- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by PeterFonda
- Feb 21, 2003, 02:17 AMLouie,
You want to be a Cop and All this debate..for what? I am not in LE, but my god...what are you thinking??? You are on a complete pipe dream..Forget the polygraph..that's easy..But, how many people would your future employer have to talk to find out you were a hardcore drug abuser..Unless you think that the drugs you used were not hardcore..From my high school days, I can still remember the partyers...from the Stoners to coke addicts..People remember for a life time..3 Years?? You are wasting your time!! As it should be..You might POSSIBLY..in say 5 years qualify for a K-mart security guard..But the thought of a recent druggy patrolling our streets??? It takes many people years and years of programs just to stop the obession with drugs..You turn 18, start shaving and now what to be a cop?
Peter
You want to be a Cop and All this debate..for what? I am not in LE, but my god...what are you thinking??? You are on a complete pipe dream..Forget the polygraph..that's easy..But, how many people would your future employer have to talk to find out you were a hardcore drug abuser..Unless you think that the drugs you used were not hardcore..From my high school days, I can still remember the partyers...from the Stoners to coke addicts..People remember for a life time..3 Years?? You are wasting your time!! As it should be..You might POSSIBLY..in say 5 years qualify for a K-mart security guard..But the thought of a recent druggy patrolling our streets??? It takes many people years and years of programs just to stop the obession with drugs..You turn 18, start shaving and now what to be a cop?
Peter
Posted by The truth
- Feb 09, 2003, 02:45 AMThe truth is that the truth hurts. If you have been clean, and are serious about a career in law enforcement, this is a very simple answer. Is their any proof of your past drug use? If not, don't under any circumstances devulge any information reguarding your past drug use. As for the polygraph, alot of police agencies do not give them, I would first apply to those.
Stay away from state and larger agencies.
Stay away from state and larger agencies.
Posted by Fair Chance
- Nov 26, 2002, 10:26 PMQuote from: Batman on Nov 26, 2002, 06:48 PM
I'll now sit back and wait for some on this site to tear apart my answer to your question.
Batman
Dear Batman,
I am not a headhunter. I asked a question and you answered it. You believe that the polygraph is misdirected in its use for pre-screening and screening employment. Thank you.
I do not have enough knowledge or experience with other forms of polygraph use to render an opinion on anything else about the polygraph. I do hope that you videotape and offer the examinee any information concerning the exam as the Breeze has stated to me earlier in my discussions with him.
I will keep an open mind to future research concerning polygraph and your opinions.
Regards.
Posted by Batman (Guest)
- Nov 26, 2002, 06:48 PMFair Chance,
I have mentioned, in a previous post, that I believe the accuracy of polygraph is an extremely difficult thing to measure. I base this opinion primarily on the fact each examinee is extremely different. The examinee, coupled with the investigative case facts, is the greatest variable in each and every polygraph examination, therefore, in my opinion; each exam has to stand on its own as to accuracy. I believe the accuracy can only be measured against the known truth, which has to be based on the investigative case facts. For example, if three people are polygraphed regarding a theft, two pass, and one fails and confesses, then it is safe to say that each exam is 100% accurate, or confirmed. The failed exam is confirmed by the confession, and the two passed exams are therefore confirmed as well. If the failed exam does not confess then one can still say this exam still confirms the others, however not with as much confidence. If an examinee takes and fails a polygraph on a criminal specific issue, does not confess, however investigative case facts, independent of the polygraph, also implicate the examinee then again one can say it is confirmed, however again not with as much confidence has a failed exam coupled with a confession. I know this feeds right into the argument put forth that the polygraph is simply an interrogation ploy that succeeds only on the naive, however there are many times it is administered to help narrow a suspect pool, as well as better identify a suspect. This is where the utility of polygraph comes into play as it relates to criminal specific examinations administered in support of criminal investigations.
Again, the accuracy of these exams, in my opinion, can only be based on some level of independent confirmation, whether it is a confession, or other investigative information. I feel much more comfortable using the phrase "confirmed exam" as compared to "accuracy". This is based on my 18 years of experience as an examiner, knowing both the strengths and weakness of the technique.
To answer your question, I put no more credence in any examiner's claim of a 95% accuracy rate as I do in the NAS report of better than chance (maybe 75%). I really believe each exam has to be looked upon separately as it relates to the known investigative case facts.
I'll now sit back and wait for some on this site to tear apart my answer to your question.
Batman
I have mentioned, in a previous post, that I believe the accuracy of polygraph is an extremely difficult thing to measure. I base this opinion primarily on the fact each examinee is extremely different. The examinee, coupled with the investigative case facts, is the greatest variable in each and every polygraph examination, therefore, in my opinion; each exam has to stand on its own as to accuracy. I believe the accuracy can only be measured against the known truth, which has to be based on the investigative case facts. For example, if three people are polygraphed regarding a theft, two pass, and one fails and confesses, then it is safe to say that each exam is 100% accurate, or confirmed. The failed exam is confirmed by the confession, and the two passed exams are therefore confirmed as well. If the failed exam does not confess then one can still say this exam still confirms the others, however not with as much confidence. If an examinee takes and fails a polygraph on a criminal specific issue, does not confess, however investigative case facts, independent of the polygraph, also implicate the examinee then again one can say it is confirmed, however again not with as much confidence has a failed exam coupled with a confession. I know this feeds right into the argument put forth that the polygraph is simply an interrogation ploy that succeeds only on the naive, however there are many times it is administered to help narrow a suspect pool, as well as better identify a suspect. This is where the utility of polygraph comes into play as it relates to criminal specific examinations administered in support of criminal investigations.
Again, the accuracy of these exams, in my opinion, can only be based on some level of independent confirmation, whether it is a confession, or other investigative information. I feel much more comfortable using the phrase "confirmed exam" as compared to "accuracy". This is based on my 18 years of experience as an examiner, knowing both the strengths and weakness of the technique.
To answer your question, I put no more credence in any examiner's claim of a 95% accuracy rate as I do in the NAS report of better than chance (maybe 75%). I really believe each exam has to be looked upon separately as it relates to the known investigative case facts.
I'll now sit back and wait for some on this site to tear apart my answer to your question.
Batman
Posted by Fair Chance
- Nov 24, 2002, 10:31 PMQuote from: Batman on Nov 24, 2002, 06:35 PMDear Batman,
Fair Chance,
I would venture to say that polygraph is not unlike any other tool used in any other profession. It is by no means perfect, it was not intended to be the end all, and when misused or "asked" to do things it was not designed for, problems arise. However when properly employed as an aid to the investigative process it has a tremendous amount of utility.
Batman
I find it refreshing that you admit to the polygraph's shortcomings as well as trying to assert its strong points. I have not found any polygraph proponent that is giving me less than 95% accuracy when the polygraph is used on specific issues cases. The NAS states that with subjects tested who did not know any thing about the polygraph, its accuracy is well above chance (I would submit chance to be 50%) but well below perfection (100%). I believe that it would be reasonable to calculate the median of these two numbers and arrive at 75% accuracy with a subject who does not have any polygraph knowledge of the test or expected outcome. These numbers are only applied when specific issue test since the NAS study completely found pre-screening to have no more than chance accuracy.
How are polygraph operators coming up with more than 75% accuracy which the NAS seem to define as the norm?
I ask this question because I agree with your analysis that no scientific test is 100% but all others test have clearly defined margins of error which the testers readily admit which leads to credibility of the test. The polygraph proponents would like everyone to believe that they are close to 100% accurate.
Again, thank you for responding to my previous opinion.
Posted by Skeptic
- Nov 24, 2002, 07:34 PMQuote from: Batman on Nov 24, 2002, 06:35 PM
Skeptic,
You may which to refer to my post as quoting Beech Trees out of context, however the point was evident, he prefaced several of his comments with "I lied..." What he lied about was not relevant to the issue at hand. The fact that in his post he admitted to lying at least as many times as quoted certainly has to bring into question his credibility. I'm sure if I had made such admissions in a post you would have jumped on it fairly quickly to discredit me, would you not?
Batman
As a rule, I make every effort to respond to/use other people's comments in context -- that includes yours.
I may not like what you say and/or disagree with it vehemently, but I will not knowingly hack up your writing to change the meaning.
Skeptic
Posted by Batman (Guest)
- Nov 24, 2002, 06:35 PMFair Chance,
I would venture to say that polygraph is not unlike any other tool used in any other profession. It is by no means perfect, it was not intended to be the end all, and when misused or "asked" to do things it was not designed for, problems arise. However when properly employed as an aid to the investigative process it has a tremendous amount of utility.
Skeptic,
You may which to refer to my post as quoting Beech Trees out of context, however the point was evident, he prefaced several of his comments with "I lied..." What he lied about was not relevant to the issue at hand. The fact that in his post he admitted to lying at least as many times as quoted certainly has to bring into question his credibility. I'm sure if I had made such admissions in a post you would have jumped on it fairly quickly to discredit me, would you not?
Batman
I would venture to say that polygraph is not unlike any other tool used in any other profession. It is by no means perfect, it was not intended to be the end all, and when misused or "asked" to do things it was not designed for, problems arise. However when properly employed as an aid to the investigative process it has a tremendous amount of utility.
Skeptic,
You may which to refer to my post as quoting Beech Trees out of context, however the point was evident, he prefaced several of his comments with "I lied..." What he lied about was not relevant to the issue at hand. The fact that in his post he admitted to lying at least as many times as quoted certainly has to bring into question his credibility. I'm sure if I had made such admissions in a post you would have jumped on it fairly quickly to discredit me, would you not?
Batman
Posted by Fair Chance
- Nov 24, 2002, 05:06 PMQuote from: Batman on Nov 24, 2002, 07:43 AMDear Batman,
Fair chance,
I can not state specifically the agency for which I work. I can tell you that not all federal agencies employ the use of polygraph exactly the same. The agency I work for does not utilize polygraph as a part of its applicant screening, nor is it used in any part of the hiring process. I am not involved exclusively in the use of polygraph in support of criminal investigations, however that is one of two major aspects of how I do use it.
I am not being coy in how I respond to you, however I do admit to being somewhat evasive, only in that there are limitations as to how much information I can provide in this type of forum.
Batman
I respect anyone's right to privacy on this website and I do not expect you to provide more information then you feel comfortable with. Your employment is not as important to me as your arguments concerning polygraph use.
My exposure to the "art" of polygraph has only been in pre-screening employment and I feel that is was nothing short of a fiasco. I am trying to keep an open mind to polygraph usage for other areas but many polygraph operators are adamant about its high accuracy concerning prescreening which I know not to be the case. Their poorly construed logic hurts any validity that the polygraph might have other uses for.
Thank you for responding to my comments.
Posted by Skeptic
- Nov 24, 2002, 04:22 PMQuote from: Batman on Nov 24, 2002, 07:43 AM
Skeptic,
That's what I said, I have never "unjustly" ended anyone's career. However, I have assisted in the just ending of many.
As for how I view the truth, I'm sure you're referring to my coming out of the polygraph closet when asked by Two Block if I was a polygraph examiner. When he asked that question, I answered with no qualms, and no bending of the truth. He was simply the first to ask. Everyone else just made the assumption, which I neither confirmed, nor denied. I have stated this on at least two or three occasions since. Do you need me to repeat it once again?
Actually, that's only one example. Another can be found in your post yesterday at 04:29, clearly and deliberately quoting Beech Trees out of context regarding his polygraph exam in order to claim that his advice was not "sincere and credible" enough. All things considered, I think Beech handled that rather well -- in most circles, that's considered very dishonest.
Skeptic
Posted by Batman (Guest)
- Nov 24, 2002, 07:43 AMSkeptic,
That's what I said, I have never "unjustly" ended anyone's career. However, I have assisted in the just ending of many.
As for how I view the truth, I'm sure you're referring to my coming out of the polygraph closet when asked by Two Block if I was a polygraph examiner. When he asked that question, I answered with no qualms, and no bending of the truth. He was simply the first to ask. Everyone else just made the assumption, which I neither confirmed, nor denied. I have stated this on at least two or three occasions since. Do you need me to repeat it once again?
Fair chance,
I can not state specifically the agency for which I work. I can tell you that not all federal agencies employ the use of polygraph exactly the same. The agency I work for does not utilize polygraph as a part of its applicant screening, nor is it used in any part of the hiring process. I am not involved exclusively in the use of polygraph in support of criminal investigations, however that is one of two major aspects of how I do use it.
I am not being coy in how I respond to you, however I do admit to being somewhat evasive, only in that there are limitations as to how much information I can provide in this type of forum.
Batman
That's what I said, I have never "unjustly" ended anyone's career. However, I have assisted in the just ending of many.
As for how I view the truth, I'm sure you're referring to my coming out of the polygraph closet when asked by Two Block if I was a polygraph examiner. When he asked that question, I answered with no qualms, and no bending of the truth. He was simply the first to ask. Everyone else just made the assumption, which I neither confirmed, nor denied. I have stated this on at least two or three occasions since. Do you need me to repeat it once again?
Fair chance,
I can not state specifically the agency for which I work. I can tell you that not all federal agencies employ the use of polygraph exactly the same. The agency I work for does not utilize polygraph as a part of its applicant screening, nor is it used in any part of the hiring process. I am not involved exclusively in the use of polygraph in support of criminal investigations, however that is one of two major aspects of how I do use it.
I am not being coy in how I respond to you, however I do admit to being somewhat evasive, only in that there are limitations as to how much information I can provide in this type of forum.
Batman
Posted by Skeptic
- Nov 23, 2002, 11:34 PMQuote from: Fair Chance on Nov 23, 2002, 08:39 PM
Dear Batman,
It is obvious from your statement that you do not work for any federal agencies. The CIA, Secret Service, FBI, and others DO end a career before it starts on only polygraph results. There is no background check performed previous to the polygraph and if it is "failed" their is none following. The polygraph is the judge, jury, and executioner of many federal careers before they are even started. All of this while the NAS states that for security screening purposes, the polygraph is not effective. The Breeze has stated that his state system does things differently too. From your statement I would infer that you are only involved in criminal cases?
Regards.
Fair Chance,
You'll note that "Batman" said he has never unjustly ended anyone's career. He's clearly only stating his opinion -- and as he has demonstrated before, he views the truth as rather malleable.
Skeptic
Posted by Fair Chance
- Nov 23, 2002, 08:39 PMQuote from: Batman on Nov 23, 2002, 05:21 PM
I can say, with out doubt, I have never unjustly ended anyone's career. You see Beech, at least within the world I work in, polygraph alone cannot lead to the end of a career.
Dear Batman,
It is obvious from your statement that you do not work for any federal agencies. The CIA, Secret Service, FBI, and others DO end a career before it starts on only polygraph results. There is no background check performed previous to the polygraph and if it is "failed" their is none following. The polygraph is the judge, jury, and executioner of many federal careers before they are even started. All of this while the NAS states that for security screening purposes, the polygraph is not effective. The Breeze has stated that his state system does things differently too. From your statement I would infer that you are only involved in criminal cases?
Regards.
Posted by Batman (Guest)
- Nov 23, 2002, 05:21 PMOK Beech,
Louie can make his own decision from here on out.
Do you really need an answer to your question, or are you really that damn stupid? I'll make it real easy for you shit for brains:
1 month pregnant: No polygraph
2 months pregnant: No polygraph
3 months pregnant: No polygraph
4 months pregnant: No polygraph
5 months pregnant: No polygraph
6 months pregnant: No polygraph
7 months pregnant: No polygraph
8 months pregnant: No polygraph
9 months pregnant: No polygraph
Overdue: Should I wait for your direct question on this one too? Just what in the hell do you do for a living? It's a legitimate question in that it has a direct impact on public safety. You are so damn dumb you're dangerous!
As for my assassination of your character, well, you are a character, but you have none. The cuts/pastes of your comments were just that, YOUR COMMENTS. You're the one who, in one simple post, admitted to being a liar at least as many times as I quoted you. You put the bullet in your own gun, pointed it straight at your own ass, and blew your own brains out. That's a suicide bud, not ASSasination, except as it relates to where you shot yourself.
Now here's another great one that came straight from your ass to your finger tips, "Perhaps the most sickening aspect of this whole sordid dilemma... whereas I consciously chose to understand and embrace the corrupt process and use it to my advantage (while remaining as absolutely honest...)" Holy Robin Shit! You consciously chose to EMBRACE the corrupt process so as to remain ABSOLUTELY HONEST? Interesting match-up and choice of words. First off, you couldn't be absolutely honest if it meant keeping your nuts from being cut off. However, I can see you giving a big hug to a corrupt process.
And then there's, "men like batman will never admit how many lives they have ruined, how many innocent people they branded as liars, how many careers they have unjustly ended, how many false confessions they have obtained...".
Well lets see, over the past 22 years I have assisted in putting a shit house load of people in jail. I guess if one was to ask them if I ruined their lives, most would answer, "Hell Yeah!" I have not kept count, no notches on the old gun handles, but I do know you could fill a big shit house, or your house for that matter Beech, with them.
I don't know if I have ever "branded" any innocent people as liars, however I do think that over the past 18 years as a polygraph examiner I more than likely have administered a few exams where someone who was telling the truth about a particular relevant issue failed. Hell, the odds alone would dictate this. So I guess one could say that I have "branded" those particular individuals as liars, but that would be giving me more credit than I deserve.
I can say, with out doubt, I have never unjustly ended anyone's career. You see Beech, at least within the world I work in, polygraph alone cannot lead to the end of a career.
Now for your last comment; one that if you made while standing within ear shot, would cause you to be suddenly sitting on your God Damn brains! Yeah ASSHOLE, your last comment in that quote really got to me! I may come across on this site like a flaming jerk on occasion, I may be quick to shoot from the hip at little pricks like you, but I have NEVER obtained a false confession! Little shits like you can fire away from a distance, making accusations like that, but as God is my witness, I'd drop you like a hanging turd if you ever made that one to my face.
I'll continue to post on this site, if for no other reason than to at least provide the Louie's with some other option or advice than to Lie Louie Lie. But as for you Beech, no more. You crossed the line shithead.
To anyone I may have offended with my language in this post, I apologize. I simply find certain accusations extremely insulting, and the one made here, by Beech Trees, more than most.
Batman
Louie can make his own decision from here on out.
Do you really need an answer to your question, or are you really that damn stupid? I'll make it real easy for you shit for brains:
1 month pregnant: No polygraph
2 months pregnant: No polygraph
3 months pregnant: No polygraph
4 months pregnant: No polygraph
5 months pregnant: No polygraph
6 months pregnant: No polygraph
7 months pregnant: No polygraph
8 months pregnant: No polygraph
9 months pregnant: No polygraph
Overdue: Should I wait for your direct question on this one too? Just what in the hell do you do for a living? It's a legitimate question in that it has a direct impact on public safety. You are so damn dumb you're dangerous!
As for my assassination of your character, well, you are a character, but you have none. The cuts/pastes of your comments were just that, YOUR COMMENTS. You're the one who, in one simple post, admitted to being a liar at least as many times as I quoted you. You put the bullet in your own gun, pointed it straight at your own ass, and blew your own brains out. That's a suicide bud, not ASSasination, except as it relates to where you shot yourself.
Now here's another great one that came straight from your ass to your finger tips, "Perhaps the most sickening aspect of this whole sordid dilemma... whereas I consciously chose to understand and embrace the corrupt process and use it to my advantage (while remaining as absolutely honest...)" Holy Robin Shit! You consciously chose to EMBRACE the corrupt process so as to remain ABSOLUTELY HONEST? Interesting match-up and choice of words. First off, you couldn't be absolutely honest if it meant keeping your nuts from being cut off. However, I can see you giving a big hug to a corrupt process.
And then there's, "men like batman will never admit how many lives they have ruined, how many innocent people they branded as liars, how many careers they have unjustly ended, how many false confessions they have obtained...".
Well lets see, over the past 22 years I have assisted in putting a shit house load of people in jail. I guess if one was to ask them if I ruined their lives, most would answer, "Hell Yeah!" I have not kept count, no notches on the old gun handles, but I do know you could fill a big shit house, or your house for that matter Beech, with them.
I don't know if I have ever "branded" any innocent people as liars, however I do think that over the past 18 years as a polygraph examiner I more than likely have administered a few exams where someone who was telling the truth about a particular relevant issue failed. Hell, the odds alone would dictate this. So I guess one could say that I have "branded" those particular individuals as liars, but that would be giving me more credit than I deserve.
I can say, with out doubt, I have never unjustly ended anyone's career. You see Beech, at least within the world I work in, polygraph alone cannot lead to the end of a career.
Now for your last comment; one that if you made while standing within ear shot, would cause you to be suddenly sitting on your God Damn brains! Yeah ASSHOLE, your last comment in that quote really got to me! I may come across on this site like a flaming jerk on occasion, I may be quick to shoot from the hip at little pricks like you, but I have NEVER obtained a false confession! Little shits like you can fire away from a distance, making accusations like that, but as God is my witness, I'd drop you like a hanging turd if you ever made that one to my face.
I'll continue to post on this site, if for no other reason than to at least provide the Louie's with some other option or advice than to Lie Louie Lie. But as for you Beech, no more. You crossed the line shithead.
To anyone I may have offended with my language in this post, I apologize. I simply find certain accusations extremely insulting, and the one made here, by Beech Trees, more than most.
Batman
Posted by Anonymous
- Nov 23, 2002, 03:35 PMLouie,
Let's cut to the chase. The risks involved for an innocent examinee who takes a polygraph exam and doesn't use countermeasures are not unlike that of one who has unprotected sex with a prostitute. No comment or implication(s) regarding the relative pleasures and benefits of both activities or the relative natures of polygraph examiner and prostitute...
Let's cut to the chase. The risks involved for an innocent examinee who takes a polygraph exam and doesn't use countermeasures are not unlike that of one who has unprotected sex with a prostitute. No comment or implication(s) regarding the relative pleasures and benefits of both activities or the relative natures of polygraph examiner and prostitute...
Posted by polylawman
- Nov 23, 2002, 02:20 PMA pregnant woman should NEVER be polygraphed. Period