- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by Bill Crider
- Jun 10, 2005, 04:42 PMthey accuse you of lying. if that doesnt work they say that mammograms arent 100% accurate either
Posted by Sergeant1107
- Jun 10, 2005, 02:22 PMI just spent some time going through the message boards on PolygraphPlace.com. It's amazing to me that so many pro-polygraph people continually write "Just be 100% honest and you'll pass with no problems." Even when confronted by someone who asserts that they were 100% honest and still failed, the examiners and other pro-polygraph people continue to dispense the same advice.
One of the messages quoted an average accuracy rate of 85% and suggested that a skilled examiner's rate would be higher. I guess that's as close as they will get to saying that you have a 15% chance (according to their figures) of being completely honest and still failing.
Since I am one of the many, many people who was completely truthful on my polygraph and still failed, how does an examiner endorsing the "be truthful" advice expect me to respond? Or do they expect me to start believing that I must have been lying or I wouldn't have failed the "test"? Or am I being naive to wonder if they give it any thought at all?
One of the messages quoted an average accuracy rate of 85% and suggested that a skilled examiner's rate would be higher. I guess that's as close as they will get to saying that you have a 15% chance (according to their figures) of being completely honest and still failing.
Since I am one of the many, many people who was completely truthful on my polygraph and still failed, how does an examiner endorsing the "be truthful" advice expect me to respond? Or do they expect me to start believing that I must have been lying or I wouldn't have failed the "test"? Or am I being naive to wonder if they give it any thought at all?
Posted by Jeffery
- Jun 08, 2005, 03:31 AMAnybody reading this who is wondering which side is right: the pro-polygrah or anti-polygraph camps, just look at the qualtiy of the posts. George, Gino and Drew Richardson have much more data at their fingertips, aren't afraid to silence critics and write MUCH more intelligenly than those at the pro-polygraph sites.
Funny that those on the other site refer to themselves as "practicionars" and not "researchers" or "academics". They have phony PhDs and simply know how to press buttons on a polygraph machine and intimidate people, while at the same time accusing honest people of lieing and crushing hopes of careers. I'll believe Drew Richardson, former FBI Agent who held high level positions at Quantico and has testified before Congress as an expert. Much more than any of the chart-gazing practicioners can say.
But if you still can't form a good judgement about polygraphics based on the quality of posts for and against, then read the books. George and Gino's book is a start. Then read the DoDPI manuals on this site. Then try to find honest information about the polygraph on the pro-polygraph site. Hard to do.
Funny that those on the other site refer to themselves as "practicionars" and not "researchers" or "academics". They have phony PhDs and simply know how to press buttons on a polygraph machine and intimidate people, while at the same time accusing honest people of lieing and crushing hopes of careers. I'll believe Drew Richardson, former FBI Agent who held high level positions at Quantico and has testified before Congress as an expert. Much more than any of the chart-gazing practicioners can say.
But if you still can't form a good judgement about polygraphics based on the quality of posts for and against, then read the books. George and Gino's book is a start. Then read the DoDPI manuals on this site. Then try to find honest information about the polygraph on the pro-polygraph site. Hard to do.
Posted by Bill Crider
- Jun 08, 2005, 02:28 AM"2. The fact that Drew Richardson testified before Congress means very little. So did Jose Conseco, Alan Alda and Marlo Thomas. Does that make them experts?"
to my understanding, Dr. Richardson is/was a Supervisory Special Agent in the FBI laboratory and Skip Webb calls into question his credentials as an expert witness and compares him to Jose Canseco and movie actors?
Beam me up Scotty!
to my understanding, Dr. Richardson is/was a Supervisory Special Agent in the FBI laboratory and Skip Webb calls into question his credentials as an expert witness and compares him to Jose Canseco and movie actors?
Beam me up Scotty!
Posted by polyfool
- Jun 08, 2005, 12:34 AMYou SHOULD blame more than the test. After all, there is a human element involved. Polygraphs don't administer themselves. There would be no polygraphs if agents refused to take part in the faulty, dishonest, so-called testing procedure. A federal agent once told me that he was asked to become a polygraph examiner, but said when he found out what the test was really all about he said, no thank you. Too bad there aren't more like him.
Posted by Bill Crider
- Jun 07, 2005, 06:31 PMi dont blame the agents. they are doing their job. I blame their stupid test. I had 1 agent look me in the eye and say he has NEVER had a false positive. 2 minutes after I was one. I think he was just posturing. How the hell would he know.
Posted by Drew Richardson
- Jun 07, 2005, 06:07 PMJeffery,
The good news is that a large segment of the FBI family realizes what nonsense goes on in connection with polygraphy (particularly polygraph screening); the bad news is that those who don't represent an unfortunately high proportion of those who make policy for the FBI.
The good news is that a large segment of the FBI family realizes what nonsense goes on in connection with polygraphy (particularly polygraph screening); the bad news is that those who don't represent an unfortunately high proportion of those who make policy for the FBI.
Posted by Jeffery
- Jun 07, 2005, 06:00 PMBill - you mention the FBI; and Drew, you used to work there.
I'm sure most regular FBI agents are normal guys and girls doing a job they like serving a country they love. The older ones may have skipped the polygraph altogether. The younger ones probably passed without incident.
Because of this, do you think they actually have a strong belief into the polygraph reliability? Do THEY look at those that failed/inconclusive/false positived their polygraphs with contempt? Or do they think "man, poor guy. But by the grace of God go I...".
I'm sure most regular FBI agents are normal guys and girls doing a job they like serving a country they love. The older ones may have skipped the polygraph altogether. The younger ones probably passed without incident.
Because of this, do you think they actually have a strong belief into the polygraph reliability? Do THEY look at those that failed/inconclusive/false positived their polygraphs with contempt? Or do they think "man, poor guy. But by the grace of God go I...".
Posted by polyscam
- Jun 07, 2005, 05:41 PMDr. Richardon,
Your banishment on polygraphplace is your own fault
Open discussion is not welcome as it may undermine the exact "science" upon which those in control of that site claim as a livelihood. I too have been threatened with the ban. At those times I usually quiet down. Understand that those there who are polygraphers are free to offer up speculation, opinion and conjecture. However, if you are not a confirmed polygrapher or supporter of polygraphy you are not free to do the same. Opinions and facts in direct opposition of those regularly and usually held by what would appear as a majority of posters there will not be tolerated. Mr. Hilliard continually reminds those of us that get out of line with polygraphplace.com's message board of that policy.
Now that you wrote that you can expect to next sign on as WDC IV.
Unfortunately, polyplace's board does not acknowledge innocents being incorrectly found deceptive. According to some of them, this is so rare that the majority of us who have had such an experience are nothing more than pissed off little whiners who lied and won't admit it. Who would have guessed that there are so many malcontents, disgrunteld applicants and just in general unsavory types? Something reeks and it isn't the three day old fish on the countertop.
Your banishment on polygraphplace is your own fault
Open discussion is not welcome as it may undermine the exact "science" upon which those in control of that site claim as a livelihood. I too have been threatened with the ban. At those times I usually quiet down. Understand that those there who are polygraphers are free to offer up speculation, opinion and conjecture. However, if you are not a confirmed polygrapher or supporter of polygraphy you are not free to do the same. Opinions and facts in direct opposition of those regularly and usually held by what would appear as a majority of posters there will not be tolerated. Mr. Hilliard continually reminds those of us that get out of line with polygraphplace.com's message board of that policy.
Quotemy title on polygraphplace is WDC III. Because WDC and WDC II got banned,
Now that you wrote that you can expect to next sign on as WDC IV.
Unfortunately, polyplace's board does not acknowledge innocents being incorrectly found deceptive. According to some of them, this is so rare that the majority of us who have had such an experience are nothing more than pissed off little whiners who lied and won't admit it. Who would have guessed that there are so many malcontents, disgrunteld applicants and just in general unsavory types? Something reeks and it isn't the three day old fish on the countertop.
Posted by Bill Crider
- Jun 07, 2005, 05:15 PMmy title on polygraphplace is WDC III. Because WDC and WDC II got banned,
anyway, in my experience of 4 FBI exams, after they knew I knew the format, the test format changed. I was not notified of the control questions ahead of time and they were not of the "did you ever lie to your mother" variety. They were always periphery issues to the relevants. for example, "have you ever been in the presence of people using drugs" or "are you afraid of failing this test" or "does anyone else know that you have failed an FBI polyrgraph test" and so on.
I think it hurt me that i knew the format, but that is the fault of the stupid assumptions of the test. To me the biggest weakness of the CQT is that it relies on the examiner developing control questions(probable lies) that should make you nervous after a 20 minute interview. I found many of the controls I was asked over my 4 tests laughable. let me elaborate with some of my favorites.
1. (After informing my examiner that i was a programmer)
"Have you ever gained access to prohibited computer files. "
I see, so all IT workers are unethical hackers and MUST have done this at some point. #1 "hacking" is a specific set of skils that most programmers do not posses as there is generally no need to be good at this unless you are a security expert, and that is more often Network admin types, not software developers.
(after saying that I drink socially)"Have you ever abused Alcohol"
ah ha, so everyone who drinks as either been a drunk or drunk driver. Sorry, but I have never done either. Thats a stupid assumption. Why would this be a "probable Lie"
and my favorite...(during my 4th and final exam)
"does anyone else know that you have failed an FBI polyrgraph test"
Hell, yes, hundreds, thousands. you think Im ashamed of failing when im innocent? what reaction is this suppose to cause except exasperation and amusement.
anyway, in my experience of 4 FBI exams, after they knew I knew the format, the test format changed. I was not notified of the control questions ahead of time and they were not of the "did you ever lie to your mother" variety. They were always periphery issues to the relevants. for example, "have you ever been in the presence of people using drugs" or "are you afraid of failing this test" or "does anyone else know that you have failed an FBI polyrgraph test" and so on.
I think it hurt me that i knew the format, but that is the fault of the stupid assumptions of the test. To me the biggest weakness of the CQT is that it relies on the examiner developing control questions(probable lies) that should make you nervous after a 20 minute interview. I found many of the controls I was asked over my 4 tests laughable. let me elaborate with some of my favorites.
1. (After informing my examiner that i was a programmer)
"Have you ever gained access to prohibited computer files. "
I see, so all IT workers are unethical hackers and MUST have done this at some point. #1 "hacking" is a specific set of skils that most programmers do not posses as there is generally no need to be good at this unless you are a security expert, and that is more often Network admin types, not software developers.
(after saying that I drink socially)"Have you ever abused Alcohol"
ah ha, so everyone who drinks as either been a drunk or drunk driver. Sorry, but I have never done either. Thats a stupid assumption. Why would this be a "probable Lie"
and my favorite...(during my 4th and final exam)
"does anyone else know that you have failed an FBI polyrgraph test"
Hell, yes, hundreds, thousands. you think Im ashamed of failing when im innocent? what reaction is this suppose to cause except exasperation and amusement.
Posted by Drew Richardson
- Jun 07, 2005, 04:48 PMOh well, after a few days as a poster on PolygraphPlace.com, I too have joined the honorable ranks of those of you banned as a poster on that site. I think I was banned for encouraging discussion of opposing views regarding polygraph procedure. It is truly amazing that a site can exist for the purposes of addressing polygraph issues and yet fail to address differences regarding polygraphy. I guess somebody could foresee the walls of Oz crumbling with a little too much thought going on...lol. Oh well....here is the thread upon which I was so notified...
http://www.polygraphplace.com/ubb/NonCGI/Forum1/HTML/000292.html
The following is the reply I attempted to post. Should any of you who are regulars on PolygraphPlace.com, and yet engage in the risky behavior of frequenting this site, care to continue the discussion that I was forbidden to raise on your turf, please feel free to comment. My post:
http://www.polygraphplace.com/ubb/NonCGI/Forum1/HTML/000292.html
The following is the reply I attempted to post. Should any of you who are regulars on PolygraphPlace.com, and yet engage in the risky behavior of frequenting this site, care to continue the discussion that I was forbidden to raise on your turf, please feel free to comment. My post:
Quote
Although this represents another tardy intrusion into a somewhat dated thread, I thought it might be interesting to venture here anyway. I do it not because of the reference to me in connection with countermeasures, having testified before Congress, or vague comparisons with Jose Canseco and others, but because I'd like to address the subject posed by the title of the thread and lost fairly quickly in the series of posts. But before going there, I would like to point out that Jose Canseco was NOT invited to testify as an expert witness (the hearing was not about baseball and Mr. Canseco as far as I know claims no pharmacological expertise in the effects of steroids or other drug substances on the body) but as an eye witness or hearsay witness to rampant drug usage in his industry. In the capacity that he was called, it appeared to me that Mr. Canseco was considerably more credible as a witness than his former teammate and other ball players who appeared to be very uncomfortable addressing the truth regarding the sad state of drugs and baseball. So to that extent, although my arms and back were never as big as Jose's, I appreciate any comparisons regarding the relative significance of our testimonies and our roles in exposing industry failings. And now back on the ranch....
Of course examinee knowledge has an impact on your (examiner) conduct of your exam. It is imperative that, although you will intercompare and interscore the physiological responses to two types of questions (relevant and control) in a control question test (CQT), it is required by your (industry) theory that in order for an examinee to go to or to respond as natural psychological set theory would have it, the examinee must not realize that there are two categories of questions that are being posed to him. That, of course, is why you spend a certain amount of time trying to convince an examinee of the relevance of control questions. In fact I am sure many of you suggest that the perpetrator of the relevant issue may well have begun his life of crime by various misdeeds in the control area(s). Clearly this whole scenario is foiled by examinee knowledge. There are many other examples to demonstrate this as well, but I thought this one might be sufficient to generate some discussion. Regards...