- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by suethem
- Jun 10, 2003, 03:15 AMEastwood,
I filed CPRA to get the tapes and charts to help my case, as cited in previous posts, but they have been denied.
That's part of the problem. If polygraphy was a 'science' there would be no need to hide the tapes or charts. Transparency is obviosly not a buzz word that is popular among polygraphers.
On this site you can read hundreds of similar complaints of unprofessional conduct by polygraphers- the majority of which never get investigated. Like a criminal that gets away with a petty crime, they keep pushing the boundaries until they get caught.
Are there good polygraphers out there?
1)When you realize the serious flaw in the PLCQT ( a presummed standard response to a control question) you are left to wonder!
2) Then factor in the abusive questioning and scare tactics.
3)Then add in the NAS report.
4)sprinkle on a few ex-polygraphers that have come clean.
It all adds up to a No!
It's no scientifc, it's not accurate, it's based on deception. It's not an investigative tool- its an electronic 3rd degree- if they don't want you- you will not pass!
Of course these two 'professionals' have had problems before! But with no way to prove my case (no tapes), these guys will just get an in-house slap on the wrist. The department will cover it up and I will end up taking a job with another agency.
I used to view LE as a brotherhood of people who care. I was gung-ho (still am ). But this episode has made me keenly aware that there is corruption within.
I guess some people will do anything for a few $$$!!!
I filed CPRA to get the tapes and charts to help my case, as cited in previous posts, but they have been denied.
That's part of the problem. If polygraphy was a 'science' there would be no need to hide the tapes or charts. Transparency is obviosly not a buzz word that is popular among polygraphers.
On this site you can read hundreds of similar complaints of unprofessional conduct by polygraphers- the majority of which never get investigated. Like a criminal that gets away with a petty crime, they keep pushing the boundaries until they get caught.
Are there good polygraphers out there?
1)When you realize the serious flaw in the PLCQT ( a presummed standard response to a control question) you are left to wonder!
2) Then factor in the abusive questioning and scare tactics.
3)Then add in the NAS report.
4)sprinkle on a few ex-polygraphers that have come clean.
It all adds up to a No!
It's no scientifc, it's not accurate, it's based on deception. It's not an investigative tool- its an electronic 3rd degree- if they don't want you- you will not pass!
Of course these two 'professionals' have had problems before! But with no way to prove my case (no tapes), these guys will just get an in-house slap on the wrist. The department will cover it up and I will end up taking a job with another agency.
I used to view LE as a brotherhood of people who care. I was gung-ho (still am ). But this episode has made me keenly aware that there is corruption within.
I guess some people will do anything for a few $$$!!!
Posted by Eastwood
- Jun 09, 2003, 11:43 PMIf any polygraph examiner made a joke about the pneumo tubes and the size of a pecker, he should be fired on the spot - and have his name broadcast on every internet site available. It's assholes like that who give all examiners a bad name. And I guarantee he's had problems before.
Posted by SecondChancePoly
- Jun 09, 2003, 04:38 PMSTOP FEEDING THE TROLLS!!! 
Posted by Fair Chance
- Jun 09, 2003, 04:05 PMQuote from: Skeptic on Jun 09, 2003, 02:45 PM
He started it.
Skeptic
How many parents have heard all heck going on upstairs, yell "What's going on upthere?!!", and heard little angelic voices responding, "Nothing, Dad." ?
"He started it." is another one of those "generic answers."
Thanks for the laugh, Skeptic.
Regards
Posted by Skeptic
- Jun 09, 2003, 02:45 PMQuote from: Seeker on Jun 09, 2003, 05:44 AMBoyz:
I swear, sometimes I just don't know what kind of stress you all must be going through at work to be coming in here and posting like silly kids on the playground comparing...the size of their toys.
George really gets under your skin, doesn't he? Why?
Gentlemen:
Save logical discussions for the mature crowd.
Regards,
Seeker
He started it.
Skeptic
Posted by Seeker
- Jun 09, 2003, 05:44 AMBoyz:
I swear, sometimes I just don't know what kind of stress you all must be going through at work to be coming in here and posting like silly kids on the playground comparing...the size of their toys.
George really gets under your skin, doesn't he? Why?
Gentlemen:
Save logical discussions for the mature crowd.
Regards,
Seeker
I swear, sometimes I just don't know what kind of stress you all must be going through at work to be coming in here and posting like silly kids on the playground comparing...the size of their toys.
George really gets under your skin, doesn't he? Why?
Gentlemen:
Save logical discussions for the mature crowd.
Regards,
Seeker
Posted by Amused
- Jun 09, 2003, 01:04 AMTwobits/Septic
You jump to unwarranted conclusions. And as a result you are very wrong. I am hurt.
You jump to unwarranted conclusions. And as a result you are very wrong. I am hurt.
Posted by Twoblock
- Jun 08, 2003, 11:37 PMFed-up Fed/Amused
You write as though you believe RETAO is real. You, also, write as though you condon what he did/is doing. That makes you the same pervert that he is and should, also, be castrated with a dull knife. You support this low-life and condem George. The fact that RETAO is bogus but you still support the scenario tells us more than we wanted to know about you. Oh well -- with the stupid screw-ups of our federal LE agencies, I guess we couldn't expect anything else.
BTW, under what administration did you get hired Bush or Clinton?
Batman, Breeze and Public Servant please get on with the feds and raise the IQ of some of these agencies.
You write as though you believe RETAO is real. You, also, write as though you condon what he did/is doing. That makes you the same pervert that he is and should, also, be castrated with a dull knife. You support this low-life and condem George. The fact that RETAO is bogus but you still support the scenario tells us more than we wanted to know about you. Oh well -- with the stupid screw-ups of our federal LE agencies, I guess we couldn't expect anything else.
BTW, under what administration did you get hired Bush or Clinton?
Batman, Breeze and Public Servant please get on with the feds and raise the IQ of some of these agencies.
Posted by Skeptic
- Jun 08, 2003, 01:20 AMQuote from: Amused on Jun 08, 2003, 01:08 AM"Hopeless. Utterly hopeless. "
Skeptic's lament. Does it refer to George, George's prospects of ever getting a life, or to Skeptic's chances of ever besting me? Perhaps all of the above.
Amused,
You couldn't even get past the very first sentence in my post, so somehow, "besting you" never really occurred to me as an issue. But now that I think about it, you must be right: you're just too much for me.
Care to discuss the validity of the polygraph, and make it 2 for 2? Since I'm no match for you, it should be easy.
Skeptic
Posted by Amused
- Jun 08, 2003, 01:08 AM"Hopeless. Utterly hopeless. "
Skeptic's lament. Does it refer to George, George's prospects of ever getting a life, or to Skeptic's chances of ever besting me? Perhaps all of the above.
Skeptic's lament. Does it refer to George, George's prospects of ever getting a life, or to Skeptic's chances of ever besting me? Perhaps all of the above.
Posted by Skeptic
- Jun 08, 2003, 12:47 AMHopeless. Utterly hopeless.
Skeptic
Skeptic
Posted by Amused
- Jun 08, 2003, 12:30 AMAnd I guess your real name is Skeptic - your mother must have had a real sense of humor.
Posted by Skeptic
- Jun 07, 2003, 11:57 PMQuote from: Amused on Jun 07, 2003, 11:18 PMGeorge and his cohorts sure run when they get a complaint. It has to be bogus, no one would complain about King George the Great.
I'm sorry, Amused (or Fed-up Fed, or whatever your name is), what part of anyone's response to "Retao"'s highly suspect claim would lead a reasonable person to conclude they're "running"?
If you, Fed-Up or anyone else from the pro-polygraph side would like to discuss the validity of polygraph testing, we'd be more than happy to do so.
But I don't think you should expect the childish name calling and game playing to invite anything but scorn from normal people.
Picture this: a curious person does a Google search. On that page they find the link to Antipolygraph.org. They check it out, and to their surprise, they not only learn that polygraphs are controversial, they learn that it's considered snake oil by most scientists. They discover that the National Academy of Scientists concluded the polygraph is worse than useless. They find out that many people have been falsely accused of lying because they failed a polygraph "test". They note that something called "countermeasures" can be easily learned, and that not a single polygrapher has come forward to try and prove the ability to overcome them, despite having been specifically and publicly challenged to do so nearly a year and a half ago.
Surely, though, this information must be one-sided, right? So they check out the message boards. Expecting to find competent, grown up and (at least somewhat) convincing dissent from polygraphers or a one-sided censored forum, they are surprised to discover 1) the message boards are completely uncensored and 2) the only material from polygraphers consists of name-calling, game playing and and occasional hollow boast that is never backed up. And this is the most convincing thing of all. In fact, they tell their friends about the site, and inform others around them that the polygraph is bogus.
So, Amused, Fed-up Fed and others: by all means, continue to play games. Continue to post your childish, content-free insults. Like the polygraph, you guys are worse than useless for the purpose to which you are allegedly put.
Next to an actual court case, you guys are the best thing for the anti-polygraph cause.
Skeptic
Posted by Fair Chance
- Jun 07, 2003, 11:30 PMDear Amused,
I am awaiting some logical input to contradict what has been presented. A "ten year female has admitted to physical activities" which would be construed by most courts of law as " first person admissable evidence" as opposed to polygraph voodoo which is not admissable.
No one here is running away from this newsworthy event. I keep running internet searches to find out more about it. I do not think any law enforcement agency is going to be able to keep a lid on such a front page headlining CNN.com and FOXNEWS.com story. It is truly a made for TV news event.
Time will bear out my presentation. If this does not hit the news within the next week, it did not happen.
I am awaiting some logical input to contradict what has been presented. A "ten year female has admitted to physical activities" which would be construed by most courts of law as " first person admissable evidence" as opposed to polygraph voodoo which is not admissable.
No one here is running away from this newsworthy event. I keep running internet searches to find out more about it. I do not think any law enforcement agency is going to be able to keep a lid on such a front page headlining CNN.com and FOXNEWS.com story. It is truly a made for TV news event.
Time will bear out my presentation. If this does not hit the news within the next week, it did not happen.
Posted by Amused
- Jun 07, 2003, 11:18 PMGeorge and his cohorts sure run when they get a complaint. It has to be bogus, no one would complain about King George the Great.