- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by InnocentWithPTSD
- Aug 17, 2007, 03:15 PMHi Gino:
You seem to know chemistry and write very convincingly Pal. Therefore, you must be rational, responsible and correct. After all, "Without chemistry, life itself would not be possible." (Can we use that phrase in our pre-test spiel?)
I bet we could create some gizmo together (I'm a chemical engineer and instrumentation specialist) that ostensibly identifies chemicals exuded by the human body when deception occurs. We could (like) use mass spectroscopy or some other scientific technique as the (um, yeah) basis of our device. We could make it look really cool and talk about the maglev turbo molecular pump during the pre-exam pep rally. There will be a high-pitched whine (Wow! Awesome Science!) as our turbo spins in a high vacuum at OVER 100,000 RPM.
Our device need not be reliable at all. We can easily convince the abundant non-scientists of this world that this is a "real cold scientific instrument". All that aside, I'm pretty positive we could tab some AMU which correspond to stress responses and it does not matter if we only correlate to truth or deception about 50% of the time.
So Pal, I've recorded this invention in tangible media. Let's get the patent and make some $$$!!! If our government patsies are deluded easily enough to buy a polygraph machine, just imagine the fast cash we could rake in with our DECEPTION BLOODHOUND.
L
PS: Again the tired old adage: "If ya can't beat em, join em."
Quote from: Gino J. Scalabrini on Mar 28, 2007, 01:52 AMSpeaking of polygraphy and the Golden State, it appears that we have a mole--not to be confused with 6.022x1023(polygraphers, have someone explain this to you)--within the community of polygraphers in California.
etc
Find the mole, gentlemen.
You seem to know chemistry and write very convincingly Pal. Therefore, you must be rational, responsible and correct. After all, "Without chemistry, life itself would not be possible." (Can we use that phrase in our pre-test spiel?)
I bet we could create some gizmo together (I'm a chemical engineer and instrumentation specialist) that ostensibly identifies chemicals exuded by the human body when deception occurs. We could (like) use mass spectroscopy or some other scientific technique as the (um, yeah) basis of our device. We could make it look really cool and talk about the maglev turbo molecular pump during the pre-exam pep rally. There will be a high-pitched whine (Wow! Awesome Science!) as our turbo spins in a high vacuum at OVER 100,000 RPM.
Our device need not be reliable at all. We can easily convince the abundant non-scientists of this world that this is a "real cold scientific instrument". All that aside, I'm pretty positive we could tab some AMU which correspond to stress responses and it does not matter if we only correlate to truth or deception about 50% of the time.
So Pal, I've recorded this invention in tangible media. Let's get the patent and make some $$$!!! If our government patsies are deluded easily enough to buy a polygraph machine, just imagine the fast cash we could rake in with our DECEPTION BLOODHOUND.
L
PS: Again the tired old adage: "If ya can't beat em, join em."
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Apr 10, 2007, 12:29 AMNonombre,
Your first post in this message thread suggests that what most dismays you is not the potential motivation of those providing information to AntiPolygraph.org, but rather the public airing of the polygraph community's dirty laundry.
Your first post in this message thread suggests that what most dismays you is not the potential motivation of those providing information to AntiPolygraph.org, but rather the public airing of the polygraph community's dirty laundry.
Posted by nonombre
- Apr 09, 2007, 08:46 PMQuote from: Twoblock on Apr 09, 2007, 08:15 PMNonombre
Does your "frequently" statement include whstleblowers at corrupt government agencies and contractors, etc.? They are fired, called disgruntled employees and their careers are distroyed or damaged just for exposing corruption. This is because the corrupt entity wants to still be the big crook, HUH???
Geez,
Lighten up Francis.
First of all, as I see it, the origins of this string were NEVER about some well meaning citizen "blowing the whistle on "corrupt government agencies". The postings on this string are obviously nothing more than competitors harpooning each other to the delight of the minions who reside on these message boards.Twoblock, please don't give these guys (on either side) more credit then they are due. I reiterate my original suggestion that they take their silly insinuations elsewhere, where they can be less dangerous to themselves and others...
Regards as always,
Nonombre
Posted by Twoblock
- Apr 09, 2007, 08:15 PMNonombre
Does your "frequently" statement include whstleblowers at corrupt government agencies and contractors, etc.? They are fired, called disgruntled employees and their careers are distroyed or damaged just for exposing corruption. This is because the corrupt entity wants to still be the big crook, HUH???
Does your "frequently" statement include whstleblowers at corrupt government agencies and contractors, etc.? They are fired, called disgruntled employees and their careers are distroyed or damaged just for exposing corruption. This is because the corrupt entity wants to still be the big crook, HUH???
Posted by nonombre
- Apr 09, 2007, 07:32 PMQuote from: George W. Maschke on Apr 09, 2007, 01:34 AMnonombre,
Given "professional" polygraph organizations' shameful track record of sweeping dirt under the rug, it should come as no surprise that a whistleblower in the polygraph community might choose to air grievances here. If the polygraph community would have such matters kept "in-house," then it should put its house in order.
Mr. Maschke,
I don't know any of the players here, so I don't have a personal "ax to grind," but after reading all the posts from the very first "insider report," I must say that I am more than a little suspicious of the motives of this particular "whistleblower."
Mr. "Insider Report" sort of reminds me of a drug dealer I busted a number of years ago. During one particular interview, he offered to provide me with the names of all the other drug dealers in the neighborhood. He did not make this generous offer as the result of a sudden desire to do his civic duty, nor did he even intend to reduce his own punishment, but instead thought he and I could perhaps "work together" to get rid of the competition, so that he could corner the market and we could both make some "real" money. Of course, I made sure the prosecutor was made well aware of this citizen's kind offer and he was soon provided an opportunity to spend some "real" time in in the pokey.
Where I am going with this story is to point out that in real life, your "whistle blower" frequently turns out to be the biggest crook of all...
Food for thought...
Regards,
Nonombre 8-)
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Apr 09, 2007, 01:34 AMnonombre,
Given "professional" polygraph organizations' shameful track record of sweeping dirt under the rug, it should come as no surprise that a whistleblower in the polygraph community might choose to air grievances here. If the polygraph community would have such matters kept "in-house," then it should put its house in order.
Given "professional" polygraph organizations' shameful track record of sweeping dirt under the rug, it should come as no surprise that a whistleblower in the polygraph community might choose to air grievances here. If the polygraph community would have such matters kept "in-house," then it should put its house in order.
Posted by nonombre
- Apr 08, 2007, 08:12 AMThis entire thread appears to be nothing more than a "urinating competition" between CAPE and this guy "Grogan."
I find particularly distressing that these people have found it necessary to use THIS venue to lash out at each other like spoiled children.
Grow up kiddies. The proprietors of this website are rubbing their hands with glee as you cut each other's throats. PLEASE Find a more appropriate place to do this (how about the school yard during recess?) :-/
I find particularly distressing that these people have found it necessary to use THIS venue to lash out at each other like spoiled children.
Grow up kiddies. The proprietors of this website are rubbing their hands with glee as you cut each other's throats. PLEASE Find a more appropriate place to do this (how about the school yard during recess?) :-/
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Apr 08, 2007, 03:25 AMQuoteMore Trimarco 'points to ponder':
1- His 'business address' listed on his web site, 9454 Wilshire, 6th Floor : another example of spin. Visit there, see what offices are there. Tell us about your 'space use when needed', Jack.
I don't find anything blameworthy in this. On the contrary, it seems like a cost-effective business choice.
Quote2- His 'fax number' listed on his web site: it is really his home number, answered by his wife who then can then [sic] hang up and switch it to fax for you.
Again, I find no fault in this.
Quote3- While at the FBI, actually did only a relatively small amount of examinations per month.
4- While in private practice, actually does an even relatively smaller amount of examinations per month.
In his most recent appearance on the Dr. Phil Show, Jack Trimarco stated that he has been administering polygraph examinations since 1990 and that he has conducted 2,700 of them, which yields an average of a bit more than 13 per month distributed over the past 17 years (2,700 exams / (17 years * 12 months/year) = 13.235 exams/month). This seems to me an appreciable number, when one considers weekends, holidays, vacation, sick leave, etc.
In any event, there is no evidence demonstrating a correlation between the accuracy of a polygraph examiner's decisions and the number of examinations conducted. Indeed, there is no evidence that a seasoned veteran with thousands of examinations under his belt produces any more accurate results than does a brand new polygraph school graduate.
Quote5- Why did he have the (embarrassing for the polygraph industry) 'inconclusive' result on the recent 'Dr Phil Show' when testing a pedophile? Because he is using a 30-year-old analog instrument, instead of a modern computerized instrument like most private & government agency examiners have upgraded to over the past 15 years. 'Inconclusives' are almost unheard of in this decade, with use of modern instruments and highly-accurate scoring software choices. Jack's only been in private practice for a few years, and with only a light exam-load, so perhaps he will upgrade when business gets better.
As I mentioned in the thread on the Dr. Phil episode that aired on 4 April 2007, Jack Trimarco did not state that the result was "inconclusive." Rather, he stated that the charts were "unreadable." And there is no evidence that computerized polygraph instruments provide any more accurate results than do analog instruments. The underlying problem is that CQT polygraphy has no scientific basis. Computerization is no more the solution to the inherent shortcomings of polygraphy than it is to those associated with astrological chart reading.
Nonetheless, as alluded to by Dr. Richardson, there is something else about the cardio tracing shown on the Dr. Phil show that may be ground for considerable embarrassment.
Note also that if you saw the entire Dr. Phil episode, you would know that there was not a shred of corroborable evidence that the examinee, Steven Junior, was a pedophile. It seems clear that Jack Trimarco, while unwilling to "stick his neck out," in fact did not believe he was guilty, and following the polygraph segment, Dr. Phil McGraw went on to strongly state his belief that Steven Junior was innocent. I shudder to think that Dr. Phil (or anyone viewing the show) might have reached a different conclusion had only Jack Trimarco opined, based on polygraph chart readings, that Steven Junior was deceptive.
Quote6- We have reviewed many Trimarco polygraph reports over the past few years. He does an exam, writes a report, sends it right out. Oh oh- there is a common denominator on each report: they all say that the charts were reviewed by fellow examiner (name omitted) who agreed with Jack's NDI or DI scoring call, on every report. Ummmmm, Jack, that examiner (listed on your website) is hundreds of miles away from you, and you don't use a computerized instrument that lets you send chart copies by e-mail. Do you have fax records showing sending hundreds of feet of chart paper to him by fax, matching each report date, or does he happen to be in Los Angeles every time you test someone?! This is being reviewed as possible fraud now on at least one of your past exams, and is likely to expand to many past exams.
Are you saying that the chart review by the fellow examiner hundreds of miles away is stated by Trimarco to have been conducted on the same day as the examination?
Quote7- In an industry that has many superb examiners charging $400 to $700 for excellent exams using modern equipment, explain (we would like to ignore the rumors) why someone would pay $1900 for the same service?! Straight up: What percentage of clients who have paid you $1900 did NOT get the scoring results that helped them?? And why would they pay you $1900 for an exam, then pay you an extra $5000 more PER DAY to come to court to discuss that exam?! (Jack- the rumors can be lies, so feel free to answer this).
I can think of a less sinister reason why someone might pay Jack Trimarco more than the going rate for a polygraph examination: name recognition. Jack Trimarco is arguably the most prominent polygraph examiner in practice today through his numerous television and radio appearances, including his hosting of Court TV's game show, Fake Out.
Posted by Administrator
- Apr 08, 2007, 01:16 AMAntiPolygraph.org has received by fax the following anonymous communication:
More Trimarco 'points to ponder':
1- His 'business address' listed on his web site, 9454 Wilshire, 6th Floor : another example of spin. Visit there, see what offices are there. Tell us about your 'space use when needed', Jack.
2- His 'fax number' listed on his web site: it is really his home number, answered by his wife who then can then [sic] hang up and switch it to fax for you.
3- While at the FBI, actually did only a relatively small amount of examinations per month.
4- While in private practice, actually does an even relatively smaller amount of examinations per month.
5- Why did he have the (embarrassing for the polygraph industry) 'inconclusive' result on the recent 'Dr Phil Show' when testing a pedophile? Because he is using a 30-year-old analog instrument, instead of a modern computerized instrument like most private & government agency examiners have upgraded to over the past 15 years. 'Inconclusives' are almost unheard of in this decade, with use of modern instruments and highly-accurate scoring software choices. Jack's only been in private practice for a few years, and with only a light exam-load, so perhaps he will upgrade when business gets better.
6- We have reviewed many Trimarco polygraph reports over the past few years. He does an exam, writes a report, sends it right out. Oh oh- there is a common denominator on each report: they all say that the charts were reviewed by fellow examiner (name omitted) who agreed with Jack's NDI or DI scoring call, on every report. Ummmmm, Jack, that examiner (listed on your website) is hundreds of miles away from you, and you don't use a computerized instrument that lets you send chart copies by e-mail. Do you have fax records showing sending hundreds of feet of chart paper to him by fax, matching each report date, or does he happen to be in Los Angeles every time you test someone?! This is being reviewed as possible fraud now on at least one of your past exams, and is likely to expand to many past exams.
7- In an industry that has many superb examiners charging $400 to $700 for excellent exams using modern equipment, explain (we would like to ignore the rumors) why someone would pay $1900 for the same service?! Straight up: What percentage of clients who have paid you $1900 did NOT get the scoring results that helped them?? And why would they pay you $1900 for an exam, then pay you an extra $5000 more PER DAY to come to court to discuss that exam?! (Jack- the rumors can be lies, so feel free to answer this).
More Trimarco 'points to ponder':
1- His 'business address' listed on his web site, 9454 Wilshire, 6th Floor : another example of spin. Visit there, see what offices are there. Tell us about your 'space use when needed', Jack.
2- His 'fax number' listed on his web site: it is really his home number, answered by his wife who then can then [sic] hang up and switch it to fax for you.
3- While at the FBI, actually did only a relatively small amount of examinations per month.
4- While in private practice, actually does an even relatively smaller amount of examinations per month.
5- Why did he have the (embarrassing for the polygraph industry) 'inconclusive' result on the recent 'Dr Phil Show' when testing a pedophile? Because he is using a 30-year-old analog instrument, instead of a modern computerized instrument like most private & government agency examiners have upgraded to over the past 15 years. 'Inconclusives' are almost unheard of in this decade, with use of modern instruments and highly-accurate scoring software choices. Jack's only been in private practice for a few years, and with only a light exam-load, so perhaps he will upgrade when business gets better.
6- We have reviewed many Trimarco polygraph reports over the past few years. He does an exam, writes a report, sends it right out. Oh oh- there is a common denominator on each report: they all say that the charts were reviewed by fellow examiner (name omitted) who agreed with Jack's NDI or DI scoring call, on every report. Ummmmm, Jack, that examiner (listed on your website) is hundreds of miles away from you, and you don't use a computerized instrument that lets you send chart copies by e-mail. Do you have fax records showing sending hundreds of feet of chart paper to him by fax, matching each report date, or does he happen to be in Los Angeles every time you test someone?! This is being reviewed as possible fraud now on at least one of your past exams, and is likely to expand to many past exams.
7- In an industry that has many superb examiners charging $400 to $700 for excellent exams using modern equipment, explain (we would like to ignore the rumors) why someone would pay $1900 for the same service?! Straight up: What percentage of clients who have paid you $1900 did NOT get the scoring results that helped them?? And why would they pay you $1900 for an exam, then pay you an extra $5000 more PER DAY to come to court to discuss that exam?! (Jack- the rumors can be lies, so feel free to answer this).
Posted by Administrator
- Apr 07, 2007, 12:31 PMQuote from: meangino on Apr 07, 2007, 11:40 AMQuote from: Administrator on Apr 07, 2007, 10:36 AMThis post is to confirm that AntiPolygraph.org received voice mail and fax messages concerning the Trimarco matter on Friday, 6 April 2007 at 17:05 and 18:02 hours Pacific Daylight Time, respectively.Will the information received be posted on this board?
Not at this time, in keeping with the sender's request. The post to which you replied was meant merely to confirm to the anonymous sender that the messages have indeed been received.
Posted by meangino
- Apr 07, 2007, 11:40 AMQuote from: Administrator on Apr 07, 2007, 10:36 AMThis post is to confirm that AntiPolygraph.org received voice mail and fax messages concerning the Trimarco matter on Friday, 6 April 2007 at 17:05 and 18:02 hours Pacific Daylight Time, respectively.Will the information received be posted on this board?
Posted by Administrator
- Apr 07, 2007, 10:36 AMThis post is to confirm that AntiPolygraph.org received voice mail and fax messages concerning the Trimarco matter on Friday, 6 April 2007 at 17:05 and 18:02 hours Pacific Daylight Time, respectively.
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Apr 06, 2007, 04:15 PMQuoteAbout Trimarco- his recent testimony impeachment is a major part of why his client, the County Of Los Angeles, lost their case against two employees. Why did he lie under oath? His client (the county) testified to having paid him nearly FOUR TIMES what he testified to having been paid—Trimarco even said that he didn't look at the check that the county paid him with! And he denied having said/done certain things during the exam, which instead he was found to be saying/doing on the videotape of the examination! Is this not PERJURY? We can pass on the parties' contact info to AntiPolygraph.org, but they don't want it published to the world—they will tell you what a buffoon Trimarco looked like and how even the judge was disturbed by his testimony. Trimarco said that he had no relationship with the examiner he engaged to be a second reviewer of the collected charts—but oops, the guy is listed on Trimarco's own website. Losing a lot of his high-profile clients and media appearances to better examiners, did he decide to raise his examination price to $1900 on his website to explain the work slow-down? Having him as our CAPE Ethics Committee chair is hysterical.
AntiPolygraph.org has been investigating the allegations against Jack Trimarco, and the information received thus far tends to support them. We would indeed be interested in speaking with the parties involved. If provided, their contact information will not be publicly disclosed.
Any further information regarding these allegatations would be welcome. For instance, what is the name of the examiner Trimarco allegedly engaged to review his polygraph charts? The Wayback Machine archive of Trimarco's site for the relevant time period lists the following associates (who remain listed on the site):
QuoteEdward Gelb
Los Angeles, California
Ronald W. Hilley
San Francisco, California
Ronald R. Homer
Walnut Creek, California
Richard W. Kiefer
Orlando, Florida
Joseph A. Kenny
Charlotte, N. Carolina
William K. Teigen
Dallas, Texas
Kenneth A. Vardell
Boulder, Colorado
And what is the name of the official who presided at the hearing? If anyone could provide a copy of the relevant portion of the hearing transcript, it would be very welcome.
The charges against Mr. Trimarco, if true, may well constitute perjury, and AntiPolygraph.org is prepared to refer the matter to the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office, if warranted by evidence.
Posted by Administrator
- Apr 06, 2007, 02:50 AMAntiPolygraph.org has received the following, anonymous follow-up report. Hyperlinks and information in brackets supplied:
Here's another 'insider' view of the recent Calif seminar and of recent posts here-
About APA- the worst choice for an association president, TV O'Malley, is gone. Don Krapohl is a far better choice. O'Malley lost all our support when his candidacy speech was a rabid attack on his opponent, Krapohl. No more threats and intimidation by O'Malley anymore, except to the schools he maintains power over. Krapohl is a gentleman and truly a scholar, and has already directed improvements to APA. Krapohl, please don't let the fake PHDs and other rule-breakers remain as members; remove perjurers from being members; and stop APA from lying about their paid member count—it is not even near the 2000 often quoted. Here's hoping you get a second term.
About NPA [National Polygraph Association]- dead, long gone. Funny to see examiners refer to themselves as being a member.
About ASTM- has replaced APA as the most important one to be a member of. Even the DODPI speaker Gaines said that more courts honor ASTM than APA.
About PEOA- none of the politics or BS, and actually helps its members, surpassing the other organizations in many ways. Has CAPE and APA livid that it even 'dares' to exist. It gets new members every time it is quietly spoken about, examiners that would not have known about it otherwise. Get over it; APA was worried about NPA and look where NPA is now.
About Backster Academy- sold to a fairly-new examiner, who is now the owner & instructor himself. The good- they no longer have the instructor that many complaints were about. The bad- Cleve, you were what made the difference, now it will be just another school. Advice- stop using anybody as a 'guest instructor' if they use a phony PHD title.
About Marston Academy- yes, they did short the student hours greatly, and not just the current class. Yet APA will protect its own- it is essentially guaranteed that APA will not take away the school's APA status. Needs to be investigated by an investigator, not by a fellow polygraph examiner.
About CAPE- it is still APA's obedient puppy. Many attendees come ONLY because of the mandatory hours needed to maintain membership with associations, otherwise it would be a ghost-town. Most members have done almost no exams since graduation. Most of our members are older, retired persons who pay all their bills with pensions, who also happen to have polygraph instruments, they do not have real (steady) businesses. Or they are LE agency examiners that could never run a private business with any success. Or are Workers Compensation students, in polygraph school because that's all they could find, never to do exams in the future. CAPE is ran by drama-queens and worse, same old faces every year. Having Trimarco as the Ethics Committee chair is hilarious. Gossip worse than old ladies playing cards. Instead of looking for 'the mole', become professional.
About PolygraphPlace: allows anyone to advertise. Who has a big ad there? Trimarco, well-known as a phony and a blow-hard, and also advertising are many polygraph school graduates with no experience (learning by practicing on the unsuspecting public). You bet he won't refund Trimarco his advertising $$$ to show integrity, or risk association punishment. Ask fellow GA examiners what they think of Ralph Hilliard (operator of PolygraphPlace.com) flooding the GA advertising on his site with his name and number for all major cities — since he gets the ads for free, he hurts the other GA examiners. I know many of the examiners paying for ads there—many say 'Uses a computerized instrument' yet they have analogs. It is 'Hire a liar to see if your spouse is lying'.
About Trimarco- his recent testimony impeachment is a major part of why his client, the County Of Los Angeles, lost their case against two employees. Why did he lie under oath? His client (the county) testified to having paid him nearly FOUR TIMES what he testified to having been paid—Trimarco even said that he didn't look at the check that the county paid him with! And he denied having said/done certain things during the exam, which instead he was found to be saying/doing on the videotape of the examination! Is this not PERJURY? We can pass on the parties' contact info to AntiPolygraph.org, but they don't want it published to the world—they will tell you what a buffoon Trimarco looked like and how even the judge was disturbed by his testimony. Trimarco said that he had no relationship with the examiner he engaged to be a second reviewer of the collected charts—but oops, the guy is listed on Trimarco's own website. Losing a lot of his high-profile clients and media appearances to better examiners, did he decide to raise his examination price to $1900 on his website to explain the work slow-down? Having him as our CAPE Ethics Committee chair is hysterical.
About Gelb- still lying to the public about being a PHD; it is an insult to the real Phd examiners that APA doesn't cancel his membership (but he is too high-profile for APA to do the right thing to).
About the industry- cutthroat, no 'brotherhood', back-stabbing non-stop.
APA and CAPE members read this site every day, and [there] will be many silently nodding to themselves about the above information. No organization is perfect, but members of these cannot speak up about abuses or other problems without fear of what happens if you don't go along with the cliques in charge. APA and CAPE administrators are not worried about AntiPolygraph revealing technique secrets anywhere as much as they are scared of you learning about their own infighting and abuses.
Here's another 'insider' view of the recent Calif seminar and of recent posts here-
About APA- the worst choice for an association president, TV O'Malley, is gone. Don Krapohl is a far better choice. O'Malley lost all our support when his candidacy speech was a rabid attack on his opponent, Krapohl. No more threats and intimidation by O'Malley anymore, except to the schools he maintains power over. Krapohl is a gentleman and truly a scholar, and has already directed improvements to APA. Krapohl, please don't let the fake PHDs and other rule-breakers remain as members; remove perjurers from being members; and stop APA from lying about their paid member count—it is not even near the 2000 often quoted. Here's hoping you get a second term.
About NPA [National Polygraph Association]- dead, long gone. Funny to see examiners refer to themselves as being a member.
About ASTM- has replaced APA as the most important one to be a member of. Even the DODPI speaker Gaines said that more courts honor ASTM than APA.
About PEOA- none of the politics or BS, and actually helps its members, surpassing the other organizations in many ways. Has CAPE and APA livid that it even 'dares' to exist. It gets new members every time it is quietly spoken about, examiners that would not have known about it otherwise. Get over it; APA was worried about NPA and look where NPA is now.
About Backster Academy- sold to a fairly-new examiner, who is now the owner & instructor himself. The good- they no longer have the instructor that many complaints were about. The bad- Cleve, you were what made the difference, now it will be just another school. Advice- stop using anybody as a 'guest instructor' if they use a phony PHD title.
About Marston Academy- yes, they did short the student hours greatly, and not just the current class. Yet APA will protect its own- it is essentially guaranteed that APA will not take away the school's APA status. Needs to be investigated by an investigator, not by a fellow polygraph examiner.
About CAPE- it is still APA's obedient puppy. Many attendees come ONLY because of the mandatory hours needed to maintain membership with associations, otherwise it would be a ghost-town. Most members have done almost no exams since graduation. Most of our members are older, retired persons who pay all their bills with pensions, who also happen to have polygraph instruments, they do not have real (steady) businesses. Or they are LE agency examiners that could never run a private business with any success. Or are Workers Compensation students, in polygraph school because that's all they could find, never to do exams in the future. CAPE is ran by drama-queens and worse, same old faces every year. Having Trimarco as the Ethics Committee chair is hilarious. Gossip worse than old ladies playing cards. Instead of looking for 'the mole', become professional.
About PolygraphPlace: allows anyone to advertise. Who has a big ad there? Trimarco, well-known as a phony and a blow-hard, and also advertising are many polygraph school graduates with no experience (learning by practicing on the unsuspecting public). You bet he won't refund Trimarco his advertising $$$ to show integrity, or risk association punishment. Ask fellow GA examiners what they think of Ralph Hilliard (operator of PolygraphPlace.com) flooding the GA advertising on his site with his name and number for all major cities — since he gets the ads for free, he hurts the other GA examiners. I know many of the examiners paying for ads there—many say 'Uses a computerized instrument' yet they have analogs. It is 'Hire a liar to see if your spouse is lying'.
About Trimarco- his recent testimony impeachment is a major part of why his client, the County Of Los Angeles, lost their case against two employees. Why did he lie under oath? His client (the county) testified to having paid him nearly FOUR TIMES what he testified to having been paid—Trimarco even said that he didn't look at the check that the county paid him with! And he denied having said/done certain things during the exam, which instead he was found to be saying/doing on the videotape of the examination! Is this not PERJURY? We can pass on the parties' contact info to AntiPolygraph.org, but they don't want it published to the world—they will tell you what a buffoon Trimarco looked like and how even the judge was disturbed by his testimony. Trimarco said that he had no relationship with the examiner he engaged to be a second reviewer of the collected charts—but oops, the guy is listed on Trimarco's own website. Losing a lot of his high-profile clients and media appearances to better examiners, did he decide to raise his examination price to $1900 on his website to explain the work slow-down? Having him as our CAPE Ethics Committee chair is hysterical.
About Gelb- still lying to the public about being a PHD; it is an insult to the real Phd examiners that APA doesn't cancel his membership (but he is too high-profile for APA to do the right thing to).
About the industry- cutthroat, no 'brotherhood', back-stabbing non-stop.
APA and CAPE members read this site every day, and [there] will be many silently nodding to themselves about the above information. No organization is perfect, but members of these cannot speak up about abuses or other problems without fear of what happens if you don't go along with the cliques in charge. APA and CAPE administrators are not worried about AntiPolygraph revealing technique secrets anywhere as much as they are scared of you learning about their own infighting and abuses.
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Mar 28, 2007, 04:35 AMIndeed, Jack Trimarco would seemingly have a conflict of interest investigating and adjudicating an ethics complaint against faux Ph.D. Ed Gelb, as he counts him among his business associates.
Regarding the "mole," my sense is that the person who has provided this information hasn't done so in an attempt to hurt the polygraph community, but rather out of concern over ethical lapses and the lack of effective mechanisms within the polygraph community for addressing such lapses. I suspect that reporting this information to AntiPolygraph.org was seen as an option of last resort for airing these issues and hopefully compelling the polygraph community to address them.
Such whistleblowing in the public interest is to be welcomed, and this is not the first time that a member of the polygraph community has felt compelled by conscience to contact us. While it would be preferable that whistleblowing be done on-the-record, the desire for anonymity is understandable. Apart from fax or voice mail (our number is 1-206-600-5859), anyone wishing to send information can also open an anonymous e-mail account to communicate with us through a service such as Safe-mail.net or Gmail. Our e-mail address is info@antipolygraph.org.
If you would like to send documents, apart from fax and e-mail attachment, you can also upload them directly to our server by anonymous ftp to ftp.antipolygraph.org. Log in as "guest." Files may be uploaded to the "incoming" directory. If you're not familiar with using ftp client software, you may use a web interface such as the following to upload small files (up to 2mb):
http://www.ftpvweb.com
Regarding the "mole," my sense is that the person who has provided this information hasn't done so in an attempt to hurt the polygraph community, but rather out of concern over ethical lapses and the lack of effective mechanisms within the polygraph community for addressing such lapses. I suspect that reporting this information to AntiPolygraph.org was seen as an option of last resort for airing these issues and hopefully compelling the polygraph community to address them.
Such whistleblowing in the public interest is to be welcomed, and this is not the first time that a member of the polygraph community has felt compelled by conscience to contact us. While it would be preferable that whistleblowing be done on-the-record, the desire for anonymity is understandable. Apart from fax or voice mail (our number is 1-206-600-5859), anyone wishing to send information can also open an anonymous e-mail account to communicate with us through a service such as Safe-mail.net or Gmail. Our e-mail address is info@antipolygraph.org.
If you would like to send documents, apart from fax and e-mail attachment, you can also upload them directly to our server by anonymous ftp to ftp.antipolygraph.org. Log in as "guest." Files may be uploaded to the "incoming" directory. If you're not familiar with using ftp client software, you may use a web interface such as the following to upload small files (up to 2mb):
http://www.ftpvweb.com