- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by George W. Maschke
- May 06, 2025, 12:30 AMQuotecan you interpret this for me
The polygraph chart you uploaded is stripped of relevant information that would be necessary for "scoring" the charts. If you could send me the computerized data file from the Stoelting CPSpro Fusion software that was used to generate this PDF file, I may be able to assist you further.
Posted by Kcristopher Reeves Ymzon
- May 05, 2025, 11:39 AMcan you interpret this for me
Posted by G Scalabr
- Feb 08, 2002, 10:52 PMI'm not sure that the pass rate is low as 1 in 150. Nonetheless, I believe that that LAPD is falsely accusing a large number of candidates of deception (both by percentage and by numbers as a whole). Furthermore, the possibility of differential pass rates for whites and minority applicants is extremely likely. As many of the frequent visitors to this site know, the polygraph is the perfect "tool" for conducting racist or reverse-racist hiring practices in broad daylight.
Those who have been wronged by the LAPD polygraph should seriously consider getting together as a group and filing a lawsuit similar to the one Mark Zaid has filed against the FBI, DEA, and Secret Service.
Those interested are encouraged to use the AntiPolygraph.org message board for networking purposes. Once a group forms, a wise idea would be to visit as many attorneys in the area as possible for free consultations. The goal is to find an experienced employment law attorney with interest in the case.
I sincerely hope that some of our participants will step up and put some heat on the folks in LA and let them know that government wrongdoing will not be tolerated.
Those who have been wronged by the LAPD polygraph should seriously consider getting together as a group and filing a lawsuit similar to the one Mark Zaid has filed against the FBI, DEA, and Secret Service.
Those interested are encouraged to use the AntiPolygraph.org message board for networking purposes. Once a group forms, a wise idea would be to visit as many attorneys in the area as possible for free consultations. The goal is to find an experienced employment law attorney with interest in the case.
I sincerely hope that some of our participants will step up and put some heat on the folks in LA and let them know that government wrongdoing will not be tolerated.
Posted by Mom
- Feb 07, 2002, 10:03 PMAfter reading your post I had to write and warn you about the current policy at LAPD. Depending if you are a minority or not has much to do with the outcome of your poly. Seems that there is currently a large group of non-minority (white guys) who feel they have been disqualified by the polygraph only because other things in their background checks did not dis qualify them. So the department used this stupied pre employment test to take them out of the process.
LAPD has in place P-2 background officers who have less than 5 years on the job and are hiding in administrative jobs doing the backgrounds. Most of them are minoritys and we firmly believe they are disqualifing each and every non minority they can. They would not know a qualified candiate if one was standing next to them.
In any case, if you have made it far enough to be taking the poly. your background has been completed. But do not give notice at your current job as the pass rate is 1 in 150.......
And we can assure you that you can be as honest as a new born babe, and still fail.....The best part is that the largest number of disqualifications are due to "questionable findings" and you will not get another chance to re-take the test as LAPD has a rule 1 per candiate. Also you will never know the specific reason for your "inconclusive results". As they will not tell you....... You can spend a year or two taking tests, doing the oral,passing thePAT and the medical , taking several days off of work and in the end no one will tell you exactly why you were disquilified. You should apply at a department that has different standards than LAPD. Believe me the current command staff at LAPD has taken the Dept. to an all time low!!!! It will take years before it will turn around...if in fact it can ever turn around.
LAPD has in place P-2 background officers who have less than 5 years on the job and are hiding in administrative jobs doing the backgrounds. Most of them are minoritys and we firmly believe they are disqualifing each and every non minority they can. They would not know a qualified candiate if one was standing next to them.
In any case, if you have made it far enough to be taking the poly. your background has been completed. But do not give notice at your current job as the pass rate is 1 in 150.......
And we can assure you that you can be as honest as a new born babe, and still fail.....The best part is that the largest number of disqualifications are due to "questionable findings" and you will not get another chance to re-take the test as LAPD has a rule 1 per candiate. Also you will never know the specific reason for your "inconclusive results". As they will not tell you....... You can spend a year or two taking tests, doing the oral,passing thePAT and the medical , taking several days off of work and in the end no one will tell you exactly why you were disquilified. You should apply at a department that has different standards than LAPD. Believe me the current command staff at LAPD has taken the Dept. to an all time low!!!! It will take years before it will turn around...if in fact it can ever turn around.
Posted by thejedicaulfield
- Feb 07, 2002, 03:39 PMI am taking the LAPD polygraph in 3 1/2 weeks - can you email some specifics? Please? I would greatly appreciate any specific control and specific relevent questions asked - my email is experiment77@hotmail.com
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Jan 28, 2002, 08:05 PMGunrunner,
I'm sorry, but not surprised, to read of your unpleasant experience. I'd be interested in disucssing it with you privately, if you'd like. You can reach me by e-mail to maschke@antipolygraph.org. Perhaps like you, I once subscribed to an honor code not to lie, cheat, steal, or tolerate those who do, and having done so, I find the fraudulent conduct of the polygraphers in federal employ to be intolerable (indeed, beneath contempt).
I'm sorry, but not surprised, to read of your unpleasant experience. I'd be interested in disucssing it with you privately, if you'd like. You can reach me by e-mail to maschke@antipolygraph.org. Perhaps like you, I once subscribed to an honor code not to lie, cheat, steal, or tolerate those who do, and having done so, I find the fraudulent conduct of the polygraphers in federal employ to be intolerable (indeed, beneath contempt).
Posted by gunrunner (Guest)
- Jan 28, 2002, 07:49 PMJust thought I'd jump in here with my own polygraph experience.
(I posted this a while back on the NoPolygraph web site.)
Here goes:
In my last year on active duty I was posted to a "secret" job near Wash DC. I was scheduled and took a CI polygraph administered by the NSA.
The questions were, "Do you intend to answer truthfully," "Are you concerned about something we have not discussed," "Other than what you have told me, have you disclosed classified information to unauthorized personnel," "Do you watch TV," and "Have you answered truthfully."
Well, according to the polygraph operator the first and last question, along with the watching TV and "concern" questions indicated "no deception," whereas the "Other than what you have told me, have you disclosed classified information to unauthorized personnel" question was inconclusive.
Great.
If I intended to lie I would have indicated something on the first question, right? And if I did lie, the last question would have trapped me, right? However, somehow, the middle question was inconclusive. This makes no sense and I was/am at a complete loss as to why it was supposedly inconclusive.
Story does not end.
The results were turned over to my military service's investigators and they started a full-blown investigation. . .all on an inconclusive. I was called in, interrogated, took the polygraph again, but this time the questions were expanded and included such things as "Have you ever stolen anything of any value from anyone," and "Have you ever lied or cheated on any test or measurement." Again, the result on the one question was inconclusive.
Things didn't end.
I was interrogated again and again, and was told by my organization that as long as I kept going back I would keep my clearance, but as soon as I said "no more," I would be denied access to classified information. Not officially suspended, barred or terminated, just not allowed access.
I went back and back, all with the same result.
Eventually, the investigators became more and more beligerant and the questions now included such things as "IN YOUR LIFE have you ever. . ."
(Casting a net. . .jsut to see what may be out there?)
At this time, and after 4-months of putting up with this abuse, the investigators wernt over the line and threatened my retirement---AND insisted I was hiding something—all because one question was inconclusive.
I spoke with a lawyer, told the investigators to pack sand, and I retired. Got my homorable discharge too.
I am still angry over this abuse and hold polygraph operators in such low regard that I seriously question their integrity and honor.
I am a former civilian police officer, held the highest security clearances for 20-yrs in the military, served on the ground in Iraq, NEVER compromised security, and then the last year of my career this happens??
Disgusting
(I posted this a while back on the NoPolygraph web site.)
Here goes:
In my last year on active duty I was posted to a "secret" job near Wash DC. I was scheduled and took a CI polygraph administered by the NSA.
The questions were, "Do you intend to answer truthfully," "Are you concerned about something we have not discussed," "Other than what you have told me, have you disclosed classified information to unauthorized personnel," "Do you watch TV," and "Have you answered truthfully."
Well, according to the polygraph operator the first and last question, along with the watching TV and "concern" questions indicated "no deception," whereas the "Other than what you have told me, have you disclosed classified information to unauthorized personnel" question was inconclusive.
Great.
If I intended to lie I would have indicated something on the first question, right? And if I did lie, the last question would have trapped me, right? However, somehow, the middle question was inconclusive. This makes no sense and I was/am at a complete loss as to why it was supposedly inconclusive.
Story does not end.
The results were turned over to my military service's investigators and they started a full-blown investigation. . .all on an inconclusive. I was called in, interrogated, took the polygraph again, but this time the questions were expanded and included such things as "Have you ever stolen anything of any value from anyone," and "Have you ever lied or cheated on any test or measurement." Again, the result on the one question was inconclusive.
Things didn't end.
I was interrogated again and again, and was told by my organization that as long as I kept going back I would keep my clearance, but as soon as I said "no more," I would be denied access to classified information. Not officially suspended, barred or terminated, just not allowed access.
I went back and back, all with the same result.
Eventually, the investigators became more and more beligerant and the questions now included such things as "IN YOUR LIFE have you ever. . ."
(Casting a net. . .jsut to see what may be out there?)
At this time, and after 4-months of putting up with this abuse, the investigators wernt over the line and threatened my retirement---AND insisted I was hiding something—all because one question was inconclusive.
I spoke with a lawyer, told the investigators to pack sand, and I retired. Got my homorable discharge too.
I am still angry over this abuse and hold polygraph operators in such low regard that I seriously question their integrity and honor.
I am a former civilian police officer, held the highest security clearances for 20-yrs in the military, served on the ground in Iraq, NEVER compromised security, and then the last year of my career this happens??
Disgusting
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Jan 17, 2002, 01:05 AMGordon,
Indeed I do agree with the views published on this site and in the book. We haven't claimed that no peer-reviewed field study purporting to show that CQT polygraphy works better than chance has ever been published, but rather that the validity of polygraphy has not been proven by peer-reviewed field studies.
Indeed I do agree with the views published on this site and in the book. We haven't claimed that no peer-reviewed field study purporting to show that CQT polygraphy works better than chance has ever been published, but rather that the validity of polygraphy has not been proven by peer-reviewed field studies.
Posted by Gordon H. Barland
- Jan 17, 2002, 12:55 AMGeorge,
Yes, I was referring both to the pronouncement on your site and to your publication of Lykken's view without dissent or comment; to me that implies you agree with the view you are publishing.
Peace,
Gordon
Yes, I was referring both to the pronouncement on your site and to your publication of Lykken's view without dissent or comment; to me that implies you agree with the view you are publishing.
Peace,
Gordon
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Jan 17, 2002, 12:50 AMGordon,
I wish you a pleasant trip and a safe return. If you have the time before you leave, I'd be interested in your reply to the questions I put to you in my last post.
I wish you a pleasant trip and a safe return. If you have the time before you leave, I'd be interested in your reply to the questions I put to you in my last post.
Posted by Gordon H. Barland
- Jan 16, 2002, 11:00 PMGeorge & Gino,
I'll be away for several weeks, and will start a new thread when I return if JB has not already done so.
Peace.
Gordon
I'll be away for several weeks, and will start a new thread when I return if JB has not already done so.
Peace.
Gordon
Posted by G Scalabr
- Jan 16, 2002, 10:48 PMGordon,
Perhaps our discussion would be more productive if you were to list the peer-reviewed studies purporting to show that polygraphy operates at better than chance levels under field conditions. We can then respond by telling you if we accept them (and if not, why).
If you choose to do this, you may wish to start another thread in "Polygraph Policy" entitled "Peer Reviewed Field Studies of Polygraphy" or something to that effect. This particular thread has run pretty far off topic on a number of occasions.
Perhaps our discussion would be more productive if you were to list the peer-reviewed studies purporting to show that polygraphy operates at better than chance levels under field conditions. We can then respond by telling you if we accept them (and if not, why).
If you choose to do this, you may wish to start another thread in "Polygraph Policy" entitled "Peer Reviewed Field Studies of Polygraphy" or something to that effect. This particular thread has run pretty far off topic on a number of occasions.
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Jan 16, 2002, 07:33 PMGordon,
It was not clear to me that the question you asked directly concerned any statement in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector. I supposed you were referring to the current "headline" on the AntiPolygraph.org home page:
DESPITE POLYGRAPH EXAMINERS'
CLAIMS OF GREATER THAN 90% ACCURACY,
POLYGRAPH "TESTS" HAVE NEVER BEEN PROVEN
TO BE MORE ACCURATE THAN CHANCE
BY PEER-REVIEWED RESEARCH
CONDUCTED UNDER FIELD CONDITIONS
Regarding peer-reviewed field studies of the CQT we write at p. 8 of the 1st edition of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector:
Gordon, just what in the above passage do you think needs clarification? Or are you referring to something else?
You wrote, "Based on the comments others have made to this board, I'm sure I'm not the only one who misunderstood what your position is." To which comments do you refer?
Finally, you asked, "Just out of curiosity, what field studies do you accept as showing that the polygraph works?" The short answer is "none," as I thought I had made clear in my earlier reply.
It was not clear to me that the question you asked directly concerned any statement in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector. I supposed you were referring to the current "headline" on the AntiPolygraph.org home page:
DESPITE POLYGRAPH EXAMINERS'
CLAIMS OF GREATER THAN 90% ACCURACY,
POLYGRAPH "TESTS" HAVE NEVER BEEN PROVEN
TO BE MORE ACCURATE THAN CHANCE
BY PEER-REVIEWED RESEARCH
CONDUCTED UNDER FIELD CONDITIONS
Regarding peer-reviewed field studies of the CQT we write at p. 8 of the 1st edition of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector:
Quote...Professor David T. Lykken (Lykken, 1998 pp. 133-36) notes that as of 1998, only four studies purporting to assess the field validity of the "Control" Question "Test" had passed the muster of peer review in a scientific journal. Only four. And taken together, these four studies do not establish that polygraphy operates at above chance levels in specific issue "testing." It should be noted that in any event, these four studies could not possibly have established the validity of the CQT, because, as Professor Furedy has aptly pointed out, the CQT is not a standardizable and specifiable test such that its validity might be scientifically established.
Gordon, just what in the above passage do you think needs clarification? Or are you referring to something else?
You wrote, "Based on the comments others have made to this board, I'm sure I'm not the only one who misunderstood what your position is." To which comments do you refer?
Finally, you asked, "Just out of curiosity, what field studies do you accept as showing that the polygraph works?" The short answer is "none," as I thought I had made clear in my earlier reply.
Posted by Gordon H. Barland
- Jan 16, 2002, 06:53 PMGeorge,
you wrote
I'm glad you clarified that, as I understood your manual to be saying that no field study showed that the technique worked. Based on the comments others have made to this board, I'm sure I'm not the only one who misunderstood what your position is. I do hope you clarify this in the next edition of your manual.
Just out of curiosity, what field studies do you accept as showing that the polygraph works?
Peace,
Gordon
you wrote
QuoteMy claim is that polygraphy has not been proven to work better than chance by peer-reviewed research conducted under field conditions, not that no field study finding that the polygraph technique works better than chance has ever been published in a peer reviewed journal.
I'm glad you clarified that, as I understood your manual to be saying that no field study showed that the technique worked. Based on the comments others have made to this board, I'm sure I'm not the only one who misunderstood what your position is. I do hope you clarify this in the next edition of your manual.
Just out of curiosity, what field studies do you accept as showing that the polygraph works?
Peace,
Gordon
Posted by J.B. McCloughan
- Jan 16, 2002, 06:15 PMGeorge,
Sorry I have not been able to start the validity discussion topic yet. I have been quite busy and plan to start it this coming weekend.
Sorry I have not been able to start the validity discussion topic yet. I have been quite busy and plan to start it this coming weekend.