- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by Fred F.
- Aug 28, 2001, 11:11 PMQuote from: Pseudo Relevant on Aug 28, 2001, 01:15 PM
We don't "fear" the polygraph. What we do fear is the numbers of people who are going to be wrongly labeled as liars. Being a people of ethics, it is wrong for us to sit back and watch people like you make a living by fraud at the expense of the truthful.
Pseudeo Revelant,
Your quote is heaven sent. If you remove the "fear" factor from the polygraph you relegate it to basically the decision of the person at the key board.
I believe that many of the polygraphers who visit this site don't want to understand that HONEST PEOPLE have been victimized by this pseudo-science. If they read the personal statements of Captain Jones, and Mark Mallah, who had promising careers destroyed by an exam that has never been proven to be as accurate as those who purvey it want you to believe.
These men have INTEGRITY and when their dreams were shattered by a person with 8-10 weeks of "training", chose to fight back and with the help of those of us who have joined in here on this site. We will get the attention of the powers that be that polygraph testing is a FRAUD!
QuoteHey Sparky... tick, tick, tick, goes the clock. Your time is short. Now, go and enjoy the rest of your day!
This is why the polygraphers are very defensive of their jobs.....They have a new enemy, the sister pseudo-science called CVSA....the polygraph industry has jumped all over the "accuracy" of the CVSA in an attempt to keep their own profession untouched.....like you said......
Tick....Tick....Tick
Fred F.
Posted by Pseudo Relevant
- Aug 28, 2001, 01:15 PMQuote from: Anudder Examiner on Aug 24, 2001, 04:57 PM"Chartgazing"? And you went to an accredited polygraph school? Is that what your instructors called it? I suppose you never had to put money in the "jar" when you called it a "machine", right? I wonder, oh great intrepreter, you gazer of the charts, can you read my thoughts right now? What a load...
Ray, I think we met at a "chartgazing" seminar a few years back.
QuoteCitizens? What are you... leader of the storm troopers? Ohhhh, I get it... you're the American Gestapo. You only wish the citizens will stay "unarmed" because if enough become educated to your sorcery, you're toast and you know it. Ask Renzelman...
I don't feel the need to have a battle of wits with unarmed citizens.
QuoteAs you can see, most of their commentary is ignorant and ill advised. I also find it also self defeating. If one reads the cr*p on this site, then enters into a test environment, uses what they have "learned", then returns to this site afterwards and complains of the problems in their test because of their own efforts, then they, like the good people of New York who voted Hillary in, "DESERVE IT!"Kinda like the Jews in Germany during WW II. They deserved what they got too, didn't they? I wonder how loud you'll squeal when the people take action and remove you from your pedestal. Oh, we'll treat you according to your education level. You'll qualify for a burger flipping job at McDonalds, if they lower their standards far enough.
QuoteIf it doesn't work then you have nothing to fear...
We don't "fear" the polygraph. What we do fear is the numbers of people who are going to be wrongly labeled as liars. Being a people of ethics, it is wrong for us to sit back and watch people like you make a living by fraud at the expense of the truthful.
Quote
P.S. To all, good examiners read this garbage too, so be careful what you decide to use in a polygraph suite or it may come back to bite you!
Hey Sparky... You should heed your own warning. We know you can be sued. That's why you pay a bond to hold your license every year. Your release form is not worth the paper it's written on. Get your wallets out those who call yourselves polygraphists... your money is going to change hands, your to ours... tick, tick, tick, goes the clock. Your time is short. Now, go and enjoy the rest of your day!
Posted by G Scalabr
- Aug 25, 2001, 08:14 AMAnnuder Examiner,
Like AMM, I, too, appreciate it when polygraph examiners post their points of view on this forum.
We made it very clear on page 71 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector that polygraphers would be reading the book. I thank you for reminding everyone.
Nonetheless, I fail to see how knowing about the way in which sophisticated polygraph countermeasures are performed equates to a demonstrated ability to detect them. I encourage any of the examiners reading this forum to post cites for any peer reviewed studies you know of where polygraph examiners were shown to possess the ability to detect sophisticated polygraph countermeasures (like those described on this site) at better than chance levels. I know of only one such study, and it showed that experienced polygraph examiners were not able to detect sophisticated countermeasures at better than random levels.
Furthermore, you gentlemen may wish to explain how physiological changes caused by muscle contraction, pain, or stressful thoughts differ from those you equate with deception when recorded by the polygraph instrument. Once again, any cites (polygraph journals, etc) would be greatly appreciated.
I'm not following your logic here. The polygraph "test" has not been shown by peer-reviewed scientific research to reliably distinguish truth from deception. In other words, it doesn't work. If one submits to a polygraph and tells the truth, there is a still a substantial chance that this individual will fail, be denied employment, and have absolutely no recourse. More simply put, even if you are truthful, you have something to fear. On the other hand, simple techniques exist that, if properly performed, will ensure that a truthful individual will "pass" the test and escape with his reputation unscathed. I don't understand why you find it amazing that we suggest that truthful people may wish to manipulate the outcome of a "test" with odds worse than Russian Roulette. One can either "roll the dice" or be assured of "passing."
And, as far as "cheating" and "rationalizing behavior in support of one's own interests," I am curious as to how you justify the deception and trickery by the polygrapher on which these "tests" depend. I may be misinterpreting you here—I apologize in advance if I am—but it appears that you are insinuating that employing countermeasures when truthful is unethical behavior, yet your chosen profession involves a procedure that relies on providing the person being "tested" with false and misleading explanations. Perhaps you can explain how you rationalize this dichotomy.
Like AMM, I, too, appreciate it when polygraph examiners post their points of view on this forum.
QuoteTo all, good examiners read this garbage too, so be careful what you decide to use in a polygraph suite or it may come back to bite you!
We made it very clear on page 71 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector that polygraphers would be reading the book. I thank you for reminding everyone.
Nonetheless, I fail to see how knowing about the way in which sophisticated polygraph countermeasures are performed equates to a demonstrated ability to detect them. I encourage any of the examiners reading this forum to post cites for any peer reviewed studies you know of where polygraph examiners were shown to possess the ability to detect sophisticated polygraph countermeasures (like those described on this site) at better than chance levels. I know of only one such study, and it showed that experienced polygraph examiners were not able to detect sophisticated countermeasures at better than random levels.
Furthermore, you gentlemen may wish to explain how physiological changes caused by muscle contraction, pain, or stressful thoughts differ from those you equate with deception when recorded by the polygraph instrument. Once again, any cites (polygraph journals, etc) would be greatly appreciated.
QuoteI always found it amazing that the same people who say it doesn't work, find it necessary to try and CHEAT. If it doesn't work then you have nothing to fear...One can always rationalize their behavior in their support of their own interests.
I'm not following your logic here. The polygraph "test" has not been shown by peer-reviewed scientific research to reliably distinguish truth from deception. In other words, it doesn't work. If one submits to a polygraph and tells the truth, there is a still a substantial chance that this individual will fail, be denied employment, and have absolutely no recourse. More simply put, even if you are truthful, you have something to fear. On the other hand, simple techniques exist that, if properly performed, will ensure that a truthful individual will "pass" the test and escape with his reputation unscathed. I don't understand why you find it amazing that we suggest that truthful people may wish to manipulate the outcome of a "test" with odds worse than Russian Roulette. One can either "roll the dice" or be assured of "passing."
And, as far as "cheating" and "rationalizing behavior in support of one's own interests," I am curious as to how you justify the deception and trickery by the polygrapher on which these "tests" depend. I may be misinterpreting you here—I apologize in advance if I am—but it appears that you are insinuating that employing countermeasures when truthful is unethical behavior, yet your chosen profession involves a procedure that relies on providing the person being "tested" with false and misleading explanations. Perhaps you can explain how you rationalize this dichotomy.
Posted by AMM
- Aug 24, 2001, 06:26 PMAnnuder Examiner:
Please indulge us and post the degree(s) you hold and where you work. You have impugned not only the integrity of those who use this website, but their intelligence as well. As such, I think it is entirely fair to inquire about your formal education. Since you have nothing to hide from, you should feel free to provide this information.
Ad hominem attacks are not productive and I won't engage in them. I think having a polygrapher participating in this forum is important and I encourage you to continue to post your views. You should be attacking the arguments made here, not the authors.
What I see missing in your post, as well as Mr. Latimer's, is evidence supporting the polygraph as scientifically valid. Can you provide ANY peer-reviewed scientific studies that would support the accuracy claims made by your community? Peer-review is essential in determining whether a study is valid or merely fiction. Anyone can publish a study supporting a particular claim, but the real proof is whether or not that study can stand up to the scrutiny of other disinterested professionals. The research I've reviewed does not support your community's claims. I would urge you to review the Federation of American Scientists study on polygraphy. It is available at "www.fas.org"
I have posted to other threads on this website and enjoyed reading the posts of LykenD, a retired police polygrapher. He has not found it necessary to attack the characters of those who post here and I applaud him for it. I also applaud him for acknowledging that polygraphy has an error rate, and given that error rate, he probably accused innocent applicants of lying and passed those that were. His honesty is to be commended.
You mentioned in your post that: "One can always rationalize their behavior in their support of their own interests." I suppose that could be said about the polygraph community as well. I find it only natural for you to be upset your chosen profession is called into question. However, you haven't engaged in any constructive argument here. If you should chose to make another post, please avoid using the oft-cited argument of "utility." (Let's try to keep this science-based, rather than emotion-based.) As I mentioned to LykenD, the argument for using rubber hoses on applicants to stimulate admissions could easily be made based on utility.
R,
AMM
Please indulge us and post the degree(s) you hold and where you work. You have impugned not only the integrity of those who use this website, but their intelligence as well. As such, I think it is entirely fair to inquire about your formal education. Since you have nothing to hide from, you should feel free to provide this information.
Ad hominem attacks are not productive and I won't engage in them. I think having a polygrapher participating in this forum is important and I encourage you to continue to post your views. You should be attacking the arguments made here, not the authors.
What I see missing in your post, as well as Mr. Latimer's, is evidence supporting the polygraph as scientifically valid. Can you provide ANY peer-reviewed scientific studies that would support the accuracy claims made by your community? Peer-review is essential in determining whether a study is valid or merely fiction. Anyone can publish a study supporting a particular claim, but the real proof is whether or not that study can stand up to the scrutiny of other disinterested professionals. The research I've reviewed does not support your community's claims. I would urge you to review the Federation of American Scientists study on polygraphy. It is available at "www.fas.org"
I have posted to other threads on this website and enjoyed reading the posts of LykenD, a retired police polygrapher. He has not found it necessary to attack the characters of those who post here and I applaud him for it. I also applaud him for acknowledging that polygraphy has an error rate, and given that error rate, he probably accused innocent applicants of lying and passed those that were. His honesty is to be commended.
You mentioned in your post that: "One can always rationalize their behavior in their support of their own interests." I suppose that could be said about the polygraph community as well. I find it only natural for you to be upset your chosen profession is called into question. However, you haven't engaged in any constructive argument here. If you should chose to make another post, please avoid using the oft-cited argument of "utility." (Let's try to keep this science-based, rather than emotion-based.) As I mentioned to LykenD, the argument for using rubber hoses on applicants to stimulate admissions could easily be made based on utility.
R,
AMM
Posted by Wannabe
- Aug 24, 2001, 05:54 PMgood examiners? LMAO is that like saying, I've got a really "nice pimple"? lol
sorry I don't mean to throw stones.
I guess it's because I am against this junk science so it must be I have bad genes and can't control myself, I must be scum if I don't think the poly is a miracle truth machine.....
bad me bad me.....
sorry I don't mean to throw stones.
I guess it's because I am against this junk science so it must be I have bad genes and can't control myself, I must be scum if I don't think the poly is a miracle truth machine.....
bad me bad me.....
Posted by Anudder Examiner
- Aug 24, 2001, 04:57 PMRay, I think we met at a "chartgazing" seminar a few years back. Funny, you didn't seem gullible or even given to respond to the (I'm calling-you-out) name calling attitude of those uninformed people who are disgruntled with our profession. I have not commented (until now) because I don't feel the need to have a battle of wits with unarmed citizens.
As you can see, most of their commentary is ignorant and ill advised. I also find it also self defeating. If one reads the cr*p on this site, then enters into a test environment, uses what they have "learned", then returns to this site afterwards and complains of the problems in their test because of their own efforts, then they, like the good people of New York who voted Hillary in, "DESERVE IT!" I always found it amazing that the same people who say it doesn't work, find it necessary to try and CHEAT. If it doesn't work then you have nothing to fear...One can always rationalize their behavior in their support of their own interests.
P.S. To all, good examiners read this garbage too, so be careful what you decide to use in a polygraph suite or it may come back to bite you!
As you can see, most of their commentary is ignorant and ill advised. I also find it also self defeating. If one reads the cr*p on this site, then enters into a test environment, uses what they have "learned", then returns to this site afterwards and complains of the problems in their test because of their own efforts, then they, like the good people of New York who voted Hillary in, "DESERVE IT!" I always found it amazing that the same people who say it doesn't work, find it necessary to try and CHEAT. If it doesn't work then you have nothing to fear...One can always rationalize their behavior in their support of their own interests.
P.S. To all, good examiners read this garbage too, so be careful what you decide to use in a polygraph suite or it may come back to bite you!
Posted by Wannabe
- Aug 08, 2001, 08:02 PMQuote from: G.W. on Aug 08, 2001, 06:49 PM
If one has made the decision to employ countermeasures, and a polygrapher asks the subject to alter his breathing, as in the above referenced polygraph test, what is the prevailing wisdom on how to respond? Should you stick to your guns and maintain a controled breathing? Or would this piss off the polygrapher and give him/her justification for deeming the test inconclusive?
Since when does a polygrapher require "justification" to deem a "test" inconclusive?
Posted by G.W.
- Aug 08, 2001, 06:49 PMIf one has made the decision to employ countermeasures, and a polygrapher asks the subject to alter his breathing, as in the above referenced polygraph test, what is the prevailing wisdom on how to respond? Should you stick to your guns and maintain a controled breathing? Or would this piss off the polygrapher and give him/her justification for deeming the test inconclusive?
Posted by koRnchic311
- Aug 08, 2001, 02:30 AM
[glb]TEXT[/glb]KILL THE HEADLESS CHICKEN!!!!!!!
Posted by Anonymous
- Apr 15, 2001, 10:18 AMFalse +, your conversational vehicle (no pun intended) of a car seat and accompanying seat belt is an excellent focus for the comparisons you draw. But the comparisons go far beyond the fact that there frequently exists discomfort with the polygraph (cardio cuff) and that, as Mr. Latimer has pointed out and you have concurred with, that, as opposed to a car seat, one is not belted/bolted into a polygraph chair. Mr. Latimer's claim to simply correct exaggerations is QUITE DISINGENOUS though, if he does not fully illuminate the truth about the polygraph chair and the environment in which it is used. Although as opposed to a car seat, a polygraph chair does not contain a chair restraint, the automobile passenger can remove his own restraint and disembark from the vehicle on his own accord. With the exception of the electrodermal plates, a polygraph examinee cannot readily remove the polygraph attachments (cardio cuff/pneumo tubes) and his therefore is confined to the nearby surroundings of the polygraph chair within the time frame and pleasure of the polygraph examiner. Furthermore, for all practical purposes the polygraph exam (in-test phase) does not end until the polygraph examiner declares it to have ended. I suppose minor children directed by parents and kidnap victims held at gun point by kidnappers can be forced to remain in a car, but I hope Mr. Latimer understands that under normal circumstances there is no such compulsion or duress for competent and mature adults to remain in a car beyond their desire. But the true benefit of your analogy, False +, comes after the completion of the in-test phase of polygraph, i.e., during the interrogation of an examinee found to be deceptive. Polygraph examiners as they are taught, sometimes while the examinee is still in the chair with polygraph attachments in place, will invade the personal body space of the examinee, i.e., they will go "knee to knee" "in your face" with the examinee in an effort to effort to gain control of the ensuing conversation and elicit the desired confession, even with the knowledge that their deceptive polygraph tracing may simply be a false positive result (They are told you (they) have to "believe the charts." (in fact, they are taught you (they) must be a true believer to be successful). Perhaps the biggest benefit of this (our) present conversation is that this sort of thing can be exposed. Every examinee when confronted with this last set of circumstances should (1) demand to freed from polygraph chair and polygraph attachments if a discussion about polygraph results and conclusions is to take place and (2) should very politely but very forcefully let the polygraph examiner know that the interview has reached its conclusion if the examiner is in any way shape or form accusing the examinee of deception based on the pseudo-diagnostic charade (polygraph exam) which would have just preceded their discussion/interrogation.
Posted by False +
- Apr 15, 2001, 02:22 AMThe point about being strapped down has been covered before here.
I think Ray Latimer's point on the strapping issue is that a "subject" is not attached to the chair like a driver by a seatbelt in a car. Even so, a seatbelt is actually very comfortable. On the other hand, a blood pressure cuff attached to the arm tightly is painful, as indicated by the poster who first used the term "strapped".
Now that we've gone to great lengths to establish that the subject is not actually bolted to the chair, I'd like to note that polygraphy still has not been proven to sort lie from truth. Oh but wait, would it work if the pneumatic tubes went all the way around the chair? Or if the chair had seatbelts?
I think Ray Latimer's point on the strapping issue is that a "subject" is not attached to the chair like a driver by a seatbelt in a car. Even so, a seatbelt is actually very comfortable. On the other hand, a blood pressure cuff attached to the arm tightly is painful, as indicated by the poster who first used the term "strapped".
Now that we've gone to great lengths to establish that the subject is not actually bolted to the chair, I'd like to note that polygraphy still has not been proven to sort lie from truth. Oh but wait, would it work if the pneumatic tubes went all the way around the chair? Or if the chair had seatbelts?
Posted by Ray Latimer
- Apr 14, 2001, 04:37 PMXXX
I am sorry that you find my reply to be childish. The purpose of my reply is not to be didactic or condescending, but rather to call attention to the gross exaggeration that is being perpetuated. one loses a certain amount of creditability when one tends to exaggerate. I am shocked that your reply is so acrimonious and shame on you for the language tsk! tsk! Ray L.
I am sorry that you find my reply to be childish. The purpose of my reply is not to be didactic or condescending, but rather to call attention to the gross exaggeration that is being perpetuated. one loses a certain amount of creditability when one tends to exaggerate. I am shocked that your reply is so acrimonious and shame on you for the language tsk! tsk! Ray L.
Posted by XXX (Guest)
- Apr 13, 2001, 06:22 AMRay,
Is that all you can bring to the discussion? We're saying your chosen profession is a bunch of BS and all you can come back with is a childish arguement about being "strapped down"? I've seen this bitching before about being strapped down. Who cares what people call it? Why don't we start a thread about which pronunciation is correct tomato or tomAto?
Is that all you can bring to the discussion? We're saying your chosen profession is a bunch of BS and all you can come back with is a childish arguement about being "strapped down"? I've seen this bitching before about being strapped down. Who cares what people call it? Why don't we start a thread about which pronunciation is correct tomato or tomAto?
Posted by Fred F.
- Apr 12, 2001, 11:17 PMQuote from: Ray Latimer on Apr 12, 2001, 04:23 PM
Could it be that this, like so much of the anti-polygraph rhetoric is being said to put fear into those who are to be tested. I cannot blame anyone for being anti-polygraph if that was the method used, on the other hand, if this was not the case why do certain people insist on perpetuating this lie? nuff said! Ray L.
Ray,
Since you are a "purveyor of the art" you know that regardless of what the charts say(or don't say) you tighten the pneumo tubes and inform the candidate that this is to insure that the readings are correct.
This is akin to being "strapped down". I suppose when you attended your "Poly U" they showed you that tightening the pneumo tubes will constrict normal chest expansion and change the way the charts read(or don't read).
The examiner instills the fear into those who are uneducated about your "art" when they give the usual pre-interview speech about the "accuracy and dependability of the "test". You must wonder why the Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department did 4800 polys last year, yet only 1600 people got hired. That equates to 3200 or so "inconclusive" or "deceptive" polys. Nuff said.
Posted by Ray Latimer
- Apr 12, 2001, 11:16 PMHi! Polyfraud,
Polyfraud, I am not nitpicking. I am sure that a "college educated" person should be able to discern the difference between being "strapped down" and having a monitoring device applied. Why can't you say it like it is. By the way most of the polygraphists that I know are "college educated", some of them have graduate degrees and there are a few with Ph.ds, Law degrees and even A couple of Ministers.
Ray L.
Polyfraud, I am not nitpicking. I am sure that a "college educated" person should be able to discern the difference between being "strapped down" and having a monitoring device applied. Why can't you say it like it is. By the way most of the polygraphists that I know are "college educated", some of them have graduate degrees and there are a few with Ph.ds, Law degrees and even A couple of Ministers.
Ray L.