- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by polyfool
- Apr 27, 2005, 01:03 PMdarkcobra2005:
Isn't that just like a poly examiner to twist things around in an effort to make us look like the bad guys when YOU are the one being dishonest? How convenient. No one set out to try and discourage you from posting here, unless of course, you are going to continue to spread lies and deceit. Some people are actually interested in open, honest exchanges. That's something you probably can't identify with. Anyway, I'm sure we haven't seen the last of you. You're probably already hard at work coming up with a new name and ruse under which to post on this site.
Isn't that just like a poly examiner to twist things around in an effort to make us look like the bad guys when YOU are the one being dishonest? How convenient. No one set out to try and discourage you from posting here, unless of course, you are going to continue to spread lies and deceit. Some people are actually interested in open, honest exchanges. That's something you probably can't identify with. Anyway, I'm sure we haven't seen the last of you. You're probably already hard at work coming up with a new name and ruse under which to post on this site.
Posted by anxietyguy
- Apr 24, 2005, 12:35 PMIf anyone's turf its polygraphplace.com. Try posting anything on there even slighty slanted towards questioning of the polygraph and you get banned. At least you are allowed to speak your piece (either for or against) on this site. Your profession is full of jesters and hypocrites.
Posted by polyfool
- Apr 22, 2005, 11:14 PMDarkCobra2005:
You stated in previous posts that you would also be outraged if you had been truthful during a poly screening and deemed deceptive AND that the screening procedure should not stand alone in the employment selection process. Most of the people posting on this site have been victims of both, so one can certainly understand their outrage. It would be more than fair to say that some have even suffered mental abuse at the hands of their examiners. Of course, it's not fair to say that all examiners operate in an unethical manner, but it does happen. Just look at the postings on this site.
I can tell you from my experience, neither of my examiners were interested in getting at the truth. They were just concerned with using tricks to try and gain admissions. Since I told the truth about everything, I had nothing else to offer.
It's one thing to use the poly to disqualify those applicants who admit to witholding info. or to use it in criminal investigations in an ethical manner. It's another for one person's subjective opinion to be allowed to dash dreams and ruin careers when there is no real evidence of deception. That's exactly what's happening over and over at the FBI and it's wrong.
It greatly reduces your credibility that you began posting here pretending to be someone you are not. You yourself have helped perpetuate the stereotype that all examiners are liars. In addition, you make personal attacks against those with whom you seem to agree. This site is against the use of polygraphs as the sole determining factor in pre-employment screening situations due to its high probability of false positives. You yourself said the poly is just one part of the process.
It's ironic that some examiners speak about angry false positive victims. Most of the examiners who have posted on this site (seems we have the flavor of the month around here) are so angry, hostile and unnecessarily nasty. If your goal is not to have all examiners lumped together in a negative light, then why not be honest from the outset? You singlehandedly defeated your purpose.
You stated in previous posts that you would also be outraged if you had been truthful during a poly screening and deemed deceptive AND that the screening procedure should not stand alone in the employment selection process. Most of the people posting on this site have been victims of both, so one can certainly understand their outrage. It would be more than fair to say that some have even suffered mental abuse at the hands of their examiners. Of course, it's not fair to say that all examiners operate in an unethical manner, but it does happen. Just look at the postings on this site.
I can tell you from my experience, neither of my examiners were interested in getting at the truth. They were just concerned with using tricks to try and gain admissions. Since I told the truth about everything, I had nothing else to offer.
It's one thing to use the poly to disqualify those applicants who admit to witholding info. or to use it in criminal investigations in an ethical manner. It's another for one person's subjective opinion to be allowed to dash dreams and ruin careers when there is no real evidence of deception. That's exactly what's happening over and over at the FBI and it's wrong.
It greatly reduces your credibility that you began posting here pretending to be someone you are not. You yourself have helped perpetuate the stereotype that all examiners are liars. In addition, you make personal attacks against those with whom you seem to agree. This site is against the use of polygraphs as the sole determining factor in pre-employment screening situations due to its high probability of false positives. You yourself said the poly is just one part of the process.
It's ironic that some examiners speak about angry false positive victims. Most of the examiners who have posted on this site (seems we have the flavor of the month around here) are so angry, hostile and unnecessarily nasty. If your goal is not to have all examiners lumped together in a negative light, then why not be honest from the outset? You singlehandedly defeated your purpose.
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Apr 22, 2005, 06:21 AMdarkcobra2005,
Your refusal to answer is answer enough.
Your refusal to answer is answer enough.
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Apr 21, 2005, 04:05 AMdarkcobra2005,
Your unwillingness to state the name of the "validated" pre-employment polygraph screening technique wherein a relevant question as poorly constructed as, "Have you ever stolen from an employer?" is considered acceptable is understandable: you lied. There is no such technique, and your false assertion that there is one fit hand-in-glove with the rest of your initial post in which you gave "advice" that would likely lead to an accusation of attempted countermeasure use:
Returning to a point in your post of 20 April 2005 at 9:44 AM, you wrote:
This is a tacit admission that you are, in fact, the author of the disinformational posts by thevet2 and checking Those accounts were banned for your blatant violation of AntiPolygraph.org's posting policy (willfull posting of false information). But you wouldn't have known that were you not the author of those posts. Would you care to explain why you initially came to this forum masquerading as a non-polygrapher?
Your unwillingness to state the name of the "validated" pre-employment polygraph screening technique wherein a relevant question as poorly constructed as, "Have you ever stolen from an employer?" is considered acceptable is understandable: you lied. There is no such technique, and your false assertion that there is one fit hand-in-glove with the rest of your initial post in which you gave "advice" that would likely lead to an accusation of attempted countermeasure use:
Quote from: darkcobra2005 on Apr 19, 2005, 01:30 AMAS a polygraph examiner, I would not say that the theft from an employeer is a control question, it appears that it is a relevant question. Might want to check with the examiner and just ask if that is a control. I would also tell them that I had checked on this site and that is where you got the question from. With examiners I know, the truth goes a long way.
Returning to a point in your post of 20 April 2005 at 9:44 AM, you wrote:
QuoteI am sure you will bar me again and thats fine.
This is a tacit admission that you are, in fact, the author of the disinformational posts by thevet2 and checking Those accounts were banned for your blatant violation of AntiPolygraph.org's posting policy (willfull posting of false information). But you wouldn't have known that were you not the author of those posts. Would you care to explain why you initially came to this forum masquerading as a non-polygrapher?
Posted by alice
- Apr 20, 2005, 11:46 PMI was fortunate, for I had a polygraph examiner who asked me questions regarding my life which I could truthfully answer yes or no and was not worried about him being deceiving. He was calm, easy to respond with in a pre-test..not a buddy..but inquiring and seeking corroboration without inconsistencies in what was given in my BI with my detective.
The man was a gentleman and would pass him by in the hall and greet him with respect, and, I believe he would reciprocate in kind.
I do not believe counter measures of any kind are ncessary. Although I have visited two poly sites, I felt no need to breathe in an abnormal manner which, by the way, he commended me on.
I also believe that if one is upfront about any incident with BI..then there should be nothing that scares you for a poly....my opinion..for what it is worth..although I am not applying with fed agencies..I am a forensic chemist and applying for positions in that capacity with LE.
The man was a gentleman and would pass him by in the hall and greet him with respect, and, I believe he would reciprocate in kind.
I do not believe counter measures of any kind are ncessary. Although I have visited two poly sites, I felt no need to breathe in an abnormal manner which, by the way, he commended me on.
I also believe that if one is upfront about any incident with BI..then there should be nothing that scares you for a poly....my opinion..for what it is worth..although I am not applying with fed agencies..I am a forensic chemist and applying for positions in that capacity with LE.
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Apr 20, 2005, 02:10 PMQuote from: darkcobra2005 on Apr 20, 2005, 12:44 PM...
I am dedicated to truth. And my statement that Dr Richardson is out of touch is true. Not a false accusation.
You can make control questions by doing what you demonstrated and placing a time bar or qualifier on theft from an employer (which I don't do). That would then be a control or without a time bar be an inclusive control questions (which I don't do). I do ask if you have stolen from an employer as a relevant question. Don't lump me in with the folks that use the Lept test format. You have no idea what format I use.
Paragraph 3.9.1 of the American Polygraph Association's Standards of Practice states:
Quote3.9.1 A member polygraph examiner shall use a validated testing technique....
Since you are "dedicated to truth," please state the name of the "validated" pre-employment polygraph screening technique wherein a relevant question as poorly constructed as, "Have you ever stolen from an employer?" is considered acceptable.
Posted by Drew Richardson
- Apr 20, 2005, 01:05 PMDarkCobra2005,
Being out of touch with the polygraph community is not being familiar with yesterday's play. And to that I plead guilty. If you are telling me that you (let alone your agency or some larger part of your industry) now construct relevant questions such that they contain/include insignificant behavior (which will have to be excluded and will likely be of some concern to innocent examinees) as well as significant material, heaven help the poor examinee. It is bad enough that the consequences of being found deceptive to a properly constructed relevant question are apparent to everybody. If you are now telling me that we must now be concerned with responses to relevant questions that are poorly constructed and would be of concern to many because of insignificant behaviors/actions, this has now reached either the heights of tragedy or comedy depending on one's point of view. Regards...
Being out of touch with the polygraph community is not being familiar with yesterday's play. And to that I plead guilty. If you are telling me that you (let alone your agency or some larger part of your industry) now construct relevant questions such that they contain/include insignificant behavior (which will have to be excluded and will likely be of some concern to innocent examinees) as well as significant material, heaven help the poor examinee. It is bad enough that the consequences of being found deceptive to a properly constructed relevant question are apparent to everybody. If you are now telling me that we must now be concerned with responses to relevant questions that are poorly constructed and would be of concern to many because of insignificant behaviors/actions, this has now reached either the heights of tragedy or comedy depending on one's point of view. Regards...
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Apr 20, 2005, 03:21 AMQuote from: darkcobra2005 on Apr 19, 2005, 10:48 AMDrew,
You are out of touch with the polygraph community at this time. Maybe at some point in time you had your marbles in one basket concerning polygraph, not now. That was a relevant question, should you use your countermeasures on that question you would not be considered truthful!!!. Suggest you go back to Polygraph School and find out what a control is and how it is worded.
Drew is not out of touch. Rather, you are a shameless liar too clever by half. The DoDPI Law Enforcement Pre-Employment Test examiner's guide includes among the comparison ("control") questions listed in Appendix D:
"Prior to -----, did you ever cheat your employer out of anything?"
QuoteRegarding your statement of the polygraph examiner is not your friend, you are right. We are not your friend we are there to get you through a polygraph examination and qualified for the department you are applying for.
If our intent was to fail all examinees, we would not have any police officers working for the department. Our task is to get you to tell the truth and get you on the job.
But "passing" a polygraph "test" is not dependent on whether or not one has told the truth. Rather, it depends on reacting more strongly to the "control" questions than to the relevant questions.
QuoteMisinformation is deadly. Get the facts before you respond.
This is truly ironic coming from you, who came to this message board for the express purpose of spreading misinformation, first with your posts as thevet2/checking and now under the new handle of "darkcobra2005." Evidently, AntiPolygraph.org's public documentation of the fraud that is polygraphy is deeply troubling to you. And indeed, it should be. As you go through the monkey drill of administering your "tests" (outlined step-by-step in the DoDPI LEPET examiner's guide), you're left in doubt as to whether the examinee has also read the script and sees through the deceptions on which your "test" depends.
Look at you! You are supposed to be a member of a profession that is "Dedicated to Truth" (American Polygraph Association motto). Yet here you are playing games by attempting to anonymously spread misinformation, and in the process falsely accusing Dr. Richardson of being "out of touch." Have you no shame?
When you first trained to become a polygraph examiner, did you ever think that you would be reduced to the kind of behavior that you have exhibited here? I don't think so.
If polygraphy were the reliable technique you wish it to be, you wouldn't be reduced to playing these deceptive games here. You may wish to follow the path recently chosen by FBI Special Agent Leroy Chan, a former polygraph examiner who had the intellectual honesty and moral courage to say enough is enough.
Posted by polyscam
- Apr 20, 2005, 02:14 AMQuoteI am sure if I got called untruthful when I was in fact truthful I would be outraged at the examiner and would put my efforts into correcting the error of that examiner's problem. I would not however strike out at the entire industry for one examiners error.
Outraged is a spot-on description. I have initiated an attempt to correct the error. However, the correction is one-sided as the agency applied to does not have much interest, if any, in correcting the wrong.
It is important to remember that first impressions are lasting. In my profession, I have the ability to cast light or darkness on my co-pros. What I do now can make the impression for the next (be it good or bad). My profession, for example, has a few stereotypes with which it is associated. The examiner I was interrogated by keyed on this fact and based a few questoins on it. The questions were both detestful and unncessary. Examiners should not take their "profession" lightly. They are affecting lives, casting doubt and breaking dreams with incorrect decisions/opinions.
Posted by anxietyguy
- Apr 20, 2005, 01:57 AMWhy not all examiners lie. That is what your ENTIRE profession is based on. Lie to the examiners during the pre-test and then accuse them of lying during the in-test. Wow how ironic, your a jester in a joker's world.
Posted by polyscam
- Apr 19, 2005, 04:28 PMQuoteSorry about the Sacrafice Relevant question, that was on another post and the persons responding was not Drew. So guess I missed telling the correct person the truth
Nope, that was me. I have read your above post regarding the sacrifice relevant question.
Quotemakes me one of those old persons that makes errors. Go with that one Drew
An error including belief in the abilities of a man and machine?
QuoteSure you have had your difficult times and sounds like you are angry at all polygraph examiners. Remember that is your baggage and I don't care to carry it for you
Perhaps if you were mislabeled, you would be a bit bothered. The general "anger" is not necessarily with the examiner(s), it is the practices which they employ and their unyielding faith placed in this process. Faith which cannot be shaken even in the face of actual scientific fact. You may not care to carry the baggage, however you have packed the bags and served the walking papers. Now the polygraph community is upset because many want to serve them walking papers. That is understandable. No one likes to accept that the very foundation on which he has placed his belief crumbles beneath his feet.
Posted by anxietyguy
- Apr 19, 2005, 11:41 AMYou talk about lying, but isn't ironic that you lie for living? You lie to the people your examining, and then you sit here and expect us to believe that "theft from an employer is not a control question." Maybe to the naive you may scare, but most who read this site already know the lie(s) behind the lie detector.
Posted by Drew Richardson
- Apr 19, 2005, 09:25 AMDarkCobra2005 writes:
The "theft-from-employer" question is most definitely a control question if (1) It does not refer to the specific item(s) stolen in a criminal specific-incident polygraph exam and/or it does not limit the theft of item(s) to some frequency of occurrence or to some minimum value ("items of value" or some minimum dollar value) in a screening application. Again, in a general screening exam, a non-specific question (i.e., one that would include the isolated unreturned pencil, etc.) referencing theft from an employer will be a CONTROL question.
Under NO (repeat...NOOOOOOO) circumstances should you ever discuss your knowledge or guesses about polygraph question types with your polygraph examiner, nor your knowledge of polygraph countermeasures and/or your sources of information. Simply answer his/her questions requiring a "yes" or "no" answer with the appropriate one-word answer with no elaboration or discussion. Your polygraph examiner is not your friend. Repeat....your polygraph examiner is not your friend, confidant, or religous advisor. It is interesting that our admitted polygraph examiner does not quote the more oft stated maxim of "The truth shall set you free." Clearly, many who visit this site and the hundreds who have contacted me over the years in regards to polygraph exam results will testify that this is not true for their polygraph experience. Instead he tells us that "the truth goes a long way (in a polygraph suite)." Is this a tongue-in-cheek snake-like reference to the stretching of the truth that has been reported by some examinees in connection with a minor (or no) admission on the part of said examinee and that winds up being a significant admission (and self serving statistic for the examiner) in the examiner's report? Hmmm.......
Quote
AS a polygraph examiner, I would not say that the theft from an employeer is a control question, it appears that it is a relevant question. Might want to check with the examiner and just ask if that is a control. I would also tell them that I had checked on this site and that is where you got the question from. With examiners I know, the truth goes a long way.
The "theft-from-employer" question is most definitely a control question if (1) It does not refer to the specific item(s) stolen in a criminal specific-incident polygraph exam and/or it does not limit the theft of item(s) to some frequency of occurrence or to some minimum value ("items of value" or some minimum dollar value) in a screening application. Again, in a general screening exam, a non-specific question (i.e., one that would include the isolated unreturned pencil, etc.) referencing theft from an employer will be a CONTROL question.
Under NO (repeat...NOOOOOOO) circumstances should you ever discuss your knowledge or guesses about polygraph question types with your polygraph examiner, nor your knowledge of polygraph countermeasures and/or your sources of information. Simply answer his/her questions requiring a "yes" or "no" answer with the appropriate one-word answer with no elaboration or discussion. Your polygraph examiner is not your friend. Repeat....your polygraph examiner is not your friend, confidant, or religous advisor. It is interesting that our admitted polygraph examiner does not quote the more oft stated maxim of "The truth shall set you free." Clearly, many who visit this site and the hundreds who have contacted me over the years in regards to polygraph exam results will testify that this is not true for their polygraph experience. Instead he tells us that "the truth goes a long way (in a polygraph suite)." Is this a tongue-in-cheek snake-like reference to the stretching of the truth that has been reported by some examinees in connection with a minor (or no) admission on the part of said examinee and that winds up being a significant admission (and self serving statistic for the examiner) in the examiner's report? Hmmm.......
Posted by Administrator
- Apr 19, 2005, 03:57 AMQuote from: darkcobra2005 on Apr 19, 2005, 01:30 AMAS a polygraph examiner, I would not say that the theft from an employeer is a control question, it appears that it is a relevant question. Might want to check with the examiner and just ask if that is a control. I would also tell them that I had checked on this site and that is where you got the question from. With examiners I know, the truth goes a long way.
The above post by "darkcobra2005" originated from the same IP address as other recent disinformational posts by thevet2 and checking.
While it is refreshing that our new friend has ceased pretending not to be a polygrapher, the advice he/she proffers is intended to mislead and will likely result in adverse consequences for anyone following it. How appropriate that this polygrapher has chosen a venomous snake for his/her new user name.