- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by 1904
- Nov 09, 2007, 12:07 PMQuote from: Barry_C on Nov 01, 2007, 03:51 PMWould that be the real Gizmo?
Posted by Barry_C
- Nov 01, 2007, 03:51 PMWould that be the real Gizmo?
Posted by 1904
- Nov 01, 2007, 08:07 AMQuote from: Barry_C on Oct 31, 2007, 06:09 PMTick...tick...tick.
Lot's of bloviating, but still no proof.
What are some other good CMs?
Sorry. I dont have time to dumb-it-down for you, my dog is urging me to throw a frisbee.
Posted by Barry_C
- Oct 31, 2007, 06:09 PMTick...tick...tick.
Lot's of bloviating, but still no proof.
What are some other good CMs?
Lot's of bloviating, but still no proof.
What are some other good CMs?
Posted by 1904
- Oct 31, 2007, 04:59 PMQuote from: Barry_C on Oct 31, 2007, 04:50 PMYour lack of even a rudimentary knowledge of the science of polygraph, the research literature, and how to run tests is becoming abundantly clear. We both don't "know it" because you're making it up. However, for those of the guilty who want to try it, go ahead and then come on in and see us.
Your petty and demeaning statements lack any weight.
You are floundering in in your pool of contradiction.
Nice beating you.
Now hurry. Your 3rd grader wants to teach you some life lessons.
Posted by Barry_C
- Oct 31, 2007, 04:50 PMYour lack of even a rudimentary knowledge of the science of polygraph, the research literature, and how to run tests is becoming abundantly clear. We both don't "know it" because you're making it up. However, for those of the guilty who want to try it, go ahead and then come on in and see us.
Posted by 1904
- Oct 31, 2007, 04:03 PMQuote from: Barry_C on Oct 31, 2007, 03:42 PMQuote
Tell me, which foot did you insert?
If it's your mouth, both feet.Quote
Again, unless you're looking for a INC, this doesn't make much sense. 1904 is equating this "syndrome" with no ability to react, i.e., perfect baseline - no changes. Since polygraph (the CQT) is based on differential reactivity, this is hardly a "good" CM.
You just invented the 'no ability to react' part. AD does not produce perfect baselines. It significantly reduces responses to the greatest threat stimulus. Therefore it is a pretty good CM.Quote
You'll note 1904 hasn't cited a single source. Instead, he's asked me to do his research for him.
Not so. I just want you to try and be honest and admit that you know perfectly well that AD does significantly reduce polygraph efficacy. I know it. You know it. The polygraph industry has never published (although they may have commissioned as much) research that negates polygraphy.
The one body of research that was not funded or commissioned by the pg industry, namely the NAS study - soundly debunked all the research that you rely on, as biased, unscientific and unreliable.
Is that one of the reasons Dr Drew Richardson is not your flavour of the month?Quote
His thinking also assumes that reactions we see are due to fight or flight. We know fear is not necessary for polygraph to work, so that's yet another strike (albeit a small one in this instance) against his misinformation campaign.
The above statement is contrary to the fundamental teachings of all polygraph instructors.
Apparently Barry_C has reinvented the pseudoscience of polygraphy.
Posted by Barry_C
- Oct 31, 2007, 03:42 PMQuoteThose who ACTUALLY do know would probably disagree with you.
Probably disagree? So you're not sure, huh?
Tell me, which foot did you insert?
Again, unless you're looking for a INC, this doesn't make much sense. 1904 is equating this "syndrome" with no ability to react, i.e., perfect baseline - no changes. Since polygraph (the CQT) is based on differential reactivity, this is hardly a "good" CM. You'll note 1904 hasn't cited a single source. Instead, he's asked me to do his research for him.
His thinking also assumes that reactions we see are due to fight or flight. We know fear is not necessary for polygraph to work, so that's yet another strike (albeit a small one in this instance) against his misinformation campaign.
Posted by 1904
- Oct 31, 2007, 10:19 AMQuote from: Barry_C on Oct 31, 2007, 09:27 AM
Could you quote your source?(iro Adrenal Depletion) I'd like to look that one up as it makes no sense to me, I've never heard of such a thing (Adrenal Depletion) working, and I have a pretty good grasp on forensic polygraphy.
If you say so, then it must be true. Those who ACTUALLY do know would probably disagree with you.
QuoteSo you concede you have no source for such an assertion.
I thought that your ultra quick mind would have recognised sarcasm when it flapped around your face.
Maybe you're just having a slow decade.
It's not my assertion at all. Adrenal depletion and its effects on human physiology are extremely well documented. (Google: Adrenal Depletion )
Furthermore, the effects of adrenal depletion with regard to polygraphy are well known, except to you
evidently.
Tip: Ask a real psychophysiologist. Oh dear. You don't know any do you ?
Posted by Barry_C
- Oct 31, 2007, 09:27 AMQuotePersonally, I dont give a damn my dear.
You cared when you stated it before, but I get it, no data, so resort to "authority." Perhaps you are intimidated by people with strong opinions, but I don't have that problem.
QuoteYes. And you have no have no facts or research to dispute it either.
I have no research to support that the majority of the posters on this site aren't pedophiles, so should I post that they are? According to your logic, you'd have to support that one.
QuoteYou answered / addressed this one in your previous sentence. Dont be so obtuse. For someone who professes to be highly intelligent, highly qualified and knows "a lot" about forensic science, you come
across as petulant and immature.
I'll let the readers here decide who sounds petulant and immature (most of whom, I'm convinced, are examiners).
Posted by 1904
- Oct 31, 2007, 03:56 AMQuote from: Barry_C on Oct 30, 2007, 01:30 PM1904,
So you concede you have no source for such an assertion.
Yes. And you have no have no facts or research to dispute it either.
Quote
Thank you. And I won't forget, it's not your fault: it's the APA's for not doing the research.
The poly industry (that includes you) is well aware of the effects of adrenal depletion and pharmaceutical CM's. Wont you tell us your opinion; why do you think there has never been any Published research in respect thereof? The industry carries out silly research on TLBTLD induced CM
using students and movie tickets -- why not on the more serious and threatening CM's?
Quote
Moreover, you consider a potential means of getting an INC a good CM. Okay, it's all becoming clear now.
What in your opinion would you consider to be the best scenario for a lying subject - an Inc or a DI ?
I dont think it is clear to you after all.
Quote
Now if that's not the case, then I guess, you want me to believe that the person would only be subject to this "adrenal depletion" on the RQs and not the CQs or vice versa?
You answered / addressed this one in your previous sentence. Dont be so obtuse. For someone who professes to be highly intelligent, highly qualified and knows "a lot" about forensic science, you come
across as petulant and immature.
Quote
An INC is an INC. Perhaps you made bad calls with insufficient data, but that's not how it's done by those of us who know what we're doing.
Perhaps if you were more mature you would approach a debate like an adult.
Quote
Does Nate have any data to back that up? I know you were smart enough to ask that question weren't you? If he's got the data, he's never shared it. A lot of people make lots of claims about a lot of things (deep, huh?), but that doesn't make them true.
He's one of your peers. Why dont you ask him to sing from the same sheet as you?
Personally, I dont give a damn my dear.
Posted by Barry_C
- Oct 30, 2007, 01:30 PM1904,
So you concede you have no source for such an assertion. Thank you. And I won't forget, it's not your fault: it's the APA's for not doing the research. Moreover, you consider a potential means of getting an INC a good CM. Okay, it's all becoming clear now.
Now if that's not the case, then I guess, you want me to believe that the person would only be subject to this "adrenal depletion" on the RQs and not the CQs or vice versa?
An INC is an INC. Perhaps you made bad calls with insufficient data, but that's not how it's done by those of us who know what we're doing.
Does Nate have any data to back that up? I know you were smart enough to ask that question weren't you? If he's got the data, he's never shared it. A lot of people make lots of claims about a lot of things (deep, huh?), but that doesn't make them true.
So you concede you have no source for such an assertion. Thank you. And I won't forget, it's not your fault: it's the APA's for not doing the research. Moreover, you consider a potential means of getting an INC a good CM. Okay, it's all becoming clear now.
Now if that's not the case, then I guess, you want me to believe that the person would only be subject to this "adrenal depletion" on the RQs and not the CQs or vice versa?
QuoteIf a final incon score is on the '+' side off the cutoff range, which way would you call it?
If you ran a 2nd test that was still incon as above, which way would you call it or would
you simply DQ the subject on the basis that anyone who produces an incon must surely
be practicing CM's?
An INC is an INC. Perhaps you made bad calls with insufficient data, but that's not how it's done by those of us who know what we're doing.
QuotePS - I remember N Gordon
(a well known Instructor with a long list of credentials ) stating that extreme adrenal depletion will most
likely produce an Inc and can produce ndi's.
Does Nate have any data to back that up? I know you were smart enough to ask that question weren't you? If he's got the data, he's never shared it. A lot of people make lots of claims about a lot of things (deep, huh?), but that doesn't make them true.
Posted by 1904
- Oct 29, 2007, 07:29 AMQuote from: Barry_C on Oct 28, 2007, 06:59 PMQuoteYou're talking about adrenal depletion. Regardless of why you would want to do that, it is an effective,
non-detectable countermeasure.
Could you quote your source? I'd like to look that one up as it makes no sense to me, I've never heard of such a thing working, and I have a pretty good grasp on forensic polygraphy. (If you can't react to the questions, then how would that be a CM, unless you're hoping for an INC, which won't help in most hiring exams?)
In one of my earlier posts on either AP or PP I stated that the APA are not known for commissioning research on aspects that would certainly highlight failings in the polygraph testing scenario.
I would therefore be surprised to find such research (iro Adrenal Depletion) but perhaps a medical definition would satisfy you..after all biology and medicine are sciences.
PS - I remember N Gordon
(a well known Instructor with a long list of credentials ) stating that extreme adrenal depletion will most
likely produce an Inc and can produce ndi's.
It is not only the subject that produces incon's. Inadequate examiners also produce incon's.
If a final incon score is on the '+' side off the cutoff range, which way would you call it?
If you ran a 2nd test that was still incon as above, which way would you call it or would
you simply DQ the subject on the basis that anyone who produces an incon must surely
be practicing CM's?
Do you ever have incon's?
The Medical Definition:
The most common form of adrenal imbalance is overuse of the adrenal glands, resulting in adrenal exhaustion. This condition is often associated with Chronic Fatigue Syndrome and it is implicated in a number of maladies, including hormone imbalances, poor metabolism and digestion, blood sugar imbalances, and heart disease.
Physical and emotional stress, excess use of stimulants (including caffeine), and viruses (including herpes virus 6 and Epstein-Barr virus) can all cause adrenal exhaustion.
When you have to drink more and more caffeine and artificial stimulants to get the same effects, you are on the path toward adrenal exhaustion. At first, you may experience an accelerated energy that is often "speedy" or "wired." This is a sign of excess cortisol and other hormones activated by the adrenal glands pumping adrenaline into your system.
When your adrenal glands are exhausted, cortisol is absent and symptoms may include:
• Constant fatigue, no matter how much sleep you get
• Difficulty mustering energy for normal functions
• Drowsiness
• Light-headedness
• Mental cloudiness
• Low blood sugar
Adrenal imbalance is, by definition, a hormone imbalance. The adrenal glands produce several hormones essential to our energy levels and our "fight or flight" reactions in case of emergency. The most important of these is cortisol, the hormone that helps us deal with stress and fear. These hormones affect other chemicals in the body, including blood sugar, sodium, potassium, and magnesium, creating a chain reaction within the body.
Posted by Barry_C
- Oct 28, 2007, 06:59 PMQuoteYou're talking about adrenal depletion. Regardless of why you would want to do that, it is an effective,
non-detectable countermeasure.
Could you quote your source? I'd like to look that one up as it makes no sense to me, I've never heard of such a thing working, and I have a pretty good grasp on forensic polygraphy. (If you can't react to the questions, then how would that be a CM, unless you're hoping for an INC, which won't help in most hiring exams?)
Posted by 1904
- Oct 26, 2007, 06:56 AMQuote from: policeHopeful on Oct 25, 2007, 01:30 PMI actually had two types of theories, but the first has seemed to have been lost in this debate. My first one was that I have heard from a source that even using countermeasures on a few control's would be in most cases sufficient to pass a pre-employment polygraph, being that would be enough to make a camparison between R, Ir, and control. My second thought was would it be possible to take a polygraph and pass by simply knowing that neither the polygrapher nor the polygraph machine could actually detect any lies; Thus, losing all fear and little to no reaction. Also could be sleep deprived also aid in this, by zoning you out of the situation and making your reactions to the questions at hand less pronounced?
P.S. I love this site. Intelligent people making for intelligent debates.
You're talking about adrenal depletion. Regardless of why you would want to do that, it is an effective,
non-detectable countermeasure.