- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by nopolycop
- Mar 03, 2008, 07:27 PMQuote from: sackett on Mar 03, 2008, 05:48 PMQuote from: sackett on Mar 03, 2008, 05:29 PMQuote from: sackett on Mar 03, 2008, 03:51 PM We examiners read this too! If you can do it, I have read about it and am watching for it.Sackett
Okay, so you are watching for countermeasures. What percentage of people that you test use countermeasures?
I couldn't tell you, since I am not able to prove that I can identify them, "better than chance..."
Sackett
Thank-you for being honest. I asked Donna Taylor the same thing, and she quit talking to me about it!
Posted by sackett
- Mar 03, 2008, 06:07 PMQuote from: sackett on Mar 03, 2008, 05:31 PMsackett
1. You said "alternative to the propaganda provided here". Does that not include CMs?
No, I was referring to the posting opinions being expressed on this board.
2. Where did I promote and state the success if CMs? I didn't. So there is no propaganda.
It is implied by it's very own promotion. You may not have said it personally.
3. I am sure that you catch some CM attempts. You have never made the statement that I recall, but to make a blanker statement "I catch them all" is pure propaganda. When polygraphers become mind readers, then they will catch most mental CMs that people who can't controll their minds tries to apply.
You are correct. I have never claimed to catch them all, but I catch quite a few or convince them not to try.
As for mind readering, I'm still working on it...
4 It is a proven fact that puckering the butt mussle raises the BP, heart rate and sweat. Whether is is successful or not is not an issue. The asleep at the wheel examiner is not an issue in my statement. And you are correct. CMs do affect the poly test whether they are successful or not. It, also, is proven that mental CMs do the same thing.
Once again, I would have to assume that some CM's do work with examiners who fail to train, fail to take the threat seriously or consider themselves "above it all." The rest of us are on top of the issue.
5. I didn't ask you to take the challenge. I simply said that a statement is propoganda until proven.
Yes, all statements are propaganda of some sort, until proven out. Even then, the inferences and supposition of the infomation and how it is projected or received can still be propaganda, even if the core information is accurate and factual. Often referred to as manipulation, false advertising, etc. That is what I am eluding to, here.
As to your last para. - (and BTW thanks for answering) I am sure there has been an increase because thousands are now using them and I agree it is totally because of this site, Doug's and others. I guess what I was trying to get at is: Is the increase in attempts comparable to the numbers who are getting the education here.. And I am talking about the thousands of LEO applicants that visit here.
You're welcome. Funny you mention it. I used to be able to correctly identify which source of CM training an individual was using, now with DW modifying his information to be more in line with GM's, it's getting harder to do. I would however, make the point that 75-85% of all applicants read this and the polygraphplace.com board (my guestimation). Not out of a desire to "protect themselves" or "beat" an examiner but out of habitual education and processing. They're younger and more reliant on the computer. Having said that though, not all are willing to resort to applying what they have read here...
Lastly. Polygraphers are allowed to come on here and do their damndest to discredit it and George and Gino. What does the APA have to hide that they don't allow such posts?
I dunno. I'm not in charge at APA, I'm just a member...If they have some juicy information that I don't have, I want in...
BTW - at my age, I'm ALL over myself.
Funny!
Posted by sackett
- Mar 03, 2008, 05:48 PMQuote from: sackett on Mar 03, 2008, 05:29 PMQuote from: sackett on Mar 03, 2008, 03:51 PM We examiners read this too! If you can do it, I have read about it and am watching for it.Sackett
Okay, so you are watching for countermeasures. What percentage of people that you test use countermeasures?
I couldn't tell you, since I am not able to prove that I can identify them, "better than chance..."
Sackett
Posted by Twoblock
- Mar 03, 2008, 05:31 PMsackett
1. You said "alternative to the propaganda provided here". Does that not include CMs?
2. Where did I promote and state the success if CMs? I didn't. So there is no propaganda.
3. I am sure that you catch some CM attempts. You have never made the statement that I recall, but to make a blanker statement "I catch them all" is pure propaganda. When polygraphers become mind readers, then they will catch most mental CMs that people who can't controll their minds tries to apply.
4 It is a proven fact that puckering the butt mussle raises the BP, heart rate and sweat. Whether is is successful or not is not an issue. The asleep at the wheel examiner is not an issue in my statement. And you are correct. CMs do affect the poly test whether they are successful or not. It, also, is proven that mental CMs do the same thing.
5. I didn't ask you to take the challenge. I simply said that a statement is propoganda until proven.
As to your last para. - (and BTW thanks for answering) I am sure there has been an increase because thousands are now using them and I agree it is totally because of this site, Doug's and others. I guess what I was trying to get at is: Is the increase in attempts comparable to the numbers who are getting the education here.. And I am talking about the thousands of LEO applicants that visit here.
Lastly. Polygraphers are allowed to come on here and do their damndest to discredit it and George and Gino. What does the APA have to hide that they don't allow such posts?
BTW - at my age, I'm ALL over myself.
1. You said "alternative to the propaganda provided here". Does that not include CMs?
2. Where did I promote and state the success if CMs? I didn't. So there is no propaganda.
3. I am sure that you catch some CM attempts. You have never made the statement that I recall, but to make a blanker statement "I catch them all" is pure propaganda. When polygraphers become mind readers, then they will catch most mental CMs that people who can't controll their minds tries to apply.
4 It is a proven fact that puckering the butt mussle raises the BP, heart rate and sweat. Whether is is successful or not is not an issue. The asleep at the wheel examiner is not an issue in my statement. And you are correct. CMs do affect the poly test whether they are successful or not. It, also, is proven that mental CMs do the same thing.
5. I didn't ask you to take the challenge. I simply said that a statement is propoganda until proven.
As to your last para. - (and BTW thanks for answering) I am sure there has been an increase because thousands are now using them and I agree it is totally because of this site, Doug's and others. I guess what I was trying to get at is: Is the increase in attempts comparable to the numbers who are getting the education here.. And I am talking about the thousands of LEO applicants that visit here.
Lastly. Polygraphers are allowed to come on here and do their damndest to discredit it and George and Gino. What does the APA have to hide that they don't allow such posts?
BTW - at my age, I'm ALL over myself.
Posted by nopolycop
- Mar 03, 2008, 05:29 PMQuote from: sackett on Mar 03, 2008, 03:51 PM We examiners read this too! If you can do it, I have read about it and am watching for it.Sackett
Okay, so you are watching for countermeasures. What percentage of people that you test use countermeasures?
Posted by sackett
- Mar 03, 2008, 03:51 PMFirst of all, I never said countermeasures were propaganda. It is your promotion of and supposed succes rate with them, that is propaganda. I catch people using them frequently. I can't prove that to you and really could give a crap less whether you believe me. But, sometimes they affect the test and I call them on it, othertimes, I see them but they're ineffectual and don't matter, then I don't need to. Just because I don't prove it to you, does not in any way, shape or form mean that I can't! Get over yourself!!
You wrote that CMs' are proven. How so? Yeah, I suppose if your examiner is asleep or playing solitare during your examination. But that is what we as a profession are trying to fix.
Just as in "the challenge." I have already established that if an examiner did accept it, there would be no way for them to prove their ability. Meaning, I say someone bit their tongue, and you respond, Nope! He raked his teeth, see you don't know what you're talking about then run to your local keyboard to self promote your abilities.... Quite frankly, I'll avoid that discussion and leave it to the researchers.
As far as your specific question to my percentage increase of people using CM's, I would say there has been an obvious increase. Much of this is due to George's promotion of this site. That fine. We examiners read this too! If you can do it, I have read about it and am watching for it.
See ya,
Sackett
You wrote that CMs' are proven. How so? Yeah, I suppose if your examiner is asleep or playing solitare during your examination. But that is what we as a profession are trying to fix.
Just as in "the challenge." I have already established that if an examiner did accept it, there would be no way for them to prove their ability. Meaning, I say someone bit their tongue, and you respond, Nope! He raked his teeth, see you don't know what you're talking about then run to your local keyboard to self promote your abilities.... Quite frankly, I'll avoid that discussion and leave it to the researchers.
As far as your specific question to my percentage increase of people using CM's, I would say there has been an obvious increase. Much of this is due to George's promotion of this site. That fine. We examiners read this too! If you can do it, I have read about it and am watching for it.
See ya,
Sackett
Posted by T.M. Cullen
- Mar 03, 2008, 03:33 PMOh fiddle-sticks!
You're just one of those damn "anti" types who thinks he is entitled to a job and want to continue having a "pity-party" because you just won't "accept" the validity of the polygraph!
You should have cooperated with your polygrapher. After all, he was there to HELP you, if only you had the INTEGRITY to accept it!
The polygraph is 95% accurate. Just ask Trimbarco. Do you think he'd say that on national TV if it wasn't true?
And please don't make Mr. Sackett responsible for what Trimbarco said. He wasn't there!
Okay, did you just have a "visceral" reaction to what you just read above?
Why? Something "bothering you"?
You're just one of those damn "anti" types who thinks he is entitled to a job and want to continue having a "pity-party" because you just won't "accept" the validity of the polygraph!
You should have cooperated with your polygrapher. After all, he was there to HELP you, if only you had the INTEGRITY to accept it!
The polygraph is 95% accurate. Just ask Trimbarco. Do you think he'd say that on national TV if it wasn't true?
And please don't make Mr. Sackett responsible for what Trimbarco said. He wasn't there!
Okay, did you just have a "visceral" reaction to what you just read above?
Why? Something "bothering you"?
Posted by Twoblock
- Mar 03, 2008, 02:44 PMsackett
You say you provide an alternative to the propaganda provided here. Proven points are not propaganda. The "countermeasures" provided here are proven. That takes away propaganda. All polygraphers posting here say they catch subjects attempting CMs so even polygraphers are proving CMs are not propaganda. None of you have proven that you can detect CMs. When asked to prove it, all you say is "that's a secret, but try them and I gotcha". Now that's propaganda. Secrets are propaganda until until proven. Therefore, calling the information provided here propaganda, IS propaganda because you can't prove it.
What is not propaganda is the refusal to answer a question like I asked nonombre a long time ago "over the last 4 years (when polygraphers started saying they can catch CM attempts), what is your percentage increase over the prior 4 years. I will now pose the same question to you. If you answer, I hope it's not propaganda but noninflated facts.
Don't say again I'm trying to bait you because that would still be propaganda.
You say you provide an alternative to the propaganda provided here. Proven points are not propaganda. The "countermeasures" provided here are proven. That takes away propaganda. All polygraphers posting here say they catch subjects attempting CMs so even polygraphers are proving CMs are not propaganda. None of you have proven that you can detect CMs. When asked to prove it, all you say is "that's a secret, but try them and I gotcha". Now that's propaganda. Secrets are propaganda until until proven. Therefore, calling the information provided here propaganda, IS propaganda because you can't prove it.
What is not propaganda is the refusal to answer a question like I asked nonombre a long time ago "over the last 4 years (when polygraphers started saying they can catch CM attempts), what is your percentage increase over the prior 4 years. I will now pose the same question to you. If you answer, I hope it's not propaganda but noninflated facts.
Don't say again I'm trying to bait you because that would still be propaganda.
Posted by sackett
- Mar 03, 2008, 11:48 AMLALE,
are you offended that I replied to a comment you made to another? Rather sensitive, aren't we...? I thought this was an open board? Didn't realize you were the moderator.
No, I'm not NLG4U, I am who I say I am. I don't need to hide behind a false name or moniker to espouse my views with the freedom of anonymity. Some do, I do not.
What corners have I painted myself into? If you cared to remove your slanted sarcasm glasses and actually read what I post, you, well, maybe not you, but others may actually see that I have a consistent thoughts regarding the use and application of polygraph.
I have no hidden agenda or mission. I post here simply to provide the readers; not you, but the readers with an alternative to the propaganda provided here.
As of this date, it is still an open board where all thoughts and ideas were solicited and can be exchanged, not just your thoughts...
Sackett
are you offended that I replied to a comment you made to another? Rather sensitive, aren't we...? I thought this was an open board? Didn't realize you were the moderator.
No, I'm not NLG4U, I am who I say I am. I don't need to hide behind a false name or moniker to espouse my views with the freedom of anonymity. Some do, I do not.
What corners have I painted myself into? If you cared to remove your slanted sarcasm glasses and actually read what I post, you, well, maybe not you, but others may actually see that I have a consistent thoughts regarding the use and application of polygraph.
I have no hidden agenda or mission. I post here simply to provide the readers; not you, but the readers with an alternative to the propaganda provided here.
As of this date, it is still an open board where all thoughts and ideas were solicited and can be exchanged, not just your thoughts...
Sackett
Posted by LALE
- Mar 03, 2008, 11:14 AMQuote from: sackett on Feb 29, 2008, 07:59 PMQuote from: 6A676A63260 on Feb 29, 2008, 11:49 AMNLG4U,
Are you a preacher or what. A man of few words you aint.
Amidst all your verbal diarrhoea I found it difficult to find your
point. Your posts are like novels written by an addict who cant
find his stash.
Not meaning to ad hom you - just make a point succintly.
Now, let me make mine in short: Polygraph is utter crap.
Why dont we use something simpler, like a coin toss. Its quicker and has about the same reliability rate. Waddya say bro ?
OK LALE, I took you up on your advice. I flipped the coin, you lose! Go apply elswhere...
I got a better idea. Have an idea that is not filled with sarcasm, venom and attacks. Then, maybe, you can have an adult conversation with others on this board.
Sackett
Sackett,
If you're not NLG4U why do you reply on his behalf?
Do you have his POA ?
Or are you a self appointed spokesman.
You have painted yourself into corners several times in the past 10 days, following your nonsensical outbursts iro polygraph.
Do you know the old adage, 'Empty vessels make the most sound' ?
The NAS Report is your demon. Rubbish it as much as you wish, it tells it like as it is - and you dont like that much. sort of makes your job in Las Vegas a bit superfluous, donnit now ?
Posted by sackett
- Mar 01, 2008, 09:04 PM"polyf",
Your psychological disorder is unfortunate.
As for your diluted address of the CNS and ANS (SNS and PSNS) you simpy muddied the waters between the two. They are, for the most part, oil and water... and never the twain conflict.
Sackett
Your psychological disorder is unfortunate.
As for your diluted address of the CNS and ANS (SNS and PSNS) you simpy muddied the waters between the two. They are, for the most part, oil and water... and never the twain conflict.
Sackett
Posted by T.M. Cullen
- Mar 01, 2008, 04:44 PMQuoteThere is a difference between ANS reaction and CNS thought.
The autonomic nervous system has a "sympathetic response" and a "para-sympathetic" response.
SR is evidenced by increase in BP, sweating, faster heart beat, more rapid and breathing.
Which is pretty much what the polygraph measures.
The SR can be thought of as a "continuum" from mild arousal to a panic response (full kick in of the "fight, flight or freeze" response).
This is indeed affected by conscious thought. The unconscious in fact takes many of it's cues from the conscious mind.
I know all of this because I suffer from an anxiety disorder. I know from experience that a pattern of negative thought (say thinking about my polygraph experience) causes a pattern of negative emotions (hate, anger, fear...etc), which manifests in ANS arousal (increase BP, heart rate, breathing, sweating) though not necessarily into a FFF response!
QuoteWhy would someone react with ANS activity to any queston if no immediate threat existed?
That still doesn't explain why that reaction necessarily equates to "lie" or "deception".
There are other possible reasons for people to have a "visceral reaction" to a question other than deception.
Ever hear of Dr. Phil Zimbardo at Stanford University. I distinctly remember watching an educational tape from him talking about the polygraph. His conclusion:
"There is no direct and UNEQUIVOCAL relationship between ANS and telling a lie."
I believe the NAS came to the same general conclusion.
Posted by sackett
- Mar 01, 2008, 04:06 PM"polyf",
I am not, nor will I ever be held responsible for what others do or say!
Sackett
I am not, nor will I ever be held responsible for what others do or say!
Sackett
Posted by T.M. Cullen
- Mar 01, 2008, 01:54 PMQuoteI got a better idea. Have an idea that is not filled with sarcasm, venom and attacks. Then, maybe, you can have an adult conversation with others on this board.
Do you consider TNLG4U to be providing adult conversation?
Posted by sackett
- Feb 29, 2008, 07:59 PMQuote from: 6A676A63260 on Feb 29, 2008, 11:49 AMNLG4U,
Are you a preacher or what. A man of few words you aint.
Amidst all your verbal diarrhoea I found it difficult to find your
point. Your posts are like novels written by an addict who cant
find his stash.
Not meaning to ad hom you - just make a point succintly.
Now, let me make mine in short: Polygraph is utter crap.
Why dont we use something simpler, like a coin toss. Its quicker and has about the same reliability rate. Waddya say bro ?
OK LALE, I took you up on your advice. I flipped the coin, you lose! Go apply elswhere...
I got a better idea. Have an idea that is not filled with sarcasm, venom and attacks. Then, maybe, you can have an adult conversation with others on this board.
Sackett