- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Mar 15, 2006, 06:50 PMQuote from: Collectivist on Mar 15, 2006, 06:17 PM>>Wouldn't the butt clench countermeasure be the most >>effective?
>>Why do you believe this would be the case?
Because if you walk in and see that there isn't a sensor on the chair, the butt clench is an undetectable physical countermeasure that seems guaranteed to produce a response. While mental countermeasures seem less guaranteed to me. I don't know about you but thinking about getting beaten up or stabbed looses it menace after one or two run throughs, I just dont think I can make the image real enough in 5 seconds. Further, it just doesn't seem to be time enough to get fristrated by mental math. I like the the tounge bite but I don't see how you can do it without detectable jaw movement.
The only two peer-reviewed countermeasure studies available (by Charles Honts and others, cited with abstracts in the bibliography of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector) considered, respectively, 1) pressing the toes to the floor and tongue-biting, and 2) pressing the toes to the floor or tongue-biting and mental countermeasures (counting backward rapidly by 7s). No one countermeasure seemed to outperform the others. Although the anal sphincter contraction was not considered, I see no reason to suppose that it is superior.
Tongue-biting can be accomplished with minimal movement by biting down slowly on the side of the tongue (not the middle).
Posted by Collectivist
- Mar 15, 2006, 06:17 PM>>Wouldn't the butt clench countermeasure be the most >>effective?
>>Why do you believe this would be the case?
Because if you walk in and see that there isn't a sensor on the chair, the butt clench is an undetectable physical countermeasure that seems guaranteed to produce a response. While mental countermeasures seem less guaranteed to me. I don't know about you but thinking about getting beaten up or stabbed looses it menace after one or two run throughs, I just dont think I can make the image real enough in 5 seconds. Further, it just doesn't seem to be time enough to get fristrated by mental math. I like the the tounge bite but I don't see how you can do it without detectable jaw movement.
>>Why do you believe this would be the case?
Because if you walk in and see that there isn't a sensor on the chair, the butt clench is an undetectable physical countermeasure that seems guaranteed to produce a response. While mental countermeasures seem less guaranteed to me. I don't know about you but thinking about getting beaten up or stabbed looses it menace after one or two run throughs, I just dont think I can make the image real enough in 5 seconds. Further, it just doesn't seem to be time enough to get fristrated by mental math. I like the the tounge bite but I don't see how you can do it without detectable jaw movement.
Posted by Wallerstein
- Mar 15, 2006, 12:48 PMApologies for putting words in your mouth then.
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Mar 15, 2006, 12:42 PMQuote from: Wallerstein on Mar 15, 2006, 12:26 PMI think that even George would say that the polygraph has more validity when it comes to criminal investigations--i.e., in situations where the scope is inherently limited--e.g., were you in Dayton, Ohio on the night of...Did you murder .... Etc.
Actually, no, I wouldn't. CQT polygraphy is completely invalid as a diagnostic test for deception in both situations, as explained in Chapter 1 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector.
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Mar 15, 2006, 12:38 PMRetcopper,
I'm certainly not trying to distort facts. But I don't think I misunderstood Spark's point, either. I agree that a polygraph outcome may later be confirmed (or disconfirmed) by other evidence (including a post-polygraph confession, as in the example Spark provided). My point is simply that because polygraphy has no scientific basis, a suspect should never be considered "cleared" based merely on a passed polygraph examination.
I'm certainly not trying to distort facts. But I don't think I misunderstood Spark's point, either. I agree that a polygraph outcome may later be confirmed (or disconfirmed) by other evidence (including a post-polygraph confession, as in the example Spark provided). My point is simply that because polygraphy has no scientific basis, a suspect should never be considered "cleared" based merely on a passed polygraph examination.
Posted by Wallerstein
- Mar 15, 2006, 12:26 PMI think that even George would say that the polygraph has more validity when it comes to criminal investigations--i.e., in situations where the scope is inherently limited--e.g., were you in Dayton, Ohio on the night of...Did you murder .... Etc.
When it comes to pre-employment screening though it is simply a scientific fact that the polygraph is flawed. Polygraphers would prefer to think that there are no false positives and that George is lying...that there really is something in his past that caused him to fail his FBI polys. What a crock. Look at this resume and the efforts he took after "failing" to remedy the situation.
Bottom line is many people are deemed deceptive by polygraphers in pre employment screenings when they are telling the polygrapher the bald truth. That's what it boils down to. Pure and simple. The rest is horseshit.
When it comes to pre-employment screening though it is simply a scientific fact that the polygraph is flawed. Polygraphers would prefer to think that there are no false positives and that George is lying...that there really is something in his past that caused him to fail his FBI polys. What a crock. Look at this resume and the efforts he took after "failing" to remedy the situation.
Bottom line is many people are deemed deceptive by polygraphers in pre employment screenings when they are telling the polygrapher the bald truth. That's what it boils down to. Pure and simple. The rest is horseshit.
Posted by retcopper
- Mar 15, 2006, 11:17 AMGeorge
You missed Sparks point or you are trying to distort the facts. He said that evidence later became available that CONFIRMED his determination of the polygraph test. The evidencee bolstered the poly results. If the evidence didn't turn up the end result would still be the same.
Last week I tested a subject who denied a charge. Litlte did I know that two days before she took the test a letter that she wrote admiiting to the offense was found.
I determined that she was deceptive adn I found out the next day about the note. The following day I interviewed her about it and she confessed to the allegation. Now that is also a confirmation of the polygraph exam, just like Sparks example.
You missed Sparks point or you are trying to distort the facts. He said that evidence later became available that CONFIRMED his determination of the polygraph test. The evidencee bolstered the poly results. If the evidence didn't turn up the end result would still be the same.
Last week I tested a subject who denied a charge. Litlte did I know that two days before she took the test a letter that she wrote admiiting to the offense was found.
I determined that she was deceptive adn I found out the next day about the note. The following day I interviewed her about it and she confessed to the allegation. Now that is also a confirmation of the polygraph exam, just like Sparks example.
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Mar 15, 2006, 04:01 AMQuote from: spark on Mar 15, 2006, 03:35 AMLets say.... "I" say "YOU" did this and that..."you" say no I didn't.. and then you take a polygraph TEST that shows "your" not lying about not doing this and that. Then subsequently, "I" am called back in and told I'm not being truthful about George and it is time to come clean...accept some...accountability (I love that word). Shortly there after, "I" say your right, George didn't do this and that, I made that $hit up...sorry. If George didn't trust in the exam and didn't come in and take the fricken test, and been cleared, there would have been NO reason to ever not believe "me" because George was fingered in this crime for a reason, he's a little shady, and everyone knows it, and it would have been/was assumed I am credible and if George didn't want to exonerate himself, well...that's on George. Maybe he wouldn't have never been "convicted" of said allegation, but who cares, he still would have had to check "yes" to have you ever been charged for this and that, and NOW HE DOESN'T. That scenario happened twice for me today...now I ask, what good have you done for mankind today?
Spark,
If you succeeded in convincing someone who had borne false witness to recant his accusation, that is wonderful, and I congratulate you. For a criminal interrogator, I think there could hardly be a more rewarding experience than to vindicate a person who has been wrongly accused. But it is wrong to suppose that such an experience imparts validity to polygraphy (which, again, has no scientific basis).
Because of polygraphy's unreliability, a person falsely accused who submits to a polygraph interrogation might very well become a false positive, wrongly reinforcing suspicions against him. Conversely, a liar might pass the polygraph, either through the random error associated with polygraphy (as did "Angel of Death" Charles Cullen and "Green River Killer" Gary Leon Ridgway) or through the use of countermeasures.
To the extent that investigators rely on the polygraph, they should understand that it is little more than an interrogational prop. While it may be useful for getting admissions/confessions from the naive and gullible, the chart readings themselves are evidence of nothing.
And, back to the original topic of this message thread, by no means should polygraph results be relied on to assess the honesty and integrity of applicants for employment.
Posted by EosJupiter
- Mar 15, 2006, 03:44 AMQuote from: spark on Mar 15, 2006, 03:10 AMHmmm...seems like a rather petty retort. Little screen name twist, then a "these are facts" and then you're on to your next UFO chase. I am not a member of your "we say so cooperation." I already told you why I am here...entertainment. Fox news isn't cutting it tonight. I only have one question for you to chew on...how do the guilty suppress guilty knowledge? If that isn't possible, then the only person you are attempting to screw with is the innocent...and if you and your UFO chasing clones aren't "really" false positives (I don't think the average person buys your "I promise's" and "I say so's" , but instead, think to themselves...those are just persons with DQ'ing issues that ultimately caused them problems on their tests), which of course led you to form the sour grapes committee... then the only persons your hurting is others trying to get a job you couldn't get (because when they do get caught using CM's they get DQ'd...just look at your own forum)...because of course, past indiscretions you haven't accepted accountability for. Sounds like a pretty asinine thing to do...why not just grab your marbles and go home.
Spark,
If you have folks that you have DQ'd using countermeasures, then have them come post and prove it with their rejection letters. Proof is what counts here, Prove your statements, otherwise like all the rest, your just a another no proof polygrapher. But I give you credit, you do have more to say then the run of the mill polygrapher who comes on to prove us wrong. Or take the challenge from George and go on Penn & Tellers Bullshit show and show us we are wrong. Not much of a UFO believer, but I bet this website is an unending source of irratation for you. Otherwise why are you here. And to the contrary its you polygraphers we find highly entertaining. But then again we anti types (UFO Chasers) aren't allowed on your pro website.
And what have we done for mankind today, put a stop to the false positives by the BS machine and gameshow host polygraphers. Bottom line only the weak break, and the secret to beating you is never give up anything. And no job is worth being polygraphed for. And again the more problems we cause for the polygraph community, eventually your deck of cards (stim test) will fall.
Regards
Posted by spark
- Mar 15, 2006, 03:35 AMLets say.... "I" say "YOU" did this and that..."you" say no I didn't.. and then you take a polygraph TEST that shows "your" not lying about not doing this and that. Then subsequently, "I" am called back in and told I'm not being truthful about George and it is time to come clean...accept some...accountability (I love that word). Shortly there after, "I" say your right, George didn't do this and that, I made that $hit up...sorry. If George didn't trust in the exam and didn't come in and take the fricken test, and been cleared, there would have been NO reason to ever not believe "me" because George was fingered in this crime for a reason, he's a little shady, and everyone knows it, and it would have been/was assumed I am credible and if George didn't want to exonerate himself, well...that's on George. Maybe he wouldn't have never been "convicted" of said allegation, but who cares, he still would have had to check "yes" to have you ever been charged for this and that, and NOW HE DOESN'T. That scenario happened twice for me today...now I ask, what good have you done for mankind today?
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Mar 15, 2006, 03:20 AMQuote from: spark on Mar 15, 2006, 03:13 AMNot when it is shortly there after confirmed. Just face it George, not all of your rants and raves perfectly fit into the square hole.
If there was evidence apart from polygraph results that cleared two people of wrongdoing, then it is that evidence, and not polygraph chart readings, that exculpated them. Polygraphy has no scientific basis, and "test" outcomes are evidence of nothing. The investigator who relies on polygraph results to exclude suspects is a fool.
Posted by spark
- Mar 15, 2006, 03:13 AMQuote from: George W. Maschke on Mar 15, 2006, 02:59 AM
The notion that a person can be "cleared" based on polygraph results is a dangerous delusion.
Not when it is shortly there after confirmed. Just face it George, not all of your rants and raves perfectly fit into the square hole.
Posted by spark
- Mar 15, 2006, 03:10 AMHmmm...seems like a rather petty retort. Little screen name twist, then a "these are facts" and then you're on to your next UFO chase. I am not a member of your "we say so cooperation." I already told you why I am here...entertainment. Fox news isn't cutting it tonight. I only have one question for you to chew on...how do the guilty suppress guilty knowledge? If that isn't possible, then the only person you are attempting to screw with is the innocent...and if you and your UFO chasing clones aren't "really" false positives (I don't think the average person buys your "I promise's" and "I say so's" , but instead, think to themselves...those are just persons with DQ'ing issues that ultimately caused them problems on their tests), which of course led you to form the sour grapes committee... then the only persons your hurting is others trying to get a job you couldn't get (because when they do get caught using CM's they get DQ'd...just look at your own forum)...because of course, past indiscretions you haven't accepted accountability for. Sounds like a pretty asinine thing to do...why not just grab your marbles and go home.
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Mar 15, 2006, 02:59 AMQuote from: spark on Mar 15, 2006, 02:11 AM...hell, just today I cleared two people of wrong doing....
The notion that a person can be "cleared" based on polygraph results is a dangerous delusion.
Posted by EosJupiter
- Mar 15, 2006, 02:44 AMQuote from: spark on Mar 15, 2006, 02:11 AMTwo issues before you make your big decision. First of all these UFO chasing people are here saying the "same old thing" every night for a reason, and it's not because the polygraph kicked their ass...if you read through the BS it is more likely they are no different than your 13 year old son...they can't accept accountability for past transgressions and WILL NOT accept your choosing to put them on restriction for Friday night. It just can't be...I can do WHATEVER I want and you can't stop me...then reality hits...sorry Charlie. My first point, they were all false positive's because they "say so" nothing more. Everyone of them line by line "say" they never did anything wrong...had nothing to worry about, ok, wish in one hand and shit in the other, see which one fills up quicker.
2nd point and you brought it up. You ever practice these techniques? That's right bro, your first day of training camp and your super bowl will all be combined and within 15 minutes of the most important time of your life...if this is your dream job. Not just that, but during the entire test your going to be thinking, am I doing this CM shit right? Was that enough, too much, was that the right question, oh shoot I think he's looking at me funny, etc., instead of where your mind should be on the questions. That coupled with you don't know what the hell your doing, etc., gives the presence of the turd floating in a punch bowl. And they'll tell you "they can't see it" I say how do you know? Because nobody accepts your challenge? Hmmmm....ok...I really wonder why that is? All I can say is this...if this is YOUR life goal and you truly have nothing to hide, walk into that test with confidence (like you already have) and just take the examination without the horseshit. Because when you get caught acting like a dumb ass, you raise suspicion towards you (could be DQ'd automatically) and if you're truly a worthy candidate you don't need any problems that aren't warranted. Or you can roll the dice and blow up your super bowl. But, if that happens...then you can be a new UFO chaser on this site...bitching and whining about the injustices of the man.
Other than the same old $hit with no scientific basis, pseudoscience BS, is there anything new you have to give to this topic of polygraph? What is your "basis" for being a false positive? Because you say? Why should anyone believe you? Does anyone care? There will always be more success stories than unsupported disenfranchisements...hell, just today I cleared two people of wrong doing....that's about 1/5th of the full time UFO chasers you have on this site (same old people with the same old song and dance) Big George chanting his rantings with his minions saying yeah yeah yeah...or the minions stating you talk about big George like that..he's my Saint and Savior...yeah yeah yeah! Hahahaha. Why do I come? Enterfrickentainment...I'm not much for checkers if you know what I mean! Haha
What?! ~Spark
And Spark Spelled backwards is Kraps .....
Thats what you roll when you listen to polygraphers with the same old spiel, and how good we polygraphers are, and you will be caught, and you will ruin your life, and your dog will die, and you'll contract a horrible disease. And we can detect mental countermeasures.
All stories to scare the uninformed and gullible.
If your so good then why worry about such a small irrelevant website. We have no validity in what we say, and obviously a great interrogator such as yourself isn't worried one little bit. Real interrogators don't need a polygraph to get the information required.
The truth is spark, you and polygraph are beatable, you can't detect countermeasures. ANd the best part is the numbers keep growing on folks who are prepared and well read on the polygraph, and won't buy in to your schtick !!! But I do find this highly entertaining as it gives me exercise in countering testimony. Keep up the good work.
Regards ...