- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by The Shadow
- Feb 03, 2004, 01:32 AMVerbatim,
[glb]Interesting indeed [/glb]
QuoteI am inclined to believe that the examiner doesn't want to draw attention to the fact the polygraph can indeed be beaten. Interesting.
[glb]Interesting indeed [/glb]
Posted by Verbatim
- Feb 02, 2004, 03:16 AMIt's once again polygraph time. Updates. I am now placed in a weird situation. On my last polygraph, the examiner ran the polygraph twice. This is not normal. After the second time he stopped the machine and asked me if what I knew about counter measures. I told him exactly what I knew. I felt that there was no reason to hide the fact that I knew what they were and that I could employ them at will. He didn't say anything more, he simply ran the test one more time. After running the test, he told me I could go without saying whether I "passed" or "failed". I assumed that this meant that I passed because he did not ask any more specific questions or ask for a confession. When the polygraph results were reviewed later, they showed no deception. I find this interesting. The examiner, knowing that I could employ countermeasures, made no mention (that I'm aware of) to the treatment provider or probation office about my ability to fool the test. I am inclined to believe that the examiner doesn't want to draw attention to the fact the polygraph can indeed be beaten. Interesting.
Posted by Poly-Killer
- May 21, 2003, 06:20 PMQuote from: Amused on May 20, 2003, 11:24 PMAnd what is your "research"? Sounds like you have your mind made up. Makes me wonder what the average IQ is on this site. And I do think that Fed-up had a point about you and "okieboy" being very friendly. But perhaps you are just working undercover and trying to get the goods on the ole okie.
Amused,
Not that I feel the need to answer to someone who appears to be somewhat "cerebrally challenged", but since I have nothing better to do, and a few minutes to kill, I will.
First, my PERSONAL research is in the area of deception as a whole, including behavior, forensic aspects, etc.
Second, you're right, my mind is made up, but only after personal experience and investigations. Unlike you, who seem to simply spew for the sake of posting.
As far as my IQ, judging by the limited wisdom you have displayed, it's much higher than yours. As far as my question to okieboy, maybe you should read it again, it was cordial and straight-forward. It was not "friendly" and it was not in any way in support of what he or anyone else in that thread, or similar threads, has been convicted of or continue to participate in. If they have problems, they need help, period.
Please, in the future, if you are going to address someone or make accusations, present a valid argument or point. Stop with the senseless dribble. It is the likes of people like you that lower the average IQ on this site.
Regards,
PK
Posted by orolan
- May 21, 2003, 11:13 AMAmused,
I say again, what is your position on the polygraph? Poly-killer is simply one of the many LEO's out there who oppose polygraphs. Does that cause a problem for you? And I don't know what the average IQ is on this site, but I'm sure it dropped a few points now that you have graced us with your presence.
I say again, what is your position on the polygraph? Poly-killer is simply one of the many LEO's out there who oppose polygraphs. Does that cause a problem for you? And I don't know what the average IQ is on this site, but I'm sure it dropped a few points now that you have graced us with your presence.
Posted by Amused
- May 20, 2003, 11:24 PMAnd what is your "research"? Sounds like you have your mind made up. Makes me wonder what the average IQ is on this site. And I do think that Fed-up had a point about you and "okieboy" being very friendly. But perhaps you are just working undercover and trying to get the goods on the ole okie.
Posted by Poly-Killer
- May 20, 2003, 10:12 PMQuote from: Fed-up on May 20, 2003, 03:56 PMHey Poly-Killer, why don't you and Okieboy and the rest of the perverts on this site start your own website. You guys make me sick.
Fed-up,
I suggest you gather a little information before making statements or casting your arbitrary judgments based a comment or question I have posted. I have NEVER participated in, condoned, or even considered child molestation or anything remotely related. Frankly it IS very disturbing to me. Maybe you should read my initial post. I AM A POLICE OFFICER and have been for several years. I was inquiring to okieboy for my own personal research(as if it is any of your business).
Regards,
PK
Posted by Fed-up
- May 20, 2003, 03:56 PMHey Poly-Killer, why don't you and Okieboy and the rest of the perverts on this site start your own website. You guys make me sick.
Posted by Poly-Killer
- May 20, 2003, 05:45 AMOkieBoy,
Do any of the methods taught in the "Sting" differ from those taught in TLBTLD? IF so, which ones? You can reply directly to my registered name here or in an open post, it really doesn't matter.
I am curious to know if there are differences, your response would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks,
PK
Do any of the methods taught in the "Sting" differ from those taught in TLBTLD? IF so, which ones? You can reply directly to my registered name here or in an open post, it really doesn't matter.
I am curious to know if there are differences, your response would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks,
PK
Posted by OkieBoy
- May 20, 2003, 05:10 AMI understand what you are going through, Verbatim. I have three months left now on an indecent exposure charge, and I have been passing all of my polygraphs using the "sting" method.
I have in turn tought a couple of guys to use the method to pass their tests, but I made sure I knew them and their crimes weren't too detestable in nature. The guys that are in there for rape, incest, or other crimes, I think should sweat the polygraphs out. Sure, the polygraph is bogus, but the thought of those guys knowing they could get away with anything gives me chills.
I would tell the group what that guy said to you....unless he is going to rat you out for using countermeasures to pass the polygraph. You didn't tell him did you?
That is something I will never understand. Why do they lump all sex offenses in the same group and give them the same punishment.....polygraph testing, your picture on the internet, and sex offender registration?
Why does the government consider indecent exposure, or trying to pick up a hooker the same thing as a violent rape or raping a child? They are giving them the same punishments and it doesn't make sense.
I have in turn tought a couple of guys to use the method to pass their tests, but I made sure I knew them and their crimes weren't too detestable in nature. The guys that are in there for rape, incest, or other crimes, I think should sweat the polygraphs out. Sure, the polygraph is bogus, but the thought of those guys knowing they could get away with anything gives me chills.
I would tell the group what that guy said to you....unless he is going to rat you out for using countermeasures to pass the polygraph. You didn't tell him did you?
That is something I will never understand. Why do they lump all sex offenses in the same group and give them the same punishment.....polygraph testing, your picture on the internet, and sex offender registration?
Why does the government consider indecent exposure, or trying to pick up a hooker the same thing as a violent rape or raping a child? They are giving them the same punishments and it doesn't make sense.
Posted by orolan
- May 15, 2003, 04:52 PMVerbatim,
Now you find yourself within a moral dilemma. If your fellow probationer is offending, ie molesting children, you owe it to society at large to do something about it. If he is offending by viewing "inappropriate" material like teenagers in bathing suits, than you probably still should do something about it. Do you go to therapy with this guy? Maybe you can bring it up in group in a roundabout way?
Countermeasures are good for preventing people otherwise innocent of being accused. They are not advocated for the use of guilty people to hide their evils. I trust you will do what is right in this situation.
Now you find yourself within a moral dilemma. If your fellow probationer is offending, ie molesting children, you owe it to society at large to do something about it. If he is offending by viewing "inappropriate" material like teenagers in bathing suits, than you probably still should do something about it. Do you go to therapy with this guy? Maybe you can bring it up in group in a roundabout way?
Countermeasures are good for preventing people otherwise innocent of being accused. They are not advocated for the use of guilty people to hide their evils. I trust you will do what is right in this situation.
Posted by Verbatim
- May 15, 2003, 12:19 AMWell, well, well! It's been quite a while since i have viewed the site, and it seems that a thread that I started last year is still spawning discussion. I am posting this update to let you all know what has been going on. I have taken 3 polygraph tests since the initial one, and all have come up as passed. I have become more confident in taking them, and don't worry any more about them. However, something has been brought to my attention by one of my fellow probationers. He says that he has been doing things that he should not be doing while on probation and passing the polygraph tests by "visualizing a calm place" the entire time he is taking the test. This apalls me! I do not know the extent of his offenses because he did not go into detail, however, the fact that he could beat the polygraph with no knowledge of countermeasures just by his visualization technique worries me greatly. I regulary augment my responses so as to not be accused of probation violations, but to think that this is all it takes to fool this machine... FRIGHTENING! Once again I bring my disdain for this procedure to the table. If we are to rely on a "test" that can so easily be countered to ensure that the probation population remains in check what does that mean? I offer up this scenario. The correctional departments believe in the validity of the polygraph. If a probationer is passing a polygraph, then they must not be doing anything wrong. The reward for passing the polygrapgh is lighter supervision. If a probationer is able to trick the polygraph, in essence he is able to reduce his/her supervision and, if disposed to, offend again. This is alarming. To all of those who would place faith in the polygraph, i have this to say; i believe the time is coming (if not already come) that a person who passes your polygraph can be out in the public offending at will because you rely on faulty methods. This from someone in the trenches with those that would do this very thing.
Posted by sie
- May 06, 2003, 08:40 AMQuote from: unknown on May 05, 2003, 02:29 AMI know someone that was sent to prison for using contermeasures. He was formally charged with failing to comply with the condition of submitting to a polygraph.
The problem with the polygraph is that its "SUBJECTIVE" not objective. Because of this you would be hard pressed to state unequivocally under oath in a court of law that the reaction measured could only have been produced by one employing a countermeasure and not by some emotional reaction to the question.
Ones probation is not revoke based on assumptions.
Simply put: PROVE IT.
Posted by orolan
- May 05, 2003, 12:48 PMI too would like to know who and where. There is very little public information on probation revocations and their underlying causes, especially when the probationer has not committed a new offense.
Posted by beech trees
- May 05, 2003, 02:59 AMQuote from: unknown on May 05, 2003, 02:29 AMI know someone that was sent to prison for using contermeasures. He was formally charged with failing to comply with the condition of submitting to a polygraph.
What is this person's name, and in what court was he convicted of violating the conditions of his parole/probation by using countermeasures on his polygraph?
Posted by unknown
- May 05, 2003, 02:29 AMI know someone that was sent to prison for using contermeasures. He was formally charged with failing to comply with the condition of submitting to a polygraph.