty good at analizing a concern like yours. Just keep in mind he believes in his vocation. You might get more out of him with a PM.
One thing I like about him (hell, it might be the only one) is he doesn't engage in name calling and making stupid, slanderous accusations like some polygraphers who post on these boards. Sackett, is this a left handed compliment?
Sackett and I occasionally gig each other, but it's done goodnaturedly and with no animosity.
Having said that, for the most part, he will talk to you about your concerns to the best of his ability short of giving away his "secrets". I'm just not sure, yet, how far his ability goes. If a question gets to close to his secrets, he can write three paragraphs about it and you'll scratch your head wondering what he said. With this great ability, I expect him to run for U. S. Senator some day. Other than this, he's pretty good at analizing a concern like yours. Just keep in mind he believes in his vocation. You might get more out of him with a PM.
One thing I like about him (hell, it might be the only one) is he doesn't engage in name calling and making stupid, slanderous accusations like some polygraphers who post on these boards. Sackett, is this a left handed compliment?
Posted by T.M. Cullen
- Apr 19, 2008, 02:54 PMQuoteOkay, what I want to know is this: All things being equal, and if polygraphy is such an accurate and real science, can anyone explain to me how I could pass one polygraph and then fail another over the same subject?
Because the polygraph is NOT accurate and real science.
QuoteSo, my final question is, when a professional polygraph examiner has one test positive and another examiner has one negative, what does that mean and how would polygraph "science" (I use the term very loosely here) explain away the dichotomy?
Rather than ask us, why not read what the nation's top scientists have to say about the test:
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309084369
Posted by sackett
- Apr 19, 2008, 01:10 PMQuote from: samurai351 on Apr 18, 2008, 10:19 AMI was given a private polygraph test which indicated I was truthful. Much later on, I was given a polygraph by the state police that said I was being deceptive.
In both instances, the questions were the same and the equipment, as far as I could tell, were the same or similar.
The only real differences between the two were location (th efirst at my attorney's office, the other at the county office) and the private polygrapher I had had done this both as a state trooper and in private practice for 25 years. The state trooper who did the later polygraph had only been fully licensed to perform polygraph exams for about a year before he did mine.
Okay, what I want to know is this: All things being equal, and if polygraphy is such an accurate and real science, can anyone explain to me how I could pass one polygraph and then fail another over the same subject?
From what I have read here, there are two camps; one pro and one con, black OR white. I have not read too much about gray here.
Can anyone explain to me what they believe? Surely, a person has to be either lying OR telling the truth about the same subject, right?
So, my final question is, when a professional polygraph examiner has one test positive and another examiner has one negative, what does that mean and how would polygraph "science" (I use the term very loosely here) explain away the dichotomy?
BTW, despite my apparent tone, I am not really trying to be facetious, but I do have an academic interest.
Truly no-one can answer the questions you pose here unless a full quality control review were to take place of both examinations, followed up by an interview with you. Not very likely.
Is it possible your distration (re: daughter) could have played a part in the results of your second exam? Yes, there could be a lot of reasons for the disparity in results but I do not have that much time to hypothesize.
I will assume by your post, stating, "a lowly and very minor felon", that you are involved in a criminal affair. If there is no other evidence, then what is your concern? Polygraph results can not be used solely within the judicial system as evidence against a party. So I also assume, you will be fine.
Sackett
Posted by TheKaisho
- Apr 18, 2008, 01:12 PMTo a large extent, I agree.
First, I do not believe that Mr. Webb will respond to me, a lowly and very minor felon. From his lofty station high at the top of the polygraph hierarchy, why would he deign to respond to me?
There is no "upside" to doing so, though I would consider it polite, if not pragmatic, for him to do so.
Second, I am not even sure there is even a real answer to the question, anecdotal or academic.
Third, I must disagree with you on one point: I did have a fear of failing the first polygraph; not because I feared being exposed, but because I do not believe polygraphs to be an accurate enough tool able to determine fact from fiction.
Maybe it would be more accurate to say that I did not fear the first polygraph exam as much as the second one?
The stress level for the second one was heightened exponentially by the fact that I had been originally scheduled to take a polygraph earlier. I allotted 2 hours (from 1-3PM) out of my day for this test and I drove 30 minutes to get to the appointment. I arrived at 1252hrs. (8 minutes early). I went to the front window and told thewomen there of my arrival and why I was there and who I was to see. They told me to have a seat and they would tell him.
I sat in the waiting area for 42 minutes (I returned to the window every 10-15 minutes to inqure why I was not being tested) and the I decided I had to go. My daughter was waiting for me at her school and because these things can take two hours or more, I could not afford to wait any longer.
I felt as if this particular examiner deliberately "put me on ice" in order to ratchet up the tension level a bunch.
I feel this is probably true because when I asked at the window why he was not coming out, the ladies told me that he knew i was there and he was "just going over the case notes" and that he would be out in a minute to get me.
Anywho...that is some of the story, the rest can be found in my post under this thread.
First, I do not believe that Mr. Webb will respond to me, a lowly and very minor felon. From his lofty station high at the top of the polygraph hierarchy, why would he deign to respond to me?
There is no "upside" to doing so, though I would consider it polite, if not pragmatic, for him to do so.
Second, I am not even sure there is even a real answer to the question, anecdotal or academic.
Third, I must disagree with you on one point: I did have a fear of failing the first polygraph; not because I feared being exposed, but because I do not believe polygraphs to be an accurate enough tool able to determine fact from fiction.
Maybe it would be more accurate to say that I did not fear the first polygraph exam as much as the second one?
The stress level for the second one was heightened exponentially by the fact that I had been originally scheduled to take a polygraph earlier. I allotted 2 hours (from 1-3PM) out of my day for this test and I drove 30 minutes to get to the appointment. I arrived at 1252hrs. (8 minutes early). I went to the front window and told thewomen there of my arrival and why I was there and who I was to see. They told me to have a seat and they would tell him.
I sat in the waiting area for 42 minutes (I returned to the window every 10-15 minutes to inqure why I was not being tested) and the I decided I had to go. My daughter was waiting for me at her school and because these things can take two hours or more, I could not afford to wait any longer.
I felt as if this particular examiner deliberately "put me on ice" in order to ratchet up the tension level a bunch.
I feel this is probably true because when I asked at the window why he was not coming out, the ladies told me that he knew i was there and he was "just going over the case notes" and that he would be out in a minute to get me.
Anywho...that is some of the story, the rest can be found in my post under this thread.
Posted by Twoblock
- Apr 18, 2008, 12:33 PMTheKaisho
If you are answered it will probably go something like this: During the private poly you had no fear of the results. With the trooper poly, you had fear of the results therefore you failed. This makes no sence if the poly truly can determine truth and deception. The troopers like to think everyone charged is guilty so he performs the test accordingly.
Just my 2 cents.
If you are answered it will probably go something like this: During the private poly you had no fear of the results. With the trooper poly, you had fear of the results therefore you failed. This makes no sence if the poly truly can determine truth and deception. The troopers like to think everyone charged is guilty so he performs the test accordingly.
Just my 2 cents.
Posted by TheKaisho
- Apr 18, 2008, 10:19 AMI was given a private polygraph test which indicated I was truthful. Much later on, I was given a polygraph by the state police that said I was being deceptive.
In both instances, the questions were the same and the equipment, as far as I could tell, were the same or similar.
The only real differences between the two were location (th efirst at my attorney's office, the other at the county office) and the private polygrapher I had had done this both as a state trooper and in private practice for 25 years. The state trooper who did the later polygraph had only been fully licensed to perform polygraph exams for about a year before he did mine.
Okay, what I want to know is this: All things being equal, and if polygraphy is such an accurate and real science, can anyone explain to me how I could pass one polygraph and then fail another over the same subject?
From what I have read here, there are two camps; one pro and one con, black OR white. I have not read too much about gray here.
Can anyone explain to me what they believe? Surely, a person has to be either lying OR telling the truth about the same subject, right?
So, my final question is, when a professional polygraph examiner has one test positive and another examiner has one negative, what does that mean and how would polygraph "science" (I use the term very loosely here) explain away the dichotomy?
BTW, despite my apparent tone, I am not really trying to be facetious, but I do have an academic interest.
In both instances, the questions were the same and the equipment, as far as I could tell, were the same or similar.
The only real differences between the two were location (th efirst at my attorney's office, the other at the county office) and the private polygrapher I had had done this both as a state trooper and in private practice for 25 years. The state trooper who did the later polygraph had only been fully licensed to perform polygraph exams for about a year before he did mine.
Okay, what I want to know is this: All things being equal, and if polygraphy is such an accurate and real science, can anyone explain to me how I could pass one polygraph and then fail another over the same subject?
From what I have read here, there are two camps; one pro and one con, black OR white. I have not read too much about gray here.
Can anyone explain to me what they believe? Surely, a person has to be either lying OR telling the truth about the same subject, right?
So, my final question is, when a professional polygraph examiner has one test positive and another examiner has one negative, what does that mean and how would polygraph "science" (I use the term very loosely here) explain away the dichotomy?
BTW, despite my apparent tone, I am not really trying to be facetious, but I do have an academic interest.