- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by n0mad
- Dec 23, 2003, 08:37 PMI did read your post right after you posted it so I know you didn't see that addition. I just added that for jest and to lighten the situation; I'm nowhere near 6'7", and sure the hell aint 525lbs, lol.
Posted by Twoblock
- Dec 23, 2003, 08:34 PMnOmad
Should have waited for your edited post and I wouldn't have had to do another.
Your size didn't cause me to say all's forgotten. I am only 6' and 210 # but, I have never let size deter me from my self-appointed rounds.
How-some-ever this kind of conversation is dump and I ain't gonna do it no more.
Should have waited for your edited post and I wouldn't have had to do another.
Your size didn't cause me to say all's forgotten. I am only 6' and 210 # but, I have never let size deter me from my self-appointed rounds.
How-some-ever this kind of conversation is dump and I ain't gonna do it no more.
Posted by Twoblock
- Dec 23, 2003, 08:23 PMnOmad
Sorry here too. I have been accused of having a flash point that's way too low. I have often wondered why. When someone calls me names, face to face, there is not time for a threat.
Consider it forgotten.
Sorry here too. I have been accused of having a flash point that's way too low. I have often wondered why. When someone calls me names, face to face, there is not time for a threat.
Consider it forgotten.
Posted by n0mad
- Dec 23, 2003, 08:01 PMSorry, had to edit my last post, I'm at work and cannot concentrate like I need to when reading sometimes, but from your post, I couldn't ascertain in which direction you were coming from. And lets not stoop to idle threats; you don't know me, I'm 6'7" and 525 lbs. of lean rock hard muscle! 
Posted by Twoblock
- Dec 23, 2003, 07:57 PMnOmad
Your operation, crossing your optical and rectal nerves, has given you a shitty outlook on life. Your labeling me as a polygrapher and sucker proves it. If we were face to face, yours wouldn't be there long.
BTW, since when has our federal government had to be legal to do any damn thing they want.
Your operation, crossing your optical and rectal nerves, has given you a shitty outlook on life. Your labeling me as a polygrapher and sucker proves it. If we were face to face, yours wouldn't be there long.
BTW, since when has our federal government had to be legal to do any damn thing they want.
Posted by n0mad
- Dec 23, 2003, 07:45 PMHacking a web server without permission from the owner is against the law. I have nothing incriminating on this server anyway so they CANNOT find out who I am. Perhaps you didn't read my post, but all they could get is my ip from the webserver host. My IP does not contain personal info. They cannot get my personal info without a SUBPOENA to my ISP, which they can't get because I am not breaking the law.
They would have to get a warrant, which requires probable cause that the law is being BROKEN, and since the poly doesn't even hold up in a court of law....
But who knows what will happen now with the US Patriot Act. blah!
They would have to get a warrant, which requires probable cause that the law is being BROKEN, and since the poly doesn't even hold up in a court of law....
But who knows what will happen now with the US Patriot Act. blah!
Posted by Twoblock
- Dec 23, 2003, 07:38 PMnOmad
Don't ever think the national, and probably state and local as well, LE agencies can't hack in on a website or post and find out exactly who you are. These people are expert hackers. How do you think they catch hackers and keep track of BeenLayen? However, if they have the time to spend to do this because of our "threat"? to the poly, the force needs to be drastically reduced and the guilty ones charged with theft of tax payer money.
Big brother probably has a personal file on every mother's child in this country. J.E. Hoover started this way back yonder. I think Lyndon got him going on it pretty good.
Don't ever think the national, and probably state and local as well, LE agencies can't hack in on a website or post and find out exactly who you are. These people are expert hackers. How do you think they catch hackers and keep track of BeenLayen? However, if they have the time to spend to do this because of our "threat"? to the poly, the force needs to be drastically reduced and the guilty ones charged with theft of tax payer money.
Big brother probably has a personal file on every mother's child in this country. J.E. Hoover started this way back yonder. I think Lyndon got him going on it pretty good.
Posted by Marty
- Dec 23, 2003, 06:54 PMQuote from: Torpedo on Dec 23, 2003, 04:51 PMMarty..get your facts right...it wasn't Reid that experiemented with plants....it was Cleve Backster....and his purpose was to see if there was any bioelectric signals emanating from them.....as it turns out...while the source remains in question, there was in fact some signal in response to his activity...remember they laughed at Edison too!Torpedo, you are right - partially. It was Backster. OTOH, he went way beyond proposing plants eminated bioelectric signals. Specifically, he claimed that plants reacted to a intent to damage them...such as torch their leaves. Lot's of things have electronic signals, suggesting that plants have a special "psychic" response to threats is even more credulous than that they are sentient.
I love the "woo woo" factor though. People are so interesting.
-Marty
Posted by n0mad
- Dec 23, 2003, 06:32 PMIs that what "IP logged" in the corner means?! Of course my ip is logged, but I'm sure George and his host are kind enough not to reveal that information to the polygraphers; that would be dumb 
, not only that, but my ISP is not going to reveal my personal information to anyone without a subpoena; and that's just not gonna happen here.
Was that another attempt by a polygrapher to deceive?!?!
Besides, there is nothing illegal about this site, and we have every right to be here, and they will never "catch" me, they'd just be wasting their time seeing how they can't detect CM's.
, not only that, but my ISP is not going to reveal my personal information to anyone without a subpoena; and that's just not gonna happen here.Was that another attempt by a polygrapher to deceive?!?!
Besides, there is nothing illegal about this site, and we have every right to be here, and they will never "catch" me, they'd just be wasting their time seeing how they can't detect CM's.
Posted by gotcha
- Dec 23, 2003, 06:28 PMThey come here to catch you and guys like Ryan. Don't you know that every time you post a message your IP is logged?
Posted by n0mad
- Dec 23, 2003, 05:00 PMI laugh at polygraphers who come to this site and think they have to "convert" us; obviously the truth lies somewhere here. If not, can some of you tell us why you visit here regularly along with countless others?
Posted by Torpedo
- Dec 23, 2003, 04:51 PMMarty..get your facts right...it wasn't Reid that experiemented with plants....it was Cleve Backster....and his purpose was to see if there was any bioelectric signals emanating from them.....as it turns out...while the source remains in question, there was in fact some signal in response to his activity...remember they laughed at Edison too!
Posted by Marty
- Dec 23, 2003, 04:43 PMGeorge,
It appears prevarication is not limited to examinees. I especially like this quote from the Penn. Atty Gen's sitehttp://www.attorneygeneral.gov/cld/articles/poly.cfm:
"The polygraphist then proceeds with a thorough explanation of how and why the polygraph works."
Interestingly, it does repeat the tale of the Tail:
"In 1500 B.C. in India, a priest put lampblack on the tail of a donkey and led the donkey into a dark room. Suspects were told to go into the room and pull the "magic" donkey's tail, for the "magic" donkey could determine dishonesty. When the suspects returned from the room their hands were examined. Those with clean hands obviously did not pull the donkey's tail, indicating their fear of being exposed, and, consequently, their dishonesty."
As for early exponents, Larson and Reid, but not Marston were mentioned. Reid's excellent adventure into plant polygraphy wasn't discussed. I've sometimes wondered how to establish the control questions when it comes to plants.
-Marty
It appears prevarication is not limited to examinees. I especially like this quote from the Penn. Atty Gen's sitehttp://www.attorneygeneral.gov/cld/articles/poly.cfm:
"The polygraphist then proceeds with a thorough explanation of how and why the polygraph works."
Interestingly, it does repeat the tale of the Tail:
"In 1500 B.C. in India, a priest put lampblack on the tail of a donkey and led the donkey into a dark room. Suspects were told to go into the room and pull the "magic" donkey's tail, for the "magic" donkey could determine dishonesty. When the suspects returned from the room their hands were examined. Those with clean hands obviously did not pull the donkey's tail, indicating their fear of being exposed, and, consequently, their dishonesty."
As for early exponents, Larson and Reid, but not Marston were mentioned. Reid's excellent adventure into plant polygraphy wasn't discussed. I've sometimes wondered how to establish the control questions when it comes to plants.
-Marty
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Dec 23, 2003, 05:12 AMQuote from: Guest on Dec 22, 2003, 07:59 PMIt has been my experience that when someone reveals their knowledge of countermeasures and/or polygraph techniques the test can still be conducted. It was mentioned ealier that the possibility of a DLQT could be used as an alternative to the CQT, that depends on the matter being tested.
My advice to you is to ensure your examiner you will cooperate and inform him that you have done research in regard to polygraph. I have run many exams with examinee's who have revealed to me they have conducted researchy on the net regarding general information about polygraph and countermeasures. Those exams went well and the persons were cleared of the matter being tested or provided information as to why they could not clear an issue.
I only speak for myself as far as how an examiner might regard such a revelation. Me personally, I am not threatened by the advice on this site, others examiners may differ in concern. Once countermeasures are detected it usually causes the process to end and the examinee to be considered uncooperative.
Your choice seems simple to me, take the exam without the use of countermeasures. George and his crew of supporters are less concerned if countermeasures actually work than they are with trying to disrupt a process that excluded them in some manner, regardless of its success and usefulness.
Guest,
Some three years ago now, I asked American Polygraph Association president Milton O. "Skip" Webb to clarify how APA members should proceed with subjects who admit to knowing about polygraph procedure. Mr. Webb declined to do so. You'll find our correspondence here:
http://antipolygraph.org/read.shtml#informed-subjects
Why do you suppose Mr. Webb was unwilling to explain how APA members are to handle those who understand "the lie behind the lie detector?"
So long as the polygraph community refuses to set public standards for dealing with informed subjects, many will no doubt decide that it is in their best interest not to disclose their knowledge of the trickery on which this invalid "test" is based.
With regard to countermeasures, if you are truly confident in your ability to detect them, then why not be the first to accept Dr. Richardson's polygraph countermeasure challenge?
Posted by Howard
- Dec 23, 2003, 02:17 AMI agree completely with Kona. When an examiner tells you not to listen to the advice on this website, it's because he/she knows damn well that if you decide to employ countermeasures, you stand a very good chance at beating their absurd machine. That is why they are tuned in to this site in the first place. If one is not concerned with his opponent, he probably won't waste his time researching his moves. I generally don't like to generalize people, but I'll make an exception. Polygraphers, for the most part, are a bunch of people who have capitalized on a craft that is total nonsense. If you talk to a cvsa examiner, you will hear that the cvsa is superior to the polygraph. When you talk to a polygraph examiner, they will tell how they are superior to cvsa. In reality they are both a bunch of garbage. My neigbor was released from the FBI hiring process because he was found to be deceptive on questions regarding foreign intelligence. Give me a goddamn break. The man has a degree in forensic science and worked for the county for 6 years. Not to mention he is fluent in Spanish and French. The chances of the average Joe having contacts with foreign intelligence is slim to none, but the FBI has this egregious belief in the lie detector. For this reason alone I think the people who make the rules there are morons.