- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Jan 09, 2008, 10:15 AMQuote from: 6D6F606A770E0 on Jan 09, 2008, 08:54 AMAs an aside, Mr Mashke - please advise us what questions you failed in your fbi tests, purely for interest sake.
Although my FBI polygrapher accused me of deception only with regard to the national security questions, my FBI file indicates that I failed all of the relevant questions. For more about my FBI polygraph experience, see my public statement, "Too Hot of a Potato: A Citizen-Soldier's Encounter With the Polygraph."
Posted by EJohnson
- Jan 09, 2008, 09:42 AMQuoteIt's pretty much like two groups of boys standing on either side of a fence taunting each other.
I love the analogy, but you are forgetting we do have female posters. Welcome to the fray.
Quotea guy that learned to talk by reading from a book on trig (Raymond Nelson / Sancho Panza
Nah. Ray is a dedicated, smart, funny, and yes....highly mathmatical statician. Much to learn from Ray. Sancho is a 30yr vet of law enforcement, and is uncharacteristically warm (for retired fuzz), compassionate, and of course, wise.
Quoteand another who thinks he read the trig book but is really full of bluff, a generous dose of narcissism and a wallop of impolite bitternessOuch! Now that was kinda mean. Raaaaare hisssss, kitty likes to scratch. Barry is a highly level headed, respected, wise intellect that wouldn't touch pseudoscience with a ten foot pole. This rings true for the others as well.
( Barry_C).
QuoteCan we not just agree that polygraph exams are based on psychological intimidation and get over it ?
Wrong. Such a codification seems below someone of your seeming native intelligence (although I have to remind you that trigonometry has nothing to do with statistics and probabilities.) But you are funny and curious----a good combination to start. Your characteristic of Sarge might be OK, but I believe you are missing the "chronic victim" addition to the call. My 2 cents.
QuoteJust how busy are they work-wise if they have so much disposable time to visit here and argue like kids ?
Well, Sancho is retired. I am taking a year off to be a stay at home dad to my 3 awesome boys ages 1,4, and 6. My 1 year old turned 1 today, and I will be baking a strawberry cake with choc. frosting----and I have to wrap some teething rings (boy do I). Ray is busy and posts when he can----busy trying to help other professionals protect kids. What do you do? Any Kids? Hobbies?
Quote'Fess up boys. Your party is over.A memetic statement---catchy. But what do you mean? Tens of thousands of tests a year, and tens of.....well, tens of activists encouraging people to engage in countermeasures that obstruct justice, but also victimize the innocent user with unproven, theoretic countermeasures written by a man who never passed a polygraph---failing a national security test, who distributes the instructions on how to resist classic interrogation and inquiry* from a foreign country to enemies, while he is married to a Chinese national. He could be of pure intentions to be sure. But jeez what a troublesome author on the surface. I have some issues with polygraph testing from a purely Human Resources standpoint,but George ignored my advice on how to better approach and focus his efforts on the modality of applicant screening.
*Classic interrogation and inquiry. The very method which George Maschke distributed the official Department of Defense Playbook/ Interrogation Manual. I ponder whether it a coincidence that since George has streamlined the release of that DOD document, torture has replaced the legal and ethical interrogation methods with barbaric torture----methods George than criticises, despite his efforts to write a "survivors guide" to the classic interrogation. To sum----George is a distributer of interrogation resistance tips, and on the same website criticizes the technique of torture----all the while waving the Stars and Stripes.
On an aside, I think torture is an abomination (as any good liberal should.)
Posted by candy
- Jan 09, 2008, 08:54 AMDear All,
I have taken the time to read months worth of postings.
The same 'facts' and hyperbole are repeated ad nauseam
by examiners and the Pro people.
The same rebuttals are posted by the Anti crowd, and vice versa
and so on and so on.
It's pretty much like two groups of boys standing on either side of a fence taunting each other.
One group includes a comedian (EJohnson); a guy that learned to talk by reading from a book on trig (Raymond Nelson / Sancho Panza) and another who thinks he read the trig book but is really full of bluff, a generous dose of narcissism and a wallop of impolite bitterness
( Barry_C). They are backed up by occasional shouting from their mentors, Messrs Webb and Rovner.
On the other side, a disillusioned Sgt; a man cloaked in the stars n stripes - but failed a few polygraph tests trying to get into the fbi;
Next to them - a motley crue of LE rejects, dope heads and sex fiends.
Occasionally a renowned psych shouts encouragement from behind a bush. One of their star players went into exile after posting a phony
software program on how to beat the polygraph.
An odd competition for sure.
Can we not just agree that polygraph exams are based on psychological intimidation and get over it ?
These guys - the examiners - attend a ten week course on how to intimidate weak minded people and suddenly think that they are some
sort of demigods. Just how busy are they work-wise if they have so much disposable time to visit here and argue like kids ?
'Fess up boys. Your party is over.
As an aside, Mr Mashke - please advise us what questions you failed in your fbi tests, purely for interest sake.
Candy A
:-/
I have taken the time to read months worth of postings.
The same 'facts' and hyperbole are repeated ad nauseam
by examiners and the Pro people.
The same rebuttals are posted by the Anti crowd, and vice versa
and so on and so on.
It's pretty much like two groups of boys standing on either side of a fence taunting each other.
One group includes a comedian (EJohnson); a guy that learned to talk by reading from a book on trig (Raymond Nelson / Sancho Panza) and another who thinks he read the trig book but is really full of bluff, a generous dose of narcissism and a wallop of impolite bitterness
( Barry_C). They are backed up by occasional shouting from their mentors, Messrs Webb and Rovner.
On the other side, a disillusioned Sgt; a man cloaked in the stars n stripes - but failed a few polygraph tests trying to get into the fbi;
Next to them - a motley crue of LE rejects, dope heads and sex fiends.
Occasionally a renowned psych shouts encouragement from behind a bush. One of their star players went into exile after posting a phony
software program on how to beat the polygraph.
An odd competition for sure.
Can we not just agree that polygraph exams are based on psychological intimidation and get over it ?
These guys - the examiners - attend a ten week course on how to intimidate weak minded people and suddenly think that they are some
sort of demigods. Just how busy are they work-wise if they have so much disposable time to visit here and argue like kids ?
'Fess up boys. Your party is over.
As an aside, Mr Mashke - please advise us what questions you failed in your fbi tests, purely for interest sake.
Candy A
:-/
Posted by Hunter
- Jan 08, 2008, 11:09 PM[highlight]WJ,
You are a total idiot and your advice is so out of touch with the real world, I won't even respond with reasoning, it would be wasted on you.[/highlight]
I have been warned by the administrator of this site that my statement was not civil and I must cease using such language. My apologizes for the above posted language in reference to you. I will cease posting in this thread.
Good luck in your endeavors with a LEO career.
You are a total idiot and your advice is so out of touch with the real world, I won't even respond with reasoning, it would be wasted on you.[/highlight]
I have been warned by the administrator of this site that my statement was not civil and I must cease using such language. My apologizes for the above posted language in reference to you. I will cease posting in this thread.
Good luck in your endeavors with a LEO career.
Posted by EJohnson
- Jan 08, 2008, 04:05 PMQuoteThe point that I am trying to make is that there would be no need to develop a counter to a counter measure, if that counter measure didn't work, as the polygraphers here state with so much passion
Oh countermeasures work alright, they work as well as say, spitting tobacco in a urine sample for a UA. Such countermeasures do not fool people in the intrepid sense. They merely obstruct in the most optimistic sense, but ruin the credibility in most situations. If I puke on my SAT answer sheet, will I have "beaten the test.?" The testor will not have known my aptitude range for college admissions---so in that sense I won a booby prize. But the test monitor who watches exams might suspect that the person cheated on an official college entrance exam, thereby tainting the student forever as an academic crook or an obstructionist. So if the SAT's cannot "be beat"---then why have a monitor to watch testers? answer; just in case a witness is needed later. Same with the butt pad. The pad component is only a "witness component" that serves to indicate where a countermeasure is coming from----as the charts will have the "artificial look" without the pad. Plus, the instrument companies get to charge more money for the extra sensor.
QuoteI hope you make an outstanding LEO.
I suppose I too hope you make an outstanding lawman. But you have gotten off to a rocky start by attempting to manipulate your investigaters. Sometimes young men believe that because something seems counterintuitive (doesn't make sense to ya) it must be wrong. This is called "inductive reasoning"---meaning, if it doesn't make sense to you or contradicts your beliefs, then it must be wrong. WJ, you need to take a more thoughtful approach to matters of protocol.
Posted by nopolycop
- Jan 07, 2008, 10:28 AMQuote from: KOM on Jan 07, 2008, 06:36 AMThis appears to be an implied admission that countermeasures actually do work, thus the need to develop anti-countermeasure devices and tactics. Would this be correct?
Read again please. There are counters to counters, does that sound like they work? Not to me at all. My statement is clear and to the point, you develop a countermeasure and we will develop a counter-counter measure. Including but not limited to physical and mental counter countermeasures.
The point that I am trying to make is that there would be no need to develop a counter to a counter measure, if that counter measure didn't work, as the polygraphers here state with so much passion. The mere fact that the poly industry have developed the butt pad indicates that it is possible to alter the outcome of the physiological recordings of the polygraph machine, by using counter measures.
Recently, someone indicated that an examiner asked them to do a math question, with an apparent attempt to show the examinee that the poly could detect this counter measure. The recent studies trying to prove that countermeasures hurt, and not help the examinee also inidicates that the poly industry is VERY ocncerned that once the use of counter measured become common place, their tenious position in the industry will become even more tenious.
Sorry Hunter, as they say in my neck of the woods, "That dog don't hunt."
Posted by Twoblock
- Jan 07, 2008, 10:11 AMWJ
The only CM to mental CMs is mind reading and only our Creator can do that. However, with the power polygraphers have, all they have to do is say that the applicant used CMs and he is through.
I hope you make an outstanding LEO.
The only CM to mental CMs is mind reading and only our Creator can do that. However, with the power polygraphers have, all they have to do is say that the applicant used CMs and he is through.
I hope you make an outstanding LEO.
Posted by WJ
- Jan 07, 2008, 09:20 AMQuote from: KOM on Jan 07, 2008, 06:36 AMThis appears to be an implied admission that countermeasures actually do work, thus the need to develop anti-countermeasure devices and tactics. Would this be correct?
Read again please. There are counters to counters, does that sound like they work? Not to me at all. My statement is clear and to the point, you develop a countermeasure and we will develop a counter-counter measure. Including but not limited to physical and mental counter countermeasures.
You might want to read this sites policy with regards to personal attacks. However, you say that pad works but it does not, at least not at the level I used it. I went through that whole test and she did not say one word to me about counter-measures. If she suspected it than she did not say a word. The only time she mentioned anything was when she said for me to stop thinking about my breathing and concentrate on the questions. That's it and I PASSED. Oh and what is your CM to the mental CM? DO you have a pad for that? I showed a normal breathing through out the whole process with the exception of when I was asked control questions. What a joke.
Posted by Hunter
- Jan 07, 2008, 06:36 AMThis appears to be an implied admission that countermeasures actually do work, thus the need to develop anti-countermeasure devices and tactics. Would this be correct?
Read again please. There are counters to counters, does that sound like they work? Not to me at all. My statement is clear and to the point, you develop a countermeasure and we will develop a counter-counter measure. Including but not limited to physical and mental counter countermeasures.
Read again please. There are counters to counters, does that sound like they work? Not to me at all. My statement is clear and to the point, you develop a countermeasure and we will develop a counter-counter measure. Including but not limited to physical and mental counter countermeasures.
Posted by nopolycop
- Jan 06, 2008, 02:57 PMQuote from: KOM on Jan 06, 2008, 11:53 AMQuote from: KOM on Jan 06, 2008, 10:55 AMQuote from: KOM on Jan 06, 2008, 09:55 AMTo my knowledge, seat cushion countermeasure detectors are standard issue for ALL federal examiners.
In spite of the claim that countermeasures don't work!!!
Have you ever considered that examiner's do advance as you advance in countermeasures? You do a pucker, we have a pucker pad. Each and every tactic developed has a counter and we do study and use the counter tactics on those that use counter measures.
This appears to be an implied admission that countermeasures actually do work, thus the need to develop anti-countermeasure devices and tactics. Would this be correct?
Posted by WJ
- Jan 06, 2008, 11:55 AMQuote from: KOM on Jan 06, 2008, 11:49 AMNot 100% preasure but 20-30%.Quote from: 415C160 on Jan 06, 2008, 10:19 AMI did but you don't use your butt muscles. Pucker using about 20% to 30%. On the last round of questioning I did not use them just the mental counter-measures. Also it was not the SS, that is the test I failed. I took the test for another agency and passed after using CMs.
Exactly how much is 20% to 30% of your rectum. I mean, did your head still fit?
Sancho Panza
Posted by Hunter
- Jan 06, 2008, 11:53 AMQuote from: KOM on Jan 06, 2008, 10:55 AMQuote from: KOM on Jan 06, 2008, 09:55 AMTo my knowledge, seat cushion countermeasure detectors are standard issue for ALL federal examiners.
In spite of the claim that countermeasures don't work!!!
Have you ever considered that examiner's do advance as you advance in countermeasures? You do a pucker, we have a pucker pad. Each and every tactic developed has a counter and we do study and use the counter tactics on those that use counter measures. We are not perfect, we do make mistakes.
WJ,
You are a total idiot and your advice is so out of touch with the real world, I won't even respond with reasoning, it would be wasted on you.
Posted by SanchoPanza
- Jan 06, 2008, 11:49 AMQuote from: 415C160 on Jan 06, 2008, 10:19 AMI did but you don't use your butt muscles. Pucker using about 20% to 30%. On the last round of questioning I did not use them just the mental counter-measures. Also it was not the SS, that is the test I failed. I took the test for another agency and passed after using CMs.
Exactly how much is 20% to 30% of your rectum. I mean, did your head still fit?
Sancho Panza
Posted by nopolycop
- Jan 06, 2008, 10:55 AMQuote from: KOM on Jan 06, 2008, 09:55 AMTo my knowledge, seat cushion countermeasure detectors are standard issue for ALL federal examiners.
In spite of the claim that countermeasures don't work!!!
Posted by WJ
- Jan 06, 2008, 10:19 AMI did but you don't use your butt muscles. Pucker using about 20% to 30%. On the last round of questioning I did not use them just the mental counter-measures. Also it was not the SS, that is the test I failed. I took the test for another agency and passed after using CMs.