- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by Doug Williams
- Jul 03, 2014, 04:20 PMQuote from: pailryder on Jul 03, 2014, 01:50 PMNot to put a damper on your kind wishes, but it would be a true day of celebration if we were celebrating independence from the threat of being tortured and interrogated by polygraph operators. Banning the use of the polygraph would bring true freedom – the freedom of individuals from being subjected to the insidious Orwellian instrument of torture.
Speaking only for myself and not for any other inquisitor, terrorist, or torturer, I would like to wish a happy and safe 4th of July weekend to all.
Posted by pailryder
- Jul 03, 2014, 01:50 PMSpeaking only for myself and not for any other inquisitor, terrorist, or torturer, I would like to wish a happy and safe 4th of July weekend to all.
Posted by Doug Williams
- Jul 01, 2014, 03:58 PMQuickfux - "unethical, incompetent/inept nitwit" is only a partial description of a polygraph operator - I would also add charlatan, fraud, con man, inquisitor, interrogator, and torturer - the only difference between me and others utilizing this insidious Orwellian instrument of torture is that I admitted what I did and have tried for almost 40 years to make restitution. When will you do the same?
Posted by quickfix
- Jul 01, 2014, 03:31 PMQuote from: Doug_Williams on Jul 01, 2014, 01:20 PMI remember when I used to be a polygraph operator/interrogator/inquisitor/terrorist, I would use the prop of the polygraph machine to great advantage during my interrogations.You never were a polygraph examiner. Your behavior below is proof enough:
Quote from: Doug_Williams on Jul 01, 2014, 01:20 PMAfter running a chart, I would tear the paper from the machine and jam it right in their face, a couple of inches away from their nose, and scream at them, "Just look at this shit, you told such a big lie on that on that question that you actually slung ink all over my tie!"I would point at their increased reaction on the cardio tracing and jam my finger into the still wet red ink smearing it around like a blood stain as I traced their "reaction" with my finger.This little drama was very effective in getting a confession.Another advantage of the old analog was that even if there was no reaction to any question, you could twist the little cardio tracing centering knob and make it look like they had a gigantic reaction even when they hadn't!You're actually proud of this behavior? Only an unethical, incompetent/inept nitwit would engage in such behavior. Chart manipulation and physical intimidation of an examinee. Class act.
Posted by Doug Williams
- Jul 01, 2014, 01:20 PMQuote from: Arkhangelsk on Jun 30, 2014, 04:30 PMBack in the early 90's when Computerized Polygraph systems came into practice, they had a powerful effect on examinees. "Oh no, there is no way we are going to get over on a computerized polygraph, we are toast!"
Fast forward 2 decades--now, even 9 years olds are downloading apps on their iphones and tablets, computers have become ubiquitous, and a laptop with a small DAS is unassuming and routine.
However, the analog instrument with the sounds of the pens whipping about and scratching away on the charts is something that appears scientific and intimidating to those who are accustomed to computers.
Most polygraph literature emphasizes the importance of stimulating the examinee--giving confidence to the innocent (psychological set focused on the control questions) while instilling fear into the guilty allowing them to be oriented to the relevants.
So the use of the analog instrument, in itself can stimulate the subject and enhance question discrimination.
Before rebutting this, I would challenge you to experiment and scrutinize the empirical results..
You're right, the old analog instrument is a very intimidating machine - many polygraph operators still use it for that very reason (among others) . It is what most people associate with the "lie detector".
I remember when I used to be a polygraph operator/interrogator/inquisitor/terrorist, I would use the prop of the polygraph machine to great advantage during my interrogations.
After running a chart, I would tear the paper from the machine and jam it right in their face, a couple of inches away from their nose, and scream at them, "Just look at this shit, you told such a big lie on that question that you actually slung ink all over my tie!" I would point at their increased reaction on the cardio tracing and jam my finger into the still wet red ink smearing it around like a blood stain as I traced their "reaction" with my finger. This little drama was very effective in getting a confession.
Another advantage of the old analog was that even if there was no reaction to any question, you could twist the little cardio tracing centering knob and make it look like they had a gigantic reaction even when they hadn't!
Posted by Ex Member
- Jun 30, 2014, 04:30 PMBack in the early 90's when Computerized Polygraph systems came into practice, they had a powerful effect on examinees. "Oh no, there is no way we are going to get over on a computerized polygraph, we are toast!"
Fast forward 2 decades--now, even 9 years olds are downloading apps on their iphones and tablets, computers have become ubiquitous, and a laptop with a small DAS is unassuming and routine.
However, the analog instrument with the sounds of the pens whipping about and scratching away on the charts is something that appears scientific and intimidating to those who are accustomed to computers.
Most polygraph literature emphasizes the importance of stimulating the examinee--giving confidence to the innocent (psychological set focused on the control questions) while instilling fear into the guilty allowing them to be oriented to the relevants.
So the use of the analog instrument, in itself can stimulate the subject and enhance question discrimination.
Before rebutting this, I would challenge you to experiment and scrutinize the empirical results..
Fast forward 2 decades--now, even 9 years olds are downloading apps on their iphones and tablets, computers have become ubiquitous, and a laptop with a small DAS is unassuming and routine.
However, the analog instrument with the sounds of the pens whipping about and scratching away on the charts is something that appears scientific and intimidating to those who are accustomed to computers.
Most polygraph literature emphasizes the importance of stimulating the examinee--giving confidence to the innocent (psychological set focused on the control questions) while instilling fear into the guilty allowing them to be oriented to the relevants.
So the use of the analog instrument, in itself can stimulate the subject and enhance question discrimination.
Before rebutting this, I would challenge you to experiment and scrutinize the empirical results..
Posted by quickfix
- Jun 30, 2014, 03:14 PMNeither can I.
Posted by pailryder
- Jun 30, 2014, 07:35 AMNo, I can't think of any.
Posted by Ex Member
- Jun 30, 2014, 04:15 AMQuote from: Arkhangelsk on Apr 02, 2014, 04:33 PMpailryder wrote on Apr 2nd, 2014 at 8:04pm:
I have not collected a paper chart, of the typedepicted on the home page, in almost twenty years.
This statement is irrelevant; digital and analog polygraph instruments produce the same charts.
Pailryder and/or Quickfix, I have a question to ask you. Can you think of any aspect of the polygraph technique where it would be advantageous to use an analog instrument over a computerized system?
Posted by xenonman
- May 06, 2014, 12:08 AMQuote from: pandagirl001 on Feb 28, 2014, 09:53 AMTwice. I failed it twice. The band that went around my middle was too tight the first time, which prompted me to take really huge breaths. The polygrapher yelled at me. So I started to really try not to take those big breaths, and he yelled at me for using countermeasures. Then I was so flustered from his telling me that I was lying that I started twitching in the chair which apparently looked like MORE countermeasures. Needless to say, I failed that one. He said I was unresolved on everything. They gave me another chance - and I also screwed that one up because I was dreading it so much and of course the band is still too tight. He loosened it once but that did not really help. Then they each grilled me for about two hours about what I was hiding.
FYI: I have done NOTHING wrong. I am a really good kid. I declared minor (5 times) marijuana usage and minor instances of illegal downloading on my form. Everything I reported is true (and I omitted nothing). For what it is worth, the polygraphers seemed to believe me that I wasn't doing it on purpose and that I was telling the truth when I said that I was hiding nothing - but they were still awful to me. I cried a lot in the first one and a little bit in the second one.
I just want to ask everyone - what are my chances that they will still grant my clearance? The rest of my processing has been stellar (to the best of my knowledge).
Also, this is for a job with an intelligence agency. I will be so miserable if I don't get it. I'm extremely qualified and I just feel so cheated that the polygraph is doing me in when it's apparently pseudoscience.
The real determining factor will be how much dirt the investigators will be able to "develop" on you during the BI.
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Apr 16, 2014, 03:00 PMQuote from: 6170706C65000 on Apr 16, 2014, 02:52 PMdoes the bp tell you if you pass or fail at the time of polygraph
If you fail, you'll know it because you'll be accused of deception and interrogated in an attempt to get admissions.
If you pass, you probably won't be directly told that you did, but the absence of a post-test interrogation would be a good indication that you did.
Posted by joe311
- Apr 16, 2014, 02:52 PMdoes the bp tell you if you pass or fail at the time of polygraph
Posted by Ex Member
- Apr 03, 2014, 03:25 PMPailryder, all of those things you mentioned are very cool and really help with your housekeeping and help with your fading eyesight. But, they have not advanced your ability to detect deception.
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Apr 03, 2014, 12:56 PMQuote from: quickfix on Apr 03, 2014, 09:17 AMIt's a prop to you, a valuable diagnostic tool to us. Listening to Doug Williams is both FOOLISH and DANGEROUS.
The fact that federal agents attempted to entrap Doug Williams and created a watch list from the customer records they seized from him suggests otherwise.
Posted by quickfix
- Apr 03, 2014, 09:17 AMIt's a prop to you, a valuable diagnostic tool to us. Listening to Doug Williams is both FOOLISH and DANGEROUS.