- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Jul 31, 2002, 08:51 AMPolycop,
With reference to your remarks to Public Servant:
What is it that you, Public Servant, and others in your "group" have that we ("the anti-poly folks") want but don't have?
With reference to your remarks to Public Servant:
QuoteAs you know, the anti-poly folks who post to this site are outsiders looking in. They will always be outsiders looking in. This is one thing they cannot change and it drives them crazy. Anger, frustration, and jealousy is what motivates them, period. They will never have what they think they are entitled to, and they have focussed their sights on the group of people who have what they don't and as a result they blame for just about everything.
What is it that you, Public Servant, and others in your "group" have that we ("the anti-poly folks") want but don't have?
Posted by Anonymous
- Jul 30, 2002, 08:21 PMPolycop,
You write:
Quite to the contrary, the utter disdain I note in beech tree's posts regarding polygraph screening appears to be quite sincerely expressed and would indicate to me that the last place he would want to be is in your shoes, i.e., on the inside looking out. It appears to me that he is not only content with his role of critic-at-large on the outside looking in, but that he would welcome legions of others providing independent oversight (also from vantage point of from the outside looking in) to clean up and likely dismantle the world of polygraph screening. Am I wrong, beech??
You write:
Quote...As you know, the anti-poly folks who post to this site are outsiders looking in. They will always be outsiders looking in. This is one thing they cannot change and it drives them crazy. Anger, frustration, and jealousy is what motivates them, period. They will never have what they think they are entitled to, and they have focused their sights on the group of people who have what they don't and as a result they blame for just about everything...
Quite to the contrary, the utter disdain I note in beech tree's posts regarding polygraph screening appears to be quite sincerely expressed and would indicate to me that the last place he would want to be is in your shoes, i.e., on the inside looking out. It appears to me that he is not only content with his role of critic-at-large on the outside looking in, but that he would welcome legions of others providing independent oversight (also from vantage point of from the outside looking in) to clean up and likely dismantle the world of polygraph screening. Am I wrong, beech??
Posted by Polycop
- Jul 30, 2002, 07:29 PMQuote from: Public_Servant on Jul 30, 2002, 11:03 AM
You are a pseudo-intellectual cloaked in a firm grasp of trivial facts, and sarcasm. Your inability to refrain from hostile attacks on all who disagree with you during what should be intelligent discourse, indicates a low self esteem. However, unlike you, I will not generalize by extending this assessment to your counter-parts. You stand alone on this one.
Later Pot, the kettle has better things to do with his time.
Public Servant,
I don't know about you, but I have decided Beech Trees is just about the most entertaining guy I have ever read. I log into the site every day just to view the latest repetition of ignorance spewing forth from his keyboard. He makes me smile, he truly does...
As you know, the anti-poly folks who post to this site are outsiders looking in. They will always be outsiders looking in. This is one thing they cannot change and it drives them crazy. Anger, frustration, and jealousy is what motivates them, period. They will never have what they think they are entitled to, and they have focussed their sights on the group of people who have what they don't and as a result they blame for just about everything.
I just feel really sorry for the innocents they take with them and I truly hope their damage continues to be limited. Guys like BeechTrees are a lost cause and I do not know if I would continue to feed their delusions....
Polycop...
Posted by beech trees
- Jul 30, 2002, 02:23 PMQuote from: Public_Servant on Jul 30, 2002, 11:03 AMVery successful I'd say. However, you are the champ at trivia. While I am more versed in our nations history than you will ever know, you are correct I am not familiar with every single battle flag.
Glad I could answer your questions about the famous Gadsden Flag then. The fact that those questions were couched in a sly affront at my patriotism rather color your insults later on in this post. If you don't like terse, tell-it-like-it-is replies, perhaps you should do a bit of reflection on your own writing style. In addition, in the future I hope you won't be surprised when, after insulting someone's knowledge of American history and their patriotism, you are met with a certain amount of tight-lipped invective in the response.
QuoteI'd say, thanks to Beech Trees, the conversation here has regressed to name calling. I'd say this thread has run its course. If you have something constructive to discuss, I may converse with you again in another thread.
I don't recall engaging in name calling in any of my posts. I do recall pointing out your ad hominem arguments and gratuitous assertions. I do recall describing the pseudo-science of polygraphy (and by necessity then, polygraphers in general) as 'hucksterism' and 'hucksters'. I do recall your compatriots comparing this website and George Maschke to neo-Nazi racist skinhead hate groups. So, lie about the nature of this discussion all you wish, and fall back on your tried-and-true method of misrepresenting, finger-pointing, and just plain whining-- the posts are here for all to see and make their own conclusions. At the end of the day, the facts remain the same:
1. You lie to polygraph examinees, and in return expect blind obeisance and faith in the process and your ability to divine truth from falsehood based on a brief interview, and on-the-spot creation of questions, and the scratchings from a polygraph. (Except of course in those cases where one has the misfortune of having a polygrapher administer the test 'wrong', the polygrapher chooses the wrong 'comparison questions', the polygrapher fails to establish 'rapport', or if you the potential examinee fail to trust, or are too intellectual or too introspective, too passionate, too well-educated, or most incredibly, simply built physically 'wrong' or just plain mentally 'unsuitable').... ad infinitum
2. You have failed to prove your gratuitous assertions that you can and have caught examinees using countermeasures.
3. In lieu of (2), you have failed to accept Dr. Richardson's countermeasures challenge.
4. You vacillate between a. exhorting potential polygraph examinees *not* to use countermeasures because you can catch them doing so and b. blaming George for threatening national security and the sanctity of ongoing criminal investigations because--why? When arguing from this latter viewpoint you validate the notion that countermeasures DO work and you are unable to detect them. You've left more than one person scratching their head with this little dichotomy.
QuoteWith your techniques, you'll never convince anyone.
Oh, ok
QuoteYou are a pseudo-intellectual cloaked in a firm grasp of trivial facts, and sarcasm. Your inability to refrain from hostile attacks on all who disagree with you during what should be intelligent discourse, indicates a low self esteem. However, unlike you, I will not generalize by extending this assessment to your counter-parts. You stand alone on this one.
Ironic and slightly hypocritical of you when you asked me about the nature and origins of the flag seen in my posts. Rather thankless as well. In the future, I will remember that you use replies to off-topic questions as ammunition to insult the poster.
And, to reiterate, I have repeatedly tried to engage in you in intelligent discourse, asking you to back up your gratuitous assertions here. I should have known when, in your very first post, you wrote:
QuoteSorry, I'm not going to get in to validity or accuracy here.
Posted by Public Servant
- Jul 30, 2002, 11:03 AMQuoteI hadn't really thought about trying to 'portray intellect' here
Quote
Very successful I'd say. However, you are the champ at trivia. While I am more versed in our nations history than you will ever know, you are correct I am not familiar with every single battle flag.
I'd say, thanks to Beech Trees, the conversation here has regressed to name calling. I'd say this thread has run its course. If you have something constructive to discuss, I may converse with you again in another thread.
QuoteAny hopes I have with regard to contributing here surround the abolishment of polygraphy as it is currently used by our local, state, and federal government agencies
Quote
With your techniques, you'll never convince anyone.
And if you believe it is not ad hominem to call someone names based on generalizations, or a person's beliefs, than you will forgive this assessment:
You are a pseudo-intellectual cloaked in a firm grasp of trivial facts, and sarcasm. Your inability to refrain from hostile attacks on all who disagree with you during what should be intelligent discourse, indicates a low self esteem. However, unlike you, I will not generalize by extending this assessment to your counter-parts. You stand alone on this one.
Later Pot, the kettle has better things to do with his time.
Posted by beech trees
- Jul 29, 2002, 03:15 PMQuote from: Public_Servant on Jul 29, 2002, 11:46 AM
Ah, so finally I did get the insulting attack I was trying to evoke! Perhaps I do not control your BP, but I obviously can push the right buttons. At least when it comes to historical trivia, you can come up with a little substance -- but then when given the opportunity, you return with an attack on the person, not his argument.
Rejoice in your hollow victory, servant of The People. I knew what you did and why you did it, thus any 'button pushing' was fruitless and really transparent-- which is why (as I have already pointed out) I chose to answer your question as to the legitimacy of the Gadsden Flag seen in my posts.
You had no 'argument' with regard to the Gadsden Flad, only a misguided notion that it would somehow be offensive to those with a 'patriotic soul'. If ignorance of our nation's rich history and the importance of the Gadsden Flag can be characterized as an 'argument' on your part, then certainly it can be further characterized as a stupid, uneducated one by me.
Posted by beech trees
- Jul 29, 2002, 01:08 PMQuote from: Public_Servant on Jul 29, 2002, 08:39 AMWhen you are done with your name calling and character attacking, I suggest you go back to the beginning of this thread and read the first few posts between myself and George. When I said that persons of the anti-poly orientation on this site often resort to ad hominem argument, I should have just cited you.
You really don't have a clue what an ad hominem argument is, do you? Even after definitions and links about ad hominem arguments were posted you continue to make this meritless attack on me?
Translated from Latin to English, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person."
An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Thus, I post the assertion that polygraphy is a pseudo-scientific fraud with no basis in science, and is worthless as a screening tool as it is wholey lacking in validity-- I back up my assertion by pointing to the *lack* of evidence to the contrary, in this case the total absence of peer-reviewed scientific literature showing that polygraphy is any more accurate than chance (this among many other pieces of evidence bolstering my assertion). I am met with accusations that I am a felon and salacious personal inquiries about my motivations to post my assertion. THAT is an argument ad hominem.
Calling the purveyors of a fraud 'hucksters' is not an ad hominem argument, it is a careful and accurate choice of word that deftly describes polygraphers. A huckster is one who uses aggressive, showy, and sometimes devious methods to promote or sell a product. I cannot think of a more accurate label for polygraphers, especially when considering the pre-test interview and the Stim Test, and any post-test interrogations.
QuoteAnd despite your use of "fifty cent words," your hostile tone detracts from any sense of intellect you may hope to portray.
I hadn't really thought about trying to 'portray intellect' here. Any hopes I have with regard to contributing here surround the abolishment of polygraphy as it is currently used by our local, state, and federal government agencies. You are not the first to mention 'hostility', but in my opinion you are confusing aggressive skepticism with hostility. When I am met with gratuitous assertions and ad hominem arguments, I reply with fervor, pointing out the ludicrousness of your side's tactics-- all to illustrate to the disinterested third parties or readers straddling the fence on the issue of polygraphy just how insane it is to trust people like you-- polygraphers-- with determining any part of the hiring process, the screening process, and in many cases the post-conviction process. Perhaps others in your aquaintance would meet the accusation of being a felon meekly and with little argument-- but not I. Perhaps others would cave when met with bluff and bluster about detecting countermeasures. Perhaps others would sit back and accept the inflammatory, worthless accusations from your side that George and the anti-polygraph movement are somehow akin to racist, neo-Nazi hate groups or that this board is a clearinghouse of information for pedophiles and other sex-offenders. Not me.
As an aside I do have to make the observation that I had no idea that members of the law enforcement community had such delicate feelings.
QuoteIn your attack on my last post regarding the CPT JONES scenario, you claimed that my critique showed polygraphers (and it seemed you specified the two posting on this thread) were snake oil salesmen. Meanwhile, what I cited were the possible issues which may have adversely affected the outcome of the examination.
And then I pointed out the absurdity that those cited externalizations should have any bearing on a scientifically grounded examination. It is also important to note that should an examinee cite any of those as reasons to question the validity of his or her impending polygraph he would in almost every instance be met with suspicion and accusations of guilt from the polygrapher. Can you imagine what a polygrapher would do or say if, as the bp cuff is about to be applied, the examinee said, "I'm sorry, I'm stopping the exam because I don't feel this test will yield a valid result owing to the fact that you the polygrapher have failed to establish a suitable rapport with me the examinee"?
If it is acceptable for YOU to make the assertion that failure to establish rapport will affect the validity of the test, then why is it not acceptable for the examinee to make the exact same claim?
I'll address your specious 'polygraphy is like a medical biopsy' simile in another post. Thus far polygraphy is like a metal detector, like a counseling session, and now like a medical biopsy. Sure it is.
Posted by Public Servant
- Jul 29, 2002, 11:46 AMAh, so finally I did get the insulting attack I was trying to evoke! Perhaps I do not control your BP, but I obviously can push the right buttons. At least when it comes to historical trivia, you can come up with a little substance -- but then when given the opportunity, you return with an attack on the person, not his argument.
Posted by beech trees
- Jul 29, 2002, 10:51 AMQuote from: Public_Servant on Jul 28, 2002, 10:18 AM
Beech Trees,
Your choice of icon for your posts was obviously well researched and I assume has some personal meaning to you (either by association with the person, state, or organization). I consider myself somewhat of a history buff, and while I have seen many versions of the "Don't tread on me" banner, I had never seen this color scheme. I was expecting another scathing response but you disappointed me.
Sorry, I'm just now reading this part of your response. You were no doubt expecting a scathing response because your prior inquiry about the Gadsden Flag insinuated--what? Cowardice or unpatriotic impropriety on my part, because the field for the Gadsden Flag is yellow? You wrote:
QuoteI know this will raise your BP, and it's off topic, but... why is your flag yellow?... It's almost offensive to my patriotic soul.
Since your innuendo and smarmy attempt to attack my patriotism was argued from a point of total stupidity and lack of education on the subject, you received a pass, not a rebuke. Contrary to your assertion that such a question would raise my blood pressure, it merely reaffirmed for me and for other readers where your camp resides, and who guards it.
You of all people should know it is I, not you, who controls my blood pressure, as well as three other channels of physiological responses.
Posted by Public Servant
- Jul 29, 2002, 09:27 AMMark,
I'm glad we can find some common ground -- even if it is the slightest isthmus. This is vital for constructive discussion.
Most of my examinees endure a thorough investigation as well. However, by the time they get to me it is coming to a close, and this is their opportunity to bring it to an end, one way or another. And in my opinion, this is how it should be.
I also eagerly await the initiation of discussion on specific issue testing by Drew in response to my earlier post. I think we will ultimately find more agreement on the usefulness in this application and will possibly agree that validity / reliability is much greater than mere chance. Hopefully, some other persons with knowledge and expertise in this area will contribute as well. I am the first to admit I am challenged in the area of citing and evaluating research, both by circumstance and education.
I'll save further comment for the next thread on this topic.
I'm glad we can find some common ground -- even if it is the slightest isthmus. This is vital for constructive discussion.
Most of my examinees endure a thorough investigation as well. However, by the time they get to me it is coming to a close, and this is their opportunity to bring it to an end, one way or another. And in my opinion, this is how it should be.
I also eagerly await the initiation of discussion on specific issue testing by Drew in response to my earlier post. I think we will ultimately find more agreement on the usefulness in this application and will possibly agree that validity / reliability is much greater than mere chance. Hopefully, some other persons with knowledge and expertise in this area will contribute as well. I am the first to admit I am challenged in the area of citing and evaluating research, both by circumstance and education.
I'll save further comment for the next thread on this topic.
Posted by Public Servant
- Jul 29, 2002, 09:10 AMDrew,
Just a few quick comments regarding your last post. I don't know if I would use the word malpractice, but I think that all the issues cited, to include those stemming from the examinee, should have been cited and handled by the examiner, for the sake of the examinee. Of course, it's easy for me to play Monday Morning QB.
Careful how you generalize just because this person was considered the elite (never heard of him myself but that's neither here nor there). I have a tendency to shy away from those proclaimed elite -- both persons and organizations. For my money, I'll go with the ordinary Joe slugging it out with no more desire than to do the right thing. These are the ordinary persons doing extraordinary work -- in any field--not the poster boys and girls.
Just a few quick comments regarding your last post. I don't know if I would use the word malpractice, but I think that all the issues cited, to include those stemming from the examinee, should have been cited and handled by the examiner, for the sake of the examinee. Of course, it's easy for me to play Monday Morning QB.
QuoteThe examiner associated with that error is someone touted as a role model not only by his own former agency, but by other agency(s) as well. If he is guilty of any degree of malpractice, then heaven help the rest of the cadre and, more importantly, their associated examinees.
Quote
Careful how you generalize just because this person was considered the elite (never heard of him myself but that's neither here nor there). I have a tendency to shy away from those proclaimed elite -- both persons and organizations. For my money, I'll go with the ordinary Joe slugging it out with no more desire than to do the right thing. These are the ordinary persons doing extraordinary work -- in any field--not the poster boys and girls.
Posted by Public Servant
- Jul 29, 2002, 08:50 AMGeorge,
I will assume then that you accept the apology. I will cite the exerpt utilizing the pseudonym in the future. And without your verification, I can not say for sure whether this was your exam or not. The identity of the author is obviously not important in using the piece for discussion.
I will assume then that you accept the apology. I will cite the exerpt utilizing the pseudonym in the future. And without your verification, I can not say for sure whether this was your exam or not. The identity of the author is obviously not important in using the piece for discussion.
Posted by Public Servant
- Jul 29, 2002, 08:39 AMBeech Trees,
When you are done with your name calling and character attacking, I suggest you go back to the beginning of this thread and read the first few posts between myself and George. When I said that persons of the anti-poly orientation on this site often resort to ad hominem argument, I should have just cited you. Your insistance on continuing to use this technique results in few of either side lending much credence to your posts. And despite your use of "fifty cent words," your hostile tone detracts from any sense of intellect you may hope to portray.
In your attack on my last post regarding the CPT JONES scenario, you claimed that my critique showed polygraphers (and it seemed you specified the two posting on this thread) were snake oil salesmen. Meanwhile, what I cited were the possible issues which may have adversely affected the outcome of the examination. Let's say we were talking about biopsies, and I was a pathologist explaining possible reasons why you were given a false positive result (they happen, you know). I cited error by the physician collecting the sample, the lab techs in applying the science, and some abnormalities of the patient. All of this would be noted in order to ensure we reduce future false diagnoses. Would you then call all persons involved in obtaining and analyzing biopsies, hucksters, based on my assessment? Again see my earlier post about the pitfalls of arguing from the specific to the general.
Oh, and, surely you know that there are limits to access of public records, when it comes to personal privacy, regardless if the investigation is on-going or not. The chances of getting someone who was investigated in a felony investigation (and may likely have legal counsel at this point) to agree to the use of their identity, are as likely as getting you to write a fair minded response to something written by myself or poly cop.
When you are done with your name calling and character attacking, I suggest you go back to the beginning of this thread and read the first few posts between myself and George. When I said that persons of the anti-poly orientation on this site often resort to ad hominem argument, I should have just cited you. Your insistance on continuing to use this technique results in few of either side lending much credence to your posts. And despite your use of "fifty cent words," your hostile tone detracts from any sense of intellect you may hope to portray.
In your attack on my last post regarding the CPT JONES scenario, you claimed that my critique showed polygraphers (and it seemed you specified the two posting on this thread) were snake oil salesmen. Meanwhile, what I cited were the possible issues which may have adversely affected the outcome of the examination. Let's say we were talking about biopsies, and I was a pathologist explaining possible reasons why you were given a false positive result (they happen, you know). I cited error by the physician collecting the sample, the lab techs in applying the science, and some abnormalities of the patient. All of this would be noted in order to ensure we reduce future false diagnoses. Would you then call all persons involved in obtaining and analyzing biopsies, hucksters, based on my assessment? Again see my earlier post about the pitfalls of arguing from the specific to the general.
Oh, and, surely you know that there are limits to access of public records, when it comes to personal privacy, regardless if the investigation is on-going or not. The chances of getting someone who was investigated in a felony investigation (and may likely have legal counsel at this point) to agree to the use of their identity, are as likely as getting you to write a fair minded response to something written by myself or poly cop.
Posted by Mark Mallah
- Jul 29, 2002, 12:31 AMPublic Servant,
You wrote:
I think the above principles you cite are sound and unarguable. I also agree with you that in my case, the cart was put before the horse.
The underlying issue of course is whether CQT polygraphy (either in the screening context or specific issue context) is a valid procedure. If it is, then then the quality controls you cite are important in refining and advancing the procedure for increased accuracy.
If a testing procedure is invalid to begin with (e.g. phrenology), then no amount of quality controls will be enough. I have tried to remove my own personal experience from this judgment (it could, theoretically, be an aberration, an isolated example, and/or caused by poor examiners) Based on my reading of Lykken, Raskin, Honts, and what Drew and George have cited and argued, I believe that polygraph screenings fall into this category of invalid procedure.
As to specific issue exams, I think polygraphy has some value (whereas I believe screenings should be abolished to the ash heap of history, immediately), but I'm not convinced of its validity overall, based on my reading. For my money, I'm anxious to see full fleged focused debate and discussion on just this topic (excluding screenings), and eagerly await Drew's comments and follow up reaction. I am sure you can produce success stories; maybe under the right conditions, with the right examiner, and with full knowledge of the WEIGHT which should be accorded the results, the specific issue exam is a valuable law enforcement tool. The question is whether the procedure has withstood rigorous scientific scrutiny, and from what I have seen so far it has not, though as I say, there are successes (confessions) within this category, and I suspect that it's possible to carve out a domain in which it is very valuable, even if we arrive at the place where we acknowledge it to be more art than science.
My sense is that many, if not most guilty people will react more strongly to the relevant question, though as George has pointed out, that still remains to be proven rigorously. However, I also believe that many innocent people will also react more strongly to the relevant question, and there's no way to tell the difference between the two groups.
I can't add anything to Drew's and George's very articulate points, but for what it is worth, I underwent several polygraphs with 5 different examiners. The only one I "passed" was my FBI applicant screening, but that was later rechacterized as me failing. So I failed every single polygraph I took (one was inconclusive), despite having told the truth. My examiner at FBIHQ was selected because, they told me, he was so experienced and able.
With this history, I thought there must be something physiologically or psychologically wrong with me that was causing me to fail when I told the truth. After I read Lykken, and discovered George and many others, my beliefs about polygraph changed dramatically.
So based on my own personal experience with several examiners, and all the literature I've read, and the discussions here, I have to conclude that it was not the individual examiners in my cases, but something about the method itself.
I realize you are only hearing my side of the story, and appreciate that. I too always want to get the other side(s) and think it's important to do so. But again, for what it is worth, despite lengthy and intense investigation in which I extended my complete cooperation and in which I was, essentially, an open book, none of the accusations leveled against me, and which I was found to be deceptive on the polygraph (drugs and espionage) were ever corroborated in the slightest way. If they had been, I am sure I would have been fired. I was exonerated and resigned, totally on my own initiative, without any prompting or encouragement from the FBI, with a clean record.
Regards...
Mark
You wrote:
QuoteYour case seems to fall along the lines of supporting proper oversight and appropiate utilization...
Those of us within polygraph know that poor exams, poor examiners, and poor utilization bring disredit on polygraph as a whole. We also know that some agencies do a good job at ensuring polygraph is used properly, others do not.
I think the above principles you cite are sound and unarguable. I also agree with you that in my case, the cart was put before the horse.
The underlying issue of course is whether CQT polygraphy (either in the screening context or specific issue context) is a valid procedure. If it is, then then the quality controls you cite are important in refining and advancing the procedure for increased accuracy.
If a testing procedure is invalid to begin with (e.g. phrenology), then no amount of quality controls will be enough. I have tried to remove my own personal experience from this judgment (it could, theoretically, be an aberration, an isolated example, and/or caused by poor examiners) Based on my reading of Lykken, Raskin, Honts, and what Drew and George have cited and argued, I believe that polygraph screenings fall into this category of invalid procedure.
As to specific issue exams, I think polygraphy has some value (whereas I believe screenings should be abolished to the ash heap of history, immediately), but I'm not convinced of its validity overall, based on my reading. For my money, I'm anxious to see full fleged focused debate and discussion on just this topic (excluding screenings), and eagerly await Drew's comments and follow up reaction. I am sure you can produce success stories; maybe under the right conditions, with the right examiner, and with full knowledge of the WEIGHT which should be accorded the results, the specific issue exam is a valuable law enforcement tool. The question is whether the procedure has withstood rigorous scientific scrutiny, and from what I have seen so far it has not, though as I say, there are successes (confessions) within this category, and I suspect that it's possible to carve out a domain in which it is very valuable, even if we arrive at the place where we acknowledge it to be more art than science.
My sense is that many, if not most guilty people will react more strongly to the relevant question, though as George has pointed out, that still remains to be proven rigorously. However, I also believe that many innocent people will also react more strongly to the relevant question, and there's no way to tell the difference between the two groups.
I can't add anything to Drew's and George's very articulate points, but for what it is worth, I underwent several polygraphs with 5 different examiners. The only one I "passed" was my FBI applicant screening, but that was later rechacterized as me failing. So I failed every single polygraph I took (one was inconclusive), despite having told the truth. My examiner at FBIHQ was selected because, they told me, he was so experienced and able.
With this history, I thought there must be something physiologically or psychologically wrong with me that was causing me to fail when I told the truth. After I read Lykken, and discovered George and many others, my beliefs about polygraph changed dramatically.
So based on my own personal experience with several examiners, and all the literature I've read, and the discussions here, I have to conclude that it was not the individual examiners in my cases, but something about the method itself.
I realize you are only hearing my side of the story, and appreciate that. I too always want to get the other side(s) and think it's important to do so. But again, for what it is worth, despite lengthy and intense investigation in which I extended my complete cooperation and in which I was, essentially, an open book, none of the accusations leveled against me, and which I was found to be deceptive on the polygraph (drugs and espionage) were ever corroborated in the slightest way. If they had been, I am sure I would have been fired. I was exonerated and resigned, totally on my own initiative, without any prompting or encouragement from the FBI, with a clean record.
Regards...
Mark
Posted by beech trees
- Jul 28, 2002, 11:44 PMQuote from: Public_Servant on Jul 28, 2002, 10:18 AMFirst of all, as I have said repeatedly, it would obviously be counterproductive for me to inform anyone how I recognize countermeasures (see numerous previous posts on this thread). And you want me to name persons?! Ye who claims he is championing the rights of the downtrodden polygraph examinee, wants me to violate their confidentiality. Violating the confidentiality of an investigation and the privacy of the examinee would be the only threat to my career here.
I guess I've been labouring under the false impression for quite some time that arrests, trials, and convictions are all a matter of public record. Thanks for setting me straight on that one.
No one said you had to violate the sanctity of an ongoing investigation-- but that's an excellent way to weasel out of my challenge that you lend validity to your claims that you can and have repeatedly detected countermeasures such as those recommended and discussed in The Lie Behind The Lie Detector. Should you have been motivated to prove your gratuitous assertions, you could have simply contacted any of the examinees whom you caught using countermeasures and asked permission to post the specifics of their polygraph, you could have urged any of the examinees whom you thought amendable to such a notion to simply stop by here and tell how they were caught, or you could be like George Maschke's polygraph interrogator and simply gossip about the test and the results, as several from the pro-polygraph side have reported has occurred.