- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by Human Subject
- Nov 19, 2003, 08:08 PMThis is such a farce, no one is suggesting you can't argue by analogy. It's just that the analogy is utterly ridiculous.
11 people failed a polygraph when questioned about the disappearance of Douglas Kirk in 1995.
https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=1455.msg11402#msg11402
Consider a DNA test to establish paternity. When was the last time such a test indicated that 11 guys could be the father of a single child?
Likewise, someone can't go into a medical setting and convince a doctor that they are negative for hepatitis by squeezing their anal sphincter at the appropriate times during a blood test.
The difference? Most medical tests are infinitely more reliable than polygraphy.
And speaking of bad analogies...
I'm obviously no fan of polygraphy, but to even hint that the damage wrought by Doug Williams during his career as a polygrapher was even remotely comparable to 9/11 seems beyond the pale.
11 people failed a polygraph when questioned about the disappearance of Douglas Kirk in 1995.
https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=1455.msg11402#msg11402
Consider a DNA test to establish paternity. When was the last time such a test indicated that 11 guys could be the father of a single child?
Likewise, someone can't go into a medical setting and convince a doctor that they are negative for hepatitis by squeezing their anal sphincter at the appropriate times during a blood test.
The difference? Most medical tests are infinitely more reliable than polygraphy.
And speaking of bad analogies...
QuoteI appreciate your time and concern. God bless those 3000 families.
(You may have affected more people (3000) than died 9/11/01 - God
bless all those families as well).
I'm obviously no fan of polygraphy, but to even hint that the damage wrought by Doug Williams during his career as a polygrapher was even remotely comparable to 9/11 seems beyond the pale.
Posted by Marty
- Oct 02, 2003, 11:11 PMQuote from: Johannes Leachwin on Oct 02, 2003, 10:51 PMMarty:Johannes Leachwin,
Come now. I know of no polygraphist that was trained to make clients "lie". This is shameful and a coverall to make much of your points. If a client "lies" to an examiner is it the examiners fault? NO. If results are scewed because of purposeful deception is it the examiners fault? NO. Also, is it not the job of the examiner to perform a proper examination, explain everything as it will happen, and if a person feels compelled to express a confession of guilt or innocence, is that not up to the client? YES.
Please, allow people to be there own person for once. Own up to their actions. Society in America seems to really be dragging people to new lows. Why is it no one admits to anything anymore. (I wasn't speeding / They yelled first / Get my attorney).
Mr. Larussa is on target, just not fully developed in his expressions.
It may seem non-intuitive, but it is indisputable FACT that in a PLCQT poly, a polygrapher anticipates and hopes the examinee will lie on the controls in order to get an accurate and distinct reading from the relevants to determine if the examinee is truthful on them. I suggest you get a book or two written by and for polygraphers themselves if you find the numerous links here to outside sources not credible. Once you understand what and why they do this it will make much more sense. I have done so. What they do is well documented but unless YOU are a polygrapher they are certainly not going to tell you. Perhaps you should take some responsibility yourself (I quite agree with your general points about that) and do a bit of research.
[added]
A couple of other points. R/I polys (a very old type of poly which most polygraphers consider to be inferior) does not ask the examiner to use this deception on the controls - since there are no controls per se. Also the GKT (CIT), widely used forensically in Japan, also does not require this deception on the part of the examiner. Further, it has the best scientific basis but the GKT is not applicable to screening. However, the PLCQT is by far the most common screening type polygraph used.
BTW, the "Client" usually refers to the entity for whom the polygraph is done. I assume from context you really meant the examinee.
-Marty
Posted by Johannes Leachwin
- Oct 02, 2003, 10:51 PMMarty:
Come now. I know of no polygraphist that was trained to make clients "lie". This is shameful and a coverall to make much of your points. If a client "lies" to an examiner is it the examiners fault? NO. If results are scewed because of purposeful deception is it the examiners fault? NO. Also, is it not the job of the examiner to perform a proper examination, explain everything as it will happen, and if a person feels compelled to express a confession of guilt or innocence, is that not up to the client? YES.
Please, allow people to be there own person for once. Own up to their actions. Society in America seems to really be dragging people to new lows. Why is it no one admits to anything anymore. (I wasn't speeding / They yelled first / Get my attorney).
Mr. Larussa is on target, just not fully developed in his expressions.
Come now. I know of no polygraphist that was trained to make clients "lie". This is shameful and a coverall to make much of your points. If a client "lies" to an examiner is it the examiners fault? NO. If results are scewed because of purposeful deception is it the examiners fault? NO. Also, is it not the job of the examiner to perform a proper examination, explain everything as it will happen, and if a person feels compelled to express a confession of guilt or innocence, is that not up to the client? YES.
Please, allow people to be there own person for once. Own up to their actions. Society in America seems to really be dragging people to new lows. Why is it no one admits to anything anymore. (I wasn't speeding / They yelled first / Get my attorney).
Mr. Larussa is on target, just not fully developed in his expressions.
Posted by Marty
- Oct 01, 2003, 12:11 AMQuote from: Johannes Leachwin on Sep 30, 2003, 10:40 PMIt would seem that Mr. Larussa has many of you jumping to respond... interesting how each so far has only stated typical rhetoric as usual.
Mr. Larussa never claimed that polygraphers are doctors... simply making an analogy is not wrong.
Of course it's not wrong. My estimate of Mr. Larussa's post is that he was not a polygrapher and had no real understanding that a polygrapher's job is to get you to lie on the controls. Do you think pointing that out to him is out of school? I wasn't criticising him for not knowing that since the polygraph community tries to limit public awareness of this. That is hardly empty rhetoric.
-Marty
Posted by Johannes Leachwin
- Sep 30, 2003, 10:40 PMIt would seem that Mr. Larussa has many of you jumping to respond... interesting how each so far has only stated typical rhetoric as usual.
Mr. Larussa never claimed that polygraphers are doctors... simply making an analogy is not wrong. Get with the program gents. Read what he is saying instead of literal words. Use your brain (which seems a little stale at this point). And to make a point, nurses, and even high school gym teachers can take someones pulse, get an accurate blood pressure reading etc. These tasks are menial and need not require years of training. Even you gents may have at one time administered exams with accurate physiological readings such as blood pressure, rate, pneumo, and G.S.R. It's not rocket science... at least admit that! If you don't agree with reading results that is another issue.
It would be a pleasure to see if anyone makes a true case against the polygraph without the typical "they trick you" stuff. Unfortunately not everything is foolproof... I present Oranthal James Simpson as an example. Please, be realistic, reasonable, and scientific.
No one has actually answered the meat of Mr. Larussas message, as only Mr. Williams could. However, I do see his point regarding Mr. Williams' previous clients. If it were my child or my job affected, I would certainly pray to know the examiner was not comfortable with the findings - even if he was at the time. It's never to late for the truth!
Mr. Larussa never claimed that polygraphers are doctors... simply making an analogy is not wrong. Get with the program gents. Read what he is saying instead of literal words. Use your brain (which seems a little stale at this point). And to make a point, nurses, and even high school gym teachers can take someones pulse, get an accurate blood pressure reading etc. These tasks are menial and need not require years of training. Even you gents may have at one time administered exams with accurate physiological readings such as blood pressure, rate, pneumo, and G.S.R. It's not rocket science... at least admit that! If you don't agree with reading results that is another issue.
It would be a pleasure to see if anyone makes a true case against the polygraph without the typical "they trick you" stuff. Unfortunately not everything is foolproof... I present Oranthal James Simpson as an example. Please, be realistic, reasonable, and scientific.
No one has actually answered the meat of Mr. Larussas message, as only Mr. Williams could. However, I do see his point regarding Mr. Williams' previous clients. If it were my child or my job affected, I would certainly pray to know the examiner was not comfortable with the findings - even if he was at the time. It's never to late for the truth!
Posted by Marty
- Sep 30, 2003, 07:42 PMQuote from: NVictim on Sep 30, 2003, 07:19 PMSecond, a doctor may have proven instuments for his/her particular line of work, however a polygrapher has an instuments proven not to work.No. The polygraph has not been "proven" not to work. It's more correct to say that it hasn't been proven to work in CQT screenings due to inability to establish ground truth.
For that matter proving a negative is nearly always impossible. Even Miss Cleo hasn't been "proven" to not be psychic.
-Marty
Posted by NVictim
- Sep 30, 2003, 07:19 PMCode Select
If a medical doctor advised you that based on medically proven instruments you have a serious condition would you believe them? or would you call them a "liar"? Your comparision to the polygraph is way off base. Your example of a doctor with proven instruments is a complete opposite of the way a polygraph works. First of all, a doctor will have taken years of schooling and years of experience for his line of expertise. The polygrapher on the other hand only needs a high school education and a few weeks of schooling to be an expert in lies and human behavior. Second, a doctor may have proven instuments for his/her particular line of work, however a polygrapher has an instuments proven not to work.
So a better example would be to ask " If miss Cleo looked into her Crystal Ball and said she can see the future, will you believe her?"
Posted by Mr. Truth
- Sep 30, 2003, 04:44 PMGreat tie-in to 9/11, I guess.
Posted by Canadian Crusader
- Sep 30, 2003, 04:33 PMNice try A Larussa but you are absolutely clueless when it comes to the scientific validity of the poly.
Williams realized what a sham the poly really is regarding claims it can detect deception. People can and do change their way of thinking and beliefs all the time.
The fact that he has capitalized on his knowledge of the poly to turn a buck should not be cause for concern and attacks on his person. All the power to him to try and make a buck. It is the American way is it not. In his efforts he is also (from my stand point on the subject) doing good by exposing the poly for the joke it really is.
Williams realized what a sham the poly really is regarding claims it can detect deception. People can and do change their way of thinking and beliefs all the time.
The fact that he has capitalized on his knowledge of the poly to turn a buck should not be cause for concern and attacks on his person. All the power to him to try and make a buck. It is the American way is it not. In his efforts he is also (from my stand point on the subject) doing good by exposing the poly for the joke it really is.
Posted by Anthony
- Sep 30, 2003, 04:23 PMAs far as the polygraph being even remotely compared to ligitimate medical practice is entirely insane. Give us a break. You cannot make any rational comparison between the two. As far as criticizing Doug Williams, maybe you should give him credit for actually standing up and blowing the whistle about polygraphs. If he is making money from his book, great for him. He deserves it. You don't walk in his shoes, so his reason for doing what he does is of no significance. I for one am grateful for what he is doing and wish both him and George the very best. I think it is an absolute shame that more polygraphists don't come clean about the asininity behind the polygraph.
Posted by Marty
- Sep 30, 2003, 03:50 PMQuote from: ALarussa on Sep 30, 2003, 02:48 PMI recently wrote a message to Doug Williams and had no response... it really goes for others against polygraph testing as well.Anthony,
The authors of this site antipolygraph.org and sites like polygraph.com are, in a sense, extremists. They have chosen a new path by authoring these sites with indifference to the past beliefs.
If a medical doctor advised you that based on medically proven instruments you have a serious condition would you believe them? or would you call them a "liar"?
The polygraph is unlike real medical tests in that it, as commonly used, requires that the examinee be decieved by the polygrapher. Obviously, polygraphers don't advertise this fact but it is easy to verify outside of this site. Real medcal tests don't even advise the subject be ignorant about how the test works.
There are variations of the polygraph test where the examiner deception is minimal and there is more science behind it, such as the so called GKT test. Sadly, it is rarely used, at least in this country.
-Marty
Posted by ALarussa
- Sep 30, 2003, 02:48 PMI recently wrote a message to Doug Williams and had no response... it really goes for others against polygraph testing as well.
The authors of this site antipolygraph.org and sites like polygraph.com are, in a sense, extremists. They have chosen a new path by authoring these sites with indifference to the past beliefs.
If a medical doctor advised you that based on medically proven instruments you have a serious condition would you believe them? or would you call them a "liar"?
If you went in for an exam and wanted to get the most accurate results could, would you modify your breathing, squeeze your muscles, stand, sit, burp, or pause, or anything else to alter results that could be important to your health? I doubt it. Could you? I doubt it. Even if you tried, it would be obvious, or not relevent to the results.
=================
Here is the message sent to Doug Williams...
Hello Sir:
Thanks for taking the time to read me email.
I would like to start by telling you I am NOT a polygrapher nor was I
stung by one.
My question for you is how you completely alienated the polygraph
machine so abruptly. I'm not asking why. But how. What became of
all the persons potentially three-thousand (3000) of them - whom you
polygraphed? What about the ones YOU called liars?
Did you approach these persons jobs, go back to the courts, confront
people families to tell them they may not be "liars" after
all?
After all, three-thousand is a lot of grief you may have caused in
the world for something you don't believe in.
I have looked at your site and see you sitting on your nice
Harley-Davidson in front of a nice house... is this from money from
selling books? If you have all this time to write books and do TV
news spots against the poltgraph, how is it you may not be finding
the time to remedy YOUR untrustworthy polygraph results for your 3000
exams conducted?
I actually do not expect an answer. I'm sure you and your maker have
some serious discussions to figure out your destination...
Catch-22...
The maker uses a polygraph from an examiner who believes in
scientific results (the same types of results that medical doctors
use everyday to save lives).
The maker read a book from someone who potentially called 3000 people
a liar (and told them to hold their breath and squeeze there
sphincter).
I appreciate your time and concern. God bless those 3000 families.
(You may have affected more people (3000) than died 9/11/01 - God
bless all those families as well).
Anthony L.
--
The authors of this site antipolygraph.org and sites like polygraph.com are, in a sense, extremists. They have chosen a new path by authoring these sites with indifference to the past beliefs.
If a medical doctor advised you that based on medically proven instruments you have a serious condition would you believe them? or would you call them a "liar"?
If you went in for an exam and wanted to get the most accurate results could, would you modify your breathing, squeeze your muscles, stand, sit, burp, or pause, or anything else to alter results that could be important to your health? I doubt it. Could you? I doubt it. Even if you tried, it would be obvious, or not relevent to the results.
=================
Here is the message sent to Doug Williams...
Hello Sir:
Thanks for taking the time to read me email.
I would like to start by telling you I am NOT a polygrapher nor was I
stung by one.
My question for you is how you completely alienated the polygraph
machine so abruptly. I'm not asking why. But how. What became of
all the persons potentially three-thousand (3000) of them - whom you
polygraphed? What about the ones YOU called liars?
Did you approach these persons jobs, go back to the courts, confront
people families to tell them they may not be "liars" after
all?
After all, three-thousand is a lot of grief you may have caused in
the world for something you don't believe in.
I have looked at your site and see you sitting on your nice
Harley-Davidson in front of a nice house... is this from money from
selling books? If you have all this time to write books and do TV
news spots against the poltgraph, how is it you may not be finding
the time to remedy YOUR untrustworthy polygraph results for your 3000
exams conducted?
I actually do not expect an answer. I'm sure you and your maker have
some serious discussions to figure out your destination...
Catch-22...
The maker uses a polygraph from an examiner who believes in
scientific results (the same types of results that medical doctors
use everyday to save lives).
The maker read a book from someone who potentially called 3000 people
a liar (and told them to hold their breath and squeeze there
sphincter).
I appreciate your time and concern. God bless those 3000 families.
(You may have affected more people (3000) than died 9/11/01 - God
bless all those families as well).
Anthony L.
--