- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by Skeptic
- Nov 11, 2002, 06:58 PMQuote from: polylawman on Nov 11, 2002, 03:55 AM
I got another confession. That makes 8 since I started the polygraph last year. I guess polygraph dosn't work.
Congrats, polylawman. I do hope the confession's not false (that does happen sometimes, you know).
BTW, no one here has said the polygraph isn't useful for eliciting confessions. But a photocopier set to print out "he's lying!" has been used in the same manner. That's called an "interrogation prop".
Elicited confessions has nothing to do with whether the polygraph can actually detect lying with any accuracy.
Skeptic
Posted by polylawman
- Nov 11, 2002, 03:55 AMI got another confession. That makes 8 since I started the polygraph last year . I guess polygraph dosn't work.
. I guess polygraph dosn't work.Posted by Fair Chance
- Nov 08, 2002, 12:11 PMMriddle6,
Yes, I agree with your conclusions which agree with the NAS study results.
Yes, I agree with your conclusions which agree with the NAS study results.
Posted by mriddle6
- Nov 08, 2002, 05:29 AMQuote from: Fair Chance on Nov 08, 2002, 01:12 AM
Agreed!
The best way to beat a polygraph would require a proficient polygraph operator, polygraph, and unlimited time to test against such a professional. The polygraph examiner would be required to give positive or negative feedback to the examinee. The examinee would have to practice and have complete confidence in his countermeasures. A spy trying to beat the system would have no shortage of the above resources and would most likely have a good chance of passing a polygraph exam.
So you agree than that its useless for the FBI, CIA and the DOE to use it to fret out spies
Posted by Fair Chance
- Nov 08, 2002, 01:12 AMQuote from: mriddle6 on Nov 07, 2002, 02:08 PM
In the real world of espionage you can be sure that these agents would be highly trained in the art of countermeasures.
Agreed!
The best way to beat a polygraph would require a proficient polygraph operator, polygraph, and unlimited time to test against such a professional. The polygraph examiner would be required to give positive or negative feedback to the examinee. The examinee would have to practice and have complete confidence in his countermeasures. A spy trying to beat the system would have no shortage of the above resources and would most likely have a good chance of passing a polygraph exam. Most citizens taking an average exam do not have such elaborate resources. The logical conclusion being that the average applicant will be more likely to fail than a trained spy.
Posted by mriddle6
- Nov 07, 2002, 02:08 PMQuote from: polylawman on Nov 07, 2002, 01:53 AM
However much of this information is inaccurate
Realizing the the smallness of my mind I work very hard to keep it free of clutter by keeping things simple.
Based upon the information posted here and other sources I've attained the belief that the polygraph is unreliable and invalid because:
1) The results are easily manipulated not only by the examinee but also the examiner. Posts by the polygraph community have affirmed this by stating they can easily spot manipulations yet they refuse to accept a challenge from an expert Dr Richardson.
2) The polygraph is not valid because its not yet possible to correlate physiology to specific emotions.
In the real world of espionage you can be sure that these agents would be highly trained in the art of countermeasures.
In the real world of criminal investigation after a suspect has waived his rights, if a polygraph induces an admission more power to ya.
Have a nice day
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Nov 07, 2002, 03:27 AMQuote from: polylawman on Nov 07, 2002, 01:53 AM
We do welcome it. Just about every examiner I know has been given a copy of george and dougs nonsense.
I do agree with many of the posts, Georges is better.
However much of this information is inaccurate and very easy to spot.
Polylawman,
If polygraphers do welcome their subjects having researched polygraph practice and procedure, as you assert, why is it that none of the pro-polygraph websites (American Polygraph Association, American Association of Police Polygraphists, PolygraphPlace.com, etc.) provide an honest explanation of such? And why do polygraphers routinely lie to and otherwise deceive examinees about the nature of the procedure, as documented in Chapter 3 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector?
And if "much of [the information in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector] is inaccurate and very easy to spot," as you assert, then perhaps you would care to accept Dr. Richardson's polygraph countermeasure challenge and demonstrate just how easy countermeasures are to spot?
Posted by Skeptic
- Nov 07, 2002, 03:20 AMQuote from: polylawman on Nov 07, 2002, 02:58 AM
How often did you practice and how many times did it take? Be honest.
I picked several "scorable" reactions and a base breathing rate, and practiced all of them, perhaps every other day over the course of about a month or so. I doubt they would have required that level of practice, but I wanted to be competent at them.
Skeptic
Posted by polylawman
- Nov 07, 2002, 02:58 AMHow often did you practice and how many times did it take? Be honest.
Posted by Skeptic
- Nov 07, 2002, 02:00 AMQuote from: polylawman on Nov 07, 2002, 01:53 AM
We do welcome it. Just about every examiner I know has been given a copy of george and dougs nonsense.
I do agree with many of the posts, Georges is better.
However much of this information is inaccurate and very easy to spot.
I can personally vouch for the fact that correctly-done (read: practiced) countermeasures, as taught in The Lie Behind The Lie Detector, are effective and undetectable by the (presumably) best-trained polygraphers.
I have not read Doug Williams' manual, but I presume his advice is also effective.
Skeptic
Posted by polylawman
- Nov 07, 2002, 01:53 AMWe do welcome it. Just about every examiner I know has been given a copy of george and dougs nonsense.
I do agree with many of the posts, Georges is better.
However much of this information is inaccurate and very easy to spot.
I do agree with many of the posts, Georges is better.
However much of this information is inaccurate and very easy to spot.
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Nov 04, 2002, 04:43 AMmriddle6 writes:
Very well said!
QuoteIf the polygraph was a reliable and valid scientific method my polygrapher wouldn't have to worry about whether I've reseached polygraph practice and procedure. He would welcome it.
Very well said!
Posted by mriddle6
- Nov 04, 2002, 04:10 AM"Whatever you say in here is being monitored from all sides. Concerned? "
Well, no. Should I?
"Remember, as Seeker and Beech Trees stated, you can be traced, and undoubtedly are being traced,
Urr, excuse me. Are you implying that reseaching polygraph at this site is a threat to national security requiring the CIA, FBI and Secert Service to "Trace" every respondent? Well go head knock youself out.
so when your polygrapher asks you, "have you researched polygraph" think very carefully about your answer."
Are you suggesting here that if I truthfully disclose to my polygrapher that i've reseached polygraph that I would be more likely to fail? Please explain.
Here is my humble opinion. If the polygraph was a reliable and valid scientfic method my polygrapher wouldn't have to worry about whether I've reseached polygraph practice and procedure. He would welcome it.
Have a nice day.
Well, no. Should I?
"Remember, as Seeker and Beech Trees stated, you can be traced, and undoubtedly are being traced,
Urr, excuse me. Are you implying that reseaching polygraph at this site is a threat to national security requiring the CIA, FBI and Secert Service to "Trace" every respondent? Well go head knock youself out.
so when your polygrapher asks you, "have you researched polygraph" think very carefully about your answer."
Are you suggesting here that if I truthfully disclose to my polygrapher that i've reseached polygraph that I would be more likely to fail? Please explain.
Here is my humble opinion. If the polygraph was a reliable and valid scientfic method my polygrapher wouldn't have to worry about whether I've reseached polygraph practice and procedure. He would welcome it.
Have a nice day.
Posted by Skeptic
- Nov 03, 2002, 06:11 PMBack to topic --
As implied by the first post in this thread, polygraph testing is no more accurate than chance in many cases.
The NAS report found the state of polygraph research to be very poor, and even that research which shows polygraph testing to be valid in the laboratory was dependent upon multiple factors unlikely to be present in the field.
The best the polygraph community has managed to do is to latch onto two sentences from the report and quote them out of context.
What it comes down to is the polygraph is highly fallible, easily fooled, and (especially when used for the general screening of large numbers of probably-innocent employees or prospective employees) results in either large numbers of falsely accused people or missed bad guys.
The NAS's bottom line: no spy has ever been caught by the polygraph, polygraph screening is a danger to national security, and should be stopped.
Skeptic
Note the fear with which the polygraph community has reacted to the NAS report. Their bald attempts to sow paranoia and doubt among visitors to Antipolygraph.org only indicates their vested interest in the polygraph. These are not honest people, and they do not have our best interests at heart.
As implied by the first post in this thread, polygraph testing is no more accurate than chance in many cases.
The NAS report found the state of polygraph research to be very poor, and even that research which shows polygraph testing to be valid in the laboratory was dependent upon multiple factors unlikely to be present in the field.
The best the polygraph community has managed to do is to latch onto two sentences from the report and quote them out of context.
What it comes down to is the polygraph is highly fallible, easily fooled, and (especially when used for the general screening of large numbers of probably-innocent employees or prospective employees) results in either large numbers of falsely accused people or missed bad guys.
The NAS's bottom line: no spy has ever been caught by the polygraph, polygraph screening is a danger to national security, and should be stopped.
Skeptic
Note the fear with which the polygraph community has reacted to the NAS report. Their bald attempts to sow paranoia and doubt among visitors to Antipolygraph.org only indicates their vested interest in the polygraph. These are not honest people, and they do not have our best interests at heart.
Posted by ratpatrol
- Nov 03, 2002, 05:55 PMHmmm. George, does this mean that Seeker was lying when she said:
Does Seeker go out and get all those warrants? Surely if it is as simple as Seeker says then ANYONE could trace the identity of posters in here.
Whatever you say in here is being monitored from all sides. Concerned? Stay away from antipolygraph.org.
http://stopcarnivore.org/
Quote"It takes only someone with some capabilities in IT to be able to do it. Then again, we do not need to get into the discussion about mirror imaging, the wealth of information contained in source codes, or any of the other tell-tale signs that one leaves every single time they even visit a site online.....
Does Seeker go out and get all those warrants? Surely if it is as simple as Seeker says then ANYONE could trace the identity of posters in here.
Whatever you say in here is being monitored from all sides. Concerned? Stay away from antipolygraph.org.
http://stopcarnivore.org/