- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by notguilty1
- Mar 23, 2008, 12:04 AMQuote from: Twoblock on Mar 22, 2008, 09:40 PMNo, wrong again! I simply indicated the possibility of his guilt, based on statement analysis, but nothing more.
If that, in an of itself is "psychobabble", you're right, it is amazing... :-?
Sackett
Again Sackett you babble on talking from both sides f your mouth HERE IS YOUR POST!!!
Sackett
P.S. Statement analysis indicates Fred's guilty and I didn't even need to test him...
Posted by sackett
- Mar 22, 2008, 09:40 PMNo, wrong again! I simply indicated the possibility of his guilt, based on statement analysis, but nothing more.
If that, in an of itself is "psychobabble", you're right, it is amazing... :-?
Sackett
If that, in an of itself is "psychobabble", you're right, it is amazing... :-?
Sackett
Posted by notguilty1
- Mar 22, 2008, 04:41 PMQuote from: Twoblock on Mar 22, 2008, 10:40 AMQuote from: Twoblock on Mar 21, 2008, 10:46 PMThis is the kind of art and ability to determine if someone is guilty by the "examiner" during a Poligraph as was done to me:
A polygraph "test" can be rigged against a suspect by, among other things:
1) interrogating the suspect about the relevant issue(s) before the examination. This will have the effect of sensitizing the suspect to the relevant questions, increasing the likelihood that he will react strongly when they are asked;
2) asking the relevant questions in a harsh or accusatory tone of voice (again, with a view to increasing reactions to them);
3) failing to properly (by polygrapher standards) "set" the so-called "control" questions, in an effort to minimize the suspect's reactions to them.
You wrote, "ART??? That's what you use to JUDGE someone? ART??"
No, not judge someone. Statement analysis is an art form used to help investigators (and others), provide indicators of guilt or guilty knowledge otherwise concealed. It is a "flag" in the investigative process designed to help guide investigative efforts.
Sure! I agree that a polygraph CAN be "rigged" against an examinee by the examiner. But why would we? It is easier to call someone truthful and kick them out or pass them than to call them DI and have to post-test interview them (or what you cann the interrogation).
Many examiners who have lost their confidence have in fact simply relegated themselves to running NDI charts (in their minds) and miss concealed or untruthful information via responses. So, I guess it would be fair to say that having an older examiner is a lot easier to pass than a young, relatively new examiner who still is trying hard to do it right.
This is the reason why many professional polygraph examiners are trying hard to standardize the profession.
Sackett
But sackett, You Judged Fred in that case as being Guilty without in your words even testing him!!!
Your Phsyco babble get's you every time it's amazing!!
Posted by sackett
- Mar 22, 2008, 10:40 AMQuote from: Twoblock on Mar 21, 2008, 10:46 PMThis is the kind of art and ability to determine if someone is guilty by the "examiner" during a Poligraph as was done to me:
A polygraph "test" can be rigged against a suspect by, among other things:
1) interrogating the suspect about the relevant issue(s) before the examination. This will have the effect of sensitizing the suspect to the relevant questions, increasing the likelihood that he will react strongly when they are asked;
2) asking the relevant questions in a harsh or accusatory tone of voice (again, with a view to increasing reactions to them);
3) failing to properly (by polygrapher standards) "set" the so-called "control" questions, in an effort to minimize the suspect's reactions to them.
You wrote, "ART??? That's what you use to JUDGE someone? ART??"
No, not judge someone. Statement analysis is an art form used to help investigators (and others), provide indicators of guilt or guilty knowledge otherwise concealed. It is a "flag" in the investigative process designed to help guide investigative efforts.
Sure! I agree that a polygraph CAN be "rigged" against an examinee by the examiner. But why would we? It is easier to call someone truthful and kick them out or pass them than to call them DI and have to post-test interview them (or what you cann the interrogation).
Many examiners who have lost their confidence have in fact simply relegated themselves to running NDI charts (in their minds) and miss concealed or untruthful information via responses. So, I guess it would be fair to say that having an older examiner is a lot easier to pass than a young, relatively new examiner who still is trying hard to do it right.
This is the reason why many professional polygraph examiners are trying hard to standardize the profession.
Sackett
Posted by notguilty1
- Mar 21, 2008, 10:46 PMThis is the kind of art and ability to determine if someone is guilty by the "examiner" during a Poligraph as was done to me:
A polygraph "test" can be rigged against a suspect by, among other things:
1) interrogating the suspect about the relevant issue(s) before the examination. This will have the effect of sensitizing the suspect to the relevant questions, increasing the likelihood that he will react strongly when they are asked;
2) asking the relevant questions in a harsh or accusatory tone of voice (again, with a view to increasing reactions to them);
3) failing to properly (by polygrapher standards) "set" the so-called "control" questions, in an effort to minimize the suspect's reactions to them.
A polygraph "test" can be rigged against a suspect by, among other things:
1) interrogating the suspect about the relevant issue(s) before the examination. This will have the effect of sensitizing the suspect to the relevant questions, increasing the likelihood that he will react strongly when they are asked;
2) asking the relevant questions in a harsh or accusatory tone of voice (again, with a view to increasing reactions to them);
3) failing to properly (by polygrapher standards) "set" the so-called "control" questions, in an effort to minimize the suspect's reactions to them.
Posted by T.M. Cullen
- Mar 21, 2008, 09:31 PMQuoteHow you can come on here defend the Poligraph and call what you do besides the Poligraph Art and then proceed to hang someone as Guilty is why I am against the entire Poligraph prcedure.
It is a scientific art, or if you prefer, an artful science.
I can be whatever you want it to be. Just cooperate, they're there to help. They WANT you to get this job! So just open up. It will be good for you. Trust me. Now, are you relaxed? Shall we proceed? Okay, good then:
WHY WOULD YOU BE HAVING TROUBLE WITH THAT QUESTION!!!
WHY ARE YOU LYING!
OF COURSE YOU ARE LYING! THE MACHINE SAYS SO!
IT'S 95% ACCURATE!
Posted by notguilty1
- Mar 21, 2008, 05:47 PMQuote from: Twoblock on Mar 21, 2008, 02:43 PM"notguilty1",
first off, if only you were intelligent enough to know and understood, there is an art of "statement analysis", of which you are oviously igorant of. This of course, had nothing to do with polygraph but gave you a supposed entrance to attacking it blindly, once again.
Secondly, for having the opinion, that polygraph, my statements and opinions (by connection), etc are "a joke", then why do you spend so much time replying to them and giving them credibility?
BTW, a "one man, judge, jury and executioner?" How bizare? Of course, this is the exact reason polygraph is not blindly admitted into court (also, a decision, I agree with).
Sackett
ART??? That's what you use to JUDGE someone? ART??
No Sackett thats why Polgraphs and poligraphers opinions are not admitted in court.
How you can come on here defend the Poligraph and call what you do besides the Poligraph Art and then proceed to hang someone as Guilty is why I am against the entire Poligraph prcedure.
A Supreme Court Justice's statements on Poligraph seem's to be on my side and you call me ingorant??
Sackett a few days ago I saw a response from a Poligrapher on here that made some sense. He was a guy that obvoiously knew the limitations of the machine and his own interpretation of the tests.
Now, this of course only shows me that Polygraph and Poligraphers are unreliable.
READ JUSTICE THOMAS WORDS if you don't believe me. Your so blind to all this I am sure you don't believe him either.
Posted by sackett
- Mar 21, 2008, 02:43 PM"notguilty1",
first off, if only you were intelligent enough to know and understood, there is an art of "statement analysis", of which you are oviously igorant of. This of course, had nothing to do with polygraph but gave you a supposed entrance to attacking it blindly, once again.
Secondly, for having the opinion, that polygraph, my statements and opinions (by connection), etc are "a joke", then why do you spend so much time replying to them and giving them credibility?
BTW, a "one man, judge, jury and executioner?" How bizare? Of course, this is the exact reason polygraph is not blindly admitted into court (also, a decision, I agree with).
Sackett
first off, if only you were intelligent enough to know and understood, there is an art of "statement analysis", of which you are oviously igorant of. This of course, had nothing to do with polygraph but gave you a supposed entrance to attacking it blindly, once again.
Secondly, for having the opinion, that polygraph, my statements and opinions (by connection), etc are "a joke", then why do you spend so much time replying to them and giving them credibility?
BTW, a "one man, judge, jury and executioner?" How bizare? Of course, this is the exact reason polygraph is not blindly admitted into court (also, a decision, I agree with).
Sackett
Posted by notguilty1
- Mar 20, 2008, 09:50 PMQuote from: Twoblock on Mar 19, 2008, 11:38 AM"n.p.c.",[/color]
I believe I provided an earlier posting in which I informed "you guys" that while I personally will try to answer most questions given me, there will be some questions that I will not answer. Reason? As I stated before, I am not here to help George write a better book or modify his mistakes. I'm simply trying to offer an alternative, truer account of polygraph than those of fanatical distortions may present to the unsuspecting examinees who review these pages.
Sackett
P.S. Statement analysis indicates Fred's guilty and I didn't even need to test him...
This statement is what leads me to further believe that poly's are a joke. When examiners such as Sackett can make statements like this it just furthers the argument against the test's. He indicates that in the case of "Fred" he desn't even need the machine he just knows he's gulity.
WOW he is just a one man Judge, jury and execusioner
Fortunatly, Sacketts opinions are about as meaningfull in court as the janitors opinon.
Which leads me to this quote from a Supreme Court Justice. Who seems to dissagree with Sackett. Who am I going to believe???
"Although the degree of reliability of polygraph evidence may depend upon a variety of identifiable factors, there is simply no way to know in a particular case whether a polygraph examiner's Conclusion is accurate, because certain doubts and uncertainties plague even the best polygraph exams." (Justice Clarence Thomas writing in United States v. Scheffer, 523 U.S. 303, 118 S.Ct. 1261, 140 L.Ed.2d 413, 1998.)
THUS UNREALIABLE!! JUST THE EXAMINER'S CONCLUSION
Posted by sackett
- Mar 20, 2008, 01:46 AMQuote from: Twoblock on Mar 19, 2008, 03:25 PMSackett
You're welcome and yes, mostly.
I don't think the examiner was speaking of audible noise. I think he was referring to maybe the RF disturbances, produced by wave length devices, prevented him from getting as accurate a reading as with the analog. Here again I'm getting into a field beyond my expertise. Just trying to learn.
I drew my conclusion about the analog to computer connection by watching Gelb and Trimarco on TV. It looks like they are using an analog device while looking at a computer monitor.
To begin, anything you actually see on TV is entertainment. Nothing more, nothing less. The examiner you mentioned stated he disliked the computer due to, "computer background noise." I can only assume that means actual audible noise, not frequency channel noise.
Secondly and for the record, the analog and computerized polygraph record the same information, just differently.
Sackett
Posted by Twoblock
- Mar 19, 2008, 03:25 PMSackett
You're welcome and yes, mostly.
I don't think the examiner was speaking of audible noise. I think he was referring to maybe the RF disturbances, produced by wave length devices, prevented him from getting as accurate a reading as with the analog. Here again I'm getting into a field beyond my expertise. Just trying to learn.
I drew my conclusion about the analog to computer connection by watching Gelb and Trimarco on TV. It looks like they are using an analog device while looking at a computer monitor.
You're welcome and yes, mostly.
I don't think the examiner was speaking of audible noise. I think he was referring to maybe the RF disturbances, produced by wave length devices, prevented him from getting as accurate a reading as with the analog. Here again I'm getting into a field beyond my expertise. Just trying to learn.
I drew my conclusion about the analog to computer connection by watching Gelb and Trimarco on TV. It looks like they are using an analog device while looking at a computer monitor.
Posted by sackett
- Mar 19, 2008, 01:08 PMQuote from: Twoblock on Mar 19, 2008, 12:32 PMSackett
I was told one time by a polygrapher that he much preferred the results of just the analog over the computer generated test because of the computer background noise.
Questions you may be able to answer:
Not knowing any more than I do about the operations of the poly (waiting on a wise-ass reply here), isn't the analog machine hooked directly to the computer? Doesn't the puter only reveal the results of the analog or does it enhance the analog device so as to reduce false positives. If so, how? How does answering these question reveal trade secrets? Hell, I'm not asking for a DACA produced computer program.
Twoblock,
the analog instrument refers to the mechanical/electrical instrument used in the past (like the one in "Meet the Parents"). Many "older" examiners prefer it to the computer based programs, usually due to fear/ignorance of the computer itself, lack of computer ability (i.e. comfortability) or not wanting to spend the money.
There is little difference in the tracings and there is nothing related to test technques (referring to your reducing of false positives statement or trade secrets), as it relates to the analog vs computerized process. They are simply different methods to record the same information.
The computerized polygraph has the ability to modify the tracings after the test for evaluation purposes. For example, if a tracing is too big or too small, it can be reduced or enhanced for evaluation purposes. Or, if a tracing goes off the screen during the exam, it can be returned, electronically after the test for evaluation reasons since there are no pen limits in the computer.
Once a computerized test has been recorded and saved to a file, it can not be altered, except for temporary evaluation purposes; however, the original is never altered. The analog produces paper charts and, for example, if the examinee eats a portion (actually saw that happen), it can not be reproduced, since the paper chart is the original.
I find interesting, your report of the examiner's comment that the computer background noise bothered him. I found, back in the day, the scratching of pens on the paper was more anoying than any computer noise...especially the cardio tracing, since when BP/volume increased, you could actually hear the pen speed up.
Thanks for the intelligent question. Hope that answered it sufficiently.
Sackett
Posted by Twoblock
- Mar 19, 2008, 12:32 PMSackett
I was told one time by a polygrapher that he much preferred the results of just the analog over the computer generated test because of the computer background noise.
Questions you may be able to answer:
Not knowing any more than I do about the operations of the poly (waiting on a wise-ass reply here), isn't the analog machine hooked directly to the computer? Doesn't the puter only reveal the results of the analog or does it enhance the analog device so as to reduce false positives. If so, how? How does answering these question reveal trade secrets? Hell, I'm not asking for a DACA produced computer program.
I was told one time by a polygrapher that he much preferred the results of just the analog over the computer generated test because of the computer background noise.
Questions you may be able to answer:
Not knowing any more than I do about the operations of the poly (waiting on a wise-ass reply here), isn't the analog machine hooked directly to the computer? Doesn't the puter only reveal the results of the analog or does it enhance the analog device so as to reduce false positives. If so, how? How does answering these question reveal trade secrets? Hell, I'm not asking for a DACA produced computer program.
Posted by sackett
- Mar 19, 2008, 11:38 AM"n.p.c.",
I believe I provided an earlier posting in which I informed "you guys" that while I personally will try to answer most questions given me, there will be some questions that I will not answer. Reason? As I stated before, I am not here to help George write a better book or modify his mistakes. I'm simply trying to offer an alternative, truer account of polygraph than those of fanatical distortions may present to the unsuspecting examinees who review these pages.
Sackett
P.S. Statement analysis indicates Fred's guilty and I didn't even need to test him...
I believe I provided an earlier posting in which I informed "you guys" that while I personally will try to answer most questions given me, there will be some questions that I will not answer. Reason? As I stated before, I am not here to help George write a better book or modify his mistakes. I'm simply trying to offer an alternative, truer account of polygraph than those of fanatical distortions may present to the unsuspecting examinees who review these pages.
Sackett
P.S. Statement analysis indicates Fred's guilty and I didn't even need to test him...
Posted by nopolycop
- Mar 19, 2008, 10:41 AMQuote from: PhilGainey on Mar 19, 2008, 02:11 AM[
Your suggestion that we examiner's do not answer your questions, I suggest, you simply do not want to accept the answers we give you. We are not here to give you the answers YOU want, but what is accurate and true, related to polygraph.
Sackett
Sackett, my ol buddy...
A direct question deserves a direct answer. For example, if one is interviewing a suspect in the murder of "Fred" and he is asked "Did you murder Fred", and the suspect goes on to say: "It would have been impossible for me to murder Fred, because first off, I know nothing about guns. Secondly, my car doesn't run at the moment, and third, I don't even know Fred!"
He never acutally says he didn't murder Fred, and that's a big ol fat CLUE for the investigators.
When a question is asked of a polygrapher on this forum, and the polygrapher won't answer the question directly, that is a CLUE also. A CLUE that the polygrapher doesn't want to answer the direct question, so he wanders off into a discussion of f-f-f and ANS and whatnot, without actually answering the question.