- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by xenonman
- Apr 18, 2017, 10:24 AMQuoteI was wondering why I was asked to nod yes or no as opposed to a verbal yes or no ?
The polygraphers will do everything to mess up your head. I've been told to keep my eyes closed, adjust my posture, answer "no" to every question, as well as putting up with the operator inexplicably keep leaving the room.
Posted by ks
- Apr 16, 2017, 05:44 PMI was wondering why I was asked to nod yes or no as opposed to a verbal yes or no ?
Posted by stefano
- Oct 04, 2011, 12:50 PMQuote from: pailryder on Oct 04, 2011, 07:35 AMby someone who seemed to know, to "the asshole that runs that antipolygraph web site."Since you jumped in to sing a duet with polyboy1, I assumed you were in concurrence; I see now it was just a marriage of convenience.
Also, thanks for this nice snapshot view into the professional demeanor of those populating your ranks.
Posted by pailryder
- Oct 04, 2011, 07:35 AMDr Maschke
Just for the record, in my experience, all polygraph charts used in training are sanitized. All identifying information such as, date, agency, examiner, and subject, is removed.
Although we will never find common ground as to the proper use of polygraph technique, I respect your opinion and have never questioned your honesty. I am comfortable taking your word that you did not use cm's.
Several years ago, I saw a set of charts that, without mentioning any specific name was attributed, by someone who seemed to know, to "the asshole that runs that antipolygraph web site." I did score the charts, but I did not then and I do not now offer my opinion of them.
Just for the record, in my experience, all polygraph charts used in training are sanitized. All identifying information such as, date, agency, examiner, and subject, is removed.
Although we will never find common ground as to the proper use of polygraph technique, I respect your opinion and have never questioned your honesty. I am comfortable taking your word that you did not use cm's.
Several years ago, I saw a set of charts that, without mentioning any specific name was attributed, by someone who seemed to know, to "the asshole that runs that antipolygraph web site." I did score the charts, but I did not then and I do not now offer my opinion of them.
Posted by pailryder
- Oct 04, 2011, 06:44 AMQuote from: stefano on Oct 03, 2011, 06:43 PMPlease elaborate for us about.....how you surmised that he was using countermeasures.
Stefano
Please read my post more carefully before you make other unfounded assumptions. Or perhaps you can point out where I wrote that I surmised GM used cm's.
Posted by stefano
- Oct 03, 2011, 06:59 PMThanks for the confirmation. I knew it was BS.
Posted by pailryder
- Oct 03, 2011, 06:56 PMWell, Stefano, we got in a big room and opened a box of granola and found another way.
Posted by stefano
- Oct 03, 2011, 06:43 PMQuote from: pailryder on Sep 24, 2011, 07:25 AMI believe "we" is us!I think almost everyone on our side has seen those charts.Pailryder, you are kind of silent for being Polyboy1's partner in all of this. Please elaborate for us about your experiences with George's charts and how you surmised that he was using countermeasures.
Posted by Sergeant1107
- Oct 03, 2011, 04:29 PMQuote from: polyboy1 on Sep 30, 2011, 03:24 PMFunny you should mention that we should use confirmed cases, since this site professes that CMs can't be detected.
I don't know why you would think that was funny. The easiest method of obtaining "confirmed" countermeasure charts would be to use the charts of those people who have admitted to using countermeasures.
Quote from: polyboy1 on Sep 30, 2011, 03:24 PMI suspect you are LE, so let me ask you, when you interrogate a suspect, and he denies involvement in the crime, do you simply take his word? I wouldn't think so. Same logic here.
It is hardly the same logic.
It would be the same logic if I had no physical evidence or witnesses, but when I interviewed the suspect I believed they were lying (despite their assertion that they were being truthful) so I arrested them. And then I used a recording of our interview to teach classes on how to identify people who are lying in the interview room.
That would make about as much sense as what you say you do with George's charts.
I suspect that the "evidence" of countermeasure usage in George's charts is oddly similar to the evidence in Aldrich Ames' charts that he was lying. Once the FBI knew he was a Soviet agent, they were able to review the charts and say, "Oh, sure, here it is. Clearly he was lying."
After George became a large thorn in the side of the polygraph industry, I'm sure various polygraph operators took a look at his charts and said, "Oh, sure, here it is. He was using countermeasures."
Posted by figs
- Sep 30, 2011, 11:01 PMA larger point re polyboy1 (Guest)'s misinformation -
The countermeasure info in "The lie behind the lie detector" remains good.
See http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19543828. Respiration CMs change SCR (skin conductance), which is the measure most polygraphers rely primarily/exclusively on. They are not detectable.
The countermeasure info in "The lie behind the lie detector" remains good.
See http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19543828. Respiration CMs change SCR (skin conductance), which is the measure most polygraphers rely primarily/exclusively on. They are not detectable.
Posted by getrealalready
- Sep 30, 2011, 05:25 PMGuest,
You don't begin to make a good case, so not sorry, but, yes, not buying. Either you are brain dead stupid in the sense that Sergeant 1107 implies (wildly guessing about unconfirmed charts along with your peers) or you are lying.
George has made the polygraph community look completely stupid (actually allowed it to do so itself) for more than a decade. If this community had any credible evidence/serious analysis that indicated that GM had used countermeasures and had lied for a decade about same, such would have been exposed long ago and both he and this site would have been history long ago.
Get real or call my bluff and show me (with charts and real analysis) to be wrong and/or or as stupid and/or as dishonest as I claim you to be. I'm waiting....lol
You don't begin to make a good case, so not sorry, but, yes, not buying. Either you are brain dead stupid in the sense that Sergeant 1107 implies (wildly guessing about unconfirmed charts along with your peers) or you are lying.
George has made the polygraph community look completely stupid (actually allowed it to do so itself) for more than a decade. If this community had any credible evidence/serious analysis that indicated that GM had used countermeasures and had lied for a decade about same, such would have been exposed long ago and both he and this site would have been history long ago.
Get real or call my bluff and show me (with charts and real analysis) to be wrong and/or or as stupid and/or as dishonest as I claim you to be. I'm waiting....lol
Posted by polyboy1
- Sep 30, 2011, 03:24 PMSergeant 1107: you make a good case, but sorry, no sale. We do use charts from those who have admitted using CMs, but we also use those from cases where there is absolutely no doubt that they were employed. Funny you should mention that we should use confirmed cases, since this site professes that CMs can't be detected. Of course George M has always denied using CMs during his two polygraph exams, and he's not going to confess now, after more than 10 years; it certainly would not help his credibility after all these years. The majority of those who do, won't admit it, but that doesn't mean they didn't. It just means it's not a confirmed case. I suspect you are LE, so let me ask you, when you interrogate a suspect, and he denies involvement in the crime, do you simply take his word? I wouldn't think so. Same logic here. However, we do take appropriate counter-countermeasures to confirm our suspicions, and when they are confirmed, it's a good bet CMs were employed (whether the subject confesses or not). Again, having myself seen George M's charts, there's no doubt in my mind about his use of CMs. Nor in the minds of everyone I have talked to who have also seen them. CMs have been used long before Geoege M came along; I have no doubt some were successful, others were not. However, polygraph technology has come a long way in the last decade, and we now have more tools to fight CMs than we did in years past.
Posted by Sergeant1107
- Sep 29, 2011, 07:47 PMQuote from: polyboy1 on Sep 28, 2011, 03:07 PMTwo Block: what exactly is "stupid" about my post? I made a statement that I have seen George M's charts, and we use them to train new examinersin the detection of countermeasures. I don't have to provide "confirmation" to you or anyone else. What do you want, a sworn affidavit? Notarized statement? It's a free country; you may believe it or not. I lose no sleep over your disbelief. Reading your past postings, it's clear that you are narrow-minded, and the type ready to sue at the drop of a hat. What a sad little man you are.Wouldn't you want to use charts from someone who was proven to have countermeasures for that?
George has always stated he did not use countermeasures and had never even heard of countermeasures.
I'm sure you can see the hole in the logic of simply declaring a set of charts to be an example of countermeasure usage and using them to train examiners how to spot countermeasures.
Posted by Twoblock
- Sep 29, 2011, 02:56 PMBill_Brown
I, and I think the majority of posters, respects your opinion of the polygraph and would go along with an additional BI. However, our national security agencies and most other LE agencies don't hold with your advocacy. Apparently they use it in place of BI's. I believe this is wrong and it's what I rail against. If all polygraphers held your beliefs, there would be less use for this website. There have been entirely too many horrow stories posted here and they all can't be false stories.
I, and I think the majority of posters, respects your opinion of the polygraph and would go along with an additional BI. However, our national security agencies and most other LE agencies don't hold with your advocacy. Apparently they use it in place of BI's. I believe this is wrong and it's what I rail against. If all polygraphers held your beliefs, there would be less use for this website. There have been entirely too many horrow stories posted here and they all can't be false stories.
Posted by Bill_Brown
- Sep 29, 2011, 11:58 AMTwoblock
Have you learned that the one machine - one operator decision has ruined the LE employment life of many truthful applicants?
I am certainly aware of false positives and false negatives. I do advocate using BI's to clear up any responses on polygraph. The standard in the industry, as stated by the APA, states polygraph should be used as an investigative tool. I am about to retire and enjoy reading about polygraph, assisting in more studies and advocating for stringent regulations on the use of polygraph and polygraph examiners.
I believe polygraph is a useful tool when used properly. You don't use a hammer to place a thumb tack on a cushion board, and you don't use polygraph to eliminate candidates. It should be used to develop further leads an investigator can followup on.
Have you learned that the one machine - one operator decision has ruined the LE employment life of many truthful applicants?
I am certainly aware of false positives and false negatives. I do advocate using BI's to clear up any responses on polygraph. The standard in the industry, as stated by the APA, states polygraph should be used as an investigative tool. I am about to retire and enjoy reading about polygraph, assisting in more studies and advocating for stringent regulations on the use of polygraph and polygraph examiners.
I believe polygraph is a useful tool when used properly. You don't use a hammer to place a thumb tack on a cushion board, and you don't use polygraph to eliminate candidates. It should be used to develop further leads an investigator can followup on.