- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by orolan
- Jan 24, 2003, 12:25 AMAm I the only one who caught the obvious here. When Polycop quoted "significantly better than chance", he should have said "well above chance", which is what the text actually says (see George's post). He also left off the latter part of the sentence, which says "though well below perfection".
Posted by PeterFonda
- Jan 22, 2003, 09:07 PMMarty,
Thank you...WuzaFuzz..sounds like a bright man or woman. If this person was a police officer, probably let go for his lack of reading ability, or possible his failure to accurately pronounce names. Sounds like he or she has been hanging out too long in the teenager chat rooms.
Peter
Thank you...WuzaFuzz..sounds like a bright man or woman. If this person was a police officer, probably let go for his lack of reading ability, or possible his failure to accurately pronounce names. Sounds like he or she has been hanging out too long in the teenager chat rooms.
Peter
Posted by Marty
- Jan 22, 2003, 08:53 PMQuote from: wuzafuzz on Jan 22, 2003, 05:23 PM
Way to go "Peterfondle". It out to make ole "Batshit" and "Eastpeckerwood" feel good to know that nine perverts finally passed their precious polygraph tests.
PeterFonda's posts are related to domestic violence. He posted NOTHING about sex crimes.
-Marty
Posted by wuzafuzz
- Jan 22, 2003, 05:23 PMWay to go "Peterfondle". It out to make ole "Batshit" and "Eastpeckerwood" feel good to know that nine perverts finally passed their precious polygraph tests. 
Posted by PeterFonda
- Jan 22, 2003, 03:57 PMEastwood,
As I have written, I passed and 8 friends passed after talking with me. There is nothing difficult about passing a poly. What people are failing is people skills, controlling your interogation and getting the Polygraher on your side, he needs to respect and like you if possible. His job is to trick you into confession, how you handle his tricks is the key. I have found in business that a customer is more likely to spend more money to work with a person he likes, likewise for Polygraphers.
Peter
As I have written, I passed and 8 friends passed after talking with me. There is nothing difficult about passing a poly. What people are failing is people skills, controlling your interogation and getting the Polygraher on your side, he needs to respect and like you if possible. His job is to trick you into confession, how you handle his tricks is the key. I have found in business that a customer is more likely to spend more money to work with a person he likes, likewise for Polygraphers.
Peter
Posted by steincj
- Dec 17, 2002, 08:07 PMAh, Breeze, you should be like your name, rather than the long winded fool you are.
Before you read this, please step down from your LE pedestal you have put yourself on. You have a knack for being condescending, and I think it's natural for you. Maybe for a minute if you just stepped back from the situation, and took an objective look -- it's alot easier to see someone else's point of view when your head isn't plugged up your ass.
Now, remember, you love to talk about how I "failed" and you "passed" polygraphs. Your arrogance in talking about this is unbelievable. Failing a polygraph is like failing a blood test. "Sorry, sir, your red blood count was too low, you fail." I had no control over the polygraph. I sat in the chair and did what I was told. I answered the questions truthfully. Just like giving blood. You sit there and let the "professionals" do their jobs. Sure I've had a couple rookies mangle my veins trying to take blood, but it never affects the outcome of the test. Did I have a rookie polygrapher, or is the test itself flawed? Again, it comes down to the question of the control that the test taker has on the test. I did what I was told, and I failed. It was a situation that was out of my control, and my life has been upended because of it.
I didn't fail any academic test, I didn't fail the interview, I wouldn't have failed any of the physical tests. When it is in my control, I succeed. But I choose not to rub that in people's faces. Does this help you understand?
Why must you rub "passing" in our faces? Does this make you feel good about yourself? Do you now think you are better than those of us here who have failed?
As far as your ignorance, you missed my point. I feel you are ignorant of our situation, not in life in general. One thing you should have learned by reading the few posts I have made, my insults are not backhanded. You'll know when I'm attacking you. Again, your ignorance lies solely in you lack of understanding of the situations of those who are part of this site. I don't care about your wonderful LE background, just like you don't care about mine. Nothing you can say will impress me, and nothing I say will impress you. Check that, if I complimented a self-centered fool like you, you'd be impressed that I was able to witness your grandeur just from a message board.
Keep waiting for that compliment.
Chris
PS -- I'll update profile so you don't call me a gal again. Kind of worries me, can't tell a man from a woman. Wouldn't want to go out to the bars with you, Sea Breeze, that's for sure
Posted by Skeptic
- Dec 17, 2002, 03:59 PMQuote from: The_Breeze on Dec 17, 2002, 03:52 PM
Is Fair Chance the only anti-polygraph person on this site that can generate respect?
If statistics are any indicator, then perhaps "earning respect" is the more relevant issue.
Skeptic
Posted by The_Breeze
- Dec 17, 2002, 03:52 PMDimas and Chris
I am always amazed how conclusions are reached by certain individuals at this site, and you two gals are no exception. OK where to start....Im an ass for pointing out that employers may not want to take everything said on an application at face value. I think your objection about knowing ones self as proof that the polygraph should not be a part of an application process is a bit of a reach, but its your story to tell. As for me putting myself in your shoes, if by that I need to fail some applicant processes, its probably too late. I did try to have your experience, but I just kept passing.
Your right to categorize me as ignorant based on your long and distinguished LE career, lengthy exposure to polygraph as it is used in criminal and screening formats, and your intense self awareness.
Is Fair Chance the only anti-polygraph person on this site that can generate respect?
I am always amazed how conclusions are reached by certain individuals at this site, and you two gals are no exception. OK where to start....Im an ass for pointing out that employers may not want to take everything said on an application at face value. I think your objection about knowing ones self as proof that the polygraph should not be a part of an application process is a bit of a reach, but its your story to tell. As for me putting myself in your shoes, if by that I need to fail some applicant processes, its probably too late. I did try to have your experience, but I just kept passing.
Your right to categorize me as ignorant based on your long and distinguished LE career, lengthy exposure to polygraph as it is used in criminal and screening formats, and your intense self awareness.
Is Fair Chance the only anti-polygraph person on this site that can generate respect?
Posted by steincj
- Dec 13, 2002, 03:53 PMQuote from: dimas on Dec 13, 2002, 12:09 AM
I have to agree with The_Breeze in that there are several valid applications in the use of polygraphs, especially in helping obtain confessions from criminals that would otherwise have walked.
dimas,
There are several applications for the polygraph. The machine works. It measures blood pressure, breathing patterns, and sweat gland reactions. That's it. The machine is only as good as the man who tries to interperet it.
The polygraph won't always break a suspect into a confession, just maybe the really weak minded ones. (Are there that many strong minded criminals out there?) But it's best application is narrowing a group of suspects. Take 10 suspects and a group of confused LE pros. The machine will show who physiologically reacts to certain questioning, and the polygrapher, through training and experience, can let the LE pros know which 3 or 4 suspects to begin investigating. That's effective use of the polygraph.
Now take the same polygrapher and machine, trained to elicit responses from criminals, and give tham an applicant. The result is Antipolygraph.org and a bunch of polygraphers who truly believe they are doing their parent agencies a favor by removing druggies and spies (like me) from consideration. And those agencies believe that it is effective use of the polygraph.
QuoteIt hurts to have your integrity called into question and I hope it never happens to The_Breeze, because then he would actually realize what an ass he has been by criticizing those of us on this site for criticizing a machine and a man who say they know us better than we know ourselves.
The_Breeze is a self-centered attention hog. When he fails a poly, he can rejoin this site on our side, but his name should change to either "The_Whisper" or "Breaking_Wind." He has yet to put himself in our shoes. Do what I do -- ignore the ignorant.
Chris
Posted by dimas
- Dec 13, 2002, 12:09 AMI have to agree with The_Breeze in that there are several valid applications in the use of polygraphs, especially in helping obtain confessions from criminals that would otherwise have walked. Unfortunately it seems that he himself doesn't seem to realize the damage that they can do to a persons career and/or job opportunities. The US system of justice is a tedious and often frustrating one. It is like that, however for a reason. People are innocent until proven guilty and we are protecting their rights. We do not live under Napoleonic Law. The polygraph however assumes guilt until the person proves his innocence. I have taken two polygraphs and received inconclusive results on both of them. I have nothing to hide my past isn't that bad, yet somehow this polygrapher knows better? I am currently an officer and have received various commendations as well as being the officer of the year for my department. Yet these prior two inconclusives have often been the thorns in my side because other agencies for which I have applied view them in a negative light and use them as a means to turn me away, simply because they are convinced that I am hiding something.
The polygraph hasn't just hurt me it hurts countless other applicants who see their dreams shot down and thrown out the window. It hurts to have your integrity called into question and I hope it never happens to The_Breeze, because then he would actually realize what an ass he has been by criticizing those of us on this site for criticizing a machine and a man who say they know us better than we know ourselves.
The polygraph hasn't just hurt me it hurts countless other applicants who see their dreams shot down and thrown out the window. It hurts to have your integrity called into question and I hope it never happens to The_Breeze, because then he would actually realize what an ass he has been by criticizing those of us on this site for criticizing a machine and a man who say they know us better than we know ourselves.
Posted by Eastwood
- Dec 07, 2002, 02:44 PMQuote from: Fair Chance on Dec 07, 2002, 01:25 AM
Dear Eastwood,
You are correct when you accuse me of being on the anti-polygraphers bandwagon. I went through the first polygraph which I felt was performed professionally even if I came back inconclusive. The second was the polygraph from hell. I can not understand how two "professionally experienced highly trained examiners (I would expect the Federal Bureau of Investigation to not employ anyone other than a professional) could arrive at such completely opposite conclusions. The first examiner treated me with respect and consideration and the second was assasinating my character within two minutes of closing the examining room door. I believe that any reliable forensic test should have repeatability which was completely lacking in my case. I am keeping an open mind to more research regarding the validity of specific incident testing and GKT but the prescreening and screening polygraphs without investigation ARE PURELY the flip of a coin.
Thank you for indulging my opinion. I have read and respected yours.
Regards.
Fair Chance: "Fair" enough - Thanks for your note
Posted by Anonymous
- Dec 07, 2002, 11:02 AMEastwood,
The reason I used the analogy I did for your little bandwagon is that it is an in-house affair even requiring an invitation. Our bandwagon (actually courtesy of you and your ilk) is constantly growing and changing as you provide new victims. Perhaps you might care to read John Furedy's The CQT Polygraphers' Dilemma: Logico-Ethical Considerations for Psychophysiological Practitioners and Researcher (http://psych.utoronto.ca/~furedy/poldil.htm). It describes what a miserable and unsatisfactory experience a polygraph exam is for even one who is found to be non-deceptive. Particularly with regards to polygraph screening, it is completely tantamount to being subjected to a digital rectal probe that has no diagnostic validity. Why would any sane person voluntarily and knowingly participate in such masochistic nonsense (although I have questioned Breeze's sanity from time to time, even his participation was likely mandated by his employment, not merely an off-season alternative activity to killing Bambi), and why would you expect anything other than what you see here—a constant stream of frustrated, hurt and ANGRY victims??
The reason I used the analogy I did for your little bandwagon is that it is an in-house affair even requiring an invitation. Our bandwagon (actually courtesy of you and your ilk) is constantly growing and changing as you provide new victims. Perhaps you might care to read John Furedy's The CQT Polygraphers' Dilemma: Logico-Ethical Considerations for Psychophysiological Practitioners and Researcher (http://psych.utoronto.ca/~furedy/poldil.htm). It describes what a miserable and unsatisfactory experience a polygraph exam is for even one who is found to be non-deceptive. Particularly with regards to polygraph screening, it is completely tantamount to being subjected to a digital rectal probe that has no diagnostic validity. Why would any sane person voluntarily and knowingly participate in such masochistic nonsense (although I have questioned Breeze's sanity from time to time, even his participation was likely mandated by his employment, not merely an off-season alternative activity to killing Bambi), and why would you expect anything other than what you see here—a constant stream of frustrated, hurt and ANGRY victims??
Posted by Fair Chance
- Dec 07, 2002, 01:25 AMQuote from: Eastwood on Dec 07, 2002, 12:51 AMDear Eastwood,
Anonymous: Are you saying that you and the other anti-polygraphers don't jump on your own bandwagon? Gimme a break.
You are correct when you accuse me of being on the anti-polygraphers bandwagon. I went through the first polygraph which I felt was performed professionally even if I came back inconclusive. The second was the polygraph from hell. I can not understand how two "professionally experienced highly trained examiners (I would expect the Federal Bureau of Investigation to not employ anyone other than a professional) could arrive at such completely opposite conclusions. The first examiner treated me with respect and consideration and the second was assasinating my character within two minutes of closing the examining room door. I believe that any reliable forensic test should have repeatability which was completely lacking in my case. I am keeping an open mind to more research regarding the validity of specific incident testing and GKT but the prescreening and screening polygraphs without investigation ARE PURELY the flip of a coin.
Thank you for indulging my opinion. I have read and respected yours.
Regards.
Posted by Eastwood
- Dec 07, 2002, 12:51 AMAnonymous: Are you saying that you and the other anti-polygraphers don't jump on your own bandwagon? Gimme a break. 
Posted by Anonymous
- Dec 06, 2002, 10:30 PMBreeze,
Your and polycop's coming to Eastwood's rescue (being the sole participants in his polygraph is good campaign) is like two brothers steping forward to take their ugly sister to the prom...very admirable...I hope he will feel loved and you two have found purpose in life...peace
Your and polycop's coming to Eastwood's rescue (being the sole participants in his polygraph is good campaign) is like two brothers steping forward to take their ugly sister to the prom...very admirable...I hope he will feel loved and you two have found purpose in life...peace