- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by Anonymous
- Mar 29, 2003, 04:24 PMFair Chance,
You write:
Actually it's much worse than that. Polygraph examiners would like you to believe that, because when one of their exams is shown conclusively to be wrong, they will simply say the guy screwed up, but if I or my agency were doing it, things would be different, yada, yada...
The truth of the matter is polygraph practice and error is not about malpractice, it is about quackery. It just plain doesn't work for intended purposes.
You write:
Quote...On using the polygraph, it is surely not scientific but an "art form" as admitted by many polygraph examiners...
Actually it's much worse than that. Polygraph examiners would like you to believe that, because when one of their exams is shown conclusively to be wrong, they will simply say the guy screwed up, but if I or my agency were doing it, things would be different, yada, yada...
The truth of the matter is polygraph practice and error is not about malpractice, it is about quackery. It just plain doesn't work for intended purposes.
Posted by Fair Chance
- Mar 29, 2003, 03:16 PMDear Triple X,
I have posted far less of lately because any responses to postings like the previous ones (i.e. "x") attacking other posters will not change their behavior or minds.
Both pro-polygraph and anti-polygraph posters must realize that verbal jabs only destroy any course of discussion.
I will agree to disagree with anyone but why waste your time posting if you do not want to see responses.
On countermeasures there is such a paradox. If they do not work and are easily detectable why worry about them so if you are propolygraph for surely all "liars" and "dishonest" people will be caught anyway.
On using the polygraph, it is surely not scientific but an "art form" as admitted by many polygraph examiners. The operator is the key. That does not sound like a good repeatable forensic test to me that I want criminal charges or national security to depend on.
Regards.
I have posted far less of lately because any responses to postings like the previous ones (i.e. "x") attacking other posters will not change their behavior or minds.
Both pro-polygraph and anti-polygraph posters must realize that verbal jabs only destroy any course of discussion.
I will agree to disagree with anyone but why waste your time posting if you do not want to see responses.
On countermeasures there is such a paradox. If they do not work and are easily detectable why worry about them so if you are propolygraph for surely all "liars" and "dishonest" people will be caught anyway.
On using the polygraph, it is surely not scientific but an "art form" as admitted by many polygraph examiners. The operator is the key. That does not sound like a good repeatable forensic test to me that I want criminal charges or national security to depend on.
Regards.
Posted by triple x
- Mar 28, 2003, 10:16 PMx,
What precisely is your point..??
Name-calling and immature insults directed at others serves no clear purpose. Please make your personal views; opinion and position clear with regard to polygraph testing.
Others will openly share a broad exchange of ideals.
Triple x,
[No affiliation/association with guest: "x"]
What precisely is your point..??
Name-calling and immature insults directed at others serves no clear purpose. Please make your personal views; opinion and position clear with regard to polygraph testing.
Others will openly share a broad exchange of ideals.
Triple x,
[No affiliation/association with guest: "x"]
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Mar 28, 2003, 07:06 PMx,
Although I have done a considerable amount of research into polygraphy, I've never characterized myself as a polygraph "expert," and I'm not "posing" as anything. If there is anything I've written about polygraphy that you believe to be untrue or misleading, please don't hesitate to point it out.
Although I have done a considerable amount of research into polygraphy, I've never characterized myself as a polygraph "expert," and I'm not "posing" as anything. If there is anything I've written about polygraphy that you believe to be untrue or misleading, please don't hesitate to point it out.
Posted by x
- Mar 28, 2003, 06:44 PMHere comes Elmer Fudd, aka George, to your rescue Chris. He is in fact the original loser and he is in fact posing as an expert. Strange since he just posted that he has never used these countermeasures himself and further stated that he was shown deceptive on EVERY relevant question. I ask the pro poly guys, have you ever had anyone show deception on EVERY relevant question? Or is this more exageration on ole wittle georie's part?
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Mar 28, 2003, 05:40 PMChris,
Thanks for sharing your reply to your friend. With regard to DoD's use of the polygraph in particular, you might want to pass on to him the following links:
"The Lying Game: National Security and the Test for Espionage and Sabotage":
http://antipolygraph.org/articles/article-002.shtml
"Open Letter to Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld on Waste, Fraud, and Abuse in the DoD Counterintelligence-Scope Polygraph Program":
http://antipolygraph.org/articles/article-011.shtml
"How to Pass the DoD CI-Scope Polygraph":
https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=42.msg130#msg130
Best,
George
Thanks for sharing your reply to your friend. With regard to DoD's use of the polygraph in particular, you might want to pass on to him the following links:
"The Lying Game: National Security and the Test for Espionage and Sabotage":
http://antipolygraph.org/articles/article-002.shtml
"Open Letter to Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld on Waste, Fraud, and Abuse in the DoD Counterintelligence-Scope Polygraph Program":
http://antipolygraph.org/articles/article-011.shtml
"How to Pass the DoD CI-Scope Polygraph":
https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=42.msg130#msg130
Best,
George
Posted by x
- Mar 28, 2003, 02:18 PMWay to go Chris. Another loser posing as an expert. This site is full of them and full of crap too.
Posted by beech trees
- Mar 27, 2003, 05:06 PMI have.
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Mar 27, 2003, 04:01 PMNo. I have never used countermeasures.
The information on countermeasures provided in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector is based not on my or Mr. Scalabrini's personal experience, but rather on published research and documentation that skeptical readers may check for themselves.
The information on countermeasures provided in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector is based not on my or Mr. Scalabrini's personal experience, but rather on published research and documentation that skeptical readers may check for themselves.
Posted by Interested
- Mar 27, 2003, 03:38 PMGeorge have you ever used these countermeasures yourself?
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Mar 27, 2003, 08:28 AMChris,
Thank you for sharing this! It's interesting that the Army is phasing out the MOS, even as DoD is thinking of expanding its polygraph program. Does your friend have any further information on this? Are the military polygraphers simply being replaced by Department of the Army civilian employees, or is the Army not to have any organic polygraphers at all?
Your friend's impression that countermeasures would be difficult to employ because perspiration is hard to control is mistaken. It may indeed be hard to suppress perspiration, but that is not what is required. Rather, reactions to the so-called "control" questions must be augmented. Mental countermeasures, tongue-biting, or anal sphincter contraction are all likely to produce an electrodermal response.
Did the block of instruction on polygraphy include any discussion of the difference between relevant and "control" questions? That is, does the U.S. Army Intelligence Center and School (USAICS) trust MI officers with "the lie behind the lie detector," or did the instructor withhold this information from them?
I would be interested in reading your response to your friend. I hope that he and his classmates will share what they've learned about the polygraph with the soldiers in their units. Your friend is dead right when he says using the polygraph on any U.S. citizen should be taboo. By informing those whom our government would polygraph of the fraud that is being practiced against them, we can make continued reliance on this pseudoscientific fraud impractical, and hasten its abolishment.
Thank you for sharing this! It's interesting that the Army is phasing out the MOS, even as DoD is thinking of expanding its polygraph program. Does your friend have any further information on this? Are the military polygraphers simply being replaced by Department of the Army civilian employees, or is the Army not to have any organic polygraphers at all?
Your friend's impression that countermeasures would be difficult to employ because perspiration is hard to control is mistaken. It may indeed be hard to suppress perspiration, but that is not what is required. Rather, reactions to the so-called "control" questions must be augmented. Mental countermeasures, tongue-biting, or anal sphincter contraction are all likely to produce an electrodermal response.
Did the block of instruction on polygraphy include any discussion of the difference between relevant and "control" questions? That is, does the U.S. Army Intelligence Center and School (USAICS) trust MI officers with "the lie behind the lie detector," or did the instructor withhold this information from them?
I would be interested in reading your response to your friend. I hope that he and his classmates will share what they've learned about the polygraph with the soldiers in their units. Your friend is dead right when he says using the polygraph on any U.S. citizen should be taboo. By informing those whom our government would polygraph of the fraud that is being practiced against them, we can make continued reliance on this pseudoscientific fraud impractical, and hasten its abolishment.