- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by Fair Chance
- Nov 03, 2002, 02:41 PMQuote from: propolyGrl on Nov 03, 2002, 03:47 AM
Wrong again. Before speaking first know what you are talking about. I guess I cant blame you. Your delusional like most people on here.
"Wrong again." About what: refer to a quote or at least let the rest of the readers know what you are talking about.
"Before speaking first know what you are talking about." What are we talking about (who, what, where, when)?
"I guess I cant blame you." Who is "you" and what is to be blamed about?
"Your delusional like most people on here." Trying to get the facts out of this posting would make any person trying to read it "delusional."
PropolyGirl, I have been corrected by Polyman2002 for my grammatical mistakes. I thought that the discussion was at least going in a positive direction compared to your unsupported conclusions. This website is uncensored and your ideas are welcome.
You have to present them first in a clear and coherent manner. These types of rantings do not reinforce to any reader that you are intelligent and your arguments are based on sound facts or logical opinions.
Posted by polylawguy
- Nov 03, 2002, 03:49 AMCan't you do any better than that George. You are getting very boring. At least change it up a bit
Posted by propolyGrl
- Nov 03, 2002, 03:47 AMWrong again. Before speaking first know what you are talking about. I guess I cant blame you. Your delusional like most people on here.
Posted by Skeptic
- Oct 31, 2002, 07:37 PMQuote from: Fair Chance on Oct 31, 2002, 07:17 PM
"nolie4u, skeptic7, and skeptic 3":
All one person possibly? I have heard of people having split personalities but this is getting ridiculous!
Is this the same way that polygraph exams go? The examiner has the answers before the test even begins? George M. and the cult must be getting your goat or you would not go to these extremes.
Wow -- I thought I was the only Skeptic around here.
Well, you know what they say about imitation and flattery
Skeptic
Posted by Fair Chance
- Oct 31, 2002, 07:17 PM"nolie4u, skeptic7, and skeptic 3":
All one person possibly? I have heard of people having split personalities but this is getting ridiculous!
Is this the same way that polygraph exams go? The examiner has the answers before the test even begins? George M. and the cult must be getting your goat or you would not go to these extremes.
All one person possibly? I have heard of people having split personalities but this is getting ridiculous!
Is this the same way that polygraph exams go? The examiner has the answers before the test even begins? George M. and the cult must be getting your goat or you would not go to these extremes.
Posted by Skeptic3
- Oct 31, 2002, 07:04 PMand if you did ask to see your charts what would you have seen?? The reason for your deception is that you probably read the lame advice offered on this site and attepted to try it.
I am curious as to what dept and when you were tested . If that indeed really even occured.
I am curious as to what dept and when you were tested . If that indeed really even occured.
Posted by skeptic7
- Oct 31, 2002, 06:58 PMBe Real. This looks similar to a few other posts that I've seen on here. Are there more than three or four people posting on here.
Posted by nolie4u
- Oct 31, 2002, 05:26 PMI spent 180 days in jail and took 2 polygraphs to help convince the DA that I was innocent, but according to the examiner I failed his tests. After the 180 days the alleged victims recanted and admitted to making false statements that I messed with them at the same time while they were sleeping. They said this; I found out later, to get even with me and get there boyfriends back after a night of partying. Keep in mind that I weighed not much more than these girls and the police were notified approximately 20 days later from one of the girl's mothers (both were over 18 BTW). Anyways I was held without bail because I was in violation of my probation resulting from this incident. The girls stated that I'd allegedly taken advantage of them while they slept after inviting me over to their place from a party. The polygraph examiner asked me questions related to their statements, which stated that I just messed around with them while they were asleep, but stated that I didn't have sex with them. I said, why don't you ask me if I had sex with them? The examiner was like why? I said because I had sex with one of the girls and she's making it all up. The examiner didn't know what to say. When he reset the questions the polygraph showed that I didn't lie on any of his initial questions concerning their statements and that I was innocent in that respect but the sex question which I had answered, "yes I had sex with one of the girls", he said showed up as a lie and that I had not had sex with one of the girls which created a paradox on the test. The examiner was really confused now and didn't know what to do. I then took another test months later and just stuck to the original questions this time but he said I was lying about them also this time. (Originally, I had passed these questions the first time.) I told him that makes no sense and that they are the ones that are not telling the truth. After all that the DA found out that they were making it up after all and I was released.
My first "court appointed" attorney sent me to this guy for the 2 tests. It wasn't soon after that I fired him and got a real attorney and the charges were dropped and I was freed. When I hired the new attorney and he said that the examiner was a retired cop and is famous for trying to fry people. He also said that just about everyone he examines according to the examiner is lying. Anyways my situation proves that polygraphs are not reliable and barbaric. And it took real investigative work to find out the truth and not a machine that measures nervousness.
My first "court appointed" attorney sent me to this guy for the 2 tests. It wasn't soon after that I fired him and got a real attorney and the charges were dropped and I was freed. When I hired the new attorney and he said that the examiner was a retired cop and is famous for trying to fry people. He also said that just about everyone he examines according to the examiner is lying. Anyways my situation proves that polygraphs are not reliable and barbaric. And it took real investigative work to find out the truth and not a machine that measures nervousness.
Posted by Seeker
- Oct 30, 2002, 09:07 AMSkeptic:
Well made point. One of my brothers teaches computer programming. One of the basic programming sequences is the If...then...else. It has more than once raised an eyebrow with the LE John Wayne's who's free time is spent reading the often erroneous material out there about deception.
I have found several times in here instances of people being judged deceptive because the word "if" was in their post somewhere.
I believe the notion that one is deceptive because the use of one word is injudicious and negligent.
Seeker
Well made point. One of my brothers teaches computer programming. One of the basic programming sequences is the If...then...else. It has more than once raised an eyebrow with the LE John Wayne's who's free time is spent reading the often erroneous material out there about deception.
I have found several times in here instances of people being judged deceptive because the word "if" was in their post somewhere.
I believe the notion that one is deceptive because the use of one word is injudicious and negligent.
Seeker
Posted by Skeptic
- Oct 29, 2002, 08:59 PMQuote from: Polyman2002 on Oct 29, 2002, 07:35 PM
Mr. Maschke,
It's funny you used the word "Methodology". It appears that you have acquired some interview and interrogations skills. Maybe we attended the same seminar. You know as well as I do, a truthful person would not use the word "If". By doing so, they have already made an admission.
Or perhaps he doesn't wish to be more forthcoming in a forum that doesn't require it. Suspect what you want; you don't know for certain whether he's lying.
Verbal analyses (such as those taught in the classic "Identifying Lies in Disguise", by Rudacille) can be very helpful in spotting deception. But there are exceptions to every rule, and every person is different. It is not logical to assume you know the truth solely because of a well-placed "if", regardless of the quality of the seminar you attended.
Skeptic
Posted by Polyman2002
- Oct 29, 2002, 07:35 PMMr. Maschke,
It's funny you used the word "Methodology". It appears that you have acquired some interview and interrogations skills. Maybe we attended the same seminar. You know as well as I do, a truthful person would not use the word "If". By doing so, they have already made an admission.
It's funny you used the word "Methodology". It appears that you have acquired some interview and interrogations skills. Maybe we attended the same seminar. You know as well as I do, a truthful person would not use the word "If". By doing so, they have already made an admission.
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Oct 29, 2002, 06:53 PMPolyman2002,
Your conclusion that Steven was lying based on his use of the word "if" has no logical basis. He simply asked a question: "Anyways, I was never showed my charts and if I did lie, wouldn't I sweat and heart rate go up and breathing rate too?"
Do you use the same methodology you used to determine that Steven was lying to decide whether those you polygraph are telling the truth?
Your conclusion that Steven was lying based on his use of the word "if" has no logical basis. He simply asked a question: "Anyways, I was never showed my charts and if I did lie, wouldn't I sweat and heart rate go up and breathing rate too?"
Do you use the same methodology you used to determine that Steven was lying to decide whether those you polygraph are telling the truth?
Posted by Polyman2002
- Oct 29, 2002, 06:38 PMObviously you weren't honest Steve. Think about what you said. "If I were lying". Well if you know you weren't lying, then the "if" word should not be in your vocabulary. You weren't honest and the polygraph caught you Steve. Admit it.
Posted by Fair Chance
- Oct 27, 2002, 09:01 PMDear Seeker,
I might have read too much into the message. There is a very long road to remove the polygraph tool from prescreening. I enjoy a good discussion. I just do not like people who are not sincere.
I might have read too much into the message. There is a very long road to remove the polygraph tool from prescreening. I enjoy a good discussion. I just do not like people who are not sincere.
Posted by Seeker
- Oct 27, 2002, 07:04 PMFair Chance
Perhaps a frustrated and bitter group of proponents who sense the inevidable end of their beloved trickery?
Have they found themselves to be the fool, and in anger attempt to project their feelings onto those who help expose them for who and what they are?
It also seems that those whose livelihood based on a fallicy would go to many extremes to thwart efforts to expose their fraud. Perhaps this was a diversionary tactic?
Perhaps a frustrated and bitter group of proponents who sense the inevidable end of their beloved trickery?
Have they found themselves to be the fool, and in anger attempt to project their feelings onto those who help expose them for who and what they are?
It also seems that those whose livelihood based on a fallicy would go to many extremes to thwart efforts to expose their fraud. Perhaps this was a diversionary tactic?