- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by Twoblock
- Nov 27, 2012, 08:25 PMstefano
I read a post here a few years ago by a polygrapher and he said that he preferred an analog because the computerized version has too much background noise.
A question though: Doesn't the computerized version have an analog machine hooked into a computer? If so, they are still using the analog machine. So what's the fancy of a computer?
I read a post here a few years ago by a polygrapher and he said that he preferred an analog because the computerized version has too much background noise.
A question though: Doesn't the computerized version have an analog machine hooked into a computer? If so, they are still using the analog machine. So what's the fancy of a computer?
Posted by brianmanhgf
- Nov 27, 2012, 06:59 PMI've heard hat oregon has lifted its ban on polygraph's. Any truth to this. Thanks
Posted by stefano
- Oct 04, 2012, 12:00 AMAs a followup, I would say that digital instruments, along with their "chart scoring for dummies" software, would probably have more utility in conducting studies where many sample sets must be scored and to reduce examiner bias.
Perhaps at one time, having a "computerized" polygraph may have stiffened the rubber hose. However, now that our world has gone digital and laptops are ubiquitous, I'd think that an analog intstrument would be more intimidating. So, the only REAL advantage of a digital instrument is to make the polygrapher feel he is somehow on the "cutting edge"; which is pure folly.
Perhaps at one time, having a "computerized" polygraph may have stiffened the rubber hose. However, now that our world has gone digital and laptops are ubiquitous, I'd think that an analog intstrument would be more intimidating. So, the only REAL advantage of a digital instrument is to make the polygrapher feel he is somehow on the "cutting edge"; which is pure folly.
Posted by stefano
- Sep 30, 2012, 01:39 PMQuote from: pailryder on Sep 30, 2012, 09:48 AMAs a data collection system, the digital is vastly superior to the analog in every respect.Ask the man who owns one.Wrong, they collect the same data and produce the same charts. Computerized versions simply make the polygrapher feel fancy. And by pure definition, analog instruments capture more data as the digital only samples the analog signal. Yes, I meant Backster, thanks for the correction.
Posted by pailryder
- Sep 30, 2012, 09:48 AMQuote from: stefano on Sep 29, 2012, 04:20 PMhe is under the illusion that a digital instrument is superior to an analog which is simply not true
As a data collection system, the digital is vastly superior to the analog in every respect. Ask the man who owns one.
Posted by pailryder
- Sep 30, 2012, 08:03 AMQuoteThe polygraph is the brainchild of a CIA scientist
Wow
Simply not true. Poly predates the CIA. Backster added a numercial scoring system to an existing technique.
Posted by pailryder
- Sep 30, 2012, 06:55 AMstefano
You have confused John Reid and Cleve Backster.
You have confused John Reid and Cleve Backster.
Posted by stefano
- Sep 29, 2012, 04:20 PMWow,
Although you are replying to a post which is a couple of years old, Pailryder's comments are valid except where he is under the illusion that a digital instrument is superior to an analog which is simply not true.
Also, I don't go along with the idea that Mr. Reid's experiments with plants are pure balderdash. Plants have shown to alter their chemical states when harmed or even threatened. This is actually more scientific than assuming physiological responses have a predictable correlation to deception.
Although you are replying to a post which is a couple of years old, Pailryder's comments are valid except where he is under the illusion that a digital instrument is superior to an analog which is simply not true.
Also, I don't go along with the idea that Mr. Reid's experiments with plants are pure balderdash. Plants have shown to alter their chemical states when harmed or even threatened. This is actually more scientific than assuming physiological responses have a predictable correlation to deception.
Posted by Wow...
- Sep 29, 2012, 03:48 PMPailryder...
You're a polygrapher... Or at least that's what I've read skimming through these posts. The polygraph is the brainchild of a CIA scientist who believed that we could communicate with plants. Telepathically.
Given the history of polygraphs, I have a hard time taking you (or any polygrapher for that matter) seriously.
You're a polygrapher... Or at least that's what I've read skimming through these posts. The polygraph is the brainchild of a CIA scientist who believed that we could communicate with plants. Telepathically.
Given the history of polygraphs, I have a hard time taking you (or any polygrapher for that matter) seriously.
Posted by antipolygraphrso
- Apr 16, 2011, 05:06 PMQuote from: Vadius_Chammellius on Aug 19, 2010, 04:24 PMHey, all I know is:
When I first came to antipolygraph.org, the site was way down on the list if you typed the word 'polygraph' into Google.
Now, when you type the word 'polygraph' into Google, the first hit is the Wikededia entry which includes a reference to the National Academy for Sciences report, basically saying that polygraph is a load of pseudo-scientific garbage.
The second hit is antipolygraph.org.
Polygraph Place, which looks pretty pro-polygraph, is the 8th or 9th hit. Everything prior to Polygraph Place is anti-polygraph.
In other words, the polygraph's days are numbered. Polygraphs tend to intellectually cocoon themselves the same way religious nuts do: It's true because they SAY it's true, and they're closed-minded to any other possibility. When the day comes that these stupid 'tests' are illegal (and the day is out there) polygraphs will be shocked to find themselves unemployed.
But I definitely think things are getting better, not worse. The federal agency from whom I recently rescinded interest was SHOCKED when I withdrew from processing. The more people learn, the harder time these places will have recruiting the very type of people they CLAIM to want.
So there!
I actually came to this site when I was convicted of my 'sex offense'. I did read alot, and the funny thing is, all the polygraphers and Sex offender 'treatment' counselors ORDER you not to go to Antipoly.org.
Matter of fact, if they catch you reading this site, or finding literature regarding polygraphs, they will find whatever they can to 'punish' you.
I still managed to find ways around it. Read most of the basics at least to get myself primed (and lying to those people in the process).
And the end though, I passed everything, countermeasures or not, etc. And that was with me still lying over the course of 2 years, heh.
Posted by theydeceivedme1
- Apr 13, 2011, 07:35 AMQuote from: whoa_nelly on Aug 25, 2010, 12:17 AM....how did that happen? In any case back on topic, to respond to Irish, this isn't a case so much where Federal law supersedes state law, it's rather the fact that the Federal gov is not subject to state law. Although the NSA is located in Maryland (and presumably it's employees pay MD state income tax) the NSA is NOT PART of Maryland, hence they do not have to abide by MD state law, assuming the law will interfere with the NSA's duties i.e. to polygraph folks.
I think Minnesota also disallows the polygraph for employment purposes.
Frankly the MD anti-polygraph law is a big joke. First, at least 80% of all IT jobs within a 20 mile radius of NSA require a full scope poly. And these are private sector jobs doing contract work with NSA, so its not like they are even government employees. I've applied for a few of these types of jobs and it cracks me up when I sign a form that says it is illegal for my employer to request that I take a polygraph, but at the same time I might receive a job offer contingent upon being granted a TS/SCI clearance w/full scope poly.
I've also heard that at least some local police forces in MD are also forced to submit to polys.
Posted by 10-6backinbusiness
- Nov 27, 2010, 04:16 AMIrish,
Baltimore P.D. uses a psych evaluation and polygraph as a part of their hiring process.
Baltimore P.D. uses a psych evaluation and polygraph as a part of their hiring process.
Posted by Just an accountant
- Aug 25, 2010, 12:17 AM....how did that happen? In any case back on topic, to respond to Irish, this isn't a case so much where Federal law supersedes state law, it's rather the fact that the Federal gov is not subject to state law. Although the NSA is located in Maryland (and presumably it's employees pay MD state income tax) the NSA is NOT PART of Maryland, hence they do not have to abide by MD state law, assuming the law will interfere with the NSA's duties i.e. to polygraph folks.
I think Minnesota also disallows the polygraph for employment purposes.
I think Minnesota also disallows the polygraph for employment purposes.
Posted by Fair Chance
- Aug 24, 2010, 09:53 PMAfter reading as many posts on this website over more than seven years, it has to be one of the least censored sites regarding opposition ideas in the world.
Anyone who has posted any thought that is centered on even an abstract thread of logic is normally allowed to remain.
Profanity, name calling, accusations, summations, and conclusions without basis are held suspect. Most of the conclusions without basis are allowed to remain if they try to respond to critiques in some reasonable fashion.
This website is far more tolerant of pro-polygraph postings than any any pro-polygraph site of anti-polygraph postings.
There are thousands of historical pro-polygraph postings on this site. Can any pro-polygraph site say the same about postings that question the absolute faith of polygraph results?
Anyone who has posted any thought that is centered on even an abstract thread of logic is normally allowed to remain.
Profanity, name calling, accusations, summations, and conclusions without basis are held suspect. Most of the conclusions without basis are allowed to remain if they try to respond to critiques in some reasonable fashion.
This website is far more tolerant of pro-polygraph postings than any any pro-polygraph site of anti-polygraph postings.
There are thousands of historical pro-polygraph postings on this site. Can any pro-polygraph site say the same about postings that question the absolute faith of polygraph results?
Posted by John W. Smith
- Aug 21, 2010, 05:24 PMQuote from: pailryder on Aug 20, 2010, 10:46 AMEPPA was needed and, in my opinion, improved greatly the use of polygraph in the private workplace. But if the protections of EPPA are to be extended to the governmental workplace, which political party will advance that cause? Repubs will buy the national security argument. Demos? I think poly is far from the top of their agenda.
It's hard to improve on what is already garbage.
You're a polygrapher, and therefore in my experience are inclined to believe what you wish, without regard to actual evidence.
It might be that the use of these pseudo-tests are on the rise, but the truth about them is also on the rise.
I consider what you do profoundly immoral, and unethical. Nazis used similar arguments to yours: what we're doing is more and more supported by science, the world is behind us, etc.
That doesn't make what they did right.