- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by Joe McCarthy
- Aug 04, 2015, 11:47 AMYa know dan, lieguytoo and I were talking yesterday on the phone. Every time him and I talk reminds me that we all can get along as long as we are honest with each other and ourselves.
I also find it amusing that people like december say I can't let stuff go, but fail to mention that I talk to lieguytoo all the time.
I feel I should also make it clear to everyone, I hold no ill will against lieguytoo, and haven't for some time. I do hold ill will against the people he worked for and represented who share responsibility for his actions. After all, he was a managing employee at behavioral measures and a Board Member of TAPE.
Funny how they accuse him of all sorts of unethical acts, when I see a history that he was the ONLY person in that whole group that acted with honor and maned up. Lieguytoo was the only one of that whole group to do the right thing. He made it right.
Says a lot about BM and TAPE doesn't it? BW measures and TAPE still deny that lie guy too was even attached to them. They also deny that what he did was wrong and fail to condemn the actions and apologize on behalf of their organizations.
The only man amongst them turned out being lieguytoo. Shame on them
As December goes, it is clear she ran for cover after I started asking real questions. Clearly when it comes to actually debating, they find themselves lacking in facts, answers, and substance.
My advice for December is this. Before you start attacking me again like a coward
1, use your name, otherwise you lack credibility. Nothing new there in regard to lack of credibility huh?
2, don't throw stone at a man that has a machine gun (figuratively speaking of course)
3, you don't need to change the questions when you have all the answers
I also find it amusing that people like december say I can't let stuff go, but fail to mention that I talk to lieguytoo all the time.
I feel I should also make it clear to everyone, I hold no ill will against lieguytoo, and haven't for some time. I do hold ill will against the people he worked for and represented who share responsibility for his actions. After all, he was a managing employee at behavioral measures and a Board Member of TAPE.
Funny how they accuse him of all sorts of unethical acts, when I see a history that he was the ONLY person in that whole group that acted with honor and maned up. Lieguytoo was the only one of that whole group to do the right thing. He made it right.
Says a lot about BM and TAPE doesn't it? BW measures and TAPE still deny that lie guy too was even attached to them. They also deny that what he did was wrong and fail to condemn the actions and apologize on behalf of their organizations.
The only man amongst them turned out being lieguytoo. Shame on them
As December goes, it is clear she ran for cover after I started asking real questions. Clearly when it comes to actually debating, they find themselves lacking in facts, answers, and substance.
My advice for December is this. Before you start attacking me again like a coward
1, use your name, otherwise you lack credibility. Nothing new there in regard to lack of credibility huh?
2, don't throw stone at a man that has a machine gun (figuratively speaking of course)
3, you don't need to change the questions when you have all the answers
Posted by Joe McCarthy
- Aug 03, 2015, 12:33 PMQuote from: danmangan on Aug 03, 2015, 11:52 AMQuote from: the_fighting_irish on Aug 03, 2015, 10:57 AM...or punishing me through a rigged system where the right thing takes a back seat to the politically expedient..
Joe, when I read those words of yours it reminded me of the American Polygraph Association Board of Directors' decision to move the goalposts with regard to my quest for the office of president-elect.
For the past fifty (50) years, a full member of the APA could run for the office of president-elect without having previously served as a director.
But now, after seeing my support spike from 15% of the vote in the 2014 election to 28% of the vote this year -- and perhaps fearing that my support would continue to grow in similarly large measure -- the APA Board of Directors has crafted a rule requiring that candidates for president-elect first serve as a director.
That rule is embedded into a much larger package of new bylaws and constitutional changes for the APA, which will be up for a vote at the general membership meeting on September 1st. Passage is all but assured.
I wonder what part of my three-point election platform the APA establishment fears most?
Could it be my bill of rights concept for polygraph test subjects? (Clearly, bringing informed consent to a much higher levels kills business.)
Maybe it's my idea a countermeasure challenge series that pits randomly chosen polygraph operators against a crew of CM-schooled ringers. (I predict polygraph accuracy would be shown to hover around 50% in that scenario.)
Of course, it could be my call for total equality among APA members. (Seems fair to me -- and many of my peers, evidently.)
In any case, the APA's decision to move the goalposts, election-wise, is a most telling development.
It appears that vocal critical thinkers, iconoclasts, and non-believers must be kept at bay.
But for an organization that claims to be dedicated to truth, the question is obvious: Why?
Dan, I will agree that changing the goalposts is like Montreal Habs diving for the net in a playoff game.
I can't agree with some of the other things you are pushing though. The best part of you and me, though we can't agree on key things, WE STILL GET ALONG.
Maybe some people can learn to play like adults as you and I have with one another.
Posted by Dan Mangan
- Aug 03, 2015, 11:52 AMQuote from: the_fighting_irish on Aug 03, 2015, 10:57 AM...or punishing me through a rigged system where the right thing takes a back seat to the politically expedient..
Joe, when I read those words of yours it reminded me of the American Polygraph Association Board of Directors' decision to move the goalposts with regard to my quest for the office of president-elect.
For the past fifty (50) years, a full member of the APA could run for the office of president-elect without having previously served as a director.
But now, after seeing my support spike from 15% of the vote in the 2014 election to 28% of the vote this year -- and perhaps fearing that my support would continue to grow in similarly large measure -- the APA Board of Directors has crafted a rule requiring that candidates for president-elect first serve as a director.
That rule is embedded into a much larger package of new bylaws and constitutional changes for the APA, which will be up for a vote at the general membership meeting on September 1st. Passage is all but assured.
I wonder what part of my three-point election platform the APA establishment fears most?
Could it be my bill of rights concept for polygraph test subjects? (Clearly, bringing informed consent to a much higher levels kills business.)
Maybe it's my idea a countermeasure challenge series that pits randomly chosen polygraph operators against a crew of CM-schooled ringers. (I predict polygraph accuracy would be shown to hover around 50% in that scenario.)
Of course, it could be my call for total equality among APA members. (Seems fair to me -- and many of my peers, evidently.)
In any case, the APA's decision to move the goalposts, election-wise, is a most telling development.
It appears that vocal critical thinkers, iconoclasts, and non-believers must be kept at bay.
But for an organization that claims to be dedicated to truth, the question is obvious: Why?
Posted by Joe McCarthy
- Aug 03, 2015, 11:33 AMWhat amazes me the most is the almost over the top effort that is made to cover up the lies and protect the piers and we are supposed to be the people why "detect lies" and or verify character. WTF
This is really a very easy issue to solve. Fact is, the refusal to want to stop this from their end just keeps lending credence to the corruption I am exposing.
This is really a very easy issue to solve. Fact is, the refusal to want to stop this from their end just keeps lending credence to the corruption I am exposing.
Posted by Joe McCarthy
- Aug 03, 2015, 10:57 AMQuoteJoe, as a fellow Irishman and certified Masshole (we grew up about 30 miles apart), I find your patience to be both humbling yet perplexing.
Were I in your shoes, I would have long ago employed a decidedly more severe approach: scorched earth, no prisoners. (I'm speaking figuratively, of course.)
Needless to say, I would start with the chief clown.
As our esteemed former Massachusetts state governor, and past presidential candidate, Stanley M. Dukakis said, "A fish rots from the head first."
Perhaps my approach is uncivilized.
But then, I prefer "Smiddicks" to Guiness, and Irish Mist to Jameson.
Yes, it's uncivilized, but...
I have to be careful down here as approaches that are....... average.... in my old stomping ground, are not approaches that will work down here. People down here don't listen to reason down here when utilizing such methods. It just makes them dig in more like ticks.
You are also assuming I am dealing with men who are brave enough to look me in the eye; one on one, and on the level. Fact is, they wouldn't stand a chance sitting at a table with me and having a fair debate if they HAD to answer questions honestly. Not a one of my, how did people on pp put it, "Texas Tormentors," would ever have the guts to do it. Why?
That answer is simple. They rely on mob mentality and bullying to win a debate. They also will not engage in an environment where the system is not rigged to their benefit. Even when I say Rios and St. John in October of last year, they avoided certain direct questions like the black plague. Well never mind listen to how Rios lies and avoids questions in this video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ddYN2jbH0Ds&index=6&list=PLfdmQbJ2BVYROwsBSdkO9eZDhyVvccFnc
First he says he knows nothing about any of it
LIE
he was on the board of directors
Then he says he follows the bylaws to the letter
LIE
the bylaws were violated on multiple occasions by all involved including the Board of Directors, Executive Committee, and the Ethics Committee.
he said he would look into it
LIE
he already knew everything
he said that the only person who is afraid of taking a polygraph is someone who will lie to it
THIS WAS THE TRUTH
Funny how TAPE's president says that, but not a one of them is willing to step up to the test under fair conditions. Interestingly, I was willing to step up to my own test to exonerate myself from TAPE and TAPE's sycophant's accusations against me. I guess if we go by Rios' mentality of only a liar would avoid a test, one can easily presume, that they are lying and I am telling the truth. hmmmmmmm
They can act like they are above taking a polygraph. Fact is they are afraid of failing their own tests and ending their career.
They only way I can fight them, is to expose their lies and unethical behaviors.
oh another lie he tells, is that only TAPE MEMBERS and invitees can attend CEU classes.
This also was a LIE
MEETINGS
1. The seminars of this Association shall be held semi-annually at a place selected at each semi-annual seminar.
2. The place of the seminar shall be determined by a majority vote of all members present and voting. If more than two places are nominated, the place receiving the smallest number of voted on the first ballot shall be dropped from consideration and the balloting continued until one place, of two remaining, has received a majority of all votes cast and the place of the next seminar be determined thereby.
3. In order to attend a semi-annual or any meeting of the Association a member of any class membership shall be in good standing.
4. Elected officials of other polygraph organizations may be invited to attend the business meeting of the Association at the discretion and invitation of the President. Non-Examiners or other Polygraph Examiners may attend a seminar for all activities excluding the business meeting of the Association.
that is from their own bylaws. So that day, the President of TAPE broke his own bylaws, ON VIDEO. either that or he is incompetent and didn't know his own bylaws. There really is no third option here.
Moreover, TAPE broke their bylaws with me and my wife Karen's membership applications. The procedures were not followed according to the bylaws at all. Even though both Rios and their lawyers assured me the bylaws would be followed.
Fact is, these people wouldn't know what the truth was down here in Texas if it pitched a tent in their asses. Nothing any of them say can be trusted, and if I were a lawyer out there, I would demand every chart of theirs and question their very decision or action. With as many times as Mr. Rios has been taught lying in his official capacity as an organization president, who is to say he doesn't lie in his official capacity as a New Branfules police detective? It's a fair question.
Same with the rest of the liars I have exposed over the past year. If they will lie and cover this crap up, who is to say they won't lie about test results, or confessions, or scores?
If they will cover up racist, sexist and terroristic threats made by their members and leadership, who is to say they don't practice racism, and sexism still. Funny how Andy Sheppard said TAPE would apologize if they knew all that crap cam from their organization; 7 years later and I am still awaiting that apology. Funny how I didn't get it from Rios the two times I saw him last year. He knew, come on; and all I wanted was simple words.
Lastly, with two instances of having my safety and well being threatened by Officers of TAPE, who is to say TAPE will not use violence or threat of violence again to silence me?
Just saying, and it is well known that I have had my safety threatened by two TAPE Officers. One threatened me in 2008, and Maria Hubbard did so in public earlier this year in an unprovoked incident. In the legal world, I believe this would be called a pattern of behavior.
Anyway, you get the idea. Though these people should be questioned, they never have been until I showed up and was provoked into taking action. So they only thing they have left is threats of violence, or punishing me through a rigged system where the right thing takes a back seat to the politically expedient and lies are more revered than the truth.
While I still strongly believe in polygraph and the good I try to do everyday in it's use, I have little faith in our system
Posted by Dan Mangan
- Jul 28, 2015, 08:40 PMJoe, as a fellow Irishman and certified Masshole (we grew up about 30 miles apart), I find your patience to be both humbling yet perplexing.
Were I in your shoes, I would have long ago employed a decidedly more severe approach: scorched earth, no prisoners. (I'm speaking figuratively, of course.)
Needless to say, I would start with the chief clown.
As our esteemed former Massachusetts state governor, and past presidential candidate, Stanley M. Dukakis said, "A fish rots from the head first."
Perhaps my approach is uncivilized.
But then, I prefer "Smiddicks" to Guiness, and Irish Mist to Jameson.
Yes, it's uncivilized, but...
Were I in your shoes, I would have long ago employed a decidedly more severe approach: scorched earth, no prisoners. (I'm speaking figuratively, of course.)
Needless to say, I would start with the chief clown.
As our esteemed former Massachusetts state governor, and past presidential candidate, Stanley M. Dukakis said, "A fish rots from the head first."
Perhaps my approach is uncivilized.
But then, I prefer "Smiddicks" to Guiness, and Irish Mist to Jameson.
Yes, it's uncivilized, but...
Posted by Joe McCarthy
- Jul 28, 2015, 05:40 PMI'm not worried about it, as quickly as December showed up, she left once it came time for her to back up her crap.
Typical behavioral measures, all flash and talk and no substance.
It doesn't matter, if December is who I think it is, I came upon some information that will explain why this person who insists she has no vested interest has a lot of interest in reality.Also spending a lot of time looking in collage stations and the corroding arias to confirm other information.
We all know what happens when I start diving, I have this ability to find very interesting things. Next week I will be back in Conroe/Huntsville to pick up more info uncovered.
Stay tuned boys and girls.
Typical behavioral measures, all flash and talk and no substance.
It doesn't matter, if December is who I think it is, I came upon some information that will explain why this person who insists she has no vested interest has a lot of interest in reality.Also spending a lot of time looking in collage stations and the corroding arias to confirm other information.
We all know what happens when I start diving, I have this ability to find very interesting things. Next week I will be back in Conroe/Huntsville to pick up more info uncovered.
Stay tuned boys and girls.
Posted by Wandersmann
- Jul 25, 2015, 11:06 PMQuote from: the_fighting_irish on Jul 25, 2015, 05:20 PM18 year old Jameson and Guinness
Thank you - Sounds good to me. I normally like single malt, but a good 18-year old blend distilled in cork sounds good. I've already got the Guinness, next time I'm at the liquor store I'll get the Jameson.
Shláinte
Posted by Joe McCarthy
- Jul 25, 2015, 05:20 PM18 year old Jameson and Guinness
Anything less is uncivilized
Anything less is uncivilized
Posted by Wandersmann
- Jul 25, 2015, 02:07 PMQuote from: the_fighting_irish on Jul 24, 2015, 03:11 PMsorry man, it's just that I am the kinda person that when I fight, either I am all in or I am not.
Joe - I understand completely. But back to the question - Smithwicks or Guinness. I'd like an Irishman's opinion.
Posted by Joe McCarthy
- Jul 25, 2015, 12:42 AMAll I can say ARK, before charm can work, we have to assume the people I am using the charm on is a lady. If it is one of the two people I suspect, while they may be female, a lady they are not.
Posted by Joe McCarthy
- Jul 24, 2015, 11:51 PMQuote from: danmangan on Jul 24, 2015, 09:44 PMArk, if I may interject...
I dare say that none -- and I repeat, NONE -- of Joe McCarthy's TAPE detractors would ever submit to the dreaded liebox -- the very same instrument they cling to so adamantly as being so highly accurate.
Why the resistance?
That's a good question.
Either the liebox is bogus, or Joe's detractors are....well, you get the drift.
Personally, I think it is both possibilities.
Posted by Dan Mangan
- Jul 24, 2015, 09:44 PMArk, if I may interject...
I dare say that none -- and I repeat, NONE -- of Joe McCarthy's TAPE detractors would ever submit to the dreaded liebox -- the very same instrument they cling to so adamantly as being so highly accurate.
Why the resistance?
That's a good question.
Either the liebox is bogus, or Joe's detractors are....well, you get the drift.
I dare say that none -- and I repeat, NONE -- of Joe McCarthy's TAPE detractors would ever submit to the dreaded liebox -- the very same instrument they cling to so adamantly as being so highly accurate.
Why the resistance?
That's a good question.
Either the liebox is bogus, or Joe's detractors are....well, you get the drift.
Posted by Ex Member
- Jul 24, 2015, 08:52 PMJoe, why don't you just get this gal that is giving you hard time and give her some of that old Irish charm? Get her into the polygraph suite, turn on the activity sensors and do her to a tender turn.. 
Posted by Joe McCarthy
- Jul 24, 2015, 03:11 PMsorry man, it's just that I am the kinda person that when I fight, either I am all in or I am not. I am so sick of clowns like December, and the only way to silence them is to beat them into the ground with their own shit.
You're right though, need to rest between rounds.
Frankly, I wish I didn't have to do this at all. Things were so quiet between 2009 and last year.
Ya know, if a few of them would do what you just did and talk to me, a lot of this fight would not be necessary
I firmly believe a lot of this can be worked out over a few beers and honest conversation. It almost worked once in October of last year. A couple people talked and the war was almost over forever.
Amazing what can happen when ALL sides sit down and be reasonable.
Of course they will deny it and I hope they do. I love catching them in lies
You're right though, need to rest between rounds.
Frankly, I wish I didn't have to do this at all. Things were so quiet between 2009 and last year.
Ya know, if a few of them would do what you just did and talk to me, a lot of this fight would not be necessary
I firmly believe a lot of this can be worked out over a few beers and honest conversation. It almost worked once in October of last year. A couple people talked and the war was almost over forever.
Amazing what can happen when ALL sides sit down and be reasonable.
Of course they will deny it and I hope they do. I love catching them in lies