- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by Wandersmann
- Apr 28, 2017, 07:17 PMQuote from: xenonman on Apr 28, 2017, 11:06 AMAny possibility of nullifying "quickfix"? I'd gladly give you $1000 for that! lol
No Xenonman - we like Quickfix
. He's the best thing for the anti-polygraph community. He's like one of those unrepentant Nazi's or Chekists that you see on the History Channel occasionally who try to justify the camps or the gulag. He's even better because he is contemporary and still committing his crimes against humanity. Posted by xenonman
- Apr 28, 2017, 11:09 AMQuote from: danmangan on Apr 27, 2017, 07:10 PMPerhaps quickfix would feel differently if he saw the breadth and depth of polygraph-borne damage that I've seen in the private sector.
But I doubt it.
I doubt it very much too. It appears that he has spent most of his career in the shadowy "never-never" land of the IC. At any "real" job, not protected by the veil of security, I'd wager just how many minutes he'd last!
Posted by xenonman
- Apr 28, 2017, 11:06 AMQuote from: danmangan on Apr 24, 2017, 08:55 PMThe minimum charge is $1,000.
Any possibility of nullifying "quickfix"? I'd gladly give you $1000 for that! lol
Posted by Wandersmann
- Apr 28, 2017, 12:00 AMQuote from: danmangan on Apr 27, 2017, 07:10 PMPerhaps quickfix would feel differently if he saw the breadth and depth of polygraph-borne damage that I've seen in the private sector.
......and don't forget the public sector. The private sector involves fools stupid enough to believe in this nonsense. The public sector victims are loyal, proven patriots betrayed by their evil, corrupt government.
Good luck Dan. You've got Quickfix really on the defensive.
Posted by Dan Mangan
- Apr 27, 2017, 07:10 PMReaders, it is painfully obvious that pro-polygraph troll "quickfix" is intolerant of independent professionals who choose to advocate for victims of erroneous polygraph "test" results.
Perhaps quickfix would feel differently if he saw the breadth and depth of polygraph-borne damage that I've seen in the private sector.
But I doubt it.
Perhaps quickfix would feel differently if he saw the breadth and depth of polygraph-borne damage that I've seen in the private sector.
But I doubt it.
Posted by quickfix
- Apr 27, 2017, 05:08 PMQuote from: danmangan on Apr 27, 2017, 04:55 PMI don't just declare a polygraph "test" is null and void -- I prove it.And I can prove the moon is made of cheese.
Posted by Dan Mangan
- Apr 27, 2017, 04:55 PMQuote from: quickfix on Apr 27, 2017, 04:49 PMAnd saying so doesn't make it so.
I don't just declare a polygraph "test" is null and void -- I prove it.
Posted by quickfix
- Apr 27, 2017, 04:49 PMReaders: Mr Mangan cannot "nullify" anyone's polygraph results. No polygraph agency or private polygraph firm will acknowledge Mr Mangan as any type of authority on polygraph validity. He is in the private sector with no official credentials or serving in any official quality control capacity. As such, he can offer to "nullify" a polygraph result simply by declaring one "null and void" for any customer willing to pay him $1000 or more to say so. And saying so doesn't make it so.
Don't waste your time or money on Mr Mangan.
Don't waste your time or money on Mr Mangan.
Posted by Dan Mangan
- Apr 27, 2017, 04:34 PMSo polygraph examiners need be true believers? Is that it?
Can there not be such a thing as an "anti-polygraph polygraph examiner"?
I believe there can be.
Such a professional is usually known as a CONSULTANT -- one who has no agenda, other than to identify the pros and the cons of any given situation, and perhaps recommend a course of action.
That's what I do.
There is no false advertising on my web site, quickfix, as I am quite clear about the risks, realities and limitations of polygraph "testing" -- and have been for years.
In the real world, far too many people are pressured -- if not forced, in effect -- into submitting to a polygraph "test. If that outcome is wrongly unfavorable, I can provide those victims with a facile remedy.
You got a problem with that, quickfix?
My target market is not federal employees or applicants. Rather, the market niche in which I operate is pure private sector. That includes assisting false-positive victims of PCSOT, LEPET, criminal/civil attorney exams, and odious fidelity "testing."
BTW, I still conduct PDD "tests" on a select basis, but those clients -- all of them -- are duly informed well ahead of time about the pseudoscientific nature of "forensic psycho-physiology."
And if anyone thinks the APA will do what I do in terms of comprehensive game-over nullification of a polygraph "test," think again.
Daniel Mangan, M.A.
603-801-5179
Can there not be such a thing as an "anti-polygraph polygraph examiner"?
I believe there can be.
Such a professional is usually known as a CONSULTANT -- one who has no agenda, other than to identify the pros and the cons of any given situation, and perhaps recommend a course of action.
That's what I do.
There is no false advertising on my web site, quickfix, as I am quite clear about the risks, realities and limitations of polygraph "testing" -- and have been for years.
In the real world, far too many people are pressured -- if not forced, in effect -- into submitting to a polygraph "test. If that outcome is wrongly unfavorable, I can provide those victims with a facile remedy.
You got a problem with that, quickfix?
My target market is not federal employees or applicants. Rather, the market niche in which I operate is pure private sector. That includes assisting false-positive victims of PCSOT, LEPET, criminal/civil attorney exams, and odious fidelity "testing."
BTW, I still conduct PDD "tests" on a select basis, but those clients -- all of them -- are duly informed well ahead of time about the pseudoscientific nature of "forensic psycho-physiology."
And if anyone thinks the APA will do what I do in terms of comprehensive game-over nullification of a polygraph "test," think again.
Daniel Mangan, M.A.
603-801-5179
Posted by quickfix
- Apr 27, 2017, 03:02 PMQuote from: danmangan on Apr 26, 2017, 10:06 PMWell, they strike me as arrogant, judgmental, and hopelessly gung-ho about the "test" --a "test" that has been roundly condemned by the legal, medical and scientific communities since the 1920s.
What strikes me as arrogant is you advertising yourself as a polygraph examiner on your website, but condemning polygraph as unreliable, and advertising yourself on this website as having the ability to "nullify" a bad polygraph test, when you have no authority to nullify anything. Your website is essentially false advertising since you now offer a service (polygraph testing) that you yourself have proclaimed as unreliable. You remind me of the defense attorney who praises DNA today when it exonerates his client, but condemns DNA tomorrow as unreliable when it convicts his client.
READERS: if you have a polygraph grievance, take it directly to the APA. They will do the same thing Mr Mangan offers to do, and they will not ask for $1000. Why spend money on something you can get for free?
"You pay for my services ONLY after your polygraph "test" has been judged to be null and void."
($1000 please, Mr Sucker)
Null and void? By whom? Mr Mangan???
Yeah, right; tell that to CBP!!!!
Posted by Dan Mangan
- Apr 26, 2017, 10:06 PMQuote from: Arkhangelsk on Apr 26, 2017, 06:53 PMQuote from: quickfix on Apr 26, 2017, 02:56 PMDan Mangan is no Charles Honts.
Okay Lloyd Bentsen...
ROTFLMAO! Poor Dan Quayle...
Readers, the polygraph apologist troll known as "quickfix" -- who, unlike me, lacks the courage to use his real name -- is, in my opinion, a gummint plant.
FYI, the federal gummint is the largest purveyor of polygraph "testing" known to mankind.
From what I've observed since 2004 -- and this is only my opinion -- gummint-funded "forensic psycho-physiologists" (perhaps like quickfix) -- are hopelessly parochial and paranoid.
FWIW, over the years, at several polygraph indu$try seminars, I have met --- (or suffered through the presentations of) -- many federally "credentialed" forensic psycho-physiologists.
From what I've seen, they're typically older white guys who strike me as the type of goobers who might be prone to certain demographically oriented biases.
Mind you, I'm not saying they would necessarily lean that way, but it's kind of a weird vibe that I got. But hey, that's just my own opinion.
Why?
Well, they strike me as arrogant, judgmental, and hopelessly gung-ho about the "test" --a "test" that has been roundly condemned by the legal, medical and scientific communities since the 1920s.
Make no mistake, that's just my impression. Maybe I'm wrong.
That aside, in my view, rabid federal "forensic psycho-physiologists" such as the quickfix archetype are scared shitless of letting the next Chelsea Manning or Edward Snowden pass through their fingertips.
But that's just a matter of time, if history shows us much.
So, to sum up, from my perspective, here's the bottom line:
- Polygraph "testing", from a scientific standpoint, is a sick joke.
The so-called test "works", or so it seems -- after a fashion -- usually when a polygraph examiner browbeats the living shit out of a weak or intimidated test subject, who makes damaging admissions.
But what of the truthful?
Know this: There is a huge amount of collateral damage -- i.e., false positive "test" results
Is it just me, or does there seem to be a disconnect there?
Look, scientifically speaking, the polygraph "test" is a farce -- a tortured dog-and-pony show that has precious little scientific underpinnings -- at least according to the National Academy of Sciences. But what does NAS know, right?
Now let's get back on track...
To victims of false-positive polygraph "test" results, I say this:
I can almost certainly nullify your "test" -- provided that adequate data is made available for professional review.
Further, my opinion of nullification (or "no confidence") will be supported by one (or more) past or present members of the APA board of directors, who will "blindly evaluate" your case.
On top of that, your bogus results will likely be rendered suspect via their conflict with the published "model policies" and "best practices" of the American Polygraph Association itself.
How is this possible, you ask?
It's simple. In spite of the best efforts of like-minded polygraph advocates, a polygraph "test" is like a house of cards: The slightest (objectively analytical) breeze will render it absolutely useless.
For anyone whose life has been wrongfully upended by a polygraph "test", take note: Help is but a phone call away.
Polygraph victims, risk no money now. Pay ONLY when your "test" has been nullified - or deemed "no confidence" -- by myself AND one or more past or present APA officials.
Again, polygraph "test" victims, I implore you: Do NOT post here. Call me directly at 603-801-5179.
One more thing... The polygraph-apologist troll known as "quickfix" said this: "Dan Mangan offers nothing of value."
Polygraph victims, I ask you this: Is there "value" in the clear-cut, risk-free proposition I have articulated?
You know there is.
I can help save your job, marriage, liberty or reputation.
Take it from a polygraph professional: The "test" is a lousy crapshoot.
Call me at 603-801-5179 -- from 9AM to 9PM ET only -- and I'll explain the dirty details.
Again, there's no financial risk.
You pay for my services ONLY after your polygraph "test" has been judged to be null and void.
Posted by Ex Member
- Apr 26, 2017, 06:53 PMQuote from: quickfix on Apr 26, 2017, 02:56 PMDan Mangan is no Charles Honts.
Okay Lloyd Bentsen...
Posted by quickfix
- Apr 26, 2017, 02:56 PMQuote from: George_Maschke on Apr 26, 2017, 04:30 AMSo what? The same would be true of anyone (including yourself, upon retirement from federal service) who might provide an independent review of a polygraph interrogation.Yes, George, it would be one thing if I was solicited by a polygraph agency/unit for an opinion. But as a private citizen I would have no business asking to see any agency's polygraph data.
Quote from: George_Maschke on Apr 26, 2017, 04:30 AMThis is not necessarily true. While a law enforcement agency is unlikely to hire an applicant who "fails" a pre-employment polygraph "test" because of an independent reviewer's critique, there are cases where administrative law judges, appeal boards, and even federal judges have given considerable weight to an independent review of polygraph results.Dan Mangan is not a judge or appeal board member. He is a private former examiner who is now an antipolygraph consultant. Such a person carries no weight in the professional polygraph field.
Quote from: George_Maschke on Apr 26, 2017, 04:30 AMFor a recent example, see the recent case of U.S. v. Tennison, where the court gave considerable weight to testimony by Charles R. Honts, who conducted an independent review of Tennison's polygraph interrogation. In the end, Tennison's post-polygraph statements were excluded as evidence because of questions regarding their voluntariness.Charles Honts is noted and respected in his field by examiners and nonexaminers alike. Dan Mangan is no Charles Honts.
Quote from: George_Maschke on Apr 26, 2017, 04:30 AMMr. Mangan cites his credentials here:In the law enforcement/intelligence world, one is credentialed if they represent in an official capacity by virtue of lawful authority, or recognized as a subject matter expert in his/her field of expertise. Dan Mangan is not credentialed by anyone other than himself on his website; let's look at these "credentials":
http://polygraphman.com/id60.html
Certified graduate of the Backster School of Lie Detection: he paid $5k for training, the check cleared, he got a certificate.
•Certified by the American Polygraph Association in Post-Conviction Sex Offender Testing: he did a certain amount of PCSOT exams, he got certified; it's not an accomplishment, it's required in some states.
•Master of Arts degree in Criminal Justice from the University of Massachusetts/Lowell: a degree does not bestow expertise
•Graduate Certificate in Forensic Criminology from the University of Massachusetts/Lowell: he attended a class.
•Full member in good standing with the American Polygraph Association: his dues are paid up; so are mine.
•Primary author of "A Field Study on the Validity of the Quadri-Track Zone Comparison Technique," [a polygraph method] published in Physiology & Behavior, a peer-reviewed journal, September 2008: 9 year old study, anything more recent?
•Conducted over 1,000 individual polygraph tests, covering a wide variety of criminal, civil and personal issues: this is a relative low number over a decade+.
•Official polygraph examiner for the New Hampshire Department of Corrections Sexual Offender Treatment Program from January 2007 through June 2012: he was-not any longer.
Bottom line: no person with an ounce of common sense would fork over big bucks for something that offers nothing of value. Dan Mangan offers nothing of value.
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Apr 26, 2017, 04:30 AMQuote from: quickfix on Apr 25, 2017, 03:18 PMReaders: before you reach into your pocket and shell out $1000 (or more?) to Mr Mangan, be aware:
Mr Mangan is a privately-schooled examiner with no association or affiliation with any federal, state, or local law enforcement or government entity. As such, he has no authority to "render" any "official" opinion of anyone's polygraph results.
So what? The same would be true of anyone (including yourself, upon retirement from federal service) who might provide an independent review of a polygraph interrogation.
QuoteFurthermore, he has no authority to even obtain your polygraph charts; that would be your responsibility.
This criticism, too, would also be true of anyone offering independent review of polygraph interrogations. Those seeking their polygraph records typically must pursue available legal means to obtain their polygraph records.
QuoteIf you are fortunate to get them (good luck trying), all he can do is tell YOU they are flawed/invalid, etc. No official gov't/LE agency would give him the time of day.
This is not necessarily true. While a law enforcement agency is unlikely to hire an applicant who "fails" a pre-employment polygraph "test" because of an independent reviewer's critique, there are cases where administrative law judges, appeal boards, and even federal judges have given considerable weight to an independent review of polygraph results.
For a recent example, see the recent case of U.S. v. Tennison, where the court gave considerable weight to testimony by Charles R. Honts, who conducted an independent review of Tennison's polygraph interrogation. In the end, Tennison's post-polygraph statements were excluded as evidence because of questions regarding their voluntariness.
QuoteMr Mangan also claims to be "credentialed". By whom? Credentialed as what? An APA member? APA membership gets you a card and a reduced rate at the annual seminar, you're not credentialed as anything.
Mr. Mangan cites his credentials here:
http://polygraphman.com/id60.html
QuoteCaveat Emptor!
This applies to anyone paying a polygraph operator. Polygraphy is a pseudoscientific fraud. Mr. Mangan is one of very few credentialed polygraph operators to openly acknowledge polygraphy's shortcomings.
Posted by quickfix
- Apr 25, 2017, 03:18 PMReaders: before you reach into your pocket and shell out $1000 (or more?) to Mr Mangan, be aware:
Mr Mangan is a privately-schooled examiner with no association or affiliation with any federal, state, or local law enforcement or government entity. As such, he has no authority to "render" any "official" opinion of anyone's polygraph results. Furthermore, he has no authority to even obtain your polygraph charts; that would be your responsibility. If you are fortunate to get them (good luck trying), all he can do is tell YOU they are flawed/invalid, etc. No official gov't/LE agency would give him the time of day.
Mr Mangan also claims to be "credentialed". By whom? Credentialed as what? An APA member? APA membership gets you a card and a reduced rate at the annual seminar, you're not credentialed as anything.
Caveat Emptor!
Mr Mangan is a privately-schooled examiner with no association or affiliation with any federal, state, or local law enforcement or government entity. As such, he has no authority to "render" any "official" opinion of anyone's polygraph results. Furthermore, he has no authority to even obtain your polygraph charts; that would be your responsibility. If you are fortunate to get them (good luck trying), all he can do is tell YOU they are flawed/invalid, etc. No official gov't/LE agency would give him the time of day.
Mr Mangan also claims to be "credentialed". By whom? Credentialed as what? An APA member? APA membership gets you a card and a reduced rate at the annual seminar, you're not credentialed as anything.
Caveat Emptor!