- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by SadderbutWiser
- Feb 12, 2006, 07:59 PMI'd just like to point out here that each of the polygraphers that have posted on this thread have NOT supported the scientific basis for the polygraph itself, but rather, have supported the INTERROGATION, which the polygraph gives them an excuse to conduct.
In Soviet Russia, similar "rule through terror-style" interrogation techniques were employed AND WORKED quite well. In fact, most corrupt governemnt make LIBERAL use to brutal interrogation tactics. It is a well-known fact that totalitarian regimes can function adequately for a LIMITED time, through only terror-based law, which always includes lies and manipulative interrogations--just ask any Russian citizen who was thrown into the gulag.
The main point here is that this form of governing and/or leadership is eschewed in the free-world and in all human-rights oriented societies. In such governments, these tactics for leadership and rule are typically seen for what they are--lies that are meant to control and manipulate people. Lying for the sake of controlling--the ends justifying the means.
I am the first to admit that the polygraph may well, force some admissions from the FEW truly guilty people that undergo the interrogation process. However, #1--people have also been known to make false confessions under such duress, and (most importantly)
#2--Rule through terror is NEVER a form of leadership that will ultimately yield good fruit. These agencies will CONTINUE to suffer severe brain-drain, as the BEST and most gifted people will refuse to be mistreated in such a manner, and will take their skills and talents to organizations that will respect them and their basic human rights.
In Soviet Russia, similar "rule through terror-style" interrogation techniques were employed AND WORKED quite well. In fact, most corrupt governemnt make LIBERAL use to brutal interrogation tactics. It is a well-known fact that totalitarian regimes can function adequately for a LIMITED time, through only terror-based law, which always includes lies and manipulative interrogations--just ask any Russian citizen who was thrown into the gulag.
The main point here is that this form of governing and/or leadership is eschewed in the free-world and in all human-rights oriented societies. In such governments, these tactics for leadership and rule are typically seen for what they are--lies that are meant to control and manipulate people. Lying for the sake of controlling--the ends justifying the means.
I am the first to admit that the polygraph may well, force some admissions from the FEW truly guilty people that undergo the interrogation process. However, #1--people have also been known to make false confessions under such duress, and (most importantly)
#2--Rule through terror is NEVER a form of leadership that will ultimately yield good fruit. These agencies will CONTINUE to suffer severe brain-drain, as the BEST and most gifted people will refuse to be mistreated in such a manner, and will take their skills and talents to organizations that will respect them and their basic human rights.
Posted by EosJupiter
- Feb 10, 2006, 02:18 AMQuote from: retcopper on Feb 09, 2006, 05:40 PM
EosJupiter:
I read your feeble attempt at trying to explain the law regarding the polygrapher in the Vriginia excecution case and I rolled on the floor laughing, so I won't attempt to respond to your misinformed and ignorant statements regarding polygraphy. When you have completed the required training and have administered some polygraph tests I will answer your questions. When you have done that I will know that you at least know a little of what you are talking about.
retcopper,
Now let me get this straight, I am going to go and give up all my real degrees and training, and go to a half baked trade school and get a bunch of worthless training that isn't even accredited by real universities or colleges. Then I am going to go and do some BS polygraph testing, and lie through my teeth to the unwitting examinees, so I can feel good about myself because I believe I am doing whats right. The best part of this reply is knowing that by not even debating me, it more than proves that you don't have the training or capabilities to debate. And the interpretation on the Virginia case came directly from a practicing defense lawyer in Virginia. Next time you need to argue with real facts not off the hip. I generally give most LEO's a lot of credit, in your case I consider it sour grapes that your little polygraph world is crumbling. I dislike the use of polygraphs period. Destroying an honest persons life with a false positive, just 1 time is just wrong. And we all know how much you polygraphers admit to being wrong. Its way too much abusive power in the wrong hands.
Regards ...
Posted by retcopper
- Feb 09, 2006, 05:40 PMJohn:
The New York Times. Now that is a real credible source. The times and LEO are like oil and water. They don't mix. I bet 90% of the people who post here beleive the propaganda that the Times prints.
EosJupiter:
I read your feeble attempt at trying to explain the law regarding the polygrapher in the Vriginia excecution case and I rolled on the floor laughing, so I won't attempt to respond to your misinformed and ignorant statements regarding polygraphy. When you have completed the required training and have administered some polygraph tests I will answer your questions. When you have done that I will know that you at least know a little of what you are talking about.
The New York Times. Now that is a real credible source. The times and LEO are like oil and water. They don't mix. I bet 90% of the people who post here beleive the propaganda that the Times prints.
EosJupiter:
I read your feeble attempt at trying to explain the law regarding the polygrapher in the Vriginia excecution case and I rolled on the floor laughing, so I won't attempt to respond to your misinformed and ignorant statements regarding polygraphy. When you have completed the required training and have administered some polygraph tests I will answer your questions. When you have done that I will know that you at least know a little of what you are talking about.
Posted by Bill Crider
- Feb 09, 2006, 11:58 AMretcopper,
what is the answer to those of us cheated out of careers by being called drug dealers by the FBI or whomever?
I know what the folks at Polygraphplace.com say. As long as the polygraph is 51% accurate, friendly fire is OK because its a net gain. Also, interviewing and other parts of the process are subjective so whats the diff?
the answer: Other parts of the process arent purporting to be scientific or to find the answer to a non-subjective issue, ie--whether one is lying.
what is the answer to those of us cheated out of careers by being called drug dealers by the FBI or whomever?
I know what the folks at Polygraphplace.com say. As long as the polygraph is 51% accurate, friendly fire is OK because its a net gain. Also, interviewing and other parts of the process are subjective so whats the diff?
the answer: Other parts of the process arent purporting to be scientific or to find the answer to a non-subjective issue, ie--whether one is lying.
Posted by EosJupiter
- Feb 09, 2006, 03:01 AMretcopper,
You seem to maintain the same MO as most of the other flash-in, flash-out polygraphers (there are exceptions) who post here. You make a statement, spew forth BS, then take off like a screaming little girlie man. Why don't you try coming in with some real verbage and debate real issues. But I sense that your not really interested in anything constructive. I bet your relieved to be retired, as now you can relax and not have to face all the folks that are prepared with countermeasures and would make you look silly. Enjoy the time off.
Regards ...
You seem to maintain the same MO as most of the other flash-in, flash-out polygraphers (there are exceptions) who post here. You make a statement, spew forth BS, then take off like a screaming little girlie man. Why don't you try coming in with some real verbage and debate real issues. But I sense that your not really interested in anything constructive. I bet your relieved to be retired, as now you can relax and not have to face all the folks that are prepared with countermeasures and would make you look silly. Enjoy the time off.
Regards ...
Posted by Johnn
- Feb 08, 2006, 06:48 PMQuote from: retcopper on Feb 08, 2006, 05:45 PMNonombre:
I drop in here once in awhile to get amused. I have been doing investigations and polygraphs for over 35 yrs and the statements by some of these characters in here leaves me flabbergasted. They think have all the answers despite not having ever conducted an investigation.
And why do I need to be a criminal law expert for me to understand that the polygraph is garbage?
I don't have to be a doctor to know that smoking is bad for my health. The surgeon general already made his statement. In this case, the National Academy of Science, the New York Times, Melissa Boyle Mahle and countless others have already made their statements.
Posted by retcopper
- Feb 08, 2006, 05:45 PMNonombre:
I drop in here once in awhile to get amused. I have been doing investigations and polygraphs for over 35 yrs and the statements by some of these characters in here leaves me flabbergasted. They think have all the answers despite not having ever conducted an investigation.
I drop in here once in awhile to get amused. I have been doing investigations and polygraphs for over 35 yrs and the statements by some of these characters in here leaves me flabbergasted. They think have all the answers despite not having ever conducted an investigation.
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Feb 05, 2006, 01:38 AMOn the original topic of this message thread, Dr. John Furedy sends the following observation:
The obvious choice for someone facing a CIA polygraph session is to go with mental countermeasures (described in Chapter 4 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector).
QuoteThe most recent thread has now gone into other topics, but my initial reaction was that both sides to the argument seem to assume that the only countermeasures that are possible are physical (or physiological) ones. However, at least in theory, if one generates emotion to the "control" questions (e.g., fear, or even rage at being in this situation), while trying to keep as calm as possible during other questions, it should be possible to pass. This is based on one of psychophysiology's few universal laws, namely that, other things equal, if stimulus A elicits greater emotionality than stimulus B, then the autonomic responses (like the GSR) will be greater to A than to B.
The obvious choice for someone facing a CIA polygraph session is to go with mental countermeasures (described in Chapter 4 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector).
Posted by polyfool
- Feb 05, 2006, 01:14 AMQuote from: nonombre on Feb 03, 2006, 12:16 AM
Polyfool,
You actually just proved my point. You have never conducted a polygraph examination, never conducted an investigation, but you sure know all about it.
You see I have determined this website is populated by people who have never administered a polygraph test. These self proclaimed polygraph "experts," posting day after day telling themselves and others over and over, all about the intricate details of how a polygraph works, What the examiner is "really doing," what he is "really thinking," how to "beat the process," oh, the vast conspiracy of it all.
These same people are also suddenly "experts" in the field of background and criminal investigations, although most have never opened a case file of any kind, have never conducted and interview or an interrogation, never faced the rigors of any of these jobs, oh but they sign on night after night, and inform the rest of us who have dedicated our lives to these pursuits, how we are 'obviously not doing it right. They are smarter than, we are. If we only gave them a chance, they would show us all how to do it.
Ah yes, they would conduct a "proper" investigation. They would do it right. The rest of us? Let me see, oh yeah, that's right. We are "lazy," "incompetent", "liars,", "manipulators," "evil,""uneducated," "stupid," "destined to serve up French fries at the local drive in, while THEY pull up in their new BMW's and have the last laugh," etc, ect, ect.
Keep on posting. Tell me all about it...
Nonombre
Nonombre,
There you go again with your ASSumptions. I simply stated that I never said that I was a thorough, perceptive investigator and adept interrogator. Having said that, that doesn't mean that I've never conducted interviews and investigations. Unlike you, I don't need a useless tool to aid me as I try to read people. I don't mind working hard and digging until I uncover the truth. I strive to be the best that I can in my profession and feel good about the work that I'm doing. I can honestly say I have no problem looking in the mirror and liking what I see. I don't have to sit around and wonder how many people I've vicitmized.
With all due respect, I don't think there are many people posting on this board who have purported to be experts and administered polygraphs. However, there are many who have told the truth and failed them. If you'd ever taken a poly without any prior knowledge, told the truth and failed, then you would know just how truly worthless those machines are. You state that examinees try to figure out what examiners are thinking. Examiners are also trying to figure out what examinees are thinking. Although I'm sure you would love to be able to--the truth is that you can't read minds, though hard as you may try. Sure you may know things as an examiner that we don't know, but we know things as examinees that you'll never know.
You might want to think twice before you go ASSuming things about people you don't know and spouting off about them. Sort of like spending a couple of hours with someone, hooking them up to machine and then fooling yourself into believing that you know everything about them. As usual, Nonombre, you've fallen well short of proving any point. You have been successful at one thing--making yourself look bad as you duck the hard questions, surface for quick jabs and offer very little in the way of substance.
Posted by EosJupiter
- Feb 04, 2006, 10:28 PMNoNombre,
By waning I mean, here are statements made by the parent of a child that was molested. If you have ever been in Huron County, Michigan, (Which I have), you would know how far off the beaten path this is. These folks live in a gorgeously rural area of the lower 1/2 of Michigan. For what reason would this father, research or even make the statement about the polygraph being subjective. Unless he had the belief to question it. The newspaper quoting the parent makes it a public opinion. I can't assume that he researched anything on polygraphy, but the statement alone poses the question that he gained the information that the polygraph was subjective from somewhere. Most likely from public sources or local opinions. This theory supports the waning premise.
Good post with support arguements ...:-) We may never agree on the polygraph, but your getting better with qualitative postings.
Regards ..
By waning I mean, here are statements made by the parent of a child that was molested. If you have ever been in Huron County, Michigan, (Which I have), you would know how far off the beaten path this is. These folks live in a gorgeously rural area of the lower 1/2 of Michigan. For what reason would this father, research or even make the statement about the polygraph being subjective. Unless he had the belief to question it. The newspaper quoting the parent makes it a public opinion. I can't assume that he researched anything on polygraphy, but the statement alone poses the question that he gained the information that the polygraph was subjective from somewhere. Most likely from public sources or local opinions. This theory supports the waning premise.
Good post with support arguements ...:-) We may never agree on the polygraph, but your getting better with qualitative postings.
Regards ..
Posted by nonombre
- Feb 04, 2006, 05:25 PMQuote from: EosJupiter on Feb 03, 2006, 11:39 PMAll Concerned,
I have here a recent article on a polygraph clearing a kid of child molestation. But what is interesting to note is it cleared him, the parents openly dispute the polygraph results as subjective. It appears the publics opinion on the validity of the polygraph is waning.
Eosjupiter,
I know nothing more about this case than the article you have presented, but I have a question:
Isn't it a bit of a "leap of faith" to extrapolate, "..., it appears the publics opinion on the validity of the polygraph is waning," from .."the parents openly dispute the polygraph results as subjective."
I mean many people consider polygraph results as "subjective." How does that equate to "...(the) publics opinion on the validity of the polygraph is waning?"
I don't see the connection...
Nonombre
Posted by EosJupiter
- Feb 03, 2006, 11:39 PMAll Concerned,
I have here a recent article on a polygraph clearing a kid of child molestation. But what is interesting to note is it cleared him, the parents openly dispute the polygraph results as subjective. It appears the publics opinion on the validity of the polygraph is waning. Now for our polygraphers here. So did your boy, not catch the countermeasures or did he honestly pass the test? There was a lot of time to prepare for this exam it appears too. Seems to me the DA was smart to drop the charges, now even if he is guilty, by statements made to the Michigan State Trooper, there isn't a snowballs chance in Florida of ever getting a case to court. To sum up the point on this tread, again the results can be argued unreliable and now its closed anytype of investigation to follow. So again it appears we have a dicotomy, and it can't go both ways. Definately makes one wonder to know if the CIA polygrapher could have caught it either.
Link:
http://www.michigansthumb.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=16061143&BRD=2292&PAG=461&dept_id=571474&rfi=6
Regards ...
I have here a recent article on a polygraph clearing a kid of child molestation. But what is interesting to note is it cleared him, the parents openly dispute the polygraph results as subjective. It appears the publics opinion on the validity of the polygraph is waning. Now for our polygraphers here. So did your boy, not catch the countermeasures or did he honestly pass the test? There was a lot of time to prepare for this exam it appears too. Seems to me the DA was smart to drop the charges, now even if he is guilty, by statements made to the Michigan State Trooper, there isn't a snowballs chance in Florida of ever getting a case to court. To sum up the point on this tread, again the results can be argued unreliable and now its closed anytype of investigation to follow. So again it appears we have a dicotomy, and it can't go both ways. Definately makes one wonder to know if the CIA polygrapher could have caught it either.
Link:
http://www.michigansthumb.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=16061143&BRD=2292&PAG=461&dept_id=571474&rfi=6
Regards ...
Posted by Johnn
- Feb 03, 2006, 11:06 PMNonombre,
I've never given a polygraph exam, but I've been the receipient of two failed ones while telling the truth.
Who can tell you more or less if a medical procedure works? The patient who has to live with the disfiguring medical mistake for the rest of his life, or the doctor who performed the foul-up and is sipping a pina colada at a remote beach?
I've never given a polygraph exam, but I've been the receipient of two failed ones while telling the truth.
Who can tell you more or less if a medical procedure works? The patient who has to live with the disfiguring medical mistake for the rest of his life, or the doctor who performed the foul-up and is sipping a pina colada at a remote beach?
Posted by quickfix
- Feb 03, 2006, 04:34 PMAs long as there are fools like "razor", unqualified applicants who seek advice on how to cheat their way through a polygraph exam (see "Beta Blockers and Poly" under Polygraph Procedure), polys will continue to be used in the hiring process.
Posted by Sergeant1107
- Feb 03, 2006, 08:00 AMQuote from: nonombre on Feb 02, 2006, 09:00 PMSergeant,Nonombre,
I believe you and I may have discussed this before. But as an officer who has done thousands of background investigations on prospective police applicants, I can tell you this. After running down EVERY possible lead on an "outstanding" applicant, I have been shocked more than once when after watching him/her walk from the examination room, the polygraph examiner handed me a signed confession for everything from massive drug use to rape (and Yes, we did subsequently refer some of these cases to investigations).
I guess it is a matter of opinion. I believe we are losing more good applicants through the polygraph process than we are weeding out bad applicants.
Your experience of running down every possible lead on outstanding applicants and having them confess to serious crimes has happened, in your own words, "more than once." If you can quantify that more precisely it would be helpful. However, to me that phrase implies that, although such a thing has happened, and has happened more than a single time, it has not happened on a regular basis, nor has it happened often enough on a sporadic basis to justify a description of anything other than "more than once."
You wrote that you have done thousands of background investigations, yet the number of times an apparently "outstanding" applicant has unexpectedly confessed to serious crimes because of the polygraph is probably less than ten or you would have likely phrased it differently.
I have no idea how many BI's you have conducted, but since you characterize it as "thousands" it would be safe to assume you have done at least two thousand. In that span you have encountered, say, ten applicants who passed the BI but unexpectedly confessed to serious crimes when they took the polygraph.
Using those numbers (which I realize involve assumptions on my part) means that utilizing the polygraph weeds out .05% of applicants who otherwise would have moved on in the application process if only the background investigation was used. One-half of one percent. That's it.
As you may recall, I failed my first three polygraphs and was removed from the application process at each of those agencies. The fact that I told the complete truth during each polygraph, did not withhold any information, and had never even heard of countermeasures apparently did not matter – I failed anyway and was not hired, even though I was an outstanding candidate. In my fourth polygraph I answered the questions the same way I had on my first three and inexplicably passed.
Using my own experiences as a guide, the polygraph disqualifies outstanding applicants, who have already passed the background investigation, at a rate of 75%. I realize my experiences may not be typical, but the massive disparity in numbers is striking.
If agencies relied solely on a thorough background investigation, and eschewed the polygraph completely, it might very well result in a fraction of unsuitable applicants "sneaking" through without their illegal activities coming to light. According to my admittedly rough estimates, it could result in, say, five bad applicants out of every thousand. While no one wants any dishonest or lawbreaking police officers at all, I think we can all agree that no matter what the application process consists of there will, sadly, always be a small percentage of "bad" cops.
I believe that tiny percentage would be more than made up for by the large numbers of outstanding candidates who successfully pass the background investigation and are not mindlessly removed from the process because of the polygraph exam.