- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by polyfool
- Sep 17, 2006, 07:34 PMQuote from: PrivateSnowball on Sep 13, 2006, 07:31 PMI believe that this site has good intentions on keeping honest people from failing polygraphs, but it kind of sickens me the kind of people who come here and what they come here for. Before visiting this site and were unaware of the inaccuracy of polygraphs, they probably believed that it technically tells the difference between lie and truth. Take sex offenders on parole/probation for example, do you honestly believe they came to this site seeking information about the accuracy of polygraph tests or how to not fail while telling the truth. I guess it is possible, but most likely not. They most likely want to know a way they can stay out of jail and not have their recidivism be discovered. So they can continue to prey upon the weak to satisfy their disgusting desires. Although they have open access to the book like everyone else, how can you not have a guilty conscience about providing further assitance to these types of people. I think its disgusting and personally hope they go back to prison and get gangbanged in the shower.
Private Snowball,
While I can understand how the thought of a child molester being allowed to roam free in society while continuing to prey on the weakest of victims sickens you, you are missing the point when it comes to the polygraph. Simply put, it is not reliable. That means child molesters under investigation for crimes they indeed have committed will walk after passing a polygraph. Convicted molesters may pass or fail as part of probation, regardless of whether they've victimized another child. Blame those who are using an unreliable tool and system, not the founders of this site.
Posted by Twoblock
- Sep 17, 2006, 07:22 AMcesium_133
Do not expect specific, truthful answers to specific questions. Very, very few will be forthcoming. You will get a few lame answers, maybe.
nonombre
If an applicant comes to you or any other federal polygrapher knowing that they have less than a 50% chance of passing the poly because of your weeding out process, truthful or not, then they should expect the odds are against them and their LE employment lives are ruined. There is no way in hell that this kind of percentage has used or sold drugs or have been/are spies. Yet, you people, individually, ruin their lives. Before you people die, you had better get on your knees and pray for a whole bunch of forgiveness.
As to countermeasures - if an applicant correctly uses mental countermeasures (or not) and you accuse him/her of such, then you are saying "I can read your mind. I AM THE ONE AND ONLY AUTHORITY HERE. THEREFORE, YOU ARE OUT OF HERE". Doesn't that make you feel powerful??
As to the ones who admit to using countermeasures,
they are week and shouldn't be in LE. However, you have written that many who confesses such, you work them through it and they pass. They used deception and you worked them through it and they pass?? Hmmmm??
Do not expect specific, truthful answers to specific questions. Very, very few will be forthcoming. You will get a few lame answers, maybe.
nonombre
If an applicant comes to you or any other federal polygrapher knowing that they have less than a 50% chance of passing the poly because of your weeding out process, truthful or not, then they should expect the odds are against them and their LE employment lives are ruined. There is no way in hell that this kind of percentage has used or sold drugs or have been/are spies. Yet, you people, individually, ruin their lives. Before you people die, you had better get on your knees and pray for a whole bunch of forgiveness.
As to countermeasures - if an applicant correctly uses mental countermeasures (or not) and you accuse him/her of such, then you are saying "I can read your mind. I AM THE ONE AND ONLY AUTHORITY HERE. THEREFORE, YOU ARE OUT OF HERE". Doesn't that make you feel powerful??
As to the ones who admit to using countermeasures,
they are week and shouldn't be in LE. However, you have written that many who confesses such, you work them through it and they pass. They used deception and you worked them through it and they pass?? Hmmmm??
Posted by Sergeant1107
- Sep 17, 2006, 07:02 AMNonombre,
I don't see much of a difference in the end result between a person answering all the questions on a polygraph honestly and still failing, and a person attempting countermeasures and being accused of "purposeful non-cooperation" and failing because of that.
In fact, I think it would be easier to explain away a "purposeful non-cooperation" label on subsequent job applications than it would be to explain a "deception indicated" result.
It is not surprising that you and other polygraph examiners advocate the old chestnut: "just tell the truth and trust the polygraph." For anyone who follows your advice and fails it is little consolation if their polygrapher thinks, "At least they failed honestly."
Were I to take a polygraph again I would tell the truth and I would use countermeasures. From past experience simply telling the truth results in a "deception indicated" score 75% of the time. I could hardly do much worse telling the truth and attempting countermeasures. At least I would feel as though I wasn't totally helpless in deciding my fate.
I don't see much of a difference in the end result between a person answering all the questions on a polygraph honestly and still failing, and a person attempting countermeasures and being accused of "purposeful non-cooperation" and failing because of that.
In fact, I think it would be easier to explain away a "purposeful non-cooperation" label on subsequent job applications than it would be to explain a "deception indicated" result.
It is not surprising that you and other polygraph examiners advocate the old chestnut: "just tell the truth and trust the polygraph." For anyone who follows your advice and fails it is little consolation if their polygrapher thinks, "At least they failed honestly."
Were I to take a polygraph again I would tell the truth and I would use countermeasures. From past experience simply telling the truth results in a "deception indicated" score 75% of the time. I could hardly do much worse telling the truth and attempting countermeasures. At least I would feel as though I wasn't totally helpless in deciding my fate.
Posted by alterego1
- Sep 17, 2006, 06:06 AMQuote from: nonombre on Sep 17, 2006, 01:42 AM
BTW, you really shouldn't swear on a message board. It tends to showcase your ignorance.
Regards,
Nonombre
Awwww, come on bro.....lots of geniuses swear. Just look at Robin Williams!
"regards"
alterego
Posted by cesium_133
- Sep 17, 2006, 05:29 AMQuote from: LieBabyCryBaby on Sep 15, 2006, 04:16 PM
Why would you come here and try to scare readers with, Oh if you DON'T read "The Lie Behind the Lie Detector" and follow its advice, you will fail and fail badly?
I haven't heard Eos or anyone else say that. They say, correctly, that coming here and learning what George has put out is a good idea. I am sure people with quick thinking and good logic have beaten the poly without George's help.
QuoteI don't need to scare anybody, EosJ. They are already scared when they come here. This site further feeds their fears...
That fear makes a person the lemming you wish them to be, CryBaby. It renders them susceptible to your lie that the poly can detect lies. It cannot; it is a fancy BFB machine. Only confessions can demonstrate lies through this method.
By the way, when I had read TLBTLD and learned it all, I went into subsequent polys much more relaxed. I used CM's without regret, and without fail. And I passed when I might well have not
In fact, I cha cha'ed in and out with the lovely knowledge that I had beaten the machine and a polyboy who thought he was invincible. I don't think I would have otherwise, but righteousness was upheld when I did. There you go, one testimonial for George's site and against your position. I am sure I speak for many others.QuoteYou may ask, Where is the evidence that polygraphers can detect the countermeasures advocated on this site? Well, where are all the people who actually committed a serious criminal act and then passed the polygraph by following the advice on this site? Funny, but we don't hear from them, do we?
*Waves hand frantically*
Where IS the CM beef? Where's the beef? Show the studies, CryBaby. We asked you first
Answering a question with a question isn't an affirmative answer at all.No, I have not committed any serious criminal offense, but piddly stuff that someone could use to nitpick me out of my current job. So, ok, I haven't robbed anyone, but I passed notwithstanding some peccadilloes. Ones that should not count against a person. And you're hearing from me.
QuoteAnd if thousands of people come to this site, take the advice, and then pass the polygraph, why do none of them come on this site and admit that they actually passed the polygraph while lying their asses off with regard to relevant issues?
I have seen quite a few come here expressing thanks. I would not expect more than a few of the whole number to do so, though. Had I only 1 poly to deal with, I would have read the information here, passed, and -maybe- sent George a private note. I would not have bothered posting... why? I would have had to create an account, which takes 2 minutes that I would have rather used elsewhere on the WWW.
QuoteI believe that the advice on this site may serve as a placebo for the innocent, but nothing more. If it makes them feel better, that's fine and dandy, but I've seen their world come crashing down when they've been caught and disqualified.
Believe as you will, CryBaby. There's no placebo here; it's the real McCoy. My world has failed to crash down yet, and I used more than 1 suggestion from TLBTLD. If someone louses up their CM's, well, risk that or risk a false positive. I would rather lose having the reins in my hands. However, I don't go in planning to lose, and I have not.
I have also heard many reasons why you polyboys won't take Dr. Richardson's challenge. Why not be the man and do it? Don't make excuses- don't beg off because of lab this, or situation that. Excuses are like ani. Everyone has one, and most smell. If you can detect CM's, and you say you can at better than chance, do it.
You and your pals must hate the doc, he being a defector from the cause. Taking all that precious, apocryphal knowledge with him and handing it to the enemy like Benedict Arnold. Blowing the whistle.
While I think of it, please tell us all your opinion of EPPA. Good or bad? I know it cost you and your drinking buddies money. If you agree with it, why shouldn't it be applied across the board (please be specific)? Also, if you agree with the Act, why was it okay to use the poly in employment screening prior to its passage, or was that a mistake?
If you disagree with it, why? And why is your APA not trying its damnedest to get the act repealed for the greater good of mankind? Because, like the tobacco companies, you know that what you peddle is harmful. Big Tobacco got kicked off the TV in 1970, and to this day they have never challenged it. Why? Even though they would win, they know that they would be exposed yet again for the scoundrels they are.
Knowledge is power. I have the former, and I feel the latter. You and yours cannot pull the hood over my eyes, CryBaby. Please digest...
Posted by nonombre
- Sep 17, 2006, 01:42 AMQuote from: alterego1 on Sep 17, 2006, 01:04 AM
"Regards"
(Is nonombre the one for making this fucking phrase so cliché on this message board?)
No actually I learned it from Drew Richardson. I found it to be a civil way to end a post and to let the other party know you do not hold his opinions against him.
BTW, you really shouldn't swear on a message board. It tends to showcase your ignorance.
Regards,
Nonombre
Posted by Bill Crider
- Sep 17, 2006, 01:23 AMnonombre,
what do you say to folks who waited their whole life for their shot at a LE career and get booted by a false positive and havent tried CMs?
what do you say t George, whose career was ruined by a stranger who called him a spy after knowing him for a few hours?
I didnt try CMs for 2 reasons. #1-it didnt seem right, tho I have since changed my mind about that and #2-I didnt think trying it without knowing enough about what a good chart looks like would work.
what do you say to folks who waited their whole life for their shot at a LE career and get booted by a false positive and havent tried CMs?
what do you say t George, whose career was ruined by a stranger who called him a spy after knowing him for a few hours?
I didnt try CMs for 2 reasons. #1-it didnt seem right, tho I have since changed my mind about that and #2-I didnt think trying it without knowing enough about what a good chart looks like would work.
Posted by alterego1
- Sep 17, 2006, 01:04 AMQuote from: LieBabyCryBaby on Sep 15, 2006, 06:59 PM
So, we are back to the question I keep asking you, which I know you can't really answer: Where are the criminals and applicants who used the information on this site to beat the polygraph while lying to the relevant questions?
This is an easy one to answer....."The first rule of Fight Club, is that one does not talk about Fight Club........".......oh sorry, I got side tracked for a moment.
What I meant to say is, "The first rule of countermeasures is that one makes no damaging admissions." George has already hinted that this board may be monitored, so no one who values his job or future job would come on here and run his mouth talking about how he successfully used countermeasures to defeat the poly.
But if you use the search function, you will indeed see several brave individuals who have come on here and given their testimony.
"Regards"
(Is nonombre the one responsible for making this fucking phrase so cliché on this message board?)
Posted by nonombre
- Sep 17, 2006, 01:00 AMQuote from: Twoblock on Sep 16, 2006, 04:46 PMIf a truthful person is going to be branded a liar by the polygrapher anyway, then why not use countermeasures and inhance the chances of passing.And what of the truthful people, who would have been "branded" truthful, except that their attempts at countermeasures (taught by you and others) have now "branded" them "Purposeful non-cooperation" and have therefore cost them everything?
What do you say to them Mr. Twoblock?
Perhaps you consider them to be "Martyrs" for the Antipolygraph cause? "Acceptable losses" for the greater good?
Regards,
Nonombre
Posted by Twoblock
- Sep 16, 2006, 04:46 PMPolygraphy babble continues.
If you people research this site, which I am sure most have because of you posts, you know the numbers of applicants who have professed their innocents and still failed the poly. You don't know doddly shit about any of them yet you automatically brand them liars. It doen't matter to you that some maintained TS credentials and worked in Military Intel. You still brand them liars.
If a truthful person is going to be branded a liar by the polygrapher anyway, then why not use countermeasures and inhance the chances of passing. Your punitive minds are going interpret the chart squiggles to suit you. You probably can't determine what the squiggles are so, the first thought is COUNTERMEASURES. Since you are the judge, jury and hangman, you send them an they way without a chance to enter their chosen field. You should be damned well ashamed that you use you ill-gotten power to solely deny imployment. Especially those who served well in the military. Something a lot of you didn't have the GUTS to do. It makes my blood boil and for that reason I must stop.
If you people research this site, which I am sure most have because of you posts, you know the numbers of applicants who have professed their innocents and still failed the poly. You don't know doddly shit about any of them yet you automatically brand them liars. It doen't matter to you that some maintained TS credentials and worked in Military Intel. You still brand them liars.
If a truthful person is going to be branded a liar by the polygrapher anyway, then why not use countermeasures and inhance the chances of passing. Your punitive minds are going interpret the chart squiggles to suit you. You probably can't determine what the squiggles are so, the first thought is COUNTERMEASURES. Since you are the judge, jury and hangman, you send them an they way without a chance to enter their chosen field. You should be damned well ashamed that you use you ill-gotten power to solely deny imployment. Especially those who served well in the military. Something a lot of you didn't have the GUTS to do. It makes my blood boil and for that reason I must stop.
Posted by nonombre
- Sep 16, 2006, 01:06 PMQuote from: Sergeant1107 on Sep 16, 2006, 09:26 AMIt always seems odd to me that polygraph examiners can decry the questionable ethics of anyone who posts countermeasure information for all to see, and soon afterward claim that countermeasures don't work and even if they did they are easy to detect.
If the sum total of advice on this website consisted of something ridiculous such as, "Wear a blue shirt - polygraphs don't work on blue" or something similar I doubt that any examiners would bother to take the time to post rebuttals. I also doubt that anyone would be accusing George of unethical behavior for posting his "blue shirt" countermeasure advice for all to see.
If the countermeasures on this site don't work, why do pro-polygraph people care if they are available?
Sergeant,
I have heard this question posted many times on this website and I believe it to be a legitimate one. Allow me to address this subject from my perspective:
I do not think that anyone would argue that there has been an increase in attempts at polygraph countermeasures since the advent of this and similar websites. Along with this goes the raging debate between the pro and anti polygraph community as to how effectively countermeasures can in fact be identified by the polygraph examiner.
Of course I cannot answer for other examiners, but I will tell you that I catch attempts at countermeasures fairly frequently. When caught and confronted some examinees confess (in some cases even bringing me their copy of TLBTLD from the front seat of their car). Others do not admit to their use of CM's, but once confronted their obvious behavior and the resulting physiology suddenly stop. Have I caught them all? Probably not, but I sure have caught a whole bunch.
The problem for me (as I have stated on this website before) is not as much the guilty applicant or suspect that comes in and "rolls the dice" in his attempt to "beat the box." I worry far more for the good, solid police applicant or wrongfully accused innocent person, who has followed the advice of this website and has "taken measures" to assure his passing. I admit that I have seen a number of these.
As I have previously stated, once confronted, the great majority of these people knock off their stupidity, cooperate, and successfully complete the process. Some continue to follow the advice posted on this site, maintain their adversarial stance and if an applicant, they get to see their application trashed. This is only fair. Same goes for examinees testing as the result of pre-trial agreements.
My bottom line is that I believe the material taught on this site probably stands some remote chance of assisting a few guilty individuals in alluding an improperly trained polygraph examiner. However, I also believe very strongly that this website has caused MANY, MANY innocent/truthful people to have significant problems passing their polygraph examinations, many to the point of having been branded as "Willfully non-cooperating," and as a result losing their life's dreams...or worse.
I often wonder what the administrators of this site would say to the police applicant who was tossed out into the street because he employed the "advice" given to him by the people on this website who themselves could not pass a polygraph examination. :-/
Regards,
Nonombre
Posted by Sergeant1107
- Sep 16, 2006, 09:26 AMIt always seems odd to me that polygraph examiners can decry the questionable ethics of anyone who posts countermeasure information for all to see, and soon afterward claim that countermeasures don't work and even if they did they are easy to detect.
If the sum total of advice on this website consisted of something ridiculous such as, "Wear a blue shirt - polygraphs don't work on blue" or something similar I doubt that any examiners would bother to take the time to post rebuttals. I also doubt that anyone would be accusing George of unethical behavior for posting his "blue shirt" countermeasure advice for all to see.
If the countermeasures on this site don't work, why do pro-polygraph people care if they are available?
If the sum total of advice on this website consisted of something ridiculous such as, "Wear a blue shirt - polygraphs don't work on blue" or something similar I doubt that any examiners would bother to take the time to post rebuttals. I also doubt that anyone would be accusing George of unethical behavior for posting his "blue shirt" countermeasure advice for all to see.
If the countermeasures on this site don't work, why do pro-polygraph people care if they are available?
Posted by digithead
- Sep 16, 2006, 02:34 AMWow, are those the hundreds of studies that the National Academies of Science said lacked sufficient methodogical controls and standards that they wouldn't meet National Institute of Justice or National Institute of Health requirements?
Because those guys at the NAS certainly have an axe to grind and are prone to wishful thinking. All that education and years of distinguished research required for admission into the NAS certainly demonstrates bias against the polygraph. Which I guess it's why you can so easily dismiss their conclusion that the polygraph lacks a scientific basis and poses a significant threat to national security...
How many polygraphers are members of the National Academies? Oh, that's right, zero, because at least one would've made onto the panel that researched the polygraph otherwise the American Polygraph Association wouldn't have bemoaned that "the APA was not invited to participate in any of the deliberations, nor consulted to provide responses to many questions raised in this project."
You can hold onto your belief in your pseudoscience but reality is another matter. In due time, your profession will go the way of phrenology, physiognomy, personology and other flapdoodle that used to be used in criminal justice...
Because those guys at the NAS certainly have an axe to grind and are prone to wishful thinking. All that education and years of distinguished research required for admission into the NAS certainly demonstrates bias against the polygraph. Which I guess it's why you can so easily dismiss their conclusion that the polygraph lacks a scientific basis and poses a significant threat to national security...
How many polygraphers are members of the National Academies? Oh, that's right, zero, because at least one would've made onto the panel that researched the polygraph otherwise the American Polygraph Association wouldn't have bemoaned that "the APA was not invited to participate in any of the deliberations, nor consulted to provide responses to many questions raised in this project."
You can hold onto your belief in your pseudoscience but reality is another matter. In due time, your profession will go the way of phrenology, physiognomy, personology and other flapdoodle that used to be used in criminal justice...
Posted by EosJupiter
- Sep 15, 2006, 11:11 PMLieBabyCryBaby,
If I am so closed minded and your oh so strong a debater, then post your studies for all to see. Show us the validity of your data. There are enough people of science and logic on this website to evaluate fairly what you have. I include myself in that list, and I will not jaundice anything I believe in the data , and I will fairly evaluate it on face value. You polygraphers always quote your studies, but why is it they are never out for public scrutiny by the scientific community at large ?? So its up to you now .... see how weak that is
Regards
If I am so closed minded and your oh so strong a debater, then post your studies for all to see. Show us the validity of your data. There are enough people of science and logic on this website to evaluate fairly what you have. I include myself in that list, and I will not jaundice anything I believe in the data , and I will fairly evaluate it on face value. You polygraphers always quote your studies, but why is it they are never out for public scrutiny by the scientific community at large ?? So its up to you now .... see how weak that is
Regards
Posted by LieBabyCryBaby
- Sep 15, 2006, 10:34 PMDigithead, while EosJ's last post is so weak that it isn't worth responding to, and your last post is almost as pathetic, I will respond briefly to yours. Lucky you.
You say that the Willis vs. Smith, et. al case "demonstrates that there is documented evidence that offenders are becoming aware of countermeasures and their effectiveness." My reply is, so what? The case doesn't show that the countermeasures worked for the defendant, do they? No. So what's your point and how does it refute anything I said? And what the judge said or "a staff member" said makes no difference. We aren't arguing a point of law here. Go back to Snowball's post that initiated this topic if you need to figure out where we are.
Also, why would I have to "face it," because of what someone said in an ancient and obscure 1971 study, that the polygraph's only utility is the "bogus pipeline effect," when I know from experience, as well as from studies that support MY view, that the polygraph actually works and is not dependent on faith, supersticion, or a placebo effect?
The reason that most polygraphers like myself don't hang around this site for long is certainly not because you, George, Drew, or anyone else in the anti-polygraph crowd have superior studies or facts on your side. It is simply because OUR studies and facts will never be accepted by people with your agenda, and because ALL you have to support you are easily refutable lab studies and wishful thinking. You might say the same thing about polygraphers, but you would be wrong because at least we have actual experience with the little "box" you hate so much.
Now I think I am done with this topic. It bores me. Call it a cop-out if you want to, or claim a false victory. The fact is simply that, as usual, bantering back and forth with close-minded people is a tiresome waste of time.
"Regards."
You say that the Willis vs. Smith, et. al case "demonstrates that there is documented evidence that offenders are becoming aware of countermeasures and their effectiveness." My reply is, so what? The case doesn't show that the countermeasures worked for the defendant, do they? No. So what's your point and how does it refute anything I said? And what the judge said or "a staff member" said makes no difference. We aren't arguing a point of law here. Go back to Snowball's post that initiated this topic if you need to figure out where we are.
Also, why would I have to "face it," because of what someone said in an ancient and obscure 1971 study, that the polygraph's only utility is the "bogus pipeline effect," when I know from experience, as well as from studies that support MY view, that the polygraph actually works and is not dependent on faith, supersticion, or a placebo effect?
The reason that most polygraphers like myself don't hang around this site for long is certainly not because you, George, Drew, or anyone else in the anti-polygraph crowd have superior studies or facts on your side. It is simply because OUR studies and facts will never be accepted by people with your agenda, and because ALL you have to support you are easily refutable lab studies and wishful thinking. You might say the same thing about polygraphers, but you would be wrong because at least we have actual experience with the little "box" you hate so much.
Now I think I am done with this topic. It bores me. Call it a cop-out if you want to, or claim a false victory. The fact is simply that, as usual, bantering back and forth with close-minded people is a tiresome waste of time.
"Regards."