- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by Drew Richardson
- Jul 06, 2002, 02:00 PMStevesz281,
Although I appreciate your thanks, I regret being able to do little more than attempt to shine light on the nonsense which has led to your and other's victim status. I was unable while in government to stop the implementation of any offending programs and likewise will most assuredly be personally unable to end them. I, however, am quite encouraged by developments over the last couple of years. This web site, which was put together by a couple of individuals on a shoe-string budget is considerably better than anything which comes from the polygraph community (a 75 year history, thousands of individuals involved, and a multi-million dollar industry involving numerous government agencies and a well organized lobby/trade union, etc etc). I believe the open communication which now exists on the internet and that is leading to media, governmental and general public awareness will ultimately lead to the end of this foolishness (polygraph screening) and the toppling of the empire that perpetuates it should that community so continue. The camaraderie and determination of you and those who share your plight also greatly encourage me. Keep up the good work and keep the pressure on...
Drew Richardson
Although I appreciate your thanks, I regret being able to do little more than attempt to shine light on the nonsense which has led to your and other's victim status. I was unable while in government to stop the implementation of any offending programs and likewise will most assuredly be personally unable to end them. I, however, am quite encouraged by developments over the last couple of years. This web site, which was put together by a couple of individuals on a shoe-string budget is considerably better than anything which comes from the polygraph community (a 75 year history, thousands of individuals involved, and a multi-million dollar industry involving numerous government agencies and a well organized lobby/trade union, etc etc). I believe the open communication which now exists on the internet and that is leading to media, governmental and general public awareness will ultimately lead to the end of this foolishness (polygraph screening) and the toppling of the empire that perpetuates it should that community so continue. The camaraderie and determination of you and those who share your plight also greatly encourage me. Keep up the good work and keep the pressure on...
Drew Richardson
Posted by stevesz281
- Jul 05, 2002, 01:53 PMMr. Richardson,
I just wanted to express my appreciation for everything that you and the moderators of this forum are doing to expose the abuses of the polygraph. I am 32yrs old, honorably discharged from the Marine Corps and have worked for two federal law enforcement agencies. I am currently with ATF. I applied for a special agent position two yrs ago with the FBI. I finally had my phase II interview last march. I was later disqualified because of a polygraph decision. I was told by the polygrapher " D.C. is gonna have a problem with this". Two weeks later I recieved a letter stating they were rescinding their offer. I am still devastated by this. I openly admitted to marijuana usage when I was sixteen yrs old, yet I am well within the FBI's parameters. The S/A recruiter is giving me another chance at the poly but I have heard the second time around was usually the same as the first.
Once again, I appreciate everything. At least I am not alone.
I just wanted to express my appreciation for everything that you and the moderators of this forum are doing to expose the abuses of the polygraph. I am 32yrs old, honorably discharged from the Marine Corps and have worked for two federal law enforcement agencies. I am currently with ATF. I applied for a special agent position two yrs ago with the FBI. I finally had my phase II interview last march. I was later disqualified because of a polygraph decision. I was told by the polygrapher " D.C. is gonna have a problem with this". Two weeks later I recieved a letter stating they were rescinding their offer. I am still devastated by this. I openly admitted to marijuana usage when I was sixteen yrs old, yet I am well within the FBI's parameters. The S/A recruiter is giving me another chance at the poly but I have heard the second time around was usually the same as the first.
Once again, I appreciate everything. At least I am not alone.
Posted by Drew Richardson
- Jun 30, 2002, 04:47 PMNicole,
In view of the public position I have taken, I have been forced to give considerable thought to the issue you raise. My feelings are as follows: The polygraph format most commonly used in this country, the control question test (CQT), results in considerable error...wrongly finding the innocent deceptive (false positive error) and also finding the guilty to be non-deceptive (false negative error). As is the case with our judicial system as it applies to criminal defendants, I would prefer to have ten times as many of the latter error than the former, i.e., that ten guilty people be freed before and innocent individual might be falsely branded. In order to likewise protect the innocent polygraph examinee from the inherent error in the process, others and I have determined that the only way, prior to various governmental groups ending these polygraph programs, is to provide countermeasure advice.
Beyond this fairness consideration, with regard to the guilty, no deceptive polygraph result will be sufficient in and of itself to convict anyone, confessions can be obtained quite apart from the polygraph process, convictions are largely built upon good criminal investigative work, and because the CQT polygraph exam has very little diagnostic value, essentially any prop (photocopy machine, colander on the head, etc (both reported to have been used successfully in the past to obtain confessions) can be employed with equally satisfactory results in the hands of the skilled polygraph interrogator. If serious diagnostic value from a polygraph exam is sought to aid in criminal investigation, information-based exams (discussed on other threads) should be employed. Those which are central nervous system (CNS) based are much less likely to be able to be countermeasured as well. In summary, the benefits of the CQT polygraph exam can be obtained through means other than a polygraph examination, these benefits do not justify the costs and damage associated with these tests, but if administered, the associated costs do justify the teaching and utilization of countermeasures.
Drew Richardson
In view of the public position I have taken, I have been forced to give considerable thought to the issue you raise. My feelings are as follows: The polygraph format most commonly used in this country, the control question test (CQT), results in considerable error...wrongly finding the innocent deceptive (false positive error) and also finding the guilty to be non-deceptive (false negative error). As is the case with our judicial system as it applies to criminal defendants, I would prefer to have ten times as many of the latter error than the former, i.e., that ten guilty people be freed before and innocent individual might be falsely branded. In order to likewise protect the innocent polygraph examinee from the inherent error in the process, others and I have determined that the only way, prior to various governmental groups ending these polygraph programs, is to provide countermeasure advice.
Beyond this fairness consideration, with regard to the guilty, no deceptive polygraph result will be sufficient in and of itself to convict anyone, confessions can be obtained quite apart from the polygraph process, convictions are largely built upon good criminal investigative work, and because the CQT polygraph exam has very little diagnostic value, essentially any prop (photocopy machine, colander on the head, etc (both reported to have been used successfully in the past to obtain confessions) can be employed with equally satisfactory results in the hands of the skilled polygraph interrogator. If serious diagnostic value from a polygraph exam is sought to aid in criminal investigation, information-based exams (discussed on other threads) should be employed. Those which are central nervous system (CNS) based are much less likely to be able to be countermeasured as well. In summary, the benefits of the CQT polygraph exam can be obtained through means other than a polygraph examination, these benefits do not justify the costs and damage associated with these tests, but if administered, the associated costs do justify the teaching and utilization of countermeasures.
Drew Richardson
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Jun 30, 2002, 04:39 PMDear Ms. Chevallier,
Yes, we have indeed considered the possibility that the countermeasure information provided on AntiPolygraph.org might be useful to the guilty as well as the innocent. Bear in mind, however, that polygraph countermeasures will only help the guilty to escape the consequences of their crimes to the extent that government places any reliance on this pseudoscience.
Yes, we have indeed considered the possibility that the countermeasure information provided on AntiPolygraph.org might be useful to the guilty as well as the innocent. Bear in mind, however, that polygraph countermeasures will only help the guilty to escape the consequences of their crimes to the extent that government places any reliance on this pseudoscience.
Posted by beech trees
- Jun 30, 2002, 04:39 PMQuote from: Nicole Chevallier on Jun 30, 2002, 03:46 PM
I have a question. You mention that the purpose of this site is to help truthful people pass the test, but you also concede you may be assisting guilty people to do the same. Let's suppose there is someone out there reading your recommendations, and he is guilty of murder or a violent crime. He reads your recommendations and avoids being caught because of the countermeasures you are teaching him. Do you give this any consideration at all?
Since polygraphs have never been proven to be more accurate than chance (i.e., a flip of a coin), an investigator relying upon the charted results of a polygraph interrogation would be foolish indeed. It's the use of the polygraph as an interrogation prop that is usually decisive in getting recalcitrant criminals to confess, because they (along with many Americans) believe the 'lie behind the lie detector'.
Trickery, deceit, and lies have been established by law as legal tactics for police interrogators to deploy as part of their investigations into criminal suspects. Certainly polygraphy is a part of that triumvirate. It was an early pioneer of the polygraph himself, John Larson, who wrote:
I originally hoped that instrumental lie detection would become a legitimate part of professional police science. It is little more than a racket. The lie detector, as used in many places, is nothing more than a psychological third-degree aimed at extorting confessions as the old physical beatings were. At times I'm sorry I ever had any part in its development.
Like George said, the countermeasure information was out there prior to this website's inception for those who might one day be subjected to a polygraph.
Does the investigator who relies on a pseudo-scintific fraud to chart the course of his investigation bear any responsibility?
Posted by Skeptic
- Jun 30, 2002, 04:31 PMQuote from: Nicole Chevallier on Jun 30, 2002, 03:46 PM
I have a question. You mention that the purpose of this site is to help truthful people pass the test, but you also concede you may be assisting guilty people to do the same. Let's suppose there is someone out there reading your recommendations, and he is guilty of murder or a violent crime. He reads your recommendations and avoids being caught because of the countermeasures you are teaching him. Do you give this any consideration at all?
Nicole,
You raise an excellent question, and for me the answer is twofold.
The first part involves the basic principle of innocence until proof of guilt: it is better that the guilty go free than the innocent should be punished. The Control-Question Test polygraph not only indicates guilt in innocent people far too often; it also contains a built-in bias against truthful, guilt-free people, as they will refuse to lie on the control questions (or simply don't have much to feel bad about on them).
The second reason is an extension of the first: based both upon empirical research and upon the expert opinion of scientists who study relevant fields, the polygraph (as it is commonly used in the Control-Question Test) is a notoriously poor way to determine innocence or guilt. So much so, that the results are not even allowed in the Court. Thus, reliance upon it in the first place is IMHO a bad idea, and may serve to mislead investigators (or worse, serve as a substitute when actual investigative work would have solved the case).
In other words, I would not want the guilty to go free as a result of being able to fool a polygraph (as George indicated, knowledge of how to do this has been around long before this web site). But I also think it shouldn't even be an option.
Skeptic
Posted by Nicole Chevallier
- Jun 30, 2002, 03:46 PMI have a question. You mention that the purpose of this site is to help truthful people pass the test, but you also concede you may be assisting guilty people to do the same. Let's suppose there is someone out there reading your recommendations, and he is guilty of murder or a violent crime. He reads your recommendations and avoids being caught because of the countermeasures you are teaching him. Do you give this any consideration at all?
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Jun 30, 2002, 08:05 AMBatman,
I'm largely in agreement with Drew's comments, but would add a few additional observations. Among other things, you wrote:
How many polygraph examinations must one undergo or observe to establish the solid foundation of which you speak? One might also ask how many palm readings, tarot card readings, or astrological chart readings must one undergo or observe before one can establish a solid foundation for the conclusion that palmistry, tarot card readings, and astrology are pseudoscientific frauds?
I had asked you earlier if you had gotten around to reading The Lie Behind the Lie Detector. You haven't responded to my question, but I suspect that perhaps you haven't read it yet. If you had, you'd know that our suggestions regarding countermeasures are based on extensive research into polygraph theory, techniques, policy, and practice, and that we've documented the many sources upon which we've drawn. We spent well over a year diligently researching polygraphy, devoting many more hours to our research than are involved in any polygraph school's course of instruction. We also submitted draft versions of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector to several distinguished psychophysiologists who provided valuable criticism and commentary. I think it's fair to say that we know that of which we speak.
If you disagree with our conclusions, it would be more productive if you were to point out anything we've written that you believe to be untrue, and to support your position with a rational argument, rather than to simply question our qualifications (an argument ad hominem).
You also wrote:
I suspect that you are correct, and that many people who are in fact guilty of crimes visit this site seeking information on how to beat the polygraph. Our purpose in establishing AntiPolygraph.org was not to help the guilty avoid the consequences of their crimes, but to help protect the innocent from polygraph abuse. Unfortunately, there is simply no way for us to make the information we provide available only to the innocent. It must be made available to everyone. Note that the countermeasure information we provide here on AntiPolygraph.org was for the most part publicly available years before we went on-line on 18 September 2000. We've just made that information easier to find and free.
Those in the law enforcement community who rely on "Control" Question "Test" polygraphy need to be aware, as you seem to be, that the "test" has no scientific basis. One consequence is that either passing or failing a CQT polygraph examination is no evidence of guilt or innocence. As the public becomes increasingly aware that CQT polygraphy has no scientific basis, and is little more than an interrogator's ploy, the value of this technique for obtaining admissions/confessions will inevitably wane.
For those in the polygraph and law enforcement communities, I think Drew's suggestions above make eminently good sense, and I'd summarize as follows:
1) Scrap polygraph screening altogether (as the Philadelphia Police Department has recently done);
2) Abandon the pseudoscientific "Control" Question "Test";
3) If you are to make any use of polygraphs at all, move to information-based techniques like the Guilty Knowledge Test (bearing in mind that such techniques, too, are vulnerable to countermeasures).
I'm largely in agreement with Drew's comments, but would add a few additional observations. Among other things, you wrote:
QuoteQuoting from studies, or speaking from the limited exposure of having undergone one or two polygraph examinations does not seem to be a very solid foundation for promoting something like the use of countermeasures.
How many polygraph examinations must one undergo or observe to establish the solid foundation of which you speak? One might also ask how many palm readings, tarot card readings, or astrological chart readings must one undergo or observe before one can establish a solid foundation for the conclusion that palmistry, tarot card readings, and astrology are pseudoscientific frauds?
I had asked you earlier if you had gotten around to reading The Lie Behind the Lie Detector. You haven't responded to my question, but I suspect that perhaps you haven't read it yet. If you had, you'd know that our suggestions regarding countermeasures are based on extensive research into polygraph theory, techniques, policy, and practice, and that we've documented the many sources upon which we've drawn. We spent well over a year diligently researching polygraphy, devoting many more hours to our research than are involved in any polygraph school's course of instruction. We also submitted draft versions of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector to several distinguished psychophysiologists who provided valuable criticism and commentary. I think it's fair to say that we know that of which we speak.
If you disagree with our conclusions, it would be more productive if you were to point out anything we've written that you believe to be untrue, and to support your position with a rational argument, rather than to simply question our qualifications (an argument ad hominem).
You also wrote:
QuoteThere are many people who visit sites like this one who are in fact guilty of the crimes they are being tested for, yet they are being coached on how to beat the polygraph by folks on this site. It only takes one investigation regarding a missing child wherein a confession or obtaining information is critical, and a polygraph may assist in same yet countermeasures are attempted. to make one somewhat hard over regarding some of the postings on this site.
I suspect that you are correct, and that many people who are in fact guilty of crimes visit this site seeking information on how to beat the polygraph. Our purpose in establishing AntiPolygraph.org was not to help the guilty avoid the consequences of their crimes, but to help protect the innocent from polygraph abuse. Unfortunately, there is simply no way for us to make the information we provide available only to the innocent. It must be made available to everyone. Note that the countermeasure information we provide here on AntiPolygraph.org was for the most part publicly available years before we went on-line on 18 September 2000. We've just made that information easier to find and free.
Those in the law enforcement community who rely on "Control" Question "Test" polygraphy need to be aware, as you seem to be, that the "test" has no scientific basis. One consequence is that either passing or failing a CQT polygraph examination is no evidence of guilt or innocence. As the public becomes increasingly aware that CQT polygraphy has no scientific basis, and is little more than an interrogator's ploy, the value of this technique for obtaining admissions/confessions will inevitably wane.
For those in the polygraph and law enforcement communities, I think Drew's suggestions above make eminently good sense, and I'd summarize as follows:
1) Scrap polygraph screening altogether (as the Philadelphia Police Department has recently done);
2) Abandon the pseudoscientific "Control" Question "Test";
3) If you are to make any use of polygraphs at all, move to information-based techniques like the Guilty Knowledge Test (bearing in mind that such techniques, too, are vulnerable to countermeasures).
Posted by Skeptic
- Jun 30, 2002, 04:11 AMQuote from: Batman on Jun 29, 2002, 10:20 PM
Skeptic,
I have, for various reasons, had the opportunity to familarize myself with a variety of studies regarding various investigative techiques used in the field of law enforcement, to included polygraph. I am aware of a number of studies that indicate polygraph is no better than 50% accurate, as well as numerous studies that imply it has an accuracy rate of 80-90%.
Personally I have a difficult time putting a lot of faith in studies about this particular technique. There are a couple of reasons for this. First, most studies I am familiar with are done in a very controlled atmosphere, invovling mock crimes. Unfortunately, try as they might, these type studies can and will never replicate real world situations and intensity in the law enforcement arena. Second, I personally believe the accuracy of polygraph can only be determined on a case by case basis. What I mean by this is simply each polygraph is totally unique and can not be replicated because each examinee is so totally different. Each examinee brings his or her own set of "baggage" to the table so to speak, so how can any study accurately depict this?
This may sound very simplistic, however my experiences do factor into my beliefs regarding this. That is why I ask what experience many of the posters on this site actually have with polygraph. Quoting from studies, or speaking from the limited exposure of having undergone one or two polygraph examinations does not seem to be a very solid foundation for promoting something like the use of countermeasures. There are many people who visit sites like this one who are in fact guilty of the crimes they are being tested for, yet they are being coached on how to beat the polygraph by folks on this site. It only takes one investigation regarding a missing child wherein a confession or obtaining information is critical, and a polygraph may assist in same yet countermeasures are attempted. to make one somewhat hard over regarding some of the postings on this site.
Batman
Batman,
You might be surprised how much I agree with most of what you've written, though my conclusions might be different than yours. And despite some of the exchanges here, I want you to know that I have a deep and abiding respect for your experience and profession.
I agree also with Dr. Richardson: the primary difficulties I have with polygraph "testing" have to do with how it is most commonly used: for screening. In this task, I think it has a deservedly poor reputation. It amounts to an undeserved interrogation that, as often as not, results in qualified and motivated people being wrongly refused positions, applicants deciding to seek other employment, or espionage going undetected. All of these have the potential to do incalculable damage, and I would submit they already have. Government has enough trouble attracting badly-needed talent from the private sector, and enough difficulty catching spies, without throwing pseudo-scientific polygraph screening into the mix. It's time we got serious about both thorough background checks and ongoing monitoring of people in sensitive positions, and stopped placing our faith in latter-day Tarot readings.
As for countermeasures and criminal investigations, I think Dr. Richardson has already made several excellent points. I would imagine no one here has any intention of making it easier for criminals to escape detection.
Perhaps some real common ground is being found, here.
Skeptic
Posted by J.B. McCloughan
- Jun 30, 2002, 03:46 AMDrew,
For some here, it may be of a surprise that I am short for words after your last post. In part, because almost your exact words have passed my lips many a time within the past few months. Well said.
For some here, it may be of a surprise that I am short for words after your last post. In part, because almost your exact words have passed my lips many a time within the past few months. Well said.
Posted by Drew Richardson
- Jun 30, 2002, 02:24 AMBatman,
You write:
John Furedy, noted polygraph critic and esteemed colleague writes:
It is astounding to see the similarity between the positions of Batman and John Furedy. The latter will be flabbergasted to know. You are quite correct; as you point out every examinee is different, and as John Furedy has correctly and additionally pointed out (and perhaps of more significance to this discussion)--every exam is different--that is why that which you do is art and not science. I happen to believe and others from this site will swear to you based on their personal experience that this is not pretty art either...
With regard to solving missing children cases, I would agree that the polygraph community could make a greater contribution to these and other criminal investigations--not by focusing on the problems that it has brought on itself (the countermeasure problem) through the victimization of large numbers of educated and now internet-connected individuals but by ending the nonsense and waste of resources surrounding and devoted to polygraph screening and by becoming serious about criminal specific testing. This will require that the current "Maytag Repairman" approach to polygraphy (waiting for a case agent/investigator to invite you to ask a suspect "Did you do it?" with a control question test) be abandoned and serious effort put into investigating criminal matters, collecting and protecting privileged information, and utilizing information-based polygraph exams.
These exams can be scientifically/statistically defended, do not invade the purview of judge and juror, have a basis for large scale introduction into the courtroom (will never happen with the CQT via Daubert hearings) and could actually provide a legitimate basis for polygraphy to be considered a forensic discipline. This admittedly will require more effort than is currently put into a polygraph examination, and although that which is currently done in using a Peak of Tension (POT) as a secondary test will not suffice, nothing about that which I believe should be done will prevent an aggressive post-test interrogation from being conducted when appropriate.
Drew Richardson
You write:
Quote...each polygraph is totally unique and cannot be replicated because each examinee is so totally different...
John Furedy, noted polygraph critic and esteemed colleague writes:
Quote...The fact that the procedure is not a test, but an unstandardizable interrogatory interview, means that its accuracy is not empirically, but only rhetorically, or anecdotally, evaluatable. That is, one can state accuracy figures only for a given examiner interacting with a given examinee, because the CQT is a dynamic interview situation rather than a standardizable and specifiable test, Even the weak assertion that a certain examiner is highly accurate cannot be supported, as different examinees alter the dynamic examiner-examinee relationship that grossly influences each unique and unspecifiable CQT episode....
It is astounding to see the similarity between the positions of Batman and John Furedy. The latter will be flabbergasted to know. You are quite correct; as you point out every examinee is different, and as John Furedy has correctly and additionally pointed out (and perhaps of more significance to this discussion)--every exam is different--that is why that which you do is art and not science. I happen to believe and others from this site will swear to you based on their personal experience that this is not pretty art either...
With regard to solving missing children cases, I would agree that the polygraph community could make a greater contribution to these and other criminal investigations--not by focusing on the problems that it has brought on itself (the countermeasure problem) through the victimization of large numbers of educated and now internet-connected individuals but by ending the nonsense and waste of resources surrounding and devoted to polygraph screening and by becoming serious about criminal specific testing. This will require that the current "Maytag Repairman" approach to polygraphy (waiting for a case agent/investigator to invite you to ask a suspect "Did you do it?" with a control question test) be abandoned and serious effort put into investigating criminal matters, collecting and protecting privileged information, and utilizing information-based polygraph exams.
These exams can be scientifically/statistically defended, do not invade the purview of judge and juror, have a basis for large scale introduction into the courtroom (will never happen with the CQT via Daubert hearings) and could actually provide a legitimate basis for polygraphy to be considered a forensic discipline. This admittedly will require more effort than is currently put into a polygraph examination, and although that which is currently done in using a Peak of Tension (POT) as a secondary test will not suffice, nothing about that which I believe should be done will prevent an aggressive post-test interrogation from being conducted when appropriate.
Drew Richardson
Posted by Batman (Guest)
- Jun 29, 2002, 10:20 PMSkeptic,
I have, for various reasons, had the opportunity to familarize myself with a variety of studies regarding various investigative techiques used in the field of law enforcement, to included polygraph. I am aware of a number of studies that indicate polygraph is no better than 50% accurate, as well as numerous studies that imply it has an accuracy rate of 80-90%.
Personally I have a difficult time putting a lot of faith in studies about this particular technique. There are a couple of reasons for this. First, most studies I am familiar with are done in a very controlled atmosphere, invovling mock crimes. Unfortunately, try as they might, these type studies can and will never replicate real world situations and intensity in the law enforcement arena. Second, I personally believe the accuracy of polygraph can only be determined on a case by case basis. What I mean by this is simply each polygraph is totally unique and can not be replicated because each examinee is so totally different. Each examinee brings his or her own set of "baggage" to the table so to speak, so how can any study accurately depict this?
This may sound very simplistic, however my experiences do factor into my beliefs regarding this. That is why I ask what experience many of the posters on this site actually have with polygraph. Quoting from studies, or speaking from the limited exposure of having undergone one or two polygraph examinations does not seem to be a very solid foundation for promoting something like the use of countermeasures. There are many people who visit sites like this one who are in fact guilty of the crimes they are being tested for, yet they are being coached on how to beat the polygraph by folks on this site. It only takes one investigation regarding a missing child wherein a confession or obtaining information is critical, and a polygraph may assist in same yet countermeasures are attempted. to make one somewhat hard over regarding some of the postings on this site.
Batman
I have, for various reasons, had the opportunity to familarize myself with a variety of studies regarding various investigative techiques used in the field of law enforcement, to included polygraph. I am aware of a number of studies that indicate polygraph is no better than 50% accurate, as well as numerous studies that imply it has an accuracy rate of 80-90%.
Personally I have a difficult time putting a lot of faith in studies about this particular technique. There are a couple of reasons for this. First, most studies I am familiar with are done in a very controlled atmosphere, invovling mock crimes. Unfortunately, try as they might, these type studies can and will never replicate real world situations and intensity in the law enforcement arena. Second, I personally believe the accuracy of polygraph can only be determined on a case by case basis. What I mean by this is simply each polygraph is totally unique and can not be replicated because each examinee is so totally different. Each examinee brings his or her own set of "baggage" to the table so to speak, so how can any study accurately depict this?
This may sound very simplistic, however my experiences do factor into my beliefs regarding this. That is why I ask what experience many of the posters on this site actually have with polygraph. Quoting from studies, or speaking from the limited exposure of having undergone one or two polygraph examinations does not seem to be a very solid foundation for promoting something like the use of countermeasures. There are many people who visit sites like this one who are in fact guilty of the crimes they are being tested for, yet they are being coached on how to beat the polygraph by folks on this site. It only takes one investigation regarding a missing child wherein a confession or obtaining information is critical, and a polygraph may assist in same yet countermeasures are attempted. to make one somewhat hard over regarding some of the postings on this site.
Batman
Posted by Skeptic
- Jun 29, 2002, 07:53 PMQuote from: Eastwood on Jun 29, 2002, 04:20 PM
Okay, a question has been posed to BT - let's see who answers for him.
So in addition to a chronic inability to post anything of substance, it would seem Mr. Eastwood is unable to read.
This has been resolved already, guy. Now how about posting something meaningful of your own?
Skeptic
Posted by Eastwood
- Jun 29, 2002, 04:20 PMOkay, a question has been posed to BT - let's see who answers for him.
Posted by Skeptic
- Jun 29, 2002, 01:04 AMQuote from: Batman on Jun 27, 2002, 04:23 PM
First to Skeptic:
I have been in the law enforcement field since 1978, and in that time have had a tremendous amount of exposure to interviews, interrogations, and polygraph. Why assume that I am a polygraph examiner? Maybe I simply take offense to amatures making ignorant comments and assumptions regarding how a confession is obtained. If Beech Trees is capable of presenting his credentials then let him do so. Until then he should base his comments on fact not speculation and or assumptions.
Fair enough. In my defense, a non-polygrapher critic of this site and/or its backers is, by all indications, in the small minority. Nonetheless, I apologize for my assumption as well.
I am curious, though: are you actually familiar with the peer-reviewed scientific evidence regarding the polygraph's validity/reliability? I ask this because of your dismissive assertion implying that this evidence can be twisted to promote any position one wants to promote. Have you actually read the studies?
Skeptic