Post reply

The message has the following error or errors that must be corrected before continuing:
Warning: this topic has not been posted in for at least 120 days.
Unless you're sure you want to reply, please consider starting a new topic.
Attachments: (Clear attachments)
Restrictions: 4 per post (4 remaining), maximum total size 192 KB, maximum individual size 64.00 MB
Uncheck the attachments you no longer want attached
Click or drag files here to attach them.
(Clear attachments)
Other options
Verification:
Please leave this box empty:
Type the letters shown in the picture
Listen to the letters / Request another image

Type the letters shown in the picture:
What is the last name of the first U.S. president?:
Shortcuts: ALT+S post or ALT+P preview

Topic summary

Posted by George W. Maschke
 - Aug 29, 2006, 04:00 PM
Quote from: nonombre on Aug 26, 2006, 01:11 PM

Mr. Maschke,

You just accused a polygraph examiner of "lieing" to an examinee.

Why?

The examinee never asked if he was "lied to."  I see a misunderstanding over the examinee's breathing rate during the administration of a polygraph examination.

For this, you say he was "lied to"

Sir, lying is a deliberate act, generally but not always for malicious reasons.  You have no reason to accuse the examiner in this case of lying.

Now, as an examiner I am not sure I would have approached this examinee in quite this same way, but "LIED TO?"!!!

Oh never mind, I remember now.  This is "Antipolygraph.org."

Nonombre,

As Tarlain pointed out, tdaddy37 did indeed ask whether he was lied to. And indeed he was. Any polygrapher fresh out of polygraph school knows that an at-rest breathing rate of 17-19 breaths per minute is well within the bounds of normalcy. The polygrapher who characterizes such a rate as "abnormal" is telling a blatant falsehood, and almost certainly knows it.

If you have an alternative explanation, please provide it.

QuoteOne more thing.  I don't know how things operate in other departments, but I can tell you that in my department if we change out examiners for the retest of an examinee (inconclusive charts, etc), the new examiner approaches the examinee with a complete and objective "fresh slate."  I can tell you of more times than I can can count where a retest by a new examiner helped an examinee successfully navigate the process.

In this regard, I concur with the arguments put forth by datahead and Drew Richardson in the message thread, On the Fallacy of a Fresh Slate.

QuoteOf course, you will never acknowledge this either.  Once again, I need to remind myself, this is "Antipolygraph.org."  

Regards,

Nonombre :(

While I have no way of independently verifying your claims, I do not assume out of hand that they are untrue. On the contrary, I am inclined to believe that your posts are made in good faith.
Posted by Sergeant1107
 - Aug 29, 2006, 05:59 AM
Quote from: nonombre on Aug 26, 2006, 01:11 PMI can tell you of more times than I can can count where a retest by a new examiner helped an examinee successfully navigate the process.
It would be nice to think that all an examinee would need to do to "successfully navigate the process" is tell the truth and not withhold any information.

I think that if the polygraph was a reliable scientific process then the examinee would be assured of success if they simply told the truth.  I know from experience that such is not the case.

It is disturbing to me that even the pro-polygraph people cannot claim that it is.
Posted by Lienot
 - Aug 27, 2006, 04:16 AM
"I was concentrating on keeping my breathing consistent and under control"  "and accuse me of controling my breathing"  


If I read your post correctly you concentrated on controlling your breathing.  

The examiner then correctly stated you were controlling your breathing.  

Sounds like he called it like it was, no one lied including you.  
Posted by Tarlain
 - Aug 27, 2006, 02:32 AM
The examinee never asked if he was "lied to."


the title of the thread is "Was I lied to."  it sure looks like the examinee asked the question.  but maybe i'm missing something...
Posted by nonombre
 - Aug 26, 2006, 01:11 PM
Quote from: George W. Maschke on Aug 26, 2006, 03:16 AMYes, you were lied to. Your breathing rate was not abnormal. I have no explanation for your polygrapher's bizarre accusation.

It seems likely that your next polygrapher will indeed be biased against you from the start based on the first polygrapher's negative assessment.

Mr. Maschke,
 
You just accused a polygraph examiner of "lieing" to an examinee.
 
Why?
 
The examinee never asked if he was "lied to."  I see a misunderstanding over the examinee's breathing rate during the administration of a polygraph examination.
 
For this, you say he was "lied to"
 
Sir, lying is a deliberate act, generally but not always for malicious reasons.  You have no reason to accuse the examiner in this case of lying.
 
Now, as an examiner I am not sure I would have approached this examinee in quite this same way, but "LIED TO?"!!!
 
Oh never mind, I remember now.  This is "Antipolygraph.org."    
 
One more thing.  I don't know how things operate in other departments, but I can tell you that in my department if we change out examiners for the retest of an examinee (inconclusive charts, etc), the new examiner approaches the examinee with a complete and objective "fresh slate."  I can tell you of more times than I can can count where a retest by a new examiner helped an examinee successfully navigate the process.
 
Of course, you will never acknowledge this either.  Once again, I need to remind myself, this is "Antipolygraph.org."  
 
Regards,
 
Nonombre :(
Posted by George W. Maschke
 - Aug 26, 2006, 03:16 AM
Yes, you were lied to. Your breathing rate was not abnormal. I have no explanation for your polygrapher's bizarre accusation.

It seems likely that your next polygrapher will indeed be biased against you from the start based on the first polygrapher's negative assessment.
Posted by tdaddy37
 - Aug 25, 2006, 11:36 PM
I recently took a polygraph and it was deemed inconclusive. I was told that I was breathing at an abnormal rate (17-19 breaths per minute). I wasnt trying to use counter measures or "beat the box." I thought everything was going to be fine. However, I was told my breathing rate should be much lower. Everything I have NOW read says 15-30 is ok?

 I should say the whole procedure made me nervous and I was concentrating on keeping my breathing consistent and under control

Why would the test administrator deem the test inconclusive, and accuse me of controling my breathing if it was on par?

What can I expect for my next test? Although its a different adminisrator will he be deeming me guilty from the start?