- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by Liebabyisajoke
- Apr 17, 2021, 07:09 PMSorry to double post, but It's just so absurd that Liebabycrybaby thinks you have to go pay to get a piece of paper stating you've been thoroughly brainwashed into believing the B.S. behind "lie detectors" in order to be knowledgeable. As if the knowledge isn't widely available and as if you can't study everything about them INCLUDING Scientific studies in order to form a pointed factual opinion about them. It goes to show how thoroughly brainwashed polygraph examiners are, they literally think it can't be wrong or something. its insane.
Posted by Lolwut
- Apr 17, 2021, 07:03 PMIsn't it rather simple to get a polygraph license? How does someone automatically assume someone else can't be knowledgeable about polygraphs because they haven't gone through the obviously bias and brainwashing courses to get your poly license. Obviously anyone who does polygraphs is going to have a slanted obsurd opinion that polygraphs are faultless.
Posted by SecretAgentMan
- Aug 29, 2013, 04:11 AMReading through these forums, it's people like George that restore my faith in humanity, and people like crybaby that loose my faith in it.
What a bunch of BS if I ever saw it... all these respected institutions, and many investigations showing just how false this practice is, and just how those sad little shits otherwise known as polygraph examiners employ every dirty trick there is to try to get false positives etc, it is truly sickening. All with greed in mind. As usual with corruption, FOLLOW THE MONEY!
What a bunch of BS if I ever saw it... all these respected institutions, and many investigations showing just how false this practice is, and just how those sad little shits otherwise known as polygraph examiners employ every dirty trick there is to try to get false positives etc, it is truly sickening. All with greed in mind. As usual with corruption, FOLLOW THE MONEY!
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Jan 30, 2012, 10:20 PMI note that it has now been a full ten years since Dr. Richardson issued his polygraph countermeasure challenge. And still, not a single polygraph operator has ever demonstrated any ability to detect the kinds of countermeasures outlined in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector.
Posted by LieBabyCryBaby
- May 13, 2009, 08:40 PMYour reasoning is faulty, Sergeant. If you were to go to a "pro-" polygraph site, you would still be unqualified to express any firm opinion other than something you got second-hand. I don't really have a problem with someone like you saying that they don't like the polygraph, that they don't think the process was fair to them, or that there are lab studies that support what they feel. What I do oppose is someone like you calling polygraph a "pseudoscience," a "sham" or a "fraud" when you have no experience or training in the subject. It's one thing to point out what recognized experts in the field have to say and to tell others that you agree with those experts. It's quite another thing to act as though George Maschke and other equally unqualified people are experts in the field simply because they have a website.
Were you to go to a "pro-" polygraph website and contually point out that polygraphers might have a vested interest in keeping the polygraph going, in ADDITION to their experience and belief in the process, which is a possible cause for bias, there's nothing wrong with that. If you kept at it, you'd sure be a boring non-expert, and you might get some polygraphers riled up, but nothing you claimed as fact about the polygraph itself could be taken seriously because you have no foundation to support your claims. Maybe you would be banned and maybe not. You might be banned simply because you couldn't come up with anything better than the factual statement that polygraphers might be biased in favor of the polygraph because its their job to conduct polygraph exams, and you might be viewed as just taking up space on a subject expressed ad nauseum in your hundreds of posts. Anything more than that would be viewed as an amateur among experts.
Here on this forum, things are quite different, though. Only the polygraphers who occasionally come here because it's an entertaining, well-designed website really have a leg to stand on in making solid claims about polygraphy. Everyone else is, like George, a non-expert due to no practical experience or training in the subject, a polygraph failure with a grudge, or simply a concerned future examinee who mistakenly stumbles on this website because it's the first one that comes up when he/she types the word polygraph in the web browser.
So, when George bans polygraph experts from this website, claiming that they are only here to attack characters and "troll," it is not really justified, but rather "chicken shit."
Were you to go to a "pro-" polygraph website and contually point out that polygraphers might have a vested interest in keeping the polygraph going, in ADDITION to their experience and belief in the process, which is a possible cause for bias, there's nothing wrong with that. If you kept at it, you'd sure be a boring non-expert, and you might get some polygraphers riled up, but nothing you claimed as fact about the polygraph itself could be taken seriously because you have no foundation to support your claims. Maybe you would be banned and maybe not. You might be banned simply because you couldn't come up with anything better than the factual statement that polygraphers might be biased in favor of the polygraph because its their job to conduct polygraph exams, and you might be viewed as just taking up space on a subject expressed ad nauseum in your hundreds of posts. Anything more than that would be viewed as an amateur among experts.
Here on this forum, things are quite different, though. Only the polygraphers who occasionally come here because it's an entertaining, well-designed website really have a leg to stand on in making solid claims about polygraphy. Everyone else is, like George, a non-expert due to no practical experience or training in the subject, a polygraph failure with a grudge, or simply a concerned future examinee who mistakenly stumbles on this website because it's the first one that comes up when he/she types the word polygraph in the web browser.
So, when George bans polygraph experts from this website, claiming that they are only here to attack characters and "troll," it is not really justified, but rather "chicken shit."
Posted by Sergeant1107
- May 13, 2009, 07:49 PMQuote from: LieBabyCryBaby on May 13, 2009, 07:05 PMGeorge sure allows a lot of scum to float here on his little pond. Which makes it all the more cowardly and feeble-minded to ban those who actually have some experience in polygraphy. I guess the name of this website does say it all, just as Sergeant has pointed out: AntiPolygraph.org. Not a place for serious discussion unless you happen to share George's inexperienced, unqualified views.I wonder if you would express the same moral outrage if I were to join the message board at PolygraphPlace.com and fill the boards with messages that repeatedly pointed out, ad nauseum, that various other posters are polygraph examiners and therefore they have a vested interest in the polygraph, so their opinion is not worthy of consideration?
Would it make any sense for me to do that? Would that be the course of action any civil, reasonable person would take? Of course not, since people who visit PolygraphPlace's message board are doing so to hear the opinions of people who are or were polygraph examiners. How much credibility would I be able to establish if I continually attacked numerous members with the same tired diatribe, that since they are professional polygraph operators their opinion doesn't count because they have a financial interest in the use of the polygraph?
Do you think any of the polygraph operators on that board would call me a troll and have me banned? Or accuse me of senseless ad hominem attacks and point out that I wasn't engaging in any discussion, only attacking other members? I am willing to bet I'd be banned in record time.
If, after I was banned, I came back using a different name and engaged in the same behavior, do you think anyone would have a problem with it? Do you think I'd be banned again?
George allows free discussion on this board at a level unheard of on most other boards on the Internet. He doesn't ban people who disagree with him, he bans trolls whose only reason for posting here is to spew flame-bait and try to sling mud around. I think most people here are pretty clear on that. I cannot think of anyone who has been banned simply for posting a pro-polygraph opinion on this board, or for disagreeing with George no matter how often it happened.
Posted by LieBabyCryBaby
- May 13, 2009, 07:05 PMGeorge sure allows a lot of scum to float here on his little pond. Which makes it all the more cowardly and feeble-minded to ban those who actually have some experience in polygraphy. I guess the name of this website does say it all, just as Sergeant has pointed out: AntiPolygraph.org. Not a place for serious discussion unless you happen to share George's inexperienced, unqualified views.
Posted by T.Cullen
- May 13, 2009, 02:24 PMMr. Cry Baby,
You know nothing of science, yet you question the conclusions of the National Academy of Sciences on polygraph validity because they don't conduct polygraphs. Do you really expect people to take you seriously here?
I hope GM keeps you around as an example of just how pompous old fart polygraphers like yourself are. A picture is worth a thousand posts.
T.Cullen, T.M. Cullen
P.S. Why do you lie to targets of your pseudo-science by telling them the chart is "indicating deception" when you know full well it doesn't? Are you being purposely deceitful?
You know nothing of science, yet you question the conclusions of the National Academy of Sciences on polygraph validity because they don't conduct polygraphs. Do you really expect people to take you seriously here?
I hope GM keeps you around as an example of just how pompous old fart polygraphers like yourself are. A picture is worth a thousand posts.
T.Cullen, T.M. Cullen
P.S. Why do you lie to targets of your pseudo-science by telling them the chart is "indicating deception" when you know full well it doesn't? Are you being purposely deceitful?
Posted by LieBabyCryBaby
- May 13, 2009, 01:17 PMGeorge, you might as well ban me too, since it is apparent that JPW was getting the best of you and the other phonies on this website, and you don't want any serious opposition making you appear foolish. He correctly pointed out that you, Gino Scalabrini and Drew Richardson each lack any practical experience in the field of polygraphy, and that you are not the experts you portray yourselves to be. Call his accurate descriptions of you an attack on characters and motives if you will, but that's just a poor excuse for your own cowardice in facing someone with actual experience and credentials when you have none of your own.
Also, how do you know that JPW, Van Arsdale, and this "Sancho" character are the same guy? Is it your common practice to troll for IP addresses, or what? Does it really make any difference whether someone posts under different names, as long as the two names aren't simultaneously playing off each other for support? You've got Cullen using two names, and I'm sure there are other "anti-" posters who are also using multiple names on this website.
Also, how do you know that JPW, Van Arsdale, and this "Sancho" character are the same guy? Is it your common practice to troll for IP addresses, or what? Does it really make any difference whether someone posts under different names, as long as the two names aren't simultaneously playing off each other for support? You've got Cullen using two names, and I'm sure there are other "anti-" posters who are also using multiple names on this website.
Posted by George W. Maschke
- May 13, 2009, 10:51 AMJPW (A.K.A. Edward B. Van Arsdale),
Dr. Richardson's relationship with Brain Fingerprinting Laboratories was no secret to the National Academy of Sciences' Committee to Review the Scientific Evidence on the Polygraph, which invited both him and Dr. Farwell to speak at its fourth public meeting. Moreover, Dr. Richardson's association with Brain Fingerprinting Laboratories was prominently mentioned in the New York Times a week before he addressed the NAS panel.
Dr. Richardson's criticism of polygraphy predates both his NAS presentation and his relationship with Brain Fingerprinting Laboratories by years. He notably testified against polygraph screening at a U.S. Senate hearing in 1997 and criticized CQT polygraphy in a 1993 article ("The CQT Polygrapher's Dilemma: Logico-Ethical Considerations for Psychophysiological Practitioners and Researchers," International Journal of Psychophysiology, Vol. 15 (1993), pp. 263-67) that he anonymously co-authored with Professor John J. Furedy because the FBI would not allow him to publish it in his own name. Dr. Richardson's public truth-telling about polygraphy at a time when it was certain to entail adverse career consequences from the FBI is testimony to his integrity.
Moreover, Dr. Farwell's brain fingerprinting technique is a concealed information test, not a lie detection test. As such, it cannot be used for screening and is not in competition with the polygraph as a screening device.
It should also be noted that the NAS panel's remit was to review the scientific evidence on polygraph screening. But they found that there is virtually none. So the panel necessarily expanded the scope of its review to include polygraphy in general.
It is clear, Mr. Van Arsdale, that you are not here to discuss substantive issues, but to impugn characters and motives. As you've done previously while posting under the noms de guerre Sancho Panza and Ed Earl, among others. You are a cowardly troll. And now you have been banned a third time. Be gone!
Dr. Richardson's relationship with Brain Fingerprinting Laboratories was no secret to the National Academy of Sciences' Committee to Review the Scientific Evidence on the Polygraph, which invited both him and Dr. Farwell to speak at its fourth public meeting. Moreover, Dr. Richardson's association with Brain Fingerprinting Laboratories was prominently mentioned in the New York Times a week before he addressed the NAS panel.
Dr. Richardson's criticism of polygraphy predates both his NAS presentation and his relationship with Brain Fingerprinting Laboratories by years. He notably testified against polygraph screening at a U.S. Senate hearing in 1997 and criticized CQT polygraphy in a 1993 article ("The CQT Polygrapher's Dilemma: Logico-Ethical Considerations for Psychophysiological Practitioners and Researchers," International Journal of Psychophysiology, Vol. 15 (1993), pp. 263-67) that he anonymously co-authored with Professor John J. Furedy because the FBI would not allow him to publish it in his own name. Dr. Richardson's public truth-telling about polygraphy at a time when it was certain to entail adverse career consequences from the FBI is testimony to his integrity.
Moreover, Dr. Farwell's brain fingerprinting technique is a concealed information test, not a lie detection test. As such, it cannot be used for screening and is not in competition with the polygraph as a screening device.
It should also be noted that the NAS panel's remit was to review the scientific evidence on polygraph screening. But they found that there is virtually none. So the panel necessarily expanded the scope of its review to include polygraphy in general.
It is clear, Mr. Van Arsdale, that you are not here to discuss substantive issues, but to impugn characters and motives. As you've done previously while posting under the noms de guerre Sancho Panza and Ed Earl, among others. You are a cowardly troll. And now you have been banned a third time. Be gone!
Posted by LieBabyCryBaby
- May 13, 2009, 10:44 AMInteresting information, JPW. I have previously pointed out that Dr. Richardson is a phony with no practical experience in polygraphy, but this latest information does shed some light on his motivations.
Posted by Sergeant1107
- May 13, 2009, 05:41 AMOkay... Now we are aware of your opinion regarding what you believe were Dr. Richardson's motivations.
Do you have anything substansive to say in response to Dr. Richardson's testimony?
Do you have anything substansive to say in response to Dr. Richardson's testimony?
Posted by JPW
- May 13, 2009, 12:27 AMSince my recent challenge to George and Gino to establish their credentials, there has been a few renewed comments regarding Drew Richardson's polygraph countermeasure challenge. This thread begins with Drew relating the amusing and informative story about how he first laid this challenge before the NAS committee.
Since new interest has been generated, perhaps it is time for the readers to read, as Paul Harvey, R.I.P. used to say "The Rest of the Story" about his presentation to the NAS.
According to BFL incorporated, the prestigious Dr, Drew Richardson, former Chief of the FBI's Counter-Terrorism Unit, joined Brain Fingerprinting Laboratories in 2001 as Vice President of Forensic Operations just a few weeks before Sept. 11, 2001. They are a privately held commercial interest promoting and selling theory and technology for the use of the "P300/MERMER" (memory and encoding related multifaceted electroencephalographic response wave for the detection of deception and concealed information. This provides Richardson with a financial motive to try to convince folks that polygraph does not work.
Based on George's notes, which he has posted elsewhere on this website; at the time Richardson spoke to NAS on October 17 2001 he represented himself only with his FBI and Research credentials and failed to inform the committee of his possible conflict of interest based on profit. His BFL Inc. boss, Lawrence Farwell, immediately followed Richardson's presentation with a P300 sales pitch. YES, conveniently right behind Richardson's criticism of polygraph. The final NAS report does not indicate that they had any knowledge of Richardson's employment or financial interest in a technology attempting to compete with polygraph.
If George is telling the truth about Richardson's presentation to NAS and Richardson failed to disclose an obvious profit based ulterior motive that potentially colored his comments, I believe that he conducted himself in an unethical manner.
George's motives are arguably "Not for Profit". I don't think the same can be said for Dr. Drew Richardson. I think his motives are more about the money.
Now you know "The Rest of the Story" Good Day
P.S. Sergeant, how would you feel about having your brain scanned as part of the police applicant process?
P.S.S. Cullen, How would you feel about a periodic counterintelligence brain scan as a condition of continued employment?
Since new interest has been generated, perhaps it is time for the readers to read, as Paul Harvey, R.I.P. used to say "The Rest of the Story" about his presentation to the NAS.
According to BFL incorporated, the prestigious Dr, Drew Richardson, former Chief of the FBI's Counter-Terrorism Unit, joined Brain Fingerprinting Laboratories in 2001 as Vice President of Forensic Operations just a few weeks before Sept. 11, 2001. They are a privately held commercial interest promoting and selling theory and technology for the use of the "P300/MERMER" (memory and encoding related multifaceted electroencephalographic response wave for the detection of deception and concealed information. This provides Richardson with a financial motive to try to convince folks that polygraph does not work.
Based on George's notes, which he has posted elsewhere on this website; at the time Richardson spoke to NAS on October 17 2001 he represented himself only with his FBI and Research credentials and failed to inform the committee of his possible conflict of interest based on profit. His BFL Inc. boss, Lawrence Farwell, immediately followed Richardson's presentation with a P300 sales pitch. YES, conveniently right behind Richardson's criticism of polygraph. The final NAS report does not indicate that they had any knowledge of Richardson's employment or financial interest in a technology attempting to compete with polygraph.
If George is telling the truth about Richardson's presentation to NAS and Richardson failed to disclose an obvious profit based ulterior motive that potentially colored his comments, I believe that he conducted himself in an unethical manner.
George's motives are arguably "Not for Profit". I don't think the same can be said for Dr. Drew Richardson. I think his motives are more about the money.
Now you know "The Rest of the Story" Good Day
P.S. Sergeant, how would you feel about having your brain scanned as part of the police applicant process?
P.S.S. Cullen, How would you feel about a periodic counterintelligence brain scan as a condition of continued employment?
Posted by polytechnic
- Jul 23, 2008, 10:28 AMQuote from: Sergeant1107 on May 28, 2008, 12:52 AMFrom a retired deputy and polygraphist from Florida. You can beat the examiner but not the instrument! Its how you interview, the polygraph is just a tool. Criminal and pre employment testing are two different tests. If the examiner knows what he/she is doing, and they are good, they should see the countermeasures. Even when they decide to play with their sphincter, if its not at the right time you loose! As far as the GSR tricks, the GSR can be placed in other areas with good results.
As far as a book to beat the test, its a fishing expediation on a pre employment- see what you nibble at. Criminal tests are the best and easy.
I did quite a bit before law enforcement and college. If on the street, ya dump the dope whatever. Speeding, a warning. I was one that rembers his roots, and wont stroke you for something I did.
The examiner can go by their gut. I know if you arent upfront, I dont have to fail you on a drug question if I have good vibes on a person.
I will inform the applicant inbetween tests only, to quit the countermeasures. If by the third question or so I will stop the test and let them out.
You get a good examiner that is upfront and phrases the question best for the applicant, then they wont need the counter measures. Change the question to: when was the last time you ..... Puts the applicant at ease. No other problems, continue the person in the process, and note reactions to CYA. If you flatline from a drug or its overacting on GSR (depends) reschedule, or ya get a question from left field and see what happens. No reaction, process stops there! (there is more to this)
Best to be upfront from the start-BUT, to an extent!!!!!!!! Why people say the things they do beats me.
FYI: I stand while testing the person. Screw up on a counter measure, and the next weekly meeting of background examiners, that are from different departments, and one mentions your name, you are SOL!!
98 % validity on specific/crime test. PE-pre employment is a fishing expediation 2% goes to countermeasures, BUT, this is with a good qualified examiner and done properly.
If you arent sure, YOU/I let the person continue in the process. An examiner that takes the time to explain things to the applicant they wont have to use counter measures. Look, You made it to this step (or you are gathering information) dont screw it up.
A book? Its a joke, dont waste your money. Takes 2 areas to knock a person out of the process. Your a bad apple, you will most likely mess up on the poly, psych, or oral. Dont blame the examiner. Been doing this since 84
Its a great job, but when you resort to a counter measure, and I see it, you are done!! Find another career.
You people are so negative on polygraphs. I have gone out of my way to get somebody hired that was too honest, but the problem areas were in the past and the applicant was over standards. Exceptions can be made!!!!!!
If you cant get the first two questions right, you BETTER USE COUNTER MEASURES!! NO BOOK WILL HELP!!
If your gut feel tells you that certain people are honest, then why proceed to test them ? Dont you trust your own intelligence against a 1935 model machine ?
I think that your examinees must have been simpletons if you caught them sooo easily iro CM's. The 'book' and indeed any examiner worth his salt, can teach a reasonably intelligent person how to beat the test.
(because telling the truth doesnt really get you where you deserve to be)
Posted by JON
- Jun 03, 2008, 04:47 PMTC
The 2% on a specific test if done correctly is from counter measuers.
The pre employment is about 12 questions repeated twice with a 2-3 minutes inbetween to rest the arm. Iy I suspect one is using countermeasuers say with breathing, I will let the charts run inbetween charts and see the change in the cardio for breathing. You dont see my paper going, and I might ask you something or instruct you to breath naturally. Your breathing changes on the second test to normal fine, if not I might rescheduld or plain end your process at that point. Subjective, up to the examiner and how I feel towards the applicant. Never stim an applicant!!! Never say inbetween tests you show reactions to say for example to the drug questions. If done, that question will be on the persons mind and show a larger reaction the second test. If that ever happens, tell the examiner!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I have seen it done by polygraphists. Tell the person in charge of your process, and they will set you for another test. Be advised, you fail the first examiner, 9 out of 10 times the second examiner will go with the firsts rec. I call it the way I see it! But on the other hand have passed people that have been failed as well. Same for the psychological, People can request or pay for it on their own if the dept says it is ok and must be one of the many psychs the dept uses. There are good examiners and bad ones. Same for doctors or lawyers.
AGAIN, the 98% is fact. The book is The Scientific Validity of the Polygraph. Takes 2 areas to be declined!!! You should be more worried on the psychological or oral board!!!!!!!!
Hope that helped some
The 2% on a specific test if done correctly is from counter measuers.
The pre employment is about 12 questions repeated twice with a 2-3 minutes inbetween to rest the arm. Iy I suspect one is using countermeasuers say with breathing, I will let the charts run inbetween charts and see the change in the cardio for breathing. You dont see my paper going, and I might ask you something or instruct you to breath naturally. Your breathing changes on the second test to normal fine, if not I might rescheduld or plain end your process at that point. Subjective, up to the examiner and how I feel towards the applicant. Never stim an applicant!!! Never say inbetween tests you show reactions to say for example to the drug questions. If done, that question will be on the persons mind and show a larger reaction the second test. If that ever happens, tell the examiner!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I have seen it done by polygraphists. Tell the person in charge of your process, and they will set you for another test. Be advised, you fail the first examiner, 9 out of 10 times the second examiner will go with the firsts rec. I call it the way I see it! But on the other hand have passed people that have been failed as well. Same for the psychological, People can request or pay for it on their own if the dept says it is ok and must be one of the many psychs the dept uses. There are good examiners and bad ones. Same for doctors or lawyers.
AGAIN, the 98% is fact. The book is The Scientific Validity of the Polygraph. Takes 2 areas to be declined!!! You should be more worried on the psychological or oral board!!!!!!!!
Hope that helped some