- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by T.M. Cullen
- Feb 18, 2008, 11:18 PMPlenty of people are fighting against DNA testing, and there are websites that are advocating a more measured weight given by courts regarding DNA evidence. Like any test, there are serious errors. As more and more of the DNA test errors are coming to light, we will see a backlash against that modality of testing.
Yes, but at least DNA testing is "scientific".
Sure there are errors in any test (scientific or pseudo-scientific). But can you honestly put Polygraph testing in the same category as DNA testing, or HIV testing in terms of scientific validity?
Can you imagine coming up with a HIV test which:
1. Can't really tell for sure whether you have HIVs?
2. Routinely labels healthy people as "aids carriers"?
P.S. I changed my moniker, per your request. Happy?
Yes, but at least DNA testing is "scientific".
Sure there are errors in any test (scientific or pseudo-scientific). But can you honestly put Polygraph testing in the same category as DNA testing, or HIV testing in terms of scientific validity?
Can you imagine coming up with a HIV test which:
1. Can't really tell for sure whether you have HIVs?
2. Routinely labels healthy people as "aids carriers"?
P.S. I changed my moniker, per your request. Happy?
Posted by EJohnson
- Feb 03, 2008, 04:46 PMQuote from: 1904 on Feb 03, 2008, 03:20 PMThe problem with poly's are also that if the falsely accused, unless somehow proven innocent by other later evidence are still considered guilty based on the poly results. Therefore counting those results as "accurate", and the accused .....GULITY.Plenty of people are fighting against DNA testing, and there are websites that are advocating a more measured weight given by courts regarding DNA evidence. Like any test, there are serious errors. As more and more of the DNA test errors are coming to light, we will see a backlash against that modality of testing.
I think that the fact that people with "agendas" get on here to "poke fun at George and others" is a further argument of the failed validity of poly's.
Would you rather have a science that is never questioned even though there are SERIOUS flaws in it?
If the science was good and proven there would no need to "poke fun" or disagree.
I think DNA testing may be a good example of a scientific and court approved test that not many are fighting though I cannot be sure of that.
http://www.scientific.org/articles/JFS%20excerpt.htm
Posted by notguilty1
- Feb 03, 2008, 03:20 PMThe problem with poly's are also that if the falsely accused, unless somehow proven innocent by other later evidence are still considered guilty based on the poly results. Therefore counting those results as "accurate", and the accused .....GULITY.
I think that the fact that people with "agendas" get on here to "poke fun at George and others" is a further argument of the failed validity of poly's.
Would you rather have a science that is never questioned even though there are SERIOUS flaws in it?
If the science was good and proven there would no need to "poke fun" or disagree.
I think DNA testing may be a good example of a scientific and court approved test that not many are fighting though I cannot be sure of that.
I think that the fact that people with "agendas" get on here to "poke fun at George and others" is a further argument of the failed validity of poly's.
Would you rather have a science that is never questioned even though there are SERIOUS flaws in it?
If the science was good and proven there would no need to "poke fun" or disagree.
I think DNA testing may be a good example of a scientific and court approved test that not many are fighting though I cannot be sure of that.
Posted by Barry_C
- Dec 12, 2007, 06:32 PMQuoteI know the polygraph process is not accurate because I was telling the truth and answering all the same questions the same way on all four of my pre-employment polygraphs. I failed three out of the four.
I know polygraph works because I took three and passed them all.
QuoteSome of the polygraph examiners on this board respond to my story by calling me a liar, and then claiming to "prove" mathematically that the polygraph is accurate. Then they tell me my experiences don't mean anything.
Stop playing the victim, and start paying attention. Do you have a college education? Did you ever study statistics or research methodology? People have only pointed out what you should already know. You've got to separate fact from emotion and be objective. The data is what it is.
Nobody has ever said your experiences don't mean anything. They aren't scientific data, but they have meaning. They motivate you to be here. They motivate you to err. They blind you from reason. They have much meaning. If you are telling the truth, and I don't know one way or the other - none of us (save you) do - then they only attest to the fact that polygraph isn't perfect. Find a test that is.
Is the interview? Is the written test? Is the psych? Pick any employment hurdle along the way and you'll find problems.
QuoteIt seems they are not familiar with Occam's Razor.
Yes, we're familiar, and we've conceded the test isn't always accurate. The question is, does it give us more information in the long run. That's where the math comes in, and the answer is yes, if done correctly.
Posted by Sergeant1107
- Dec 09, 2007, 04:23 AMQuote from: 1904 on Dec 08, 2007, 10:33 AM And don't forget, many of us know for sure that it doesn't work because I know I'm telling the truth and if the machine or the operator says I'm not, I know it doesn't work. One polygrapher said to me, "How can you know the polygraph doesn't work?" I said, "Because you dipshit, you/it say I'm lying and I know that I'm not, therefore I know for sure that it doesn't work."I have written similar sentiments on this board many times. I know the polygraph process is not accurate because I was telling the truth and answering all the same questions the same way on all four of my pre-employment polygraphs. I failed three out of the four.
Some of the polygraph examiners on this board respond to my story by calling me a liar, and then claiming to "prove" mathematically that the polygraph is accurate. Then they tell me my experiences don't mean anything. They have written that I have psychoses that prevent me from being accurately polygraphed, and that I am stupid for expecting a different result on any of my subsequent exams after failing the first one. They are also completely comfortable jumping to the (erroneous) conclusion that because I refer to my polygraph experiences as a "story", I am obviously not telling the truth and am not even a real cop.
It seems they are not familiar with Occam's Razor. If I tell the truth on a test which is purported to detect deception, and the test result is that I am lying, the simplest explanation is that the test is not accurate.
I'm sure that examiners can come up with loads of possible excuses as to why a truthful person could fail a polygraph. If the polygraph was a valid method of detecing deception then truthful people would pass, and deceptive people would fail. That simply doesn't happen with enough regularity.
Posted by stoppolyabusenow
- Dec 08, 2007, 10:33 AMYes, I don't need to know how to do zodiac readings or palm reading to know that they are bunk. It's the same with the polygraph, all you have to know is how it works to know that it doesn't work. It measures physiological responses and that is not a lie detector. And don't forget, many of us know for sure that it doesn't work because I know I'm telling the truth and if the machine or the operator says I'm not, I know it doesn't work. One polygrapher said to me, "How can you know the polygraph doesn't work?" I said, "Because you dipshit, you/it say I'm lying and I know that I'm not, therefore I know for sure that it doesn't work."
Posted by 1904
- Aug 10, 2007, 06:20 AMQuote from: flbcm850 on Aug 08, 2007, 12:16 PMI took my CVSA exam this morning and after 2 weeks of extreme nervousness, I can say that I passed with flying colors, without using ANY countermeasures whatsoever... No breathing techniques used at all. I can't believe how easy that exam was. It's amazing what a joke it really is. I can say with confidence that no one should have any trouble passing this exam!
Excuse the editing.
Breathing CM's wont help you one iota in a CVSA test.
Not one of the Polygraph CM's will help you in fact.
When taking a CVSA test, the examiner may instruct you to wait till he signals you to answer.
If he does, then he's quite sharp and what you should do is wait a second longer before you answer.
If he does not (signal when to answer) then wait approx 2 secs before you answer - that way your
Flight or Fight response would have diminished somewhat.
But, the biggest problem remains that 'situational stress' does not equate to 'deceptive stress'.
Quite possibly you had nothing serious to conceal.
Posted by flbcm850
- Aug 08, 2007, 12:16 PMI took my CVSA exam this morning and after 2 weeks of extreme nervousness, I can say that I passed with flying colors, without using ANY countermeasures whatsoever... there were at least 4 or 5 questions that I did not answer truthfully and the machine detected no signs of deception at all. I just went in and did not let myself get nervous before the exam and then just answered the questions as quickly as possible without even thinking about the question. I decided whether or not the investigator was asking a "yes" or "no" question as soon into the question as possible and then I just blocked out the rest of the question and answer quickly in a monotone voice. No breathing techniques used at all. I can't believe how easy that exam was. It's amazing what a joke it really is. I must say that I did not believe all the posts written by others saying how easy it was, but now that I have actually experienced it myself, I can say with confidence that no one should have any trouble passing this exam! 
Posted by 1904
- Jun 18, 2007, 11:58 AMQuote from: ecchasta on Jun 17, 2007, 09:17 AM
Huh? I dont think that can happen in the 1st World.
I do think that some people post hard luck p/g stories
merely to 'stir the pot a bit'.
Did you know that the GSR (
mental CM's.....?
There was/is a computer game named MIND DRIVE. It comprised different
MIND games like MIND SKI , WORM etc.
works like this: You attach a fingerplate which is plugged into pc and the selected game starts. EG - SKI; A skier proceeds slowly down a hill; you
(the player) have to try and avoid obstacles in your path by using mind power.
The WORM game - on same principle - a fuzzy worm in a maze. After several fun weeks of playing mind drive, most of the family could get the worm through
the maze and avoid all the skiing obstacles.
I'm sure you can still get the game - if you can - play it. It's amazing
what you can do with your mind.
So, if your mind power can conquer MIND DRIVE games, it should be able to
will the GSR trace up and down at selected intervals.
Once you have mastered the technique, challenge the VD Princess to test
you and detect your CM's. (VD = verbal diarrhoea = palerider )
Posted by ecchasta
- Jun 17, 2007, 09:17 AM.... I guess the point is this: There is not a single case where the results of a polygraph have been the SOUL bit of "Evidence" ...[/quote]
No one pointed out that not even in theory can polygraph be the sole evidence in a conviction. After all, there has to be something in evidence that provoked the polygraph test in the first place. That evidence may be circumstantial or it may be testimony from a liar, but it is evidence nonetheless.
A polygraph exam can, however, be the principal evidence (as in the tragic cases cited above)
No one pointed out that not even in theory can polygraph be the sole evidence in a conviction. After all, there has to be something in evidence that provoked the polygraph test in the first place. That evidence may be circumstantial or it may be testimony from a liar, but it is evidence nonetheless.
A polygraph exam can, however, be the principal evidence (as in the tragic cases cited above)
Posted by 1904
- Jun 17, 2007, 06:02 AMHi EoJ,
It's a tough job (irritating p/g examiners), but somebody's gotta do it.
I miss Palerider, he seems to have taken a sabbatical.
Or maybe attending a reunion at the College of Lingua Franca, where he
majored in 'Cliche's & Impressive Words' but diddent doo to welle in
'Spellyng and Grammah'
It's a tough job (irritating p/g examiners), but somebody's gotta do it.
I miss Palerider, he seems to have taken a sabbatical.
Or maybe attending a reunion at the College of Lingua Franca, where he
majored in 'Cliche's & Impressive Words' but diddent doo to welle in
'Spellyng and Grammah'
Posted by EosJupiter
- Jun 15, 2007, 01:57 PM1904,
The actor you find so irritating is a gentleman by the name of "Bruce Campbell", he is king of B movie horror films "Evil Dead" and some recent TV shows, "Xena, Warrior Princess". He is actually quite funny and the movies do provide a mild diversion from the mundane. But using him as a point maker well I agree that is a stretch. I do find your posts most entertaining, as I am sure that our resident polygraphers find you irritating. Keep up the good work. I am sure that your posts are causing massive purchases of antacids in the polygraph community. Buying stock in P & G and other product manufacturers I think would be a good move.
Best Regards ...
The actor you find so irritating is a gentleman by the name of "Bruce Campbell", he is king of B movie horror films "Evil Dead" and some recent TV shows, "Xena, Warrior Princess". He is actually quite funny and the movies do provide a mild diversion from the mundane. But using him as a point maker well I agree that is a stretch. I do find your posts most entertaining, as I am sure that our resident polygraphers find you irritating. Keep up the good work. I am sure that your posts are causing massive purchases of antacids in the polygraph community. Buying stock in P & G and other product manufacturers I think would be a good move.
Best Regards ...
Posted by 1904
- Jun 15, 2007, 11:25 AMQuote from: uiop on Mar 07, 2007, 09:18 PMFloyd Fay was wrongfully convicted and later exonerated. His conviction was by a jury of his peers and evidence in addition to the polygraph was presented. If you reread my post, I said convicted SOULY because of the polygraph. I would relate to all on this board that eye witnesses and jury trials have resulted in many more wrongful convictions and ruined lives than polygraphs. Please try again and this time, instead of concentrating on trying to damage my professional reputation by suggesting I work for a corrupt agency (and therefor would also be corrupted) actually put some time and effort into answering the question.
Obviously, a spelling test was not one of the hiring criteria in your case.
Newsflash: Since when was a polygraph examiner accorded the staus of 'Professional'
-- and I mean in the real world sense. Your neighbours in the rusty trailer dont count.
Posted by 1904
- Jun 15, 2007, 11:20 AMQuote from: LieBabyCryBaby on Jan 17, 2007, 06:30 PMIf you've been a frequent visitor to this forum, no doubt you've read some of my posts. I often talk about how George et. al talk a big game, but that they have no actual experience using the machine they hate so much. Theory is theory, and there is theory on both sides. However, there is no substitute for experience.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Af1OxkFOK18
Edited to fix link to media file. -- AntiPolygraph.org Administrator
Holy Mother of Jelly,
Who is that man and why is he so irritating. All that 'have..need..more...less.."BS.
soory LBCB - I got halfway through and had to stop. If ever the circus was short
of a human cannonball - I know where they should look.
What a crock of HS.
If you had a point to prove, you let yourself down using the narrow eyed squirrel man.
Posted by uiop
- Mar 08, 2007, 11:11 PMEos, a sincere thanks for the correction of soul vs sole. An additional thanks for quickly figuring out my point as to polygraph "Evidence" not being the single item used by attorneys trying to convict. However, it was not a "red herring". My question was specifically directed towards gr8dad who stipulated persons had been sentenced to jail based on polygraph results, the inference being that nothing else but a polygraph examiner and his words were used as "Evidence".
Now that that has been cleared up, I'm back to other things. I wish you and all other well meaning critics of polygraph good fortune.
Now that that has been cleared up, I'm back to other things. I wish you and all other well meaning critics of polygraph good fortune.