- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by Underjustice
- Dec 09, 2007, 01:37 PMThe type of test you were given was a test to make you think you are doning something wrong. In other words, it is no more than a tool to keep those who use it to keep their pockets full on the pretends of saving society of sex offenders.
Posted by InnocentWithPTSD
- Aug 19, 2007, 08:01 PMPalerider, Brettski, Twoblock:
It is very sad our world has the problems it does. Good humans wish they could solve them somehow. For personal reasons, I wish Palerider well equipped with accurate technology to assist him.
Unfortunately, polygraph testing may present far more problems than solutions. In the context of Palerider's efforts and LE, a false negative may be far worse than a false positive. The Green River Killer is a case in point.
So what do we do? Nothing? That cannot be countenanced either. In our dilemma, we permit known offenders such as Brian freedom and wrongly accuse the innocent with polygraph "technology."
Well guys, I'm proficient with instrumentation and have validated medical equipment for FDA registration before. Perhaps I can round up some of my colleagues and attempt to improve detection of deception technologies. It's something I can do and perhaps we will succeed. Well, that won't be difficult for anything is better than what is presently offered.
Palerider, it would please me to assist your goals, if feasible. What would our world be like though if deception were not routine?
Perhaps no more poker
or polyticians...
Regards,
Lloyd Ploense
It is very sad our world has the problems it does. Good humans wish they could solve them somehow. For personal reasons, I wish Palerider well equipped with accurate technology to assist him.
Unfortunately, polygraph testing may present far more problems than solutions. In the context of Palerider's efforts and LE, a false negative may be far worse than a false positive. The Green River Killer is a case in point.
So what do we do? Nothing? That cannot be countenanced either. In our dilemma, we permit known offenders such as Brian freedom and wrongly accuse the innocent with polygraph "technology."
Well guys, I'm proficient with instrumentation and have validated medical equipment for FDA registration before. Perhaps I can round up some of my colleagues and attempt to improve detection of deception technologies. It's something I can do and perhaps we will succeed. Well, that won't be difficult for anything is better than what is presently offered.
Palerider, it would please me to assist your goals, if feasible. What would our world be like though if deception were not routine?
Perhaps no more poker
or polyticians...
Regards,
Lloyd Ploense
Posted by Twoblock
- Aug 19, 2007, 07:05 PMpalerider
You just touched on the fallacy of the system concerning this type of person. If Brian is a real person, he is avery sick individual and needs to be in a mental institution undergoing deep psychotherapy and on the correct medications. If he truly wants to get rid of his demon, he would check himself in. The system in place is punitative (gotten many poluted-crats elected)and not geared toward cures. There's nothing you or your machine can do to cure him. Hinkly didn't get prison for shooting a president. Nor was he relegated to a life of polygraphy. He got life in a mental institution.
I know you don't make the laws. You just administer them. However, warehousing mentally ill people in prison or making them take many polygraphs a year will NOT help them become a safe part of society.
Why don't you use your influence and power to get Brian and people like him into a facility where they can get some real help.
From what I have been able to glean, from the little research I have done, is that the sex offender treatment program works pretty well because the recidivism rate of so's is the lowest of all major crimes. But the accute mentally ill, like Brian and those classified as died in the wool predators are not helped by this program. Low risk offenders seem to benefit from the program. I hate these people too, but we are not going about solving the problem totally the right way. Let's take the politician out of the equation and install some common sence.
I would like to see drug dealers, who kill our kids with drugs, be placed under the same restrictions as sex offenders. They should have to register for life as drug dealers and never have contact with kids under 18 either.
You just touched on the fallacy of the system concerning this type of person. If Brian is a real person, he is avery sick individual and needs to be in a mental institution undergoing deep psychotherapy and on the correct medications. If he truly wants to get rid of his demon, he would check himself in. The system in place is punitative (gotten many poluted-crats elected)and not geared toward cures. There's nothing you or your machine can do to cure him. Hinkly didn't get prison for shooting a president. Nor was he relegated to a life of polygraphy. He got life in a mental institution.
I know you don't make the laws. You just administer them. However, warehousing mentally ill people in prison or making them take many polygraphs a year will NOT help them become a safe part of society.
Why don't you use your influence and power to get Brian and people like him into a facility where they can get some real help.
From what I have been able to glean, from the little research I have done, is that the sex offender treatment program works pretty well because the recidivism rate of so's is the lowest of all major crimes. But the accute mentally ill, like Brian and those classified as died in the wool predators are not helped by this program. Low risk offenders seem to benefit from the program. I hate these people too, but we are not going about solving the problem totally the right way. Let's take the politician out of the equation and install some common sence.
I would like to see drug dealers, who kill our kids with drugs, be placed under the same restrictions as sex offenders. They should have to register for life as drug dealers and never have contact with kids under 18 either.
Posted by InnocentWithPTSD
- Aug 19, 2007, 06:32 PMTo be fair Brettsky:
The examiner who tested me seemed to have no idea what PTSD was and left the room. He returned referencing a thick book and proceeded with the examination. I'm satisfied with Palerider's understanding that certain people should never be polygraphed.
I also believe that no one should ever be polygraphed for polygraphy is far too inaccurate to base life decisions on it.
Thanks for chipping in Brettsky.
Lloyd
The examiner who tested me seemed to have no idea what PTSD was and left the room. He returned referencing a thick book and proceeded with the examination. I'm satisfied with Palerider's understanding that certain people should never be polygraphed.
I also believe that no one should ever be polygraphed for polygraphy is far too inaccurate to base life decisions on it.
Thanks for chipping in Brettsky.
Lloyd
Posted by Brettski
- Aug 19, 2007, 01:46 AMQuote from: palerider on Aug 15, 2007, 08:53 PMMy job is especially difficult when people such as yourself have a really bad experience with some shlub, or maybe by virtue of you ignoring his likely questions about your former mental health----
Palerider,
When you insult two people at the same time, they don't cancel each other out: you're just insulting two people. Even though you believe Lloyd's story, your declaration that the false positive was caused by either the examiner's incompetence, or by Lloyd's failure to report his condition is demeaning to both of them. The third most probable explanation is that the polygraph procedure is flawed.
What makes you think that "Shlub" administered the polygraph test incorrectly? It's entirely possible that "Shlub" followed his training to the letter, only to erroneously fail Lloyd anyway. Agreed, Lloyd's motivation to consume his own poison is a compelling argument for his innocence, but if his charts showed signs of deception, wouldn't "Shlub" be obliged to report his findings? If he had taken measures to ensure Lloyd passed because the facts suggest he had no motive, wouldn't that have been evidence tampering?
Polygraphs inevitably lead to poor decision making because there is no valid theory that explains and describes the relationship between emotions and physiology. There is no unique pattern associated with deception, or any emotion for that matter. Such a theory on emotions and physiology would be able to predict how love, stress, and hatred will affect our heart rate and perspiration: never to be confused with the fear of being caught lying.
Nothing reveals the polygraphs shortcomings more than the practitioners of the art deriding each other as the one bad apple that makes the rest of them look unprofessional. "When you start right, you end right." The polygraph will inevitably lead to poor decision making because there is no valid theory supporting it. It's not that "Shlub" does his job improperly; he just shouldn't be doing this job in the first place.
-Brettski
Posted by palerider
- Aug 18, 2007, 08:29 PMHuh? I never insulted Lloyd's character, and I have never blamed him for adverse results of his test. In fact, I called his examiner a "shlub" ----provided that his story is true----and lean very heavily toward Lloyd's truthfulness, sight unseen. I have never denied false positives or false negatives----and considering such inevidibilities gives me no comfort.
Excuse me while I get some rest, as I have a 3 hour appointment with a very gentle, nice man named Brian. Brian was arrested for molesting his 4 year old daughter----he has a fixation on drinking the urine of very small girls. He has told of his struggles with fantasies of nearby girls at stores and around his neighborhood and feeling very guilty of such thoughts----thoughts that are so graphic, I don't believe non-offenders on this site need to read-----although I have many clients who come to this site to grasp at the straw of a way to beat their test-----which I have my own potent methods of revealing such activities(my secret, sorry). Brian really wants to change----and if he knew what part of his brain gave him such proclivities, he would dig it out with a spoon and pocket knife. He is courageous for facing his demons, but he is nonetheless very, very dangerous. We as a community need to use every variation of supervision that we can get our hands on----to help protect our kids, and also to protect Brian from his addiction.
Excuse me while I get some rest, as I have a 3 hour appointment with a very gentle, nice man named Brian. Brian was arrested for molesting his 4 year old daughter----he has a fixation on drinking the urine of very small girls. He has told of his struggles with fantasies of nearby girls at stores and around his neighborhood and feeling very guilty of such thoughts----thoughts that are so graphic, I don't believe non-offenders on this site need to read-----although I have many clients who come to this site to grasp at the straw of a way to beat their test-----which I have my own potent methods of revealing such activities(my secret, sorry). Brian really wants to change----and if he knew what part of his brain gave him such proclivities, he would dig it out with a spoon and pocket knife. He is courageous for facing his demons, but he is nonetheless very, very dangerous. We as a community need to use every variation of supervision that we can get our hands on----to help protect our kids, and also to protect Brian from his addiction.
Posted by Stan_Smith
- Aug 18, 2007, 04:51 PMQuote from: Lloyd Ploense on Aug 18, 2007, 03:37 PMStan:
I'm moving away from this topic because I don't wish to interfere with palerider and his goals. As for pinging you Sir, we are after all in a public forum. I am using my true legal name. I am a proud and law abiding citizen of New Providence Borough, Union County, New Jersey in the USA.
Is Stan_Smith your real name? Yes, my name is Stan Smith. However, unlike you, I am not as comfortable giving out any more information than that as those that puruse this site (not all, but some) are likely to be criminals in search of a way out.
Are you willing to identify yourself in the same manner? If not, I pray you are not offended if a citizen does a little lawful research. A ping is not a hack attempt and is lawful Dude. So is Polygraphy, Lloyd. Yet you seem to very much mind the polygraph the police used on you. Hope you don't mind. Consider it like looking up your name in an online telephone directory. BTW Stan, telephone harassment is unlawful as the person identified by a recent communications data warrant has learned to his chagrin. He could not hide behind a "restricted" phone number.
For a proponent of polygraphy to feel so negatively about a simple ping is quite duplicitous is it not Stan? Not so negatively, just careful is all Lloyd. As I said, you never know who might be posting on a site such as this.
For what its worth Stan, I thank you for your concern about my difficult situation. I don't mind if you goad me a bit either. That is after all a hallmark or the polygraph testing we discuss on this site. No problem, as I said before, if you are TRULY innocent of what you are being accused of (I'm not convinced completely that you are) than I do honestly hope you are caused no further trouble. And as I've said before, if you are TRULY innocent, a polygraph alone will not, and can not, cause you to be convicted of said crime.
Lloyd Ploense
Stan
Posted by Brettski
- Aug 18, 2007, 04:14 PMQuote from: Lloyd Ploense on Aug 18, 2007, 10:34 AMWell TwoBlock:
The nameless one has been rather silent of late. Perhaps you are correct. However, it was I who first engaged new member Stan_Smith after reading a few of his postings.
What do you think Lethe, 1904 and EosJupiter? I'd hoped Stan_Smith was NJ LE. Could TwoBlock be correct? Has anyone ping traced nonombre? Can someone ping Stan_Smith? I don't have McAfee trace on any of my computers anymore, just this Symantec stuff. Yet, a ping trace won't necessarily reveal true location but just that of the proxy server (if used) and that can be disguised by rotation.
The actual identity of Stan_Smith is not important though. He is just another anonymous irritant as we strive towards our mutual goal.
Speaking of goals, lets all lay off palerider. He uses all legal means, no matter how faulty they might be, to accomplish a necessary end to the best of his ability. I think palerider might be one of the very few users who really understand the limitations of polygraph testing.
Sisyphus never rolled a boulder as treacherous as a polygraph. Polygraphy could have never satisfied Tantalus if he hungered for truth and would have comprised a tormentors' jest crueler than that devised by the Gods. As Graves, Ovid and Wordsworth accounted, the Danaides were eternally tormented with the task of drawing water from a well using a leaky bucket. A sieve cannot contain concepts such as the truth. I really wish we had a functional truth/falsehood detector for palerider to use. Methinks we could all appreciate that as the palerider strives to accomplish his worthy goal.
Lloyd Ploense
Lloyd,
I don't think palerider understands the limitations of polygraph testing. He said in no uncertain terms that "We don't put our children's safety at the hands of a test that is ANYTHING less than 100%." Furthermore it seems to me that he made some low key attacks on your character: "My job is especially difficult when people such as yourself have a really bad experience with some shlub, or maybe by virtue of you ignoring his likely questions about your former mental health." Palerider clearly believes that false positives don't occur, and if they do occur, it was YOUR fault, not the polygraphs. YOU didn't disclose your PSTD, therefore you have no one but yourself to blame. I disagree. The situation was forseeable by a reasonable person, and the LE knew, or ought to have known that the polygraph would fail, especially in this case. The term for this is negligence.
I address this to you rather than palerider because you have let your fear of child molesters cloud your judgement. That, and palerider is beyond convincing. If we should use any, and all means available to hunt down and monitor sex offenders, why not torture? Torture makes people talk, and it's not like sex offenders have rights, they are evil after all. What about capital punishment, let's just kill em all, and wash our hands of the whole mess. The issue isn't about what sex offenders deserve, or how much of threat they are to our children: all criminals are "evil." Saying that sex offenders are evil monsters lurking amongst us with "a level of deception not seen in the general population" is fear mongering, and certainly doesn't prove that polygraphs will be any more reliable than it was with employee screening.
You shouldn't accept polygraphs just because your afraid, and I have one word for anyone who would say otherwise: evil. The more serious the situation is, the more important it is that decisions are made only a reliable information. Palerider is no hero protecting society with "3 hours to get to the truth." This isn't 24, and he's not Jack Bauer. Please don't listen to that drama queen on a power trip.
Posted by InnocentWithPTSD
- Aug 18, 2007, 03:37 PMStan:
I'm moving away from this topic because I don't wish to interfere with palerider and his goals. As for pinging you Sir, we are after all in a public forum. I am using my true legal name. I am a proud and law abiding citizen of New Providence Borough, Union County, New Jersey in the USA.
Is Stan_Smith your real name? Are you willing to identify yourself in the same manner? If not, I pray you are not offended if a citizen does a little lawful research. A ping is not a hack attempt and is lawful Dude. Hope you don't mind. Consider it like looking up your name in an online telephone directory. BTW Stan, telephone harassment is unlawful as the person identified by a recent communications data warrant has learned to his chagrin. He could not hide behind a "restricted" phone number.
For a proponent of polygraphy to feel so negatively about a simple ping is quite duplicitous is it not Stan?
For what its worth Stan, I thank you for your concern about my difficult situation. I don't mind if you goad me a bit either. That is after all a hallmark or the polygraph testing we discuss on this site.
Lloyd Ploense
I'm moving away from this topic because I don't wish to interfere with palerider and his goals. As for pinging you Sir, we are after all in a public forum. I am using my true legal name. I am a proud and law abiding citizen of New Providence Borough, Union County, New Jersey in the USA.
Is Stan_Smith your real name? Are you willing to identify yourself in the same manner? If not, I pray you are not offended if a citizen does a little lawful research. A ping is not a hack attempt and is lawful Dude. Hope you don't mind. Consider it like looking up your name in an online telephone directory. BTW Stan, telephone harassment is unlawful as the person identified by a recent communications data warrant has learned to his chagrin. He could not hide behind a "restricted" phone number.
For a proponent of polygraphy to feel so negatively about a simple ping is quite duplicitous is it not Stan?
For what its worth Stan, I thank you for your concern about my difficult situation. I don't mind if you goad me a bit either. That is after all a hallmark or the polygraph testing we discuss on this site.
Lloyd Ploense
Posted by Stan_Smith
- Aug 18, 2007, 12:04 PMQuote from: Lloyd Ploense on Aug 18, 2007, 10:34 AMWell TwoBlock:
The nameless one has been rather silent of late. Perhaps you are correct. However, it was I who first engaged new member Stan_Smith after reading a few of his postings.
What do you think Lethe, 1904 and EosJupiter? I'd hoped Stan_Smith was NJ LE. Could TwoBlock be correct? Has anyone ping traced nonombre? Can someone ping Stan_Smith? I don't have McAfee trace on any of my computers anymore, just this Symantec stuff. Yet, a ping trace won't necessarily reveal true location but just that of the proxy server (if used) and that can be disguised by rotation. Ping me? so now you want to electroncially invade my privace after all your rants about 4th ammendment rights?
The actual identity of Stan_Smith is not important though. He is just another anonymous irritant as we strive towards our mutual goal. Just another ad hom attack by Lloyd. Seems the usual response when someone is feeling guilty and logic is used to show their argument is faulty.Speaking of goals, lets all lay off palerider. He uses all legal means, no matter how faulty they might be, to accomplish a necessary end to the best of his ability. I think palerider might be one of the very few users who really understand the limitations of polygraph testing.
Sisyphus never rolled a boulder as treacherous as a polygraph. Polygraphy could have never satisfied Tantalus if he hungered for truth and would have comprised a tormentors' jest crueler than that devised by the Gods. As Graves, Ovid and Wordsworth accounted, the Danaides were eternally tormented with the task of drawing water from a well using a leaky bucket. A sieve cannot contain concepts such as the truth. I really wish we had a functional truth/falsehood detector for palerider to use. Methinks we could all appreciate that as the palerider strives to accomplish his worthy goal.
Lloyd Ploense
Posted by InnocentWithPTSD
- Aug 18, 2007, 10:34 AMWell TwoBlock:
The nameless one has been rather silent of late. Perhaps you are correct. However, it was I who first engaged new member Stan_Smith after reading a few of his postings.
What do you think Lethe, 1904 and EosJupiter? I'd hoped Stan_Smith was NJ LE. Could TwoBlock be correct? Has anyone ping traced nonombre? Can someone ping Stan_Smith? I don't have McAfee trace on any of my computers anymore, just this Symantec stuff. Yet, a ping trace won't necessarily reveal true location but just that of the proxy server (if used) and that can be disguised by rotation.
The actual identity of Stan_Smith is not important though. He is just another anonymous irritant as we strive towards our mutual goal.
Speaking of goals, lets all lay off palerider. He uses all legal means, no matter how faulty they might be, to accomplish a necessary end to the best of his ability. I think palerider might be one of the very few users who really understand the limitations of polygraph testing.
Sisyphus never rolled a boulder as treacherous as a polygraph. Polygraphy could have never satisfied Tantalus if he hungered for truth and would have comprised a tormentors' jest crueler than that devised by the Gods. As Graves, Ovid and Wordsworth accounted, the Danaides were eternally tormented with the task of drawing water from a well using a leaky bucket. A sieve cannot contain concepts such as the truth. I really wish we had a functional truth/falsehood detector for palerider to use. Methinks we could all appreciate that as the palerider strives to accomplish his worthy goal.
Lloyd Ploense
The nameless one has been rather silent of late. Perhaps you are correct. However, it was I who first engaged new member Stan_Smith after reading a few of his postings.
What do you think Lethe, 1904 and EosJupiter? I'd hoped Stan_Smith was NJ LE. Could TwoBlock be correct? Has anyone ping traced nonombre? Can someone ping Stan_Smith? I don't have McAfee trace on any of my computers anymore, just this Symantec stuff. Yet, a ping trace won't necessarily reveal true location but just that of the proxy server (if used) and that can be disguised by rotation.
The actual identity of Stan_Smith is not important though. He is just another anonymous irritant as we strive towards our mutual goal.
Speaking of goals, lets all lay off palerider. He uses all legal means, no matter how faulty they might be, to accomplish a necessary end to the best of his ability. I think palerider might be one of the very few users who really understand the limitations of polygraph testing.
Sisyphus never rolled a boulder as treacherous as a polygraph. Polygraphy could have never satisfied Tantalus if he hungered for truth and would have comprised a tormentors' jest crueler than that devised by the Gods. As Graves, Ovid and Wordsworth accounted, the Danaides were eternally tormented with the task of drawing water from a well using a leaky bucket. A sieve cannot contain concepts such as the truth. I really wish we had a functional truth/falsehood detector for palerider to use. Methinks we could all appreciate that as the palerider strives to accomplish his worthy goal.
Lloyd Ploense
Posted by Stan_Smith
- Aug 18, 2007, 02:54 AMlol, talk about false acusations. What questions have I been asked that I have not answered?
Posted by Twoblock
- Aug 17, 2007, 08:24 PMStan
Your posts are remarkably like Nonombre. You ask questions but seldon ever answer questions. If you do answer they are nonsubstantive. Me thinks...
? I don't think Nonombre wants to engage Lloyd as Nonombre.
Your posts are remarkably like Nonombre. You ask questions but seldon ever answer questions. If you do answer they are nonsubstantive. Me thinks...
? I don't think Nonombre wants to engage Lloyd as Nonombre.Posted by Stan_Smith
- Aug 17, 2007, 05:37 PMLloyd,
Just curious, who's making allegations and what is it exactly that they are alleging?
Stan
Just curious, who's making allegations and what is it exactly that they are alleging?
Stan
Posted by InnocentWithPTSD
- Aug 17, 2007, 09:52 AMYep Stan:
You are correct in some respects. But WHAT A NUISANCE! I'm not one to be kicked in the back and pretend I like it Dude.
I've also had to contend with numerous bizarre false accusations made to the department of youth and family services. Fortunately, the forensic examiners of DYFS used their eyes, ears AND minds rather than the "prop con" mechanisms of polygraph testing to reach the conclusion that all allegations were unfounded.
Guess that's just life in America, the land of specious accusations and the home of ?
Lloyd Ploense
You are correct in some respects. But WHAT A NUISANCE! I'm not one to be kicked in the back and pretend I like it Dude.
I've also had to contend with numerous bizarre false accusations made to the department of youth and family services. Fortunately, the forensic examiners of DYFS used their eyes, ears AND minds rather than the "prop con" mechanisms of polygraph testing to reach the conclusion that all allegations were unfounded.
Guess that's just life in America, the land of specious accusations and the home of ?
Lloyd Ploense