- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by gelb disliker
- Nov 18, 2005, 02:24 PM"Other events planned for Teen Read Week included a pizza party on Thursday. "
this may be the only valid part of the whole article.
this may be the only valid part of the whole article.
Posted by G Scalabr
- Nov 05, 2005, 07:58 AMThere's an easy way to put an end to shenanigans like this, and for good.
All it will take is a bunch of sixth graders in a gifted and talented class somewhere, a copy of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector and a well-placed call to a local polygrapher inviting him in to do a demo (preferably in front of a large assembly in the auditorium with the whole school there).
Twenty minutes and a little bit of countermeasures later, and I doubt that we'll see this type of stuff again as soon as word goes around.
Nothing like seeing a grown man made an assclown out of by a group of pre-adolescents.
A suggestion and "how to" for this plot may have to make its way to the AntiPolygraph.org home page in the near future. This would also be a great one for high school and college criminal justice clubs.
If anyone is in a position to fire this idea up in the near future, please contact George and I via e-mail. We would be very interested in posting details (photos, video, etc) here on the site.
All it will take is a bunch of sixth graders in a gifted and talented class somewhere, a copy of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector and a well-placed call to a local polygrapher inviting him in to do a demo (preferably in front of a large assembly in the auditorium with the whole school there).
Twenty minutes and a little bit of countermeasures later, and I doubt that we'll see this type of stuff again as soon as word goes around.
Nothing like seeing a grown man made an assclown out of by a group of pre-adolescents.
A suggestion and "how to" for this plot may have to make its way to the AntiPolygraph.org home page in the near future. This would also be a great one for high school and college criminal justice clubs.
If anyone is in a position to fire this idea up in the near future, please contact George and I via e-mail. We would be very interested in posting details (photos, video, etc) here on the site.
Posted by EosJupiter
- Nov 05, 2005, 03:48 AMThanks George for the vote of faith.
Now Mercible ...
Never once in my posts do I, or will ever think of LEO's as monsters. I fully respect and defend anyone capable of being a police officer. My gripe is as stated, this polygrapher is not being forthright with these kids. And they are not capable of taking this information and knowingly process it as a bunch of crap. All they are getting is the info this polygrapher wants them to believe. Just as in a real polygraph interrogation. As far as being direct, well being a military officer for over 20 years makes me direct and too the point. I don't sit on fences and decide what side I will be on that day. Being blunt and straight, in what I believe will make me a formidable lawyer. And I don't water down anything I believe in .... SImply put, my goal is the end of the polygraph. Straight enough.....
And when I said you sold insurance it was my way of telling you that you can't guarantee anything until you make a decision on where you stand in life or on any particular issue. If you want a guarantee sell insurance.
So where do you stand, or will you continue to sit on the fence .... ciao
Now Mercible ...
Never once in my posts do I, or will ever think of LEO's as monsters. I fully respect and defend anyone capable of being a police officer. My gripe is as stated, this polygrapher is not being forthright with these kids. And they are not capable of taking this information and knowingly process it as a bunch of crap. All they are getting is the info this polygrapher wants them to believe. Just as in a real polygraph interrogation. As far as being direct, well being a military officer for over 20 years makes me direct and too the point. I don't sit on fences and decide what side I will be on that day. Being blunt and straight, in what I believe will make me a formidable lawyer. And I don't water down anything I believe in .... SImply put, my goal is the end of the polygraph. Straight enough.....
And when I said you sold insurance it was my way of telling you that you can't guarantee anything until you make a decision on where you stand in life or on any particular issue. If you want a guarantee sell insurance.
So where do you stand, or will you continue to sit on the fence .... ciao
Posted by Mercible
- Nov 04, 2005, 03:08 PMGeorge,
Like the new photo.
You said:
It was a rhetorical question. Of course I realize you read the article, I was just wondering if you "read" it the same context that I did. I mean, he is giving a demonstration to a bunch of seventh graders. Of course he isn't going to go in to any deep discussion on the limitations of polygraph. Besides, many of the comments in the article seem to be comments that would have been made to the writer of the article outside of the classroom discussion the investigator had with the students.
Now, if he was giving a presentation to a group of scholars, such as law students or psychology majors, I'd expect him to be willing to go into much greater detail and provide examples of polygraph's limitations that he is aware of. If he didn't, I'm sure they would have torn him apart in the Q&A session after the presentation.
I'm not disputing that you think the investigator is wrong in his statements, just that I don't think he went into that classroom with the malicious intent to "pull the wool" over the students eyes. They were learning about the different methods and tools that law enforcement uses to investigate crimes. This is just one method. Right or Wrong, it is a tool used by law enforcement today.
You said:
Yes, I'm sure you do agree with his assessment, but you get to the heart of the matter when you advise you prefer a milder tone. So do I, and that's the only reason I objected to his post to begin with. I know he feels very strongly that polygraph is "Quackery" or "Junk Science." However, I felt there was a better way to voice that opinion rather than a direct attack on the examiner. Maybe he should have attacked the Newspaper and the author of the article for not adding a paragraph about the opposing view on polygraph.
Anyhow, I hope you realize, I'm not attacking your beliefs and views on polygraph. I am interested in the issues but feel the only way you will move your agenda forward is to temper the discussion. I know that's hard to do in an open forum such as this, but for some stupid reason, I feel compelled to try.
Like the new photo.
You said:
QuoteOf course I read the article before commenting on it. Didn't you notice that I mentioned the polygrapher's name in my post?
It was a rhetorical question. Of course I realize you read the article, I was just wondering if you "read" it the same context that I did. I mean, he is giving a demonstration to a bunch of seventh graders. Of course he isn't going to go in to any deep discussion on the limitations of polygraph. Besides, many of the comments in the article seem to be comments that would have been made to the writer of the article outside of the classroom discussion the investigator had with the students.
Now, if he was giving a presentation to a group of scholars, such as law students or psychology majors, I'd expect him to be willing to go into much greater detail and provide examples of polygraph's limitations that he is aware of. If he didn't, I'm sure they would have torn him apart in the Q&A session after the presentation.
I'm not disputing that you think the investigator is wrong in his statements, just that I don't think he went into that classroom with the malicious intent to "pull the wool" over the students eyes. They were learning about the different methods and tools that law enforcement uses to investigate crimes. This is just one method. Right or Wrong, it is a tool used by law enforcement today.
You said:
QuoteWhile I might personally prefer a milder tone, I largely agree with EosJupiter's assessment.
Yes, I'm sure you do agree with his assessment, but you get to the heart of the matter when you advise you prefer a milder tone. So do I, and that's the only reason I objected to his post to begin with. I know he feels very strongly that polygraph is "Quackery" or "Junk Science." However, I felt there was a better way to voice that opinion rather than a direct attack on the examiner. Maybe he should have attacked the Newspaper and the author of the article for not adding a paragraph about the opposing view on polygraph.
Anyhow, I hope you realize, I'm not attacking your beliefs and views on polygraph. I am interested in the issues but feel the only way you will move your agenda forward is to temper the discussion. I know that's hard to do in an open forum such as this, but for some stupid reason, I feel compelled to try.
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Nov 04, 2005, 05:28 AMQuote from: Mercible on Nov 03, 2005, 03:03 PMGeorge,
Did you read the article? I'm not suggesting what he told the class was correct or accurate, but if he believed it to be true, then he isn't purposely misleading or lying to the class. Therefore, he has nothing to be "ashamed" of.
Of course I read the article before commenting on it. Didn't you notice that I mentioned the polygrapher's name in my post?
Nebraska State Patrolman and polygrapher Bill Redinder must have known that his statement to students that, "It doesn't matter how good a liar you are on the outside -- you can't control the changes on the inside" is not strictly true. Polygraphers are widely aware that examinees can manipulate their polygraph charts through the use of countermeasures.
It's also hard to reconcile his claim that polygraph tests are 98-99% reliable with his admission that "a polygraph is only as good as the person running it." Which is it?
QuoteIn EosJupiter's orignial post, he gives the impression that this LEO is some kind of monster who deserves a fate worse than death. At least that's how it came across to me. I'm just asking you guys to tone it down a bit. Again, you aren't going to make any points with the general public by being seen as "Radical Extremists." You will get a few converts here and there, but the general public will always shun the radical elements in society.
Nothing in EosJupiter's post gave me the impression that he thinks "this LEO is some kind of monster who deserves a fate worse than death." While I might personally prefer a milder tone, I largely agree with EosJupiter's assessment.
Posted by Mercible
- Nov 03, 2005, 03:03 PMGeorge,
Did you read the article? I'm not suggesting what he told the class was correct or accurate, but if he believed it to be true, then he isn't purposely misleading or lying to the class. Therefore, he has nothing to be "ashamed" of.
In EosJupiter's orignial post, he gives the impression that this LEO is some kind of monster who deserves a fate worse than death. At least that's how it came across to me. I'm just asking you guys to tone it down a bit. Again, you aren't going to make any points with the general public by being seen as "Radical Extremists." You will get a few converts here and there, but the general public will always shun the radical elements in society.
Mercible
Did you read the article? I'm not suggesting what he told the class was correct or accurate, but if he believed it to be true, then he isn't purposely misleading or lying to the class. Therefore, he has nothing to be "ashamed" of.
In EosJupiter's orignial post, he gives the impression that this LEO is some kind of monster who deserves a fate worse than death. At least that's how it came across to me. I'm just asking you guys to tone it down a bit. Again, you aren't going to make any points with the general public by being seen as "Radical Extremists." You will get a few converts here and there, but the general public will always shun the radical elements in society.
Mercible
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Nov 03, 2005, 05:33 AMMercible,
It's a virtual certainty that polygrapher Bill Redinder didn't give these school children an honest explanation of polygraph procedure. Polygraphy depends on the person being "tested" not understanding the difference between relevant and "control" questions. Polygraphers routinely lie to examinees about the true function of both "control" and irrelevant questions.
Redinder also made a false statement when he maintained that polygraph tests are 98-99 percent reliable.
I think it's deplorable that taxpayer dollars should be spent to disinform students.
It's a virtual certainty that polygrapher Bill Redinder didn't give these school children an honest explanation of polygraph procedure. Polygraphy depends on the person being "tested" not understanding the difference between relevant and "control" questions. Polygraphers routinely lie to examinees about the true function of both "control" and irrelevant questions.
Redinder also made a false statement when he maintained that polygraph tests are 98-99 percent reliable.
I think it's deplorable that taxpayer dollars should be spent to disinform students.
Posted by Mercible
- Nov 02, 2005, 07:00 PMEosJupiter,
Well, you really didn't address the questions I posed. Do you believe the officer intentionally lied and misled the children? If he himself truly believes that polygraph works, I would think he is not "lying" to them. It's more like the blind leading the blind.
In the story of "The Emporer's New Clothes", the Emporer is being purposely misled. So, I don't really see the correlation here.
Now you are telling me to take a polygraph?
Are you nuts? You think after all the information I have read here I would actually want to do that. 
Now who is misleading who? And really, do I have to stick my hand in a blender to realize it probably isn't in my best interests?
Also, you falsely assume I sell insurance. Hmmmm! Get your facts straight! Re-read all my posts and see if you can even guess at what my "real" job is in the insurance industry. Good Luck!
There is this big disclaimer on this site which says
Well, have fun guessing.....
Well, you really didn't address the questions I posed. Do you believe the officer intentionally lied and misled the children? If he himself truly believes that polygraph works, I would think he is not "lying" to them. It's more like the blind leading the blind.
In the story of "The Emporer's New Clothes", the Emporer is being purposely misled. So, I don't really see the correlation here.
Now you are telling me to take a polygraph?
Are you nuts? You think after all the information I have read here I would actually want to do that. Now who is misleading who? And really, do I have to stick my hand in a blender to realize it probably isn't in my best interests? Also, you falsely assume I sell insurance. Hmmmm! Get your facts straight! Re-read all my posts and see if you can even guess at what my "real" job is in the insurance industry. Good Luck!
There is this big disclaimer on this site which says
QuoteIf you wish to remain anonymous, be careful not to post enough personal detail that you could be identifiedI tend to think that was pretty good advice. But, I'll tell you what, if you can guess my "real" job, I'll e-mail you privatly to let you know if you got it right.
Well, have fun guessing.....
Posted by EosJupiter
- Nov 02, 2005, 02:19 AMQuote from: Mercible on Oct 31, 2005, 06:22 PMIt is an interesting story.
Why would the examiner be ashamed of something he obviously believes in? Do you truly believe he is deliberately lying to the kids?
I understand attacking the underlying scientific basis for polygraph exams, but I don't think trying to demonize examiners will win many friends or influence many people.
Well Mercilble ... the Emperor has no clothes either. This kids story of the Emperors new clothes depicts exactly what this examiner is doing.
1. Allowing the children to believe the polygraph is valid.
2. Reinforcing the fact that it works .. and we know it doesn't
3. Extends the lie of its uses into another generation.
So by presenting this, to these kids they will later in life believe and very possibly get burned by a false positives from the piece of junk that is a polygraph.
Something tells me you have never been hooked up to one. Try it sometime and find out why this website exists. Since you sell insurance ... stick with what you know.
Posted by Mercible
- Oct 31, 2005, 06:22 PMIt is an interesting story.
Why would the examiner be ashamed of something he obviously believes in? Do you truly believe he is deliberately lying to the kids?
I understand attacking the underlying scientific basis for polygraph exams, but I don't think trying to demonize examiners will win many friends or influence many people.
Why would the examiner be ashamed of something he obviously believes in? Do you truly believe he is deliberately lying to the kids?
I understand attacking the underlying scientific basis for polygraph exams, but I don't think trying to demonize examiners will win many friends or influence many people.
Posted by EosJupiter
- Oct 31, 2005, 01:56 AMCheck this link out folks. Talk about perpetrating the BS to the most easily led. Have these polygraphers no shame, then to lie to these kids.
http://www.mccookgazette.com/story/1123087.html
Nothing better than corn fed BS ......
http://www.mccookgazette.com/story/1123087.html
Nothing better than corn fed BS ......