- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by T.M. Cullen
- May 26, 2009, 04:53 AMI knew it! Rogue cops!
TC
TC
Posted by Administrator
- May 26, 2009, 04:35 AMAntiPolygraph.org has reason to believe that posts in this message thread by "David Hume," "Kim Jong Il," and "S Price" are the handiwork of polygraph operator Edward Bryan Van Arsdale of Ponca City, Oklahoma, who has been previously banned from these forums under a variety of monikers for violation of AntiPolygraph.org's posting policy.
Posted by T.M. Cullen
- May 25, 2009, 04:23 PMPatrick Coffey got banned a year ago. He told applicants complaining on this board a about being tested "false positive" that they should "Just take your little spanking and get on with your lives!"
I think that maybe now that applies to polygraph chart gazers/diviners coming here lately to cry about GM's board management.
DEA SA Hacking might well take that to heart. Gee, I hope local DEA agents aren't going to come and kick my door in now for saying that?
TC
I think that maybe now that applies to polygraph chart gazers/diviners coming here lately to cry about GM's board management.
DEA SA Hacking might well take that to heart. Gee, I hope local DEA agents aren't going to come and kick my door in now for saying that?
TC
Posted by S Price
- May 25, 2009, 08:27 AMThat is one possibility sergeant but it is also possible that even though according to his banner,which says "If you wish to remain anonymous, be careful not to post enough personal detail that you could be identified .", he wants to appear to invite and even encourage anonymous posting it is starting to look like he does an ISP trace on every new poster who disagrees with him or challenges his opinions, whether their comments violate the posting policy or not. Seems contradictory to me.
Just speculating here, but if he just claimed that Hume was somebody he banned before how would you know for sure? He could just say that he traced a poster and discovered it was Jack Trimarco or Barack Obama and you wouldn't be ablle to tell the difference.
Possibly he has adopted a New policy of "If you can't beat them, ban them"
Of course he will now provide some excuse or simply ban me as well and remove this post.
but I would caution everybody who comes here;
Dont register or post on this website unless you want the administrator to trace your I.S.P. and attempt to identify you with thiis information he could possibly even notify prospective employers in your area if he wanted to.
Just speculating here, but if he just claimed that Hume was somebody he banned before how would you know for sure? He could just say that he traced a poster and discovered it was Jack Trimarco or Barack Obama and you wouldn't be ablle to tell the difference.
Possibly he has adopted a New policy of "If you can't beat them, ban them"
Of course he will now provide some excuse or simply ban me as well and remove this post.
but I would caution everybody who comes here;
Dont register or post on this website unless you want the administrator to trace your I.S.P. and attempt to identify you with thiis information he could possibly even notify prospective employers in your area if he wanted to.
Posted by T.M. Cullen
- May 23, 2009, 10:10 PMQuoteThere is also the possibility that "David Hume" is simply the newest screen name of a person who has already been banned one or more times and so was summarily banned again.
Childish ain't he?
And as I've said before, if CMs Don't work, why do they keep coming to this board so hot, bothered by them? And don't tell me it's because they actually give a shit that applicants are supposedly screwing up their chances by employing GM's suggested tactics! They only thing they really care about is keeping their scam a secret.
Posted by Sergeant1107
- May 23, 2009, 06:49 AMThis is only speculation, but most bans are for violations of the board's posting policy.
There is also the possibility that "David Hume" is simply the newest screen name of a person who has already been banned one or more times and so was summarily banned again.
There is also the possibility that "David Hume" is simply the newest screen name of a person who has already been banned one or more times and so was summarily banned again.
Posted by Kim Jong Il
- May 21, 2009, 09:20 PMQuote from: David_Hume on May 19, 2009, 10:13 PMYou guys are not helping me at all. In the lie behind the lie detecter book in chapter 4 it says--
liars can beat the test by covertly augmenting their physiological reactions to the "control" questions. This can be done, for example, by doing mental arithmetic, thinking exciting thoughts, altering one's breathing pattern, or simply biting the side of the tongue.
Another thing, one of the links to this site says you can learn to beat the polygraph test here. I read what you guys say and I read what polygraph guys say and you both say different things. Which one is right? Tell me.Have any of you guys used countermesures to beat a polygraph test or are you blowing smoke...? Also what if the machine is right, should a person still deny anything? How do you learn to beat the machine or is that just so people will come here and talk to you?
Why was this dude banned? He has some good questions. I was wonderinng the same thing actually. Do the countermeasures everybody talks about here work? Did any of you try them out? Did George try them out? If not then why does this site teach them and tell people to do it? Do I get banned too for asking why this dude was banned? What kind of outfit is this?
Posted by Sergeant1107
- May 20, 2009, 05:37 AMQuote from: PhilGainey on May 20, 2009, 02:24 AMWhat a coincidence. I was thinking the same thing.QuoteYou guys are not helping me at all.
Because you are probably a polygrapher with too much time on his/her hands and not really looking for "help" at all. But by all means, keep trying.
TC
Posted by T.M. Cullen
- May 20, 2009, 02:24 AMQuoteYou guys are not helping me at all.
Because you are probably a polygrapher with too much time on his/her hands and not really looking for "help" at all. But by all means, keep trying.
TC
Posted by David Hume
- May 19, 2009, 10:13 PMYou guys are not helping me at all. In the lie behind the lie detecter book in chapter 4 it says--
liars can beat the test by covertly augmenting their physiological reactions to the "control" questions. This can be done, for example, by doing mental arithmetic, thinking exciting thoughts, altering one's breathing pattern, or simply biting the side of the tongue.
Another thing, one of the links to this site says you can learn to beat the polygraph test here. I read what you guys say and I read what polygraph guys say and you both say different things. Which one is right? Tell me.Have any of you guys used countermesures to beat a polygraph test or are you blowing smoke...? Also what if the machine is right, should a person still deny anything? How do you learn to beat the machine or is that just so people will come here and talk to you?
liars can beat the test by covertly augmenting their physiological reactions to the "control" questions. This can be done, for example, by doing mental arithmetic, thinking exciting thoughts, altering one's breathing pattern, or simply biting the side of the tongue.
Another thing, one of the links to this site says you can learn to beat the polygraph test here. I read what you guys say and I read what polygraph guys say and you both say different things. Which one is right? Tell me.Have any of you guys used countermesures to beat a polygraph test or are you blowing smoke...? Also what if the machine is right, should a person still deny anything? How do you learn to beat the machine or is that just so people will come here and talk to you?
Posted by T.M. Cullen
- May 19, 2009, 05:24 PMYou don't have to "do something" during the polygraph. Main thing is DO NOT believe them if they tell you you are being deceptive, holding back...etc. because of what their over-glorified blood pressure machine is telling them. Only YOU know if you answered the questions truthfully or are holding something back.
TC
TC
Posted by David Hume
- May 19, 2009, 11:43 AMThat's not what I read here about taking the test.. People here say all the time that a person has to control their breathing or do other things or they can fail the polygraph test. I dont have anything to hide but the stuff I read here makes me confused. What do you mean when you say answering truthfuly sometimes helps a person pass? Sometimes ...? You ever try controlling your breathing or other body functions when you took a polygraph test? Does it work?
Posted by Sergeant1107
- May 19, 2009, 01:38 AMYou don't have to do anything during the test. You could simply answer all the questions truthfully - sometimes that results in a passing score.
There's nothing on this site that says you "have" to do anything at all during the test, with the exception that George continually advises people that if they are taking a pre-employment polygraph for a position of public trust they have an ethical responsibility to tell the truth on all the relevant questions.
There's nothing on this site that says you "have" to do anything at all during the test, with the exception that George continually advises people that if they are taking a pre-employment polygraph for a position of public trust they have an ethical responsibility to tell the truth on all the relevant questions.
Posted by David Hume
- May 19, 2009, 01:20 AMWhat's the point of doing stuff during a polygraphy test to try to pass it? I been reading a lot on this site and I read the lie behind the lie detector. But I dont get it. How you know that stuff works? Anyone try it and pass?