- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by paul woolley
- Mar 15, 2002, 10:20 PMBeechtrees,
Of course examiners expect you to lie or at least be uncomfortable when answering controls,but this does not mean we have to lie to get you to. Your examiner would not of been expecting you to lie to relevants. If we use the directed lie control format there is little chance this will happen with any examiner.
You admit to lying on your polygraph to relevant questions and seem proud of it so my repeated reference to you fits.
You state:
The catalog I hold now in my hands was created on 10/04/01, a scant 15 days or so after my polygraph interrogation. The activity sensors are listed there, as they were on the previous edition I downloaded.
The activity sensor in question was put on their site on the 10/1/01 so you would of had no idea about this device until you took your test. You claim you were intimately aware of this device prior to your polygraph, that cannot be true.
Seeing you made such a point about finding out if we were talking about the same piece of equipment and you have now shown you have embellished on this board.
The previous edition did not have the sensor in question particularly if you downloaded it in Sep.
You ask:
Why would I embellish? What possible reason would I have to lie about such a thing?Unlike you, I have no monetary interest at stake in this whole affair. Unlike you, I have no compelling interest in the argument to save my livelihood.
First of all to prove me wrong .
If you have no monetary interest in polygraph was your test a pre-employment test ? If it was I think you have monetary interest if you like it or not. That is why most of the users of this board are here their job prospects were affected in some way and hence income that is why they hate anything to do with polygraph so much.
I am not here to save my livelihood it is not in question, and I am not being paid to come here. I only want to point out that not everything stated on this site is correct.
Particularly the statements that there is no peer-reviewed literature on single issue testing formats that support CQT polygraph applications. Also all examiners lie to subjects to get them to lie to controls another misleading statement, which you have bought into, not ALL examiners do.
I have no doubt you were tested, the thing I doubt is your claims about the activity sensor, as indicated above, if your examiner had the activity sensor he must not have been using it as you would of been asked to do certain things to calibrate it. So maybe you were right about that particular examiner if what you say is true.
When this device was released at an APA conference Lafayette had it setup so anyone could see how good it was at detecting the ever popular sphincter contraction or any other covert type countermeasure. It detected all of them even the slightest (sphincter) movement showed up. That is why I am suspicious.
I do not mean to offend I have only been reacting to the tone of your posts.
Of course examiners expect you to lie or at least be uncomfortable when answering controls,but this does not mean we have to lie to get you to. Your examiner would not of been expecting you to lie to relevants. If we use the directed lie control format there is little chance this will happen with any examiner.
You admit to lying on your polygraph to relevant questions and seem proud of it so my repeated reference to you fits.
You state:
The catalog I hold now in my hands was created on 10/04/01, a scant 15 days or so after my polygraph interrogation. The activity sensors are listed there, as they were on the previous edition I downloaded.
The activity sensor in question was put on their site on the 10/1/01 so you would of had no idea about this device until you took your test. You claim you were intimately aware of this device prior to your polygraph, that cannot be true.
Seeing you made such a point about finding out if we were talking about the same piece of equipment and you have now shown you have embellished on this board.
The previous edition did not have the sensor in question particularly if you downloaded it in Sep.
You ask:
Why would I embellish? What possible reason would I have to lie about such a thing?Unlike you, I have no monetary interest at stake in this whole affair. Unlike you, I have no compelling interest in the argument to save my livelihood.
First of all to prove me wrong .
If you have no monetary interest in polygraph was your test a pre-employment test ? If it was I think you have monetary interest if you like it or not. That is why most of the users of this board are here their job prospects were affected in some way and hence income that is why they hate anything to do with polygraph so much.
I am not here to save my livelihood it is not in question, and I am not being paid to come here. I only want to point out that not everything stated on this site is correct.
Particularly the statements that there is no peer-reviewed literature on single issue testing formats that support CQT polygraph applications. Also all examiners lie to subjects to get them to lie to controls another misleading statement, which you have bought into, not ALL examiners do.
I have no doubt you were tested, the thing I doubt is your claims about the activity sensor, as indicated above, if your examiner had the activity sensor he must not have been using it as you would of been asked to do certain things to calibrate it. So maybe you were right about that particular examiner if what you say is true.
When this device was released at an APA conference Lafayette had it setup so anyone could see how good it was at detecting the ever popular sphincter contraction or any other covert type countermeasure. It detected all of them even the slightest (sphincter) movement showed up. That is why I am suspicious.
I do not mean to offend I have only been reacting to the tone of your posts.
Posted by beech trees
- Mar 14, 2002, 10:44 PMQuote from: Paul Woolley on Mar 14, 2002, 08:15 PM
Beechtrees,
Your response proves you have embellished on this site
huh?
QuoteYou State:
I knew it existed, Mr. Woolley. My post was a ploy to absolutely confirm we were discussing the same piece of equipment. You may confirm my prior knowledge easily enough by reading this thread. You will note that message, posted on September 5th, 2001 initiated my search for information on the type of polygraph equipment on which I knew I was to be interrogated.
I had a look at your thread you offer as proof of your prior knowledge there is no mention of the activity sensor.
This is because Lafayette tell me the activity sensor in question was NOT listed on their site in September 2001.
You could not of known about it as it was not available at the time you state. Once again I say you embellish.
The catalog I hold now in my hands was created on 10/04/01, a scant 15 days or so after my polygraph interrogation. The activity sensors are listed there, as they were on the previous edition I downloaded. You're right, Mr. Woolley, I make no mention of possible countermeasure detection devices in my post asking for information on the Lafayette Instrument Co. That hardly proves anything, other than the fact that I knew as of that date that I would be polygraphed using Lafayette equipment. In numerous emails, Internet searches, and visits to the library I sought out all information I could on that company's equipment, including accessories like chairs, strain gauges, and 'sensor pads'.
I find your suspicious nature suspicious in and of itself-- to quote Hamlet, "The [lady] doth protest too much, methinks." Knowing that a good offense sometimes makes the best defense, you have repeatedly offended by calling my simple statements of facts 'embellishments'. Why would I embellish? What possible reason would I have to lie about such a thing?Unlike you, I have no monetary interest at stake in this whole affair. Unlike you, I have no compelling interest in the argument to save my livelihood.
If it should persuade you (and I doubt seriously it will), I swear on the life of my son that my ass sat upon your activity sensor pad during my entire polygraph interrogation.
And, lest we forget, Mr. Woolley, my polygraph interrogator lied to me. Repeatedly.
You have repeatedly called me a liar, Mr. Woolley. Isn't it true that my polygraph interrogator expected me to lie? Yes or no, please.
Posted by Paul Woolley
- Mar 14, 2002, 08:15 PMBeechtrees,
Your response proves you have embellished on this site
You State:
I knew it existed, Mr. Woolley. My post was a ploy to absolutely confirm we were discussing the same piece of equipment. You may confirm my prior knowledge easily enough by reading this thread. You will note that message, posted on September 5th, 2001 initiated my search for information on the type of polygraph equipment on which I knew I was to be interrogated.
I had a look at your thread you offer as proof of your prior knowledge there is no mention of the activity sensor.
This is because Lafayette tell me the activity sensor in question was NOT listed on their site in September 2001.
You could not of known about it as it was not available at the time you state. Once again I say you embellish.
You claim:
Nope. Not once Mr. Woolley. Unlike my pre-test polygraph interviewer, I haven't embellished once on this board.
As evidenced by my posted link above, my polygraph interrogation took place some time ago.
It appears that you even lie to the people on this board to accomplish your end, as well as your potential employer.
You could not have had any prior knowledge about the activity sensor, as you state, as your evidence shows you are in fact making that part up. What else is a misleading fabrication?
Your response proves you have embellished on this site
You State:
I knew it existed, Mr. Woolley. My post was a ploy to absolutely confirm we were discussing the same piece of equipment. You may confirm my prior knowledge easily enough by reading this thread. You will note that message, posted on September 5th, 2001 initiated my search for information on the type of polygraph equipment on which I knew I was to be interrogated.
I had a look at your thread you offer as proof of your prior knowledge there is no mention of the activity sensor.
This is because Lafayette tell me the activity sensor in question was NOT listed on their site in September 2001.
You could not of known about it as it was not available at the time you state. Once again I say you embellish.
You claim:
Nope. Not once Mr. Woolley. Unlike my pre-test polygraph interviewer, I haven't embellished once on this board.
As evidenced by my posted link above, my polygraph interrogation took place some time ago.
It appears that you even lie to the people on this board to accomplish your end, as well as your potential employer.
You could not have had any prior knowledge about the activity sensor, as you state, as your evidence shows you are in fact making that part up. What else is a misleading fabrication?
Posted by beech trees
- Mar 11, 2002, 12:09 PMQuote from: Paul W. on Mar 08, 2002, 08:57 PM
Beechtrees,
First of all you ask about me about the activity sensor and that you could not find it on the manufacturers site (suggesting it does not exist),only after you are given the information do you identify yourself as someone who took a test with the use of the very c/measure device mentioned.
Mr. Woolley,
I knew to which sensor you made reference in your first post on the subject of countermeasure detection. I couldn't believe you were making the assertion that it could detect sphincter contraction because I had so expeditiously passed my polygraph interrogation using that selfsame technique whilst seated upon said sensor. Thus, I feigned ignorance as to which piece of equipment you were referring in the hopes you would clarify and confirm my suspicions.
QuoteThen you try to allude to the fact that the device is fake, a ploy used by examiners to intimidate examinees (not true).
While I have no empirical evidence that the pads are placebo, my anecdotal evidence confirms my statement above. I'm not a super-secret double agent, I'm merely Joe Sixpack who spent a few hours practicing countermeasures. My interrogator on the other hand is intimately familiar with Lafeyette computerized polygraphs and has had years of polygraph experience.
QuoteYou would not of said this if you had been tested with the use of this device as you would know it was not a"fake" as you put it and you would also know it existed . You also mention you were having fun at my expense because you are intimately aware of these devices
I knew it existed, Mr. Woolley. My post was a ploy to absolutely confirm we were discussing the same piece of equipment. You may confirm my prior knowledge easily enough by reading this thread. You will note that message, posted on September 5th, 2001 initiated my search for information on the type of polygraph equipment on which I knew I was to be interrogated.
QuoteI have a lot of trouble with your approach and your commentry about your experience with aforementioned devices,A fabrication in my personal opinion.
Would you like to polygraph me on the topic? That way we could be certain.
QuoteI am not interested in responding to any further posts from you as I am not here to waste time or to be the object of someones "fun" .
I'm certain responding to posts by me has been less than pleasant. I leave it to my learned colleagues on this list to remain dispassionate and clinical in their posts. If it helps, you may think of me as the Thomas Paine of the antipolygraph community.
QuoteIn an effort to support your hypothesis you embellish.
Clearly you were never tested with the use of this device.
Lx 4000 has replaced the Lx 3000 and 2000.
Nope. Not once Mr. Woolley. Unlike my pre-test polygraph interviewer, I haven't embellished once on this board.
As evidenced by my posted link above, my polygraph interrogation took place some time ago. This fact, combined with the fact that I felt it would be unwise during the test to crane my head around far enough to read the software version on my interrogator's computer screen may account for uncertainty as to which version was used. Suffice to say it would have been the latest version available as of my testing date.
Posted by Paul Woolley
- Mar 11, 2002, 12:22 AMWild Bill,
I agree with your comments, To get political members to agree to submitting to polygraph testing would be a major breakthrough, for reasons you point out corruption etc. They are also the very reasons it would never happen. Just for the record I am an advocate for law and order and am all for cleaning up the political arena and making elected officials more accountable using the polygraph along with any other investigative methods that any other federal employee would have to agree to as part of the process. I find it unusual that someone on a site designed to convince others to abolish the use of polygraph in any setting would be advocating its use.
I agree with your comments, To get political members to agree to submitting to polygraph testing would be a major breakthrough, for reasons you point out corruption etc. They are also the very reasons it would never happen. Just for the record I am an advocate for law and order and am all for cleaning up the political arena and making elected officials more accountable using the polygraph along with any other investigative methods that any other federal employee would have to agree to as part of the process. I find it unusual that someone on a site designed to convince others to abolish the use of polygraph in any setting would be advocating its use.
Posted by Wild Bill
- Mar 09, 2002, 08:06 AMPaul
For your information I am an ultra right wing conservative and not an advocate of criminal rights. That is why I would like to see the political officials that occupy offices in the State's Capital and Washington D.C. polygraphed. You know, as well as I, that a lot of what goes on there is actually criminal to the magnitude most voters cannot comprehend. Such activity is costing us taxpayers billions. There are many ENRON'S, Pharmaceutical companies, etc. that have highly payed people on their payroll who does nothing but make crooked deals with politicians. Primarily in D.C. And how about the billions spent by the Pentagon that can't be accounted for. How many politicians profitted form those "under-the-table" contracts to defense companies in their district?
You probably profess to be for law and order. Therefore, why can't you advocate polygraphing the political structure in D.C. to determine the TRUTH instead of skirting the issue with "left wing" crap. I am for law and order and truth and I certainly advocate the use of the polygraph on our elected and appointed officials. They could probably provide you scientific data for your seat cushons.
For your information I am an ultra right wing conservative and not an advocate of criminal rights. That is why I would like to see the political officials that occupy offices in the State's Capital and Washington D.C. polygraphed. You know, as well as I, that a lot of what goes on there is actually criminal to the magnitude most voters cannot comprehend. Such activity is costing us taxpayers billions. There are many ENRON'S, Pharmaceutical companies, etc. that have highly payed people on their payroll who does nothing but make crooked deals with politicians. Primarily in D.C. And how about the billions spent by the Pentagon that can't be accounted for. How many politicians profitted form those "under-the-table" contracts to defense companies in their district?
You probably profess to be for law and order. Therefore, why can't you advocate polygraphing the political structure in D.C. to determine the TRUTH instead of skirting the issue with "left wing" crap. I am for law and order and truth and I certainly advocate the use of the polygraph on our elected and appointed officials. They could probably provide you scientific data for your seat cushons.
Posted by Paul Woolley
- Mar 08, 2002, 11:35 PMGeorge and Gino,
On the subject of the activity sensor there are specific instructions to calibrate for the detection of certain C/measures particularly seated movements.
Of course any indicators that occur only on controls and never on relevants on three differing charts will be considered a c/measure.
Different types of movements squeezing of buttocks as opposed to sphincter contraction as opposed to someone shifting weight from one side to the other or tightening leg muscles etc, generate identifiable differences represented graphically. Similar to differences in graphical representations in the cardiograph e.g. pulse rates ,blood volumes ,aortic pulse wave representations cannot be confused for each other because of their obvious differences.
Unless there is another physical countermeasure to do with the seat that I am unaware of that may produce responses
I am confident that those types of c/measures will cause a problem for examinees who use them when A/S is employed.
This would be an area of interest for research outside of claims made by the manufacturer and examiners who use it.
As for your comments Gino in relation to polygraph examiner accuracy in determining truth from deception in screening applications I agree there is not much scientific support for those formats. Accordingly there is hardly any research conducted into this area (screening of employees in a pre-employment setting) not enough to draw any conclusions from. Although it has been demonstrated that the more variance between issues increases competition between the relevant questions and hence increase error rates.
However there is a large amount of peer-reviewed literature published showing high accuracy rates for single issue specific test formats . As Dr Richardson hinted at earlier only in his view limited support.
Politicians will base their decisions on official reports given to them from the various government agencies and scientists who are employed for that purpose such as the DODPI.
Polygraph utility as far as obtaining extra information over and above normal investigative processes is solid, of course this is a separate issue to validity. There are cases that do not get published officially where spys have been caught as a result of failing a polygraph test. Some have been published in fiscal reports to congress and cases solved by the CIA using polygraph may be of interest as well.
Wild Bill,
You will not be taken seriously by the powers that be because:
Quote
Regrettably, the 21st century anti-polygraph movement is often mistakenly associated with the extreme left and organizations that campaign for expanded rights for the most reprehensible criminals in our society. Many of these organizations voiced strong support for the EPPA in the mid 1980s, when the debate on polygraphs was one of security vs. civil rights.
Along with the fact that polygraph applications have been employed by government agencies for some time with good results in terms of utility. The main concern for most posting on these sites is pre-employment settings and job application verification by polygraph. This does not appear to be a concern for politicians because as I have heard it said that if a person can't pass a pre-employment polygraph then they are probably not cut out for law enforcement positions anyway. That is what you are dealing with.
On the subject of the activity sensor there are specific instructions to calibrate for the detection of certain C/measures particularly seated movements.
Of course any indicators that occur only on controls and never on relevants on three differing charts will be considered a c/measure.
Different types of movements squeezing of buttocks as opposed to sphincter contraction as opposed to someone shifting weight from one side to the other or tightening leg muscles etc, generate identifiable differences represented graphically. Similar to differences in graphical representations in the cardiograph e.g. pulse rates ,blood volumes ,aortic pulse wave representations cannot be confused for each other because of their obvious differences.
Unless there is another physical countermeasure to do with the seat that I am unaware of that may produce responses
I am confident that those types of c/measures will cause a problem for examinees who use them when A/S is employed.
This would be an area of interest for research outside of claims made by the manufacturer and examiners who use it.
As for your comments Gino in relation to polygraph examiner accuracy in determining truth from deception in screening applications I agree there is not much scientific support for those formats. Accordingly there is hardly any research conducted into this area (screening of employees in a pre-employment setting) not enough to draw any conclusions from. Although it has been demonstrated that the more variance between issues increases competition between the relevant questions and hence increase error rates.
However there is a large amount of peer-reviewed literature published showing high accuracy rates for single issue specific test formats . As Dr Richardson hinted at earlier only in his view limited support.
Politicians will base their decisions on official reports given to them from the various government agencies and scientists who are employed for that purpose such as the DODPI.
Polygraph utility as far as obtaining extra information over and above normal investigative processes is solid, of course this is a separate issue to validity. There are cases that do not get published officially where spys have been caught as a result of failing a polygraph test. Some have been published in fiscal reports to congress and cases solved by the CIA using polygraph may be of interest as well.
Wild Bill,
You will not be taken seriously by the powers that be because:
Quote
Regrettably, the 21st century anti-polygraph movement is often mistakenly associated with the extreme left and organizations that campaign for expanded rights for the most reprehensible criminals in our society. Many of these organizations voiced strong support for the EPPA in the mid 1980s, when the debate on polygraphs was one of security vs. civil rights.
Along with the fact that polygraph applications have been employed by government agencies for some time with good results in terms of utility. The main concern for most posting on these sites is pre-employment settings and job application verification by polygraph. This does not appear to be a concern for politicians because as I have heard it said that if a person can't pass a pre-employment polygraph then they are probably not cut out for law enforcement positions anyway. That is what you are dealing with.
Posted by Paul W.
- Mar 08, 2002, 08:57 PMBeechtrees,
First of all you ask about me about the activity sensor and that you could not find it on the manufacturers site (suggesting it does not exist),only after you are given the information do you identify yourself as someone who took a test with the use of the very c/measure device mentioned. Then you try to allude to the fact that the device is fake, a ploy used by examiners to intimidate examinees (not true).
You would not of said this if you had been tested with the use of this device as you would know it was not a"fake" as you put it and you would also know it existed . You also mention you were having fun at my expense because you are intimately aware of these devices,
I have a lot of trouble with your approach and your commentry about your experience with aforementioned devices,A fabrication in my personal opinion.
I am not interested in responding to any further posts from you as I am not here to waste time or to be the object of someones "fun" .
Your Quote:
May I put forth a hypothesis? You know the pads are fake, as do your fellow polygraph interrogators, yet you still make grave reference to them on this board in the hopes of perpetuating the fraud and duping the unsuspecting into fearing them.
In an effort to support your hypothesis you embellish.
Clearly you were never tested with the use of this device.
Lx 4000 has replaced the Lx 3000 and 2000.
First of all you ask about me about the activity sensor and that you could not find it on the manufacturers site (suggesting it does not exist),only after you are given the information do you identify yourself as someone who took a test with the use of the very c/measure device mentioned. Then you try to allude to the fact that the device is fake, a ploy used by examiners to intimidate examinees (not true).
You would not of said this if you had been tested with the use of this device as you would know it was not a"fake" as you put it and you would also know it existed . You also mention you were having fun at my expense because you are intimately aware of these devices,
I have a lot of trouble with your approach and your commentry about your experience with aforementioned devices,A fabrication in my personal opinion.
I am not interested in responding to any further posts from you as I am not here to waste time or to be the object of someones "fun" .
Your Quote:
May I put forth a hypothesis? You know the pads are fake, as do your fellow polygraph interrogators, yet you still make grave reference to them on this board in the hopes of perpetuating the fraud and duping the unsuspecting into fearing them.
In an effort to support your hypothesis you embellish.
Clearly you were never tested with the use of this device.
Lx 4000 has replaced the Lx 3000 and 2000.
Posted by Wild Bill
- Mar 07, 2002, 12:57 AMPaul,
In the reading room on this site, I have an open letter to "all politicians and public office holders". If you haven't read it please do and tell the visitors to this site if you concur with it or not. If you do not concur give us your reasons why you do not. If you do, would you copy it and send it to your state and federal congressmen? I would like to know if the people who we voted for, and that really control our lives, are truthful people. If the polygraph is truly a lie dector, wouldn't it make sense to polygraph the occupants of state houses and Washington D.C.
I have sent and caused to be sent hundreds of these letters to elected officials and to newspapers. To this date not one of these letters that I sent, nor any of the ones I caused to be sent, has generated "A" response. Could it be that all of these public officials believe the polygraph works and they have something to hide? If this is so, then they want everyone else to be polygraphed but 'LEAVE US OUT' Something doesn't seem right here. Washington congressmen and congresswomen have access to very sensitive national security material. Shouldn't we know that they are behaving ethically?
Your comments please.
In the reading room on this site, I have an open letter to "all politicians and public office holders". If you haven't read it please do and tell the visitors to this site if you concur with it or not. If you do not concur give us your reasons why you do not. If you do, would you copy it and send it to your state and federal congressmen? I would like to know if the people who we voted for, and that really control our lives, are truthful people. If the polygraph is truly a lie dector, wouldn't it make sense to polygraph the occupants of state houses and Washington D.C.
I have sent and caused to be sent hundreds of these letters to elected officials and to newspapers. To this date not one of these letters that I sent, nor any of the ones I caused to be sent, has generated "A" response. Could it be that all of these public officials believe the polygraph works and they have something to hide? If this is so, then they want everyone else to be polygraphed but 'LEAVE US OUT' Something doesn't seem right here. Washington congressmen and congresswomen have access to very sensitive national security material. Shouldn't we know that they are behaving ethically?
Your comments please.
Posted by G Scalabr
- Mar 06, 2002, 09:11 PMPaul,
Let me start by saying that I tremendously appreciate your participation in this forum. One of our goals when establishing this forum was to provide a place for free and open debate on the pros and cons of polygraphy. It is unfortunate that the powers that be at PolygraphPlace.com chose to set up an "Accuracy/Validity" board and proceeded to delete a number of respectful, well-reasoned posts that argued that polygraphy is invalid.
If this device is truly as sensitive as you and the manufacturer maintain, it has a tremendous potential to create a large number of false positives. I would think that the calibration and techniques of employing this device would have to be extremely exact in order to accurately distinguish attempts at countermeasures from other movements. This begs George's question. Exactly how this device is to be used, and exactly how is an examiner to make an objective determination that countermeasures were employed? "It looked like it to me" or "The sensor detected a slight bit of motion at the start and end of every control question" will not cut it. Do you know of a published objective scoring system, or does each examiner employing the device make things up as he goes along?
Polygraphy has not exactly displayed the most impressive accuracy in studies where examiners were only required to attempt to determine truth from deception. I can only imagine how low accuracy would be in a study involving examinees trained in sophisticated countermeasures. This type of exercise would often require examiners to employ pseudoscientific reasoning two times. First, the examiners would have to attempt to determine truth from deception. Then, with the "passing" charts, the examiner would be required to determine whether or not the chart was produced by "true" truthfulness or countermeasures.
This paragraph is a grammatical train wreck. You may wish to register for the board. This will allow you to go back and edit typos and grammatical errors. Nonetheless, I get your point. Furthermore, I almost fully agree with you. In the short term, it is likely that your observations will be correct. Many politicians are simply ignorant regarding the polygraph fraud and mistakenly believe the polygraphy will remedy the situation.
Right now, it appears very likely that the information provided on this website and in informed news pieces (like the following segment from the cover story in the March 11 issue of Time magaine) will fall on deaf ears in Washington.
Uninformed representatives will likely believe self-interested polygraph proponents and their claims of increased security and engage in a knee-jerk reaction that increases reliance upon polygraph screening. Furthermore, the uninformed representatives know that announcements of increased reliance on polygraphy are likely to please the equally uninformed lay public. All of this still does not make increasing reliance on polygraphy a good idea. As you may know, the language of another post 9/11 congressional security bill would establish voice stress analysis screening of airline passengers (I think we can all agree what a farce this would be).
Regrettably, the 21st century anti-polygraph movement is often mistakenly associated with the extreme left and organizations that campaign for expanded rights for the most reprehensible criminals in our society. Many of these organizations voiced strong support for the EPPA in the mid 1980s, when the debate on polygraphs was one of security vs. civil rights.
AntiPolygraph.org advocates abolishment of polygraphy simply because independent evidence indicates that these "tests" are a fraud. Liars can easily beat them (making polygraphs a spy's best friend) while many of the very people we need working to fight terrorism will be falsely accused. At AntiPolygraph.org, we choose not to take a position on the civil rights issue because we feel that it must be shown that polygraphs "tests" are valid before the "security vs. civil rights" discussion can take place.
Reliance on the pseudoscience of polygraphy may increase in the short run. As the amount of polygraphy in use increases, another Aldrich Ames debacle will happen sooner rather than later. The next time there is a media explosion around a case where security is breached by an individual who was vetted by polygraph screening, major media outlets will find AntiPolygraph.org a very helpful resource.
Then, the refrain will be "how come the polygraph didn't catch him? Why are we relying on these 'tests' when they aren't admissible in court?" It may take some time, but eventually, our voice will be heard.
Let me start by saying that I tremendously appreciate your participation in this forum. One of our goals when establishing this forum was to provide a place for free and open debate on the pros and cons of polygraphy. It is unfortunate that the powers that be at PolygraphPlace.com chose to set up an "Accuracy/Validity" board and proceeded to delete a number of respectful, well-reasoned posts that argued that polygraphy is invalid.
Quote[with the sensor, it is possible to] increase sensitivity to detect pulse rates in the legs or buttocks
If this device is truly as sensitive as you and the manufacturer maintain, it has a tremendous potential to create a large number of false positives. I would think that the calibration and techniques of employing this device would have to be extremely exact in order to accurately distinguish attempts at countermeasures from other movements. This begs George's question. Exactly how this device is to be used, and exactly how is an examiner to make an objective determination that countermeasures were employed? "It looked like it to me" or "The sensor detected a slight bit of motion at the start and end of every control question" will not cut it. Do you know of a published objective scoring system, or does each examiner employing the device make things up as he goes along?
Polygraphy has not exactly displayed the most impressive accuracy in studies where examiners were only required to attempt to determine truth from deception. I can only imagine how low accuracy would be in a study involving examinees trained in sophisticated countermeasures. This type of exercise would often require examiners to employ pseudoscientific reasoning two times. First, the examiners would have to attempt to determine truth from deception. Then, with the "passing" charts, the examiner would be required to determine whether or not the chart was produced by "true" truthfulness or countermeasures.
QuoteAs for the use of polygraph, while use is growing despite the efforts of your people . It would seem reasonable to think that your desire is only a pipe dream and wishful thinking not a reality seeing polictical motivations to look like they are doing everything possible to deter and catch terrorists and criminals overrides any validity concerns. Increases after Sep11 occured for that very reason and actually strenghthened polygraph applications in federal agencies .
This paragraph is a grammatical train wreck. You may wish to register for the board. This will allow you to go back and edit typos and grammatical errors. Nonetheless, I get your point. Furthermore, I almost fully agree with you. In the short term, it is likely that your observations will be correct. Many politicians are simply ignorant regarding the polygraph fraud and mistakenly believe the polygraphy will remedy the situation.
Right now, it appears very likely that the information provided on this website and in informed news pieces (like the following segment from the cover story in the March 11 issue of Time magaine) will fall on deaf ears in Washington.
QuoteAnd with the passing of the Soviet threat, many CIA officials lost interest in doing dirty human espionage—which means recruiting dangerous characters who can act as spies and infiltrate terror networks such as al-Qaeda's. And even when informants were coaxed into cooperating, the CIA still required almost all "fully recruited" spies to take a polygraph test, something that scares off useful sources and in the past has failed to catch double agents. "We recruited a whole bunch of bad agents," admits a senior intelligence official. "We wasted a lot of taxpayer money that way."
Uninformed representatives will likely believe self-interested polygraph proponents and their claims of increased security and engage in a knee-jerk reaction that increases reliance upon polygraph screening. Furthermore, the uninformed representatives know that announcements of increased reliance on polygraphy are likely to please the equally uninformed lay public. All of this still does not make increasing reliance on polygraphy a good idea. As you may know, the language of another post 9/11 congressional security bill would establish voice stress analysis screening of airline passengers (I think we can all agree what a farce this would be).
Regrettably, the 21st century anti-polygraph movement is often mistakenly associated with the extreme left and organizations that campaign for expanded rights for the most reprehensible criminals in our society. Many of these organizations voiced strong support for the EPPA in the mid 1980s, when the debate on polygraphs was one of security vs. civil rights.
AntiPolygraph.org advocates abolishment of polygraphy simply because independent evidence indicates that these "tests" are a fraud. Liars can easily beat them (making polygraphs a spy's best friend) while many of the very people we need working to fight terrorism will be falsely accused. At AntiPolygraph.org, we choose not to take a position on the civil rights issue because we feel that it must be shown that polygraphs "tests" are valid before the "security vs. civil rights" discussion can take place.
Reliance on the pseudoscience of polygraphy may increase in the short run. As the amount of polygraphy in use increases, another Aldrich Ames debacle will happen sooner rather than later. The next time there is a media explosion around a case where security is breached by an individual who was vetted by polygraph screening, major media outlets will find AntiPolygraph.org a very helpful resource.
Then, the refrain will be "how come the polygraph didn't catch him? Why are we relying on these 'tests' when they aren't admissible in court?" It may take some time, but eventually, our voice will be heard.
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Mar 06, 2002, 07:32 PMPaul,
You wrote:
How do you know that physical countermeasures would not have worked for a deceptive subject with the correct use of the Lafayette model 76875AS activity sensor?
What is the "correct" use of this activity sensor?
You wrote:
QuoteI would not know if I missed a deceptive subject but I do know that physical countermeasures would not have done it for them with the correct use of the aforementioned activity sensor.
How do you know that physical countermeasures would not have worked for a deceptive subject with the correct use of the Lafayette model 76875AS activity sensor?
What is the "correct" use of this activity sensor?
Posted by beech trees
- Mar 06, 2002, 01:08 AM[author's note: I am editing this message to address other matters of importance raised by Mr. Woolley]
From the catalog (page 6):
"Activity Sensor... Model 76875AS... Lafayette Instrument Company is proud to present our newly redesigned Activity Sensor. The Lafayette Model 76875AS Activity Sensor is an accessory to the Lafayette Instrument LX3000 and LX2000 computerized polygraphs..."
1. Mr. Woolley, will you be alerting Lafayette Instrument Co. about their typographical error(s)?
2. I am not aware of previous assertions on your part that my 'story' (whatever that may mean) is fabricated. Could you be more specific with your (now sweeping) mischaracterization of my posts? What parts are fabricated? Or, is it all-- everything I have ever posted here-- pure fiction, in your expert opinion? On what basis would you make such an assertion, other than your seeming disdain for what I have to say?
Quote from: Paul Woolley on Mar 05, 2002, 10:20 PM
Beechtrees,
The sensor would have to be used with the LX-4000 not the 3000 you wouldn't know this as you could not pluck that info off Lafayettes site. More evidence that your story is a fabrication.
From the catalog (page 6):
"Activity Sensor... Model 76875AS... Lafayette Instrument Company is proud to present our newly redesigned Activity Sensor. The Lafayette Model 76875AS Activity Sensor is an accessory to the Lafayette Instrument LX3000 and LX2000 computerized polygraphs..."
1. Mr. Woolley, will you be alerting Lafayette Instrument Co. about their typographical error(s)?
2. I am not aware of previous assertions on your part that my 'story' (whatever that may mean) is fabricated. Could you be more specific with your (now sweeping) mischaracterization of my posts? What parts are fabricated? Or, is it all-- everything I have ever posted here-- pure fiction, in your expert opinion? On what basis would you make such an assertion, other than your seeming disdain for what I have to say?
Posted by Paul Woolley
- Mar 05, 2002, 10:20 PMBeechtrees,
The sensor would have to be used with the LX-4000 not the 3000 you wouldn't know this as you could not pluck that info off Lafayettes site. More evidence that your story is a fabrication.
The sensor would have to be used with the LX-4000 not the 3000 you wouldn't know this as you could not pluck that info off Lafayettes site. More evidence that your story is a fabrication.
Posted by Paul Woolley
- Mar 05, 2002, 10:08 PMBeechtrees,
You seem to think I have alterior motives and like to fabricate.
If you really did take a test with the most recent activity sensor you would know the pads are not fake and in fact you can increase sensitivity to detect pulse rates in the legs or buttocks . If your examiner used it properly sphincter pucker would easily show up. Seeing you are a self confessed liar and your statement about the pads being fake is not true, what other parts of your comments are fabricated to support your argument.
George,
I would not know if I missed a deceptive subject but I do know that physical countermeasures would not have done it for them with the correct use of the aforementioned activity sensor. I also think your comment about someone holding back gas would be very different to someone self stimulating on controls in atimely manner. Anyway someone feeling that way needs to be identified to eliminate any effect it might have. I do not have any peer-reviewed literature for you to look at in relation to this device . The pressure changes in the seat can be separated from arms and feet and viewed separately sensitivity can be increased to the point where pulse rates can be detected in the seat . My comments are in relation to specific single issue exams I do not conduct screening tests as a rule and experiences mentioned above occured during the course of such formats.
As for the use of polygraph, while use is growing despite the efforts of your people . It would seem reasonable to think that your desire is only a pipe dream and wishful thinking not a reality seeing polictical motivations to look like they are doing everything possible to deter and catch terrorists and criminals overrides any validity concerns. Increases after Sep11 occured for that very reason and actually strenghthened polygraph applications in federal agencies .
I wish you all the best in your efforts to achieve your end as you are obviously committed to your cause.
sincerely,
Paul Woolley
You seem to think I have alterior motives and like to fabricate.
If you really did take a test with the most recent activity sensor you would know the pads are not fake and in fact you can increase sensitivity to detect pulse rates in the legs or buttocks . If your examiner used it properly sphincter pucker would easily show up. Seeing you are a self confessed liar and your statement about the pads being fake is not true, what other parts of your comments are fabricated to support your argument.
George,
I would not know if I missed a deceptive subject but I do know that physical countermeasures would not have done it for them with the correct use of the aforementioned activity sensor. I also think your comment about someone holding back gas would be very different to someone self stimulating on controls in atimely manner. Anyway someone feeling that way needs to be identified to eliminate any effect it might have. I do not have any peer-reviewed literature for you to look at in relation to this device . The pressure changes in the seat can be separated from arms and feet and viewed separately sensitivity can be increased to the point where pulse rates can be detected in the seat . My comments are in relation to specific single issue exams I do not conduct screening tests as a rule and experiences mentioned above occured during the course of such formats.
As for the use of polygraph, while use is growing despite the efforts of your people . It would seem reasonable to think that your desire is only a pipe dream and wishful thinking not a reality seeing polictical motivations to look like they are doing everything possible to deter and catch terrorists and criminals overrides any validity concerns. Increases after Sep11 occured for that very reason and actually strenghthened polygraph applications in federal agencies .
I wish you all the best in your efforts to achieve your end as you are obviously committed to your cause.
sincerely,
Paul Woolley
Posted by Drew Richardson
- Mar 05, 2002, 03:23 PMFightbackk,
I won't repeat that which I have already described--the general procedure and explanation connected with a polygraph exam. I see no reason whatsoever (partcularly in an applicant exam as opposed to a criminal exam) to not carefully and clearly explain in advance to the examinee what he/she could expect to occur during the polygraph process. Not doing so would only invite non-specific reactions due to any generalized anxiety, fear, or surprise that might occur. With regard to the citizenship issue, I can see no reason for it being raised by a polygraph examiner. It has nothing to do with the relevant subject matter of an applicant exam. The only reason that occurs to me for it being properly discussed is if you raised your own concerns about it and the polygraph examiner discussed the issue with you to minimize concerns that you had raised. If you feel that there was any ethical problem(s) connected with your examination(s), I would suggest that you contact and discuss them with the Bureau's Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR). You can reach them through the general switchboard at FBI headquarters in Washington, D.C. The number for that switchboard is 202-324-3000.
I won't repeat that which I have already described--the general procedure and explanation connected with a polygraph exam. I see no reason whatsoever (partcularly in an applicant exam as opposed to a criminal exam) to not carefully and clearly explain in advance to the examinee what he/she could expect to occur during the polygraph process. Not doing so would only invite non-specific reactions due to any generalized anxiety, fear, or surprise that might occur. With regard to the citizenship issue, I can see no reason for it being raised by a polygraph examiner. It has nothing to do with the relevant subject matter of an applicant exam. The only reason that occurs to me for it being properly discussed is if you raised your own concerns about it and the polygraph examiner discussed the issue with you to minimize concerns that you had raised. If you feel that there was any ethical problem(s) connected with your examination(s), I would suggest that you contact and discuss them with the Bureau's Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR). You can reach them through the general switchboard at FBI headquarters in Washington, D.C. The number for that switchboard is 202-324-3000.