Post reply

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

Type the letters shown in the picture:
Type the last letter of the word, "America.":
Shortcuts: ALT+S post or ALT+P preview

Topic summary

Posted by purpfan4
 - Jun 17, 2016, 07:25 PM
I find it funny that this person has the same name (not really that far fetched) and "service record" (a little harder to believe) as one Samuel W. Braddock, a former character of the Canadian TV Show Flashpoint. Samuel W was also in Special Forces (Canadian of course) and reached the rank of Master Corporal before he took an early leave. Some of this sound familiar? Is life imitating art or the other way around?  :-/
Posted by nopolycop
 - Dec 31, 2008, 09:39 AM
His credibility when testifying in court regarding polygraph matters is severly compromised by this.  And, as an extension, if the polygrapher who goes to his school ends up in court, the program can be attacked, and the owner of the school can't very well vouch for the ability of the poligrapher now, can he?  If I were looking for a polygraph school to attend, I would not touch this one with a 10 foot nose...
Posted by Fair Chance
 - Dec 30, 2008, 11:55 PM
Dear Patches.

So "he is not the only one in this situation."  He has not only got his hand caught in the cookie jar, he has it caught in an out and out lie concerning a professional credential.  This is not some little mistake.  He proferred a lie to infer that he is an expert in a field in which he is not.  Once one lies about ones factual background, it leads to impeachment about everything that one has sworn or attested to.  He lied.  He has no credibility not based on inference but based on the concrete fact that his facts have been disproven.  This is the type of factual information that a judge and jury will give credence to when presented as such.  

Regards.
Posted by Peaches
 - Dec 30, 2008, 01:53 AM
The way I see it he is not the only one in this situation. I have done a little research on him and he seems to be one of the best in the business. If he was a big fraud he would have been caught, in my opinion. The school he is teaching at in Atlanta is said to be one of the best schools around. I have nothing against the man. He's going to get paid no matter what anyone says on this site.
Posted by George W. Maschke
 - Dec 18, 2008, 01:26 AM
Quote from: Peaches on Dec 18, 2008, 12:57 AMWhy does it matter if he does or does not have PH.D?

Perhaps you should ask Sam Braddock. It mattered enough to him that he chose to misrepresent himself as a Ph.D.

QuoteThis whole matter is a waste of time. No one is making anyone take a course from Sam Braddock. I know everyone is entitled to his/her opinions but discuss something worth talking about.

Don't you think anyone choosing to take a course from Sam Braddock might want to know about Braddock's history of claiming unearned academic accomplishments? This is, by the way, precisely the sort of dishonest behavior for which a law enforcement or intelligence agency applicant facing a pre-employment polygraph examination would be disqualified for life.
Posted by Peaches
 - Dec 18, 2008, 12:57 AM
Why does it matter if he does or does not have PH.D? This whole matter is a waste of time. No one is making anyone take a course from Sam Braddock. I know everyone is entitled to his/her opinions but discuss something worth talking about.
Posted by Lethe
 - Aug 19, 2008, 09:21 AM
P.S. I still think Sam is a total bastard.
Posted by Lethe
 - Aug 19, 2008, 09:20 AM
Quote from: George_Maschke on Aug 18, 2008, 05:51 PM
Listen to everything he says, pay attention to the other instructors, and ask questions.  You'll leave with a lot of useful information that you will utilize in the field.    

What's the use of asking a polygrapher questions?  All you'll get back is lies--at best.  They'll say stuff like "That's a good question.  But you could never understand the answer, so stop bothering me."  Or "That's a good question.  I'm not going to answer it, even though I know the answer, but if you keep doing research that doesn't involve asking people who know the answer, maybe you'll eventually figure it out, but hopefully not."  

So, here are some questions for polygraphers:

  • If the polygraph's accuracy is not effected by what an examinee knows or thinks about the polygraph, why do polygraphers go to such lengths to control what examinees know and think about the polygraph?
  • Why don't government agencies reveal what percentage of applicants and current employees pass their polygraph exams?
  • Why do polygraphers flat out lie about how accurate the polygraph is? (See also first question above)
  • Why haven't polygraphers demonstrated their claimed ability to be able to reliably detect countermeasures?
  • If polygraphers really can detect countermeasures so easily, as they claim they can, why are they so worried about people learning about them?
There are some questions for you.  I'd suggest this common polygrapher "answer": "It's not my job to answer your questions.  Go away."  Which raises yet one more question I'd like to put to you:

  • Why doesn't any polygrapher--even just one in the whole world--answer any of the above questions?  Why isn't there just one website on the whole internet where polygraphers can point curious people to for real answers?
Note that an answer to any of the above must be both <i>true</i> and reasonably complete.  Polygraphers seem to think they've answered a question if they give a straight up lie to it or (more commonly) if they give some half truth that conceals more than it reveals.  They also like to pat themselves on the back if they answer the question they wish they'd been asked instead of the one that they actually were asked.  I guess they figure they're doing the questioner a favor that way.  I think that's how they justify a lot of what they do: we know better than anyone else so we're justified in lying to them.  That's called arrogance.

So, a polygrapher answer questions to someone who doesn't have a vested pecuniary and professional interest in keeping the truth under wraps?  Ha!  It'll be a cold day in the place where every polygrapher belongs before that will happen.
Posted by Joe McCarthy
 - Aug 18, 2008, 05:51 PM
Sam's course is not an easy one.  He's a hard instructor, but truly wants you to know all the information you need to understand the basic fundamentals or Polygraph.  The first half of the course is the toughest; once you get past that, things get very interesting.  

There will be times when you may think Sam is being difficult or a nitpicker, he is.  This is really to your benefit.  He is not only teaching you about polygraph he is toughing you up to deal with a backstabbing cutthroat industry.  Looking at things 20/20 I can see that now.

Listen to everything he says, pay attention to the other instructors, and ask questions.  You'll leave with a lot of useful information that you will utilize in the field.    

If you have a sponsor, spend time with him/her in the office.  Listen to what is going on around you and you will go to school with a leg up.  

People can say what they want about Sam.  I wasn't a fan of Sam when I was there, but after a few years I noticed that I was prepared for almost anything an examinee could throw at me.  I don't know about his PhD nor honestly do I care.  I do know that I wouldn't have traded my experiences (other than the cold weather) in Dixon for anything in the world.  Sam was talking about moving back down south during my course and it looks like he was able to do that.  He's a very decent guy when you talk to him one on one and he has quality guest instructors.  Knowing what I know now after a few years in the field, there are only three people in the industry that I would run into a burning building for; my sponsor, Backster, and Sam.  There are about three I would think about it.  The rest of them can wait until I am done toasting my marshmallows. Pay particular attention to the guy I heard he brings in for the analog class, the man is a walking history book.  

Good luck in your studies and beware Black Mondays.  

One more word of advice, when you get back from school pay attention to what your sponsor has to teach out too.  Polygraph school teaches you about polygraph.  In the real world after school, your sponsor will teach you to be a polygraph examiner.

You picked a great school.

Listen, learn and leave.


Posted by T.M. Cullen
 - Aug 17, 2008, 01:58 AM
Kaykay,

Sounds like a fine idea.  

Don't listen to the cry babies on this board.  They just want to make the world safe for child molesters and terrorists!

Are you interested in government or private work?

TC
Posted by KayKay
 - Aug 16, 2008, 09:45 PM
tell me if going to Troy University to get a polygraph certification is the wrong thing to do. I'm signed up to go in the Spring and work with Sam Braddock. :
Posted by Lethe
 - Sep 20, 2007, 04:57 PM
Quote from: 1904 on Sep 20, 2007, 03:50 AMWow,
Calling the guy a bastard is ballsy.
hope your daddy got money when
old Sammy comes for you.

Calling someone a bastard is hardly a federal offense.  Anyway, I'm not afraid of the government, they should be afraid of me.
Posted by 1904
 - Sep 20, 2007, 03:50 AM
Wow,

Calling the guy a bastard is ballsy.
hope your daddy got money when
old Sammy comes for you.

Posted by Lethe
 - Sep 19, 2007, 10:23 PM
Quote from: George W. Maschke on Sep 14, 2007, 12:22 AMConsidering the doubtful nature of Sam Braddock's claim to be a Ph.D., I wonder whether any of our readers might be in a position to verify his continuing claim to have been Special Forces?

George, I believe that information would be available to a member of the general public who files a FOIA request.  Per the website for the National Personnel Records Center:

QuoteThe public has access to certain military service information without the veteran's authorization (or that of the next-of-kin of deceased veterans).  Examples of information which may be available from Official Military Personnel Files without an unwarranted invasion of privacy include:

   * Name
   * Service Number
   * Dates of Service
   * Branch of Service
   * Rank and Date of Rank
   * Salary *
   * Assignments and Geographical Locations
   * Source of Commission *
   * Military Education
   * Promotion Sequence Number *
   * Awards and decorations (Eligibility only, not actual medals)
   * Duty Status
   * Photograph
   * Transcript of Court-Martial Trial
   * Place of entrance and separation

So, yeah.  If this bastard wasn't in the special forces, that information should be easily obtainable.

Oh, and I highly recommend compiling all of the fake credentials information into one place; that will amplify the effect and make it apparent that the problem is systematic with these animals that we're dealing with.  In fact, I suggested this in another thread.  Great minds think alike, eh George?
Posted by George W. Maschke
 - Sep 14, 2007, 10:49 AM
E. Gary Baker has been addressed here. This thread concerns only Mr. Braddock. But at some point, we'll have to compile a master list. ;)