- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by Doug Williams
- Nov 21, 2019, 12:00 PMQuote from: 597C763354130 on Nov 20, 2019, 11:03 PM@ Ed Earl
Ed Earl,
You are a complete idiot with that example of police using a field sobriety test. Field sobriety test can be denied by the person and then given a test of a breathalyzer that IS scientific to determine their intoxication level. When you take a poly, you are fully at the control of the examiner and there is no disagreement allowed and no way to take something SCIENTIFIC to verify the results of the poly. I would assume you are/were a polygrapher, and I just want to say it is a joke profession that ruins many good applicants from working great jobs. You should or should have gotten a real job rather than making subjective opinions about examinees based on pseudoscience.
You are quite correct, a polygraph is based entirely on pseudo science – in short, it's nothing but a fraud. It's a massive, evil fraud which is perpetrated by thugs and charlatans who don't give a damn how many people they hurt as long as they can continue to unjustly enrich themselves. But there may be a time coming when they will be held accountable. I've got the beginnings of an idea about a class action lawsuit on behalf of all the hundreds of thousands of people who have been denied employment or falsely accused of deception based on this pseudo-scientific test. Check this out and let me know if there's anything you can help me with by way of suggestion. Anyone is welcome to chime in. https://polygraph.com/sue-the-bastards.html
Posted by Joe G
- Nov 20, 2019, 11:03 PM@ Ed Earl
Ed Earl,
You are a complete idiot with that example of police using a field sobriety test. Field sobriety test can be denied by the person and then given a test of a breathalyzer that IS scientific to determine their intoxication level. When you take a poly, you are fully at the control of the examiner and there is no disagreement allowed and no way to take something SCIENTIFIC to verify the results of the poly. I would assume you are/were a polygrapher, and I just want to say it is a joke profession that ruins many good applicants from working great jobs. You should or should have gotten a real job rather than making subjective opinions about examinees based on pseudoscience.
Ed Earl,
You are a complete idiot with that example of police using a field sobriety test. Field sobriety test can be denied by the person and then given a test of a breathalyzer that IS scientific to determine their intoxication level. When you take a poly, you are fully at the control of the examiner and there is no disagreement allowed and no way to take something SCIENTIFIC to verify the results of the poly. I would assume you are/were a polygrapher, and I just want to say it is a joke profession that ruins many good applicants from working great jobs. You should or should have gotten a real job rather than making subjective opinions about examinees based on pseudoscience.
Posted by LieBabyCryBaby
- Apr 27, 2009, 07:35 PMWe could go round and round on this, Mr. Cullen. I could point out studies that show what I believe, and you could point out studies that show what you believe. None of the studies would be conclusive, and there are definite problems with trying to correlate lab studies with real-life. I've argued studies before, and it's like two people from different religions trying to convince each other that theirs is right.
But I ask potential polygraph examinees this question: Who do you think is more credible--someone who can point out questionable studies but who has absolutely no experience in conducting polygraph exams, or someone who can also point out questionable studies, but who has the experience of having conducted a very large number of polygraphs?
And about "Sancho." I asked why Ed Earl was banned. I've never read anything posted by "Sancho." Are they one and the same? One thing's for sure, though: Mr. Earl (if indeed that's his real name) had you running in circles like a dog chasing its tail. Very impressive, banned or not.
But I ask potential polygraph examinees this question: Who do you think is more credible--someone who can point out questionable studies but who has absolutely no experience in conducting polygraph exams, or someone who can also point out questionable studies, but who has the experience of having conducted a very large number of polygraphs?
And about "Sancho." I asked why Ed Earl was banned. I've never read anything posted by "Sancho." Are they one and the same? One thing's for sure, though: Mr. Earl (if indeed that's his real name) had you running in circles like a dog chasing its tail. Very impressive, banned or not.
Posted by T.M. Cullen
- Apr 25, 2009, 02:47 PMQuoteHow do I "know" he lied? Well, if he's a subject in one of my polygraph exams and he failed, it's certainly possible that he's a false positive, but extremely unlikely.
How do you know it is "extremely unlikely" for a person to be a false positive?
The fact is, you don't know whether a person has lied or told the truth based on the results of a polygraph.
QuoteAnd no, I don't want to once again get into a big discussion about this study and that study with one more person on this forum who has absolutely no experience as a polygraph examiner but who will open his smelly box of old, worn-out tennis shoes he borrowed from someone else who has no experience either, so please don't expect me to waste my time that way.
In other words, you make a very weak argument that falls to dust after being asked to answer some simple questions to back up your claims. Namely, that false positives are "extremely unlikely", and that a person who fails a polygraph (which only measures some rudimentary physiological data) is lying and must be interrogated to "get to the bottom of those lies".
But we woldn't want to waste your precious time.
QuoteSorry, Mr. Cullen. I don't hang around this forum all the time, so I have no idea who "Sancho" is, nor do I care. Am I supposed to back him up? Did you misunderstand him too?
You were the one who brought up the topic of his banning. But you don't know who he is, nor care? Ah, okay. That makes as much sense as anything else you've posted here.
TC
Posted by LieBabyCryBaby
- Apr 24, 2009, 10:47 PMYes, he did make that claim. He said that polygraphers should have no role in interrogating those they test. Why do you keep asking the same question? I thought I was clear, but apparently not clear enough.
How do I "know" he lied? Well, if he's a subject in one of my polygraph exams and he failed, it's certainly possible that he's a false positive, but extremely unlikely. And no, I don't want to once again get into a big discussion about this study and that study with one more person on this forum who has absolutely no experience as a polygraph examiner but who will open his smelly box of old, worn-out tennis shoes he borrowed from someone else who has no experience either, so please don't expect me to waste my time that way.
Sorry, Mr. Cullen. I don't hang around this forum all the time, so I have no idea who "Sancho" is, nor do I care. Am I supposed to back him up? Did you misunderstand him too?
How do I "know" he lied? Well, if he's a subject in one of my polygraph exams and he failed, it's certainly possible that he's a false positive, but extremely unlikely. And no, I don't want to once again get into a big discussion about this study and that study with one more person on this forum who has absolutely no experience as a polygraph examiner but who will open his smelly box of old, worn-out tennis shoes he borrowed from someone else who has no experience either, so please don't expect me to waste my time that way.
Sorry, Mr. Cullen. I don't hang around this forum all the time, so I have no idea who "Sancho" is, nor do I care. Am I supposed to back him up? Did you misunderstand him too?
Posted by T.M. Cullen
- Apr 24, 2009, 05:44 PMQuote from: PhilGainey on Apr 24, 2009, 05:24 PMQuoteWhile Mr. Maschke (in his last post on this thread) claims that if the polygraph had a scientific basis there would be no need to interrogate a subject, this makes no sense at all.
So did George really make that claim or not?QuoteNow, once an examinee has clearly failed an exam, things will and should change, whether the polygrapher represents his/her department or agency, or the polygrapher is independent. At that point, unless there has been some kind of pre-exam agreement between attorneys, the polygrapher will definitely want to get to the bottom of the examinee's lies, and in fact will generally be expected to attempt to do so by all parties involved.
Examinee lies? How do you know that the examinee actually lied?
Why would Sancho be against allowing one of his fellow polygrapher operators getting to the bottom of these ALLEGED lies?
TC
Posted by T.M. Cullen
- Apr 24, 2009, 05:35 PMWhoops, hit save by accident
Posted by T.M. Cullen
- Apr 24, 2009, 05:24 PMQuoteWhile Mr. Maschke (in his last post on this thread) claims that if the polygraph had a scientific basis there would be no need to interrogate a subject, this makes no sense at all.
So did George really make that claim or not?
TC
Posted by LieBabyCryBaby
- Apr 24, 2009, 04:58 PMPerhaps if you're talking about independent polygraphers, Mr. Cullen. But not when you're talking about polygraphers who are part of a police department or federal agency, where they are often themselves investigators for their departments or agencies.
Now, before you talk about conflicts of interest, let me continue. One thing that the "Anti-" crowd on this forum never talks about--and perhaps doesn't realize--is that most good polygraphers go into every exam with an impartial viewpoint. You have to not care one way or the other whether your examinee, even an accused defendant, passes or fails the exam. A good polygrapher will tell the investigators, the attorneys, and the examinee that the polygrapher is not there to pre-judge the examinee. In fact, prior to all such exams I've conducted, I've always told everyone, including the examinee, that I don't care one way or the other how the exam turns out. It is not the polygrapher's job--prior to the end of the data collection phase of the exam--to pass judgment or to even interrogate the examinee.
Now, once an examinee has clearly failed an exam, things will and should change, whether the polygrapher represents his/her department or agency, or the polygrapher is independent. At that point, unless there has been some kind of pre-exam agreement between attorneys, the polygrapher will definitely want to get to the bottom of the examinee's lies, and in fact will generally be expected to attempt to do so by all parties involved. Just as the CSI investigators who work for departments or agencies, who conduct those other types of evidence collection are an extension of the investigative process, so are polygraphers, but only after an examinee has broken his/her promise to be truthful during the exam.
Now, before you talk about conflicts of interest, let me continue. One thing that the "Anti-" crowd on this forum never talks about--and perhaps doesn't realize--is that most good polygraphers go into every exam with an impartial viewpoint. You have to not care one way or the other whether your examinee, even an accused defendant, passes or fails the exam. A good polygrapher will tell the investigators, the attorneys, and the examinee that the polygrapher is not there to pre-judge the examinee. In fact, prior to all such exams I've conducted, I've always told everyone, including the examinee, that I don't care one way or the other how the exam turns out. It is not the polygrapher's job--prior to the end of the data collection phase of the exam--to pass judgment or to even interrogate the examinee.
Now, once an examinee has clearly failed an exam, things will and should change, whether the polygrapher represents his/her department or agency, or the polygrapher is independent. At that point, unless there has been some kind of pre-exam agreement between attorneys, the polygrapher will definitely want to get to the bottom of the examinee's lies, and in fact will generally be expected to attempt to do so by all parties involved. Just as the CSI investigators who work for departments or agencies, who conduct those other types of evidence collection are an extension of the investigative process, so are polygraphers, but only after an examinee has broken his/her promise to be truthful during the exam.
Posted by T.M. Cullen
- Apr 23, 2009, 10:02 PMQuoteWhile Mr. Maschke (in his last post on this thread) claims that if the polygraph had a scientific basis there would be no need to interrogate a subject, this makes no sense at all.
It makes no sense, because that is not what he posted.
He posted:
"If polygraphy were truly a scientific test for deception, then those administering that scientific test should have no role in interrogating those they test, any more than do those who conduct DNA, latent fingerprint, or ballistics tests."
TC
Posted by LieBabyCryBaby
- Apr 23, 2009, 07:16 PMThere should be no reason why a polygraph examiner would typically stop between question sets and "interrogate" the examinee. In fact, doing so before the data collection phase of the exam is finished would likely have the effect of sensitizing the examinee to the relevant questions, which any polygraph examiner worth his salt would know to avoid doing. The fact that you claim this occurred during every polygraph you have taken suggests a defect in the polygrapher's training or his own methods. There should be no interrogation during the data collection phase of a polygraph. Such practice reflects poorly on the individual examiner, not on the polygraph itself. I'm curious. Was your polygrapher at the federal or state level?
While Mr. Maschke (in his last post on this thread) claims that if the polygraph had a scientific basis there would be no need to interrogate a subject, this makes no sense at all. The other methods of evidence collecting DO often lead to interrogation of a subject because they point an investigator in the right direction and encourage the investigator that he/she is on the right track. Likewise, the polygraph, if you accept it as having a scientific basis, which many of you on this forum don't but which almost all polygraphers do, then it also points the investigator in the right direction. Feeling that he/she now has evidence against a subject, the polygrapher will, and should, go into interrogation mode.
While Mr. Maschke (in his last post on this thread) claims that if the polygraph had a scientific basis there would be no need to interrogate a subject, this makes no sense at all. The other methods of evidence collecting DO often lead to interrogation of a subject because they point an investigator in the right direction and encourage the investigator that he/she is on the right track. Likewise, the polygraph, if you accept it as having a scientific basis, which many of you on this forum don't but which almost all polygraphers do, then it also points the investigator in the right direction. Feeling that he/she now has evidence against a subject, the polygrapher will, and should, go into interrogation mode.
Posted by T.M. Cullen
- Apr 23, 2009, 02:25 AMPolygraphers would have you believe that unless there is a "post test interrogation", the polygraph is not an interrogation. However.....
During each and every polygraph I've taken the examiners interrogated me in between the three chart runnings (where they ask the questions while you are hooked up...etc.), I was interrogated.
Usually, they would start out by looking at the chart and saying that the chart was indicating I was being deceptive. "Why is that Tom? Why would you be having trouble with that question? Are you telling me everything about your foreign contacts? Is there anything you have to tell me?!"
It IS all about interrogating which is why polygraph operators, Like Mr. Holden and VanArsdale, tend to be former/retired police interrogators. Duh?
This is why I am so interested in why Sancho, such a pro polygraph defender, would recommend his clients NOT submit to a post test interrogation and TERMINATE the test is the person behind the machine gets aggressive or accusatory. Which they usually do?
Am I the only one who finds that more than a little REVEALING?
Anyone facing a police polygraph might well conclude, from Sancho's advice, that it would be in there BEST INTEREST not to play the police polygraphic interrogator's game. To simply show up, politely and cooperatively answer questions posed during the pretest interview (so long as answering them would not self-incriminate them), give the perfunctory "yes" or "no" answers during the chart data collection phase, then LEAVE!
TC
During each and every polygraph I've taken the examiners interrogated me in between the three chart runnings (where they ask the questions while you are hooked up...etc.), I was interrogated.
Usually, they would start out by looking at the chart and saying that the chart was indicating I was being deceptive. "Why is that Tom? Why would you be having trouble with that question? Are you telling me everything about your foreign contacts? Is there anything you have to tell me?!"
It IS all about interrogating which is why polygraph operators, Like Mr. Holden and VanArsdale, tend to be former/retired police interrogators. Duh?
This is why I am so interested in why Sancho, such a pro polygraph defender, would recommend his clients NOT submit to a post test interrogation and TERMINATE the test is the person behind the machine gets aggressive or accusatory. Which they usually do?
Am I the only one who finds that more than a little REVEALING?
Anyone facing a police polygraph might well conclude, from Sancho's advice, that it would be in there BEST INTEREST not to play the police polygraphic interrogator's game. To simply show up, politely and cooperatively answer questions posed during the pretest interview (so long as answering them would not self-incriminate them), give the perfunctory "yes" or "no" answers during the chart data collection phase, then LEAVE!
TC
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Apr 23, 2009, 01:25 AMQuote from: LieBabyCryBaby on Apr 22, 2009, 09:05 PMAlso, polygraph is NOT an interrogation. It may LEAD to an interrogation, especially in a criminal polygraph, when a subject fails and then doesn't terminate the process or demand his/her attorney. I mean, what would someone expect from the polygrapher when he/she fails the exam? Whether or not you believe in the validity of the polygraph, the examiner certainly does, so he/she feels that the liar has been caught, so why not try to get to the bottom of the lie?
If polygraphy were truly a scientific test for deception, then those administering that scientific test should have no role in interrogating those they test, any more than do those who conduct DNA, latent fingerprint, or ballistics tests. The fact of the matter is that polygraphy, which has no scientific basis, is all about interrogation.
Posted by T.M. Cullen
- Apr 22, 2009, 11:53 PMHe (Mr. Van Arsdale Queeg Panza) was banned months ago when posting as Sancho Panza. I forget why. So he had already been banned before coming back under new aliases.
Sounds reasonable to me. So why would Mr. VanArsdale be against his client submitting to a post test interrogation, or walking out if the examiner get's aggressive or accusatory?
QuoteAlso, polygraph is NOT an interrogation. It may LEAD to an interrogation, especially in a criminal polygraph, when a subject fails and then doesn't terminate the process or demand his/her attorney. I mean, what would someone expect from the polygrapher when he/she fails the exam? Whether or not you believe in the validity of the polygraph, the examiner certainly does, so he/she feels that the liar has been caught, so why not try to get to the bottom of the lie?
Sounds reasonable to me. So why would Mr. VanArsdale be against his client submitting to a post test interrogation, or walking out if the examiner get's aggressive or accusatory?
Posted by LieBabyCryBaby
- Apr 22, 2009, 09:05 PMThat doesn't explain why he was banned. Multiple aliases, I suspect, are also used by administrators of this forum, but that doesn't affect the validity of an argument. The only time that would be a reason for banning someone would be if one alias was communicating with another alias (all by the same person) in a dishonest effort to support an argument while pretending to be two or more people.
Also, polygraph is NOT an interrogation. It may LEAD to an interrogation, especially in a criminal polygraph, when a subject fails and then doesn't terminate the process or demand his/her attorney. I mean, what would someone expect from the polygrapher when he/she fails the exam? Whether or not you believe in the validity of the polygraph, the examiner certainly does, so he/she feels that the liar has been caught, so why not try to get to the bottom of the lie?
Also, polygraph is NOT an interrogation. It may LEAD to an interrogation, especially in a criminal polygraph, when a subject fails and then doesn't terminate the process or demand his/her attorney. I mean, what would someone expect from the polygrapher when he/she fails the exam? Whether or not you believe in the validity of the polygraph, the examiner certainly does, so he/she feels that the liar has been caught, so why not try to get to the bottom of the lie?