- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by Sergeant1107
- Nov 03, 2008, 05:02 PMQuote from: pailryder on Nov 03, 2008, 12:02 PMSergeant1107
Has ATF charged or named the examiner who was involved? Why not? On the other hand, if the examiner was in on the game, wouldn't ATF say CM's were used to cover him from Mongol payback? At this point, neither of us really knows for sure, do we?
I believe the indictment listed the polygraph examiner as an "unnamed co-conspirator." The question of whether that person is being charged was not answered, to my knowledge.
It is certainly possible that the ATF applied pressure to the polygraph examiner before the tests were administered, but I think it is not likely. A scenario that would provide sufficient pressure upon the examiner to ensure the agents all passed their polygraph but at the same time kept the examiner in the dark regarding the profession of the uncercovers is difficult to imagine. It is equally unlikely, in my opinion, that the ATF decided to confide to the examiner that he would be testing undercovers in the hope that he would not divulge what he knew to the Mongols. When dealing with organized crime it is relatively common to find potential informers to be much more afraid of underworld reprisals than they are of being charged with a crime.
The simplest explanation seems to be that the undercovers used countermeasures to defeat the polygraph.
Posted by pailryder
- Nov 03, 2008, 12:02 PMSergeant1107
Has ATF charged or named the examiner who was involved? Why not? On the other hand, if the examiner was in on the game, wouldn't ATF say CM's were used to cover him from Mongol payback? At this point, neither of us really knows for sure, do we?
Has ATF charged or named the examiner who was involved? Why not? On the other hand, if the examiner was in on the game, wouldn't ATF say CM's were used to cover him from Mongol payback? At this point, neither of us really knows for sure, do we?
Posted by Sergeant1107
- Nov 03, 2008, 11:35 AMI guess there can never again be a claim made by polygraph supporters that countermeasures don't work.
It seems obvious that the ATF would not have had undercovers attempt countermeasures (with a Mongol standing behind their chair, presumably ready to kill them if they failed) unless they were certain the agents could successfully defeat the polygraph.
It seems obvious that the ATF would not have had undercovers attempt countermeasures (with a Mongol standing behind their chair, presumably ready to kill them if they failed) unless they were certain the agents could successfully defeat the polygraph.
Posted by Twoblock
- Oct 29, 2008, 10:20 PMGeorge
As you well know, polygraphers are notorious for making asses of themselves on this site.
As you well know, polygraphers are notorious for making asses of themselves on this site.
Posted by T.M. Cullen
- Oct 29, 2008, 10:14 PMQuotePosts in this thread by "U.P. Chuck" and "Dis May Ed" suggesting that I am somehow connected with a website called FalselyAccused.com originated from a single IP address that traces to Norman, Oklahoma, home of Doug Williams, who in the past has masqueraded on this website as a satisfied customer of his own services and last year bizarrely challenged me to a fistfight, stating: "I look forward to beating your bloated face into a bloody pulp, and stomping your fat ass."
For the record, I have no connection with FalselyAccused.com.
Didn't Doug Williams used to be a polygrapher? That profession must really do something to people. Even those who have disavowed the polygraph and have come clean about it.
Or maybe you're just having an effect on his bottom line, even though this site is non-profit.
TC
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Oct 29, 2008, 09:50 PMPosts in this thread by "U.P. Chuck" and "Dis May Ed" suggesting that I am somehow connected with a website called Falsely-Accused.com originated from a single IP address that traces to Norman, Oklahoma, home of Doug Williams, who in the past has masqueraded on this website as a satisfied customer of his own services and last year bizarrely challenged me to a fistfight, stating: "I look forward to beating your bloated face into a bloody pulp, and stomping your fat ass."
For the record, I have no connection with Falsely-Accused.com.
For the record, I have no connection with Falsely-Accused.com.
Posted by Sergeant1107
- Oct 29, 2008, 09:31 PMIs there anything on that site that lists George by name? I didn't see anything that did.
The person in the video doesn't look like George.
The person in the video doesn't look like George.
Posted by U.P. Chuck
- Oct 29, 2008, 03:12 PMQuote from: Dis May Ed on Oct 29, 2008, 10:26 AMYes, it is George! Looks like he is trying to pass himself off as a lawyer.
Go to Go to page: http://www.falsely-accused.com/library/faqs.html
Click on question below:
Should I submit to a polygraph examination?
Tell me is isn't so!! George referring to his polygraph associate as a "reputable polygrapher"!!
I guess it depends on who pays George. He calls those polygraphers that are in business with him "reputable" - and those that call him a liar are not! What about this George? You have this website "dedicated to exposing and ending polygraph waste, fraud, and abuse" and the other you have one referring people to your own polygraph associate who you describe as "reputable". Care to offer an explanation, George?
Posted by Dis May Ed
- Oct 29, 2008, 10:26 AMYes, it is George! Looks like he is trying to pass himself off as a lawyer.
Go to Go to page: http://www.falsely-accused.com/library/faqs.html
Click on question below:
Should I submit to a polygraph examination?
Tell me is isn't so!! George referring to his polygraph associate as a "reputable polygrapher"!!
Go to Go to page: http://www.falsely-accused.com/library/faqs.html
Click on question below:
Should I submit to a polygraph examination?
Tell me is isn't so!! George referring to his polygraph associate as a "reputable polygrapher"!!
Posted by U.P. Chuck
- Oct 29, 2008, 10:10 AMGeorge. Is this your "for profit" website? And why did you feel it necessary to sell out to the polygraph industry? Why call your personal polygraph associate "reputable" when you are so against polygraph testing?
http://www.falsely-accused.com/library/faqs.html
I know this is you - Live Search - polygraph - videos - about page 8!
What's up?
http://www.falsely-accused.com/library/faqs.html
I know this is you - Live Search - polygraph - videos - about page 8!
What's up?
Posted by U.P. Chuck
- Oct 29, 2008, 10:01 AMGeorge: Is this you talking about your own "reputable polygraph examiner"?
Falsely Accused: A resource for those...falsely-accused....3:16
http://www.falsely-accused.com/library/faqs.html◀ Back to resultsFalsely Accused: A resource for those falsely accused
Falsely Accused: A resource for those...falsely-accused....3:16
http://www.falsely-accused.com/library/faqs.html◀ Back to resultsFalsely Accused: A resource for those falsely accused
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Oct 29, 2008, 02:46 AMIt's worth noting that Ed Gelb failed to detect the crude countermeasures Harmon Leon employed when he infiltrated the Lie Detector television program.
Posted by cesium_133
- Oct 29, 2008, 02:20 AMHi, cesium back again...
Quote:
A straightforward polygraph test is accurate about 90 percent of the time, said Edward Gelb, a Los Angeles-based polygraph examiner and past president of the American Polygraph Association.
Ninety percent? I have heard 98% from some corners of their peanut gallery. Backtracking?
To beat the odds, people can learn how to control their pulse, breathing rates and other responses, though doing so convincingly can be tricky.
"They would have to learn to control their responses without appearing to be controlling them," Gelb said.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081028/ap_on_re_us/biker_gang_busts;_ylt=AgujwtFpKR4OK5RNetu4JxRvzwcF
So it -can- be done. I thought countermeasures were detectable by a "skilled polygrapher".
I even had one tell me he taught their detection at Quantico. I also don't know how it's tricky. If you're not using props like a tack in the shoe, it's internal, so what's the tricky part? Probably Gelb injecting some fiction for sensationalism purposes.
Okay, so control your responses and look casual at doing it. Blackjack players do that all the time and count the heck out of a 6-deck shoe in the process. Must be about as easy for a poly. And it's -not- hard to control physiological responses, for I did so using techniques I learned here. I am no actor or Houdini who can control involuntary actions.
I still have to hand it to those agents for not totally losing it in the face of those bikers. Every CM in the world is useless if you're 180/110 with a 140 pulse... probably (lol). Though such a high baseline could mask any reaction to a question...
Quote:
A straightforward polygraph test is accurate about 90 percent of the time, said Edward Gelb, a Los Angeles-based polygraph examiner and past president of the American Polygraph Association.
Ninety percent? I have heard 98% from some corners of their peanut gallery. Backtracking?
To beat the odds, people can learn how to control their pulse, breathing rates and other responses, though doing so convincingly can be tricky.
"They would have to learn to control their responses without appearing to be controlling them," Gelb said.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081028/ap_on_re_us/biker_gang_busts;_ylt=AgujwtFpKR4OK5RNetu4JxRvzwcF
So it -can- be done. I thought countermeasures were detectable by a "skilled polygrapher".
I even had one tell me he taught their detection at Quantico. I also don't know how it's tricky. If you're not using props like a tack in the shoe, it's internal, so what's the tricky part? Probably Gelb injecting some fiction for sensationalism purposes.Okay, so control your responses and look casual at doing it. Blackjack players do that all the time and count the heck out of a 6-deck shoe in the process. Must be about as easy for a poly. And it's -not- hard to control physiological responses, for I did so using techniques I learned here. I am no actor or Houdini who can control involuntary actions.
I still have to hand it to those agents for not totally losing it in the face of those bikers. Every CM in the world is useless if you're 180/110 with a 140 pulse... probably (lol). Though such a high baseline could mask any reaction to a question...
Posted by notguilty1
- Oct 28, 2008, 10:57 AMQuote from: Sergeant1107 on Oct 28, 2008, 02:49 AMVery interesting.
This would seem to confirm not only are countermeasures effective, but also that the same government agencies utilizing polygraphs in pre-employment screening are fully aware of how easily they can be defeated.
Yes, seems to be quite a blow to Poligraphy and polygraph operators.
Posted by Sergeant1107
- Oct 28, 2008, 02:49 AMVery interesting.
This would seem to confirm not only are countermeasures effective, but also that the same government agencies utilizing polygraphs in pre-employment screening are fully aware of how easily they can be defeated.
This would seem to confirm not only are countermeasures effective, but also that the same government agencies utilizing polygraphs in pre-employment screening are fully aware of how easily they can be defeated.