- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by Nate
- May 09, 2001, 12:19 PMRay. You mean to tell me that if I tell the truth on the control question and get a reading of lets say 0, then tell the truth on the relevant questions I also get a 0 this would mean I would pass? The way I understand it was that the control question are probably lie questions in which the examiner tries to get you to lie in order to compare this results with that of the relevant. In other words, you want the reaction on the control questions to be higher "as if you are lying" and lower on the relevant (hence the purpose of counter-measures). An example of a control question would be "have you ever lied to someone important to you?". Well of course everyone has so if you say no then you lied and if you say yes the examiner says. "Other than what you have told me..." Again, its impossible to list every single person in your whole 25 years of life that you have lied to. Let me know if this assumption is not correct Ray. Thanks
Posted by Anonymous
- May 09, 2001, 09:37 AMRay Latimer,
_________________________________________________
"...Get a hold of yourself, take a couple of deep breaths, don't wiggle or giggle don't bite your tongue....."
_________________________________________________
Admission # 1: Ray, although I normally confine myself to more substantive comments/subjects, e.g., countermeasures thread/exchange with Gordon Barland, I must admit I have enjoyed the welcome/needed levity and color you have introduced through your postings...
Admission # 2: Although there are aspects of No More Secret's commentary and perspective that I would clearly agree with, I too have no clue as to the suggested relationship between physiology and law practice...
Best Wishes and let the comedy roll on...
_________________________________________________
"...Get a hold of yourself, take a couple of deep breaths, don't wiggle or giggle don't bite your tongue....."
_________________________________________________
Admission # 1: Ray, although I normally confine myself to more substantive comments/subjects, e.g., countermeasures thread/exchange with Gordon Barland, I must admit I have enjoyed the welcome/needed levity and color you have introduced through your postings...
Admission # 2: Although there are aspects of No More Secret's commentary and perspective that I would clearly agree with, I too have no clue as to the suggested relationship between physiology and law practice...
Best Wishes and let the comedy roll on...
Posted by Raymond J. latimer
- May 09, 2001, 12:29 AMNate,
I am
sad for you and the "polygraphist" who told you to lie. I have no idea as to what a "real Polygraphist" is. I do know that I am glad that I did not receive my training from the the same person who trained the Guy/gal who told you that you had to lie to pass. Good luck,
Ray L.
I am
sad for you and the "polygraphist" who told you to lie. I have no idea as to what a "real Polygraphist" is. I do know that I am glad that I did not receive my training from the the same person who trained the Guy/gal who told you that you had to lie to pass. Good luck,Ray L.
Posted by Raymond J. Latimer
- May 09, 2001, 12:22 AMNo More Secrets
I read your post and I have no idea of what, if any, point you are trying to make. Next time you see your physiologist, you will ask her what law school she went to?? Just how often do you see "your physiologist"? What are you saying?
Get a hold of yourself, take a couple of deep breaths, don't wiggle or giggle don't bite your tongue and get your thoughts in order then do a post that can be understood.
Thanx
PS wehat law school did "your Physiologist" go to?
I read your post and I have no idea of what, if any, point you are trying to make. Next time you see your physiologist, you will ask her what law school she went to?? Just how often do you see "your physiologist"? What are you saying?
Get a hold of yourself, take a couple of deep breaths, don't wiggle or giggle don't bite your tongue and get your thoughts in order then do a post that can be understood.
Thanx
PS wehat law school did "your Physiologist" go to?
Posted by Nate
- May 08, 2001, 07:01 PM"I am simply amazed that you readilly admit that you lied to the polygraphist"
Ray, if you are a real polygraph examiner then you would know that in order to pass an exam you "HAVE" to lie (on Control, Relevant, Irrelevant exams). I told the truth and refused to lie on the control questions and ended up failing. On my third exam I tried to tell the truth on the control questions and the examiner replied "Nate, you know what I'm doing, just lie on this question OK!". I lied like he told me to and I ended up passing the exam. As you see, you have to lie to the examiner in order to pass and if you refuse to lie and tell the truth on all questions, you fail!
Ray, if you are a real polygraph examiner then you would know that in order to pass an exam you "HAVE" to lie (on Control, Relevant, Irrelevant exams). I told the truth and refused to lie on the control questions and ended up failing. On my third exam I tried to tell the truth on the control questions and the examiner replied "Nate, you know what I'm doing, just lie on this question OK!". I lied like he told me to and I ended up passing the exam. As you see, you have to lie to the examiner in order to pass and if you refuse to lie and tell the truth on all questions, you fail!
Posted by NoMoreSecrets
- May 08, 2001, 02:23 PM:Hello 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.
LOL. You guys _are_ comedians on your downtime aren't you? I honestly can't recall the last time I had a "monitoring device applied" for four hours and was for all intents and purposes stuck in an interrogation room and unable to leave my seat throughout. I think that most "reasonable people"-- the legal definition, not the Jay Leno street interviews--would agree such a condition more closely resembles a method of confinement, physical restraint, or, colloquially speaking, being "strapped down."
:Why can't you say it like it is?
Something he picked up from the examiner perhaps?
:By the way most of the polygraphists that I know are "college educated" and some have graduate degrees including Law degrees and Ph.ds.
Law degrees! Excellent. Next time I talk to my physiologist I'll ask her what "law school" she went to. LOL.
:I am simply amazed that you readilly admit that you lied to the polygraphist.
Yes, honest people who are uncomfortable with interrogations because they have done nothing wrong and the mere amazement at being in an _interrogation_ and being treated like criminal suspect sets off every sensor in their body that something is wrong, dreadfully wrong. They come for an interview, and are stuck in an interrogation... geeeeeee. I'd think only sociopaths and camp guards failed to grasp how inherently ridiculous _that_ is.
:When you denied knowing about countermeasures. We need people like you in law enforcement Ray.L.
The omnipotence of polygraphists permitted Aldrich Ames to massacre an entire network of agents.
Keep up the good work Ray.
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.
LOL. You guys _are_ comedians on your downtime aren't you? I honestly can't recall the last time I had a "monitoring device applied" for four hours and was for all intents and purposes stuck in an interrogation room and unable to leave my seat throughout. I think that most "reasonable people"-- the legal definition, not the Jay Leno street interviews--would agree such a condition more closely resembles a method of confinement, physical restraint, or, colloquially speaking, being "strapped down."
:Why can't you say it like it is?
Something he picked up from the examiner perhaps?
:By the way most of the polygraphists that I know are "college educated" and some have graduate degrees including Law degrees and Ph.ds.
Law degrees! Excellent. Next time I talk to my physiologist I'll ask her what "law school" she went to. LOL.
:I am simply amazed that you readilly admit that you lied to the polygraphist.
Yes, honest people who are uncomfortable with interrogations because they have done nothing wrong and the mere amazement at being in an _interrogation_ and being treated like criminal suspect sets off every sensor in their body that something is wrong, dreadfully wrong. They come for an interview, and are stuck in an interrogation... geeeeeee. I'd think only sociopaths and camp guards failed to grasp how inherently ridiculous _that_ is.
:When you denied knowing about countermeasures. We need people like you in law enforcement Ray.L.
The omnipotence of polygraphists permitted Aldrich Ames to massacre an entire network of agents.
Keep up the good work Ray.
Posted by False +
- Apr 13, 2001, 01:30 AMpolyfraud,
Your point about the polygraph still being around to this day due to its sole application to an extreme minority of the US population is a salient one. If the polygraph were to be applied widely, its swift downfall would be guaranteed, as demonstrated by the mere existence of the EPPA. The public as a whole has a lot of power.
Unfortunately, these days, the polygraph is only administered to a group of people with virtually no power against the polygraph: an exceedingly small minority of individuals (compared to all of the US) who are agents or contractors of the US government.
This is a situation that is almost optimal for the polygraph's survival as its victims are powerless against it. However, for some very interesting reasons, elected congressmen and senators (who have
access to a coktail of classified information) are not subjected to any of the muggings some of us have endured. Does anyone think for a second that if such government officials were polygraphed that the polygraph would hold up? Of course not, because they would be affected personally. It's easy to sign pro-polygraph policy if you're not affected.
How do you think George Bush would do in a polygraph?
As it stands right now, ridding ourselves of the polygraph is a difficult task because those affected are a minority of the population and the polygraph method already has a firm hold on government moores. So, it's up to us, the minority, to get the job done. It's doable, but it'll take time. The NAS study is sure to reveal it for the sham that it is. That'll start raising eye-brows that count.
Your point about the polygraph still being around to this day due to its sole application to an extreme minority of the US population is a salient one. If the polygraph were to be applied widely, its swift downfall would be guaranteed, as demonstrated by the mere existence of the EPPA. The public as a whole has a lot of power.
Unfortunately, these days, the polygraph is only administered to a group of people with virtually no power against the polygraph: an exceedingly small minority of individuals (compared to all of the US) who are agents or contractors of the US government.
This is a situation that is almost optimal for the polygraph's survival as its victims are powerless against it. However, for some very interesting reasons, elected congressmen and senators (who have
access to a coktail of classified information) are not subjected to any of the muggings some of us have endured. Does anyone think for a second that if such government officials were polygraphed that the polygraph would hold up? Of course not, because they would be affected personally. It's easy to sign pro-polygraph policy if you're not affected.
How do you think George Bush would do in a polygraph?
As it stands right now, ridding ourselves of the polygraph is a difficult task because those affected are a minority of the population and the polygraph method already has a firm hold on government moores. So, it's up to us, the minority, to get the job done. It's doable, but it'll take time. The NAS study is sure to reveal it for the sham that it is. That'll start raising eye-brows that count.
Posted by polyfraud
- Apr 13, 2001, 12:02 AMQuote from: Ray Latimer on Apr 12, 2001, 11:44 PM
Hello 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" and some have graduate degrees including Law degrees and Ph.ds. I am simply amazed that you readilly admit that you lied to the polygraphist. When you denied knowing about countermeasures. We need people like you in law enforcement Ray.L.
I'm not falling for that, I know that to admit knowing about countermeasures is a sure way of getting failed right there on the spot. I'm not stupid, no poly research has EVER been done by esteemed academic or scientific sources to prove its credibility. It's a government tool used to extract confessions and just another interrogation trick. The downside to this however is that INNOCENT people are being accused of crimes and having their careers and lives ruined. You guys are nothing but criminals in suits when it comes down to it. It's a shame that you are allowed to tinker with people's lives in this fashion. I'm guessing the only reason why widespread banning of polygraphing hasn't occurred yet is because only a small minority of people who are interested in LE or government positions have ever been subjected to it. If more people had to take polygraphs IE. the private sector then I would have no doubt there would be a huge public outcry against it. Most of the American public do not know about the details of the polygraph since it's been banned for usage (thank god) in the private sector.
Posted by Ray Latimer
- Apr 12, 2001, 11:44 PMHello 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" and some have graduate degrees including Law degrees and Ph.ds. I am simply amazed that you readilly admit that you lied to the polygraphist. When you denied knowing about countermeasures. We need people like you in law enforcement 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" and some have graduate degrees including Law degrees and Ph.ds. I am simply amazed that you readilly admit that you lied to the polygraphist. When you denied knowing about countermeasures. We need people like you in law enforcement Ray.L.
Posted by Fred F.
- Apr 12, 2001, 11:22 PMPolyfraud,
Don't wait to clear background. If this Captain is an ally keep him posted. Tell him about the multiple polys and why is this occuring. If you can contact him, do so, He is brass, and can make things work
Fred F.
Don't wait to clear background. If this Captain is an ally keep him posted. Tell him about the multiple polys and why is this occuring. If you can contact him, do so, He is brass, and can make things work
Fred F.
Posted by polyfraud
- Apr 12, 2001, 06:20 AMQuote from: Fred F. on Apr 11, 2001, 10:18 PM
WHen I pass the background I plan on updating him asap, to set the wheels in motion.
Posted by Fred F.
- Apr 11, 2001, 10:18 PMQuote from: polyfraud on Apr 11, 2001, 06:13 AM
Afterwards he got one of his corporals to show me around the department. As far as I know he didn't do this for any other recruit candidate that interviewed with him that day.
Polyfraud,
From what you say it seems that you have a possible ally in the Captain. Did he give you his business card? If so it may be a good idea to call and update him on your progress. He could be an ace-in-the hole.
Fred F.
Posted by polyfraud
- Apr 11, 2001, 06:13 AMQuote from: Fred F. on Apr 07, 2001, 08:18 PM
A question for you; Did this Captain speak to you "on the record" or was it merely a "conversation". I ask this because the way he addresses you has a lot to do with his attitude towards you. If he is on the record he could very well be a nice guy. If he was having a conversation with you then he really could care less and is merely doing the politically correct thing.
Good Luck to you
Well, he had a longer than usual interview with me and he seemed like a real friendly guy. Afterwards he got one of his corporals to show me around the department. As far as I know he didn't do this for any other recruit candidate that interviewed with him that day. The only thing he said that wasn't a guarantee was the job offer part..he said I had a really good chance of getting in assuming I pass the mandatories ie, background, med, psych, poly.
By the way, he didn't mention anything "on record" or "off record" it was a frank conversation.
Posted by Nate
- Apr 09, 2001, 12:09 PMI would say you got it made "IF" in fact the Captain is on your side. IF the Captain really wants you then you might try to slide this info onto the polygraph examiner. In my opinion the examiner makes a decision on whether or not you will pass "before" you take the test. If you tell him his own boss wants you then that might sway his results in your favor. I had a friend who passed every aspect of the pre-employment process. He too was a minority. Yet they failed him on the Polygraph exam (false positive). I believe he failed because the examiner kept asking questions about his wishing to be a pilot. He wanted to be a pilot all his life and went to the Air Force Academy and got his BS degree. But he ended up getting married and that's not the life for a family man. At the time of the application he was applying for a helicopter pilot with the ARMY. I believe the failed him because they knew his true love was flying and not law enforcement. A week later he passed the polygraph exam for a different police department and now he is a state police officer!
Politics is a dangerous game to play. When I was 20 years old I knew the Deputy Chief of Police. I was selected to go to the Academy and dropped out before it started to move to Virginia Beach with my future wife. It didn't work out so I came back. A new Chief of Police was hired and I tried to get into the next class. I was told (through the grapevine) that I didn't get selected because the current Chief openly admits he didn't get along with the Deputy Chief. My point is playing the political game is a must if you want in but it may also come with some consequences too. Good Luck.
Politics is a dangerous game to play. When I was 20 years old I knew the Deputy Chief of Police. I was selected to go to the Academy and dropped out before it started to move to Virginia Beach with my future wife. It didn't work out so I came back. A new Chief of Police was hired and I tried to get into the next class. I was told (through the grapevine) that I didn't get selected because the current Chief openly admits he didn't get along with the Deputy Chief. My point is playing the political game is a must if you want in but it may also come with some consequences too. Good Luck.
Posted by Fred F.
- Apr 07, 2001, 08:18 PMpolyfraud,
you quote in your letter
So far the local PD i'm applying to has been extremely gracious towards my application to be an officer. The Captain I interviewed with has been very supportive and added that he would have given me a conditional offer of employment if possible.
You should be leery of what this Captain tells you. He may just want to encouarge you to stay in the process and use you as a "number" in the analysis of who applies and who gets in, of course he will "offer you a job if possible" if it was possible you would be hired. A question for you; Did this Captain speak to you "on the record" or was it merely a "conversation". I ask this because the way he addresses you has a lot to do with his attitude towards you. If he is on the record he could very well be a nice guy. If he was having a conversation with you then he really could care less and is merely doing the politically correct thing.
The real danger as you have said is the "examiner". This could be a guy with a big chip on his shoulder and hate people who took the time to get an education. The last poly I took the examiner seemed to dislike the fact that I had a bachelors degree.
Dont assume that the political powers are on your side, politics is a show and tell game, show you something good and tell someone else that you really dont fit the needs of the department.
Good Luck to you
you quote in your letter
So far the local PD i'm applying to has been extremely gracious towards my application to be an officer. The Captain I interviewed with has been very supportive and added that he would have given me a conditional offer of employment if possible.
You should be leery of what this Captain tells you. He may just want to encouarge you to stay in the process and use you as a "number" in the analysis of who applies and who gets in, of course he will "offer you a job if possible" if it was possible you would be hired. A question for you; Did this Captain speak to you "on the record" or was it merely a "conversation". I ask this because the way he addresses you has a lot to do with his attitude towards you. If he is on the record he could very well be a nice guy. If he was having a conversation with you then he really could care less and is merely doing the politically correct thing.
The real danger as you have said is the "examiner". This could be a guy with a big chip on his shoulder and hate people who took the time to get an education. The last poly I took the examiner seemed to dislike the fact that I had a bachelors degree.
Dont assume that the political powers are on your side, politics is a show and tell game, show you something good and tell someone else that you really dont fit the needs of the department.
Good Luck to you