- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by Ex Member
- Sep 23, 2015, 03:16 PMIndeed, Marston was more of a vaudevillian. In my book, Cesare Lombroso was more of a true visionary.
Posted by Drew Richardson
- Sep 23, 2015, 09:10 AMArk,
When you compare the account that you quoted with the reality of Marston and Wonder Woman, you have a very good example of truth being stranger than an admittedly pretty strange fiction...
When you compare the account that you quoted with the reality of Marston and Wonder Woman, you have a very good example of truth being stranger than an admittedly pretty strange fiction...
Posted by Ex Member
- Sep 22, 2015, 10:51 PMQuoteThe inventor Dr. William Nelson a NASA scientist who developed it said he was only creating a party gig to be used against his brother-in-law to be.Say what?
Posted by Al Pacino
- Sep 22, 2015, 08:29 PMTo the individual inquiring about the booklet " how to sting the polygraph " the individual that says they both suck has either got to be a polygraph operator or a cop or possibly even a Fed !
I can honestly tell you that this technique does work ! I have been using it for the past four years having to take a polygraph test every six months because of the federal control that I have on me ! I am an ex-federal con and if you think an ex-con would tell the truth to his PO or a therapist that he is forced to have to see and talk to you got another thing coming.! Get real after having been screwed by the federal system and still being screwed by the federal system you come to a new reality, a new way of thinking. Yes be very afraid of the polygraph for it is not a lie detector it can no more detect whether a person is lying or telling the truth then you have the ability to go to heaven until God that you are taking over ! How absolutely absurd is that !
Yes definitely get the book ! From someone who is been using these techniques for four years a total of eight now going on nine polygraph tests which I have passed with flying colors I can definitely tell you the polygraph is most emphatically a farce, a fraud, an absolute lie in and of itself ! The inventor Dr. William Nelson a NASA scientist who developed it said he was only creating a party gig to be used against his brother-in-law to be. The feds stole the patent and turned this device into what is now the biggest lying piece of hardware damages people's lives that the feds could have ever hoped for. Don't let the polygraph interrogator have the upper hand !
" Get the book "
I can honestly tell you that this technique does work ! I have been using it for the past four years having to take a polygraph test every six months because of the federal control that I have on me ! I am an ex-federal con and if you think an ex-con would tell the truth to his PO or a therapist that he is forced to have to see and talk to you got another thing coming.! Get real after having been screwed by the federal system and still being screwed by the federal system you come to a new reality, a new way of thinking. Yes be very afraid of the polygraph for it is not a lie detector it can no more detect whether a person is lying or telling the truth then you have the ability to go to heaven until God that you are taking over ! How absolutely absurd is that !
Yes definitely get the book ! From someone who is been using these techniques for four years a total of eight now going on nine polygraph tests which I have passed with flying colors I can definitely tell you the polygraph is most emphatically a farce, a fraud, an absolute lie in and of itself ! The inventor Dr. William Nelson a NASA scientist who developed it said he was only creating a party gig to be used against his brother-in-law to be. The feds stole the patent and turned this device into what is now the biggest lying piece of hardware damages people's lives that the feds could have ever hoped for. Don't let the polygraph interrogator have the upper hand !
" Get the book "
Posted by An ex-felonan
- Sep 03, 2015, 01:40 AMI have had to take the polygraph test every six months since 2011 I am an ex-felon and if you think that I would tell the truth on every single question that I'm asked you have got to have something wrong upstairs ! I can honestly tell you that Doug Williams how to sting the polygraph truly does work ! And I can honestly tell you that more than half of the questions I'm asked each time is definitely not the truth ! Why would you tell the truth to an individual who is going to relay absolutely everything you say to him to a fraudulent entity that murdered and killed over 188 people in order to become a placing agency yes I'm talking about the feds ! How utterly stupid what a person have to be to tell anything truthful to the feds !
Yes how to sting the polygraph truly works !
Yes how to sting the polygraph truly works !
Posted by Marty
- Jul 05, 2003, 09:09 PMQuote from: orolan on Jul 05, 2003, 06:32 PMMarty,
So the rationale goes something like this: Since the examinee "lied" on the control but did not "know" he was lying, it was a "little lie" that would show a small response due to the examinee's lack of "fear". On a subsequent relevant question, a "lie" would show as a stronger response due to the fact that the examinee "knows" he is lying and "fears" the consequences of being caught in his lie?
And no, I'm not baiting the polygraphers. Just trying to understand. BTW, anybody heard from the Caped Crusader lately?
Let me provide a scenario to clarify this. Imagine the following two people who both smoked dope every other weekend in their senior year of HS but had been clean since. Imagine one had, together with a friend, stolen a neighbor's high end stereo and TV and pawned them but were never caught.
Typically, one of the "controls" is a broad question about stealing when you were young while a "relevant" might be a more specific instance of stealing > $200 from an employer. And of course the drug questions would also be "relevants."
It is highly likely that the person who stole and pawned the electronic equipment would be more reactive to the theft question than the drug question and would therefor be the one more likely to be hired by LE, other factors being equal. OTOH, a third person who had never been involved with drugs at all, perhaps as a result of knowing someone that OD'ed but had also never stolen even a candy bar would likley react more to the "relevant" drug question, even if completely innocent, just from being accused since he would be completely comfortable he had never stolen anything while the examiner is *assuming* otherwise.
It should be clear from this just how difficult it is to establish the validity of the polygraph when used in a CQT, and how, in some cases, a CQT may be biased against an innocent person.
-Marty
Posted by orolan
- Jul 05, 2003, 06:32 PMMarty,
So the rationale goes something like this: Since the examinee "lied" on the control but did not "know" he was lying, it was a "little lie" that would show a small response due to the examinee's lack of "fear". On a subsequent relevant question, a "lie" would show as a stronger response due to the fact that the examinee "knows" he is lying and "fears" the consequences of being caught in his lie?
And no, I'm not baiting the polygraphers. Just trying to understand. BTW, anybody heard from the Caped Crusader lately?
So the rationale goes something like this: Since the examinee "lied" on the control but did not "know" he was lying, it was a "little lie" that would show a small response due to the examinee's lack of "fear". On a subsequent relevant question, a "lie" would show as a stronger response due to the fact that the examinee "knows" he is lying and "fears" the consequences of being caught in his lie?
And no, I'm not baiting the polygraphers. Just trying to understand. BTW, anybody heard from the Caped Crusader lately?
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Jul 05, 2003, 01:17 PMBreeze,
You write:
No doubt, law enforcement properly uses investigatory techniques that are not science-based diagnostic tests, such as interviews and interrogations. But the polygraph community presents polygraphy to the public as a highly reliable, scientifically-sound diagnostic test for deception. (No such claims are typically made with regard to interviews or interrogations.) DoDPI and the American Polygraph Association have even taken to calling polygraphy the "psychophysiological detection of deception" or "forensic psychophysiology."
It is hardly "weak" of me to point out that claims that CQT polygraphy is a science-based diagnostic test are patently false.
I agree with you that the fact that a purported diagnostic technique cannot be proven to my satisfaction (or to the National Academy of Sciences,' or the the vast majority of scientists') does not mean that it is entirely without merit. CQT polygraphy does have some utility to the extent that it encourages some subjects to be more candid than they would be absent the polygraph. But I think you confuse utility with validity.
You note that, "[your] applicants almost without fail will admit disqualifying information after failing an exam, and it will be specific to the area in which they failed." It is hardly surprising that applicants who ultimately admit to disqualifying information would do so specifically with regard to the area in which they "failed," because it is precisely regarding that area that they will be interrogated in the "post-test" phase.
You asked me to "explain...how a follow up exam, done for the purpose of verifying use of CM is an admission that detection is unreliable?" First, as I pointed out in my post of 25 June, a GKT itself cannot "show conclusively" that a test subject actually used information that only someone who visited AntiPolygraph.org would know. It can only show that a person is likely to have knowledge of such information. If you could reliably detect countermeasures, there would be little point in running a follow-up GKT that cannot show that a subject used countermeasures.
Note that the polygrapher who suspects a subject of having employed countermeasures is the wrong person to administer a follow-up GKT in an attempt to determine whether a subject has knowledge that only someone who has visited AntiPolygraph.org would possess. The polygrapher will have a bias toward confirming his suspicions that could very well influence the outcome of the procedure.
Finally, you wrote to Marty, "Personally, I would like to see an applicant do all the research he has time for in order to make an informed choice." If that's the case, then why not refer all applicants to AntiPolygraph.org before their polygraph examinations?
You write:
QuoteAnd finally George. LE work is filled with unscientific methods, as you know-you just focus on one of the tools that has offended you. To continue to throw up "lack of scientific method" at the end of all your arguements is weak. Because something cannot be proved to your satisfaction in a lab does not mean it is without merit!
For something like polygraph that lacks a scientific basis it sure does get to the right answer an overwhelming percentage of times (in my experience) You do not have to accept this, but then again, you have never seen the tool used, and your experience base is primarily from the testimony of others. Our applicants almost without fail will admit disqualifying information after failing an exam, and it will be specific to the area in which they failed. However this usually takes about 20 minutes of wading through denials. Sorry, ive just seen it too much to believe its random chance.
And please explain to me how a follow up exam, done for the purpose of verifying use of CM is an admission that detection is unreliable? Its simply additional evidence. Follow up exams are standard practice as things come into focus. The fact that very few people would be subjected to such a test I have already explained in a previous post. And as I explained to marty, knowledge is not and never will be a problem, augmentation is.
No doubt, law enforcement properly uses investigatory techniques that are not science-based diagnostic tests, such as interviews and interrogations. But the polygraph community presents polygraphy to the public as a highly reliable, scientifically-sound diagnostic test for deception. (No such claims are typically made with regard to interviews or interrogations.) DoDPI and the American Polygraph Association have even taken to calling polygraphy the "psychophysiological detection of deception" or "forensic psychophysiology."
It is hardly "weak" of me to point out that claims that CQT polygraphy is a science-based diagnostic test are patently false.
I agree with you that the fact that a purported diagnostic technique cannot be proven to my satisfaction (or to the National Academy of Sciences,' or the the vast majority of scientists') does not mean that it is entirely without merit. CQT polygraphy does have some utility to the extent that it encourages some subjects to be more candid than they would be absent the polygraph. But I think you confuse utility with validity.
You note that, "[your] applicants almost without fail will admit disqualifying information after failing an exam, and it will be specific to the area in which they failed." It is hardly surprising that applicants who ultimately admit to disqualifying information would do so specifically with regard to the area in which they "failed," because it is precisely regarding that area that they will be interrogated in the "post-test" phase.
You asked me to "explain...how a follow up exam, done for the purpose of verifying use of CM is an admission that detection is unreliable?" First, as I pointed out in my post of 25 June, a GKT itself cannot "show conclusively" that a test subject actually used information that only someone who visited AntiPolygraph.org would know. It can only show that a person is likely to have knowledge of such information. If you could reliably detect countermeasures, there would be little point in running a follow-up GKT that cannot show that a subject used countermeasures.
Note that the polygrapher who suspects a subject of having employed countermeasures is the wrong person to administer a follow-up GKT in an attempt to determine whether a subject has knowledge that only someone who has visited AntiPolygraph.org would possess. The polygrapher will have a bias toward confirming his suspicions that could very well influence the outcome of the procedure.
Finally, you wrote to Marty, "Personally, I would like to see an applicant do all the research he has time for in order to make an informed choice." If that's the case, then why not refer all applicants to AntiPolygraph.org before their polygraph examinations?
Posted by Marty
- Jul 05, 2003, 12:18 AMQuote from: orolan on Jul 04, 2003, 11:41 PMMarty,
Your latest post causes me to wonder once again why polygraphers have to "know" what a lie looks like on the chart before they can find another one.
If the premise were correct that a lie will cause a significantly "taller" spike than a truth, why not establish a baseline using a series of questions the examiner knows the true answers to, ie "Is today Friday?", "Is your name Marty?", etc. With this baseline established, responses that were significantly stronger would be scored as lies.
What about it, polygraphers?
Orolan,
Assuming you aren't just baiting polygraphers, the main reason polygraphy migrated from the RI to CQT is that what is detected is not lies or truth, but fear of detection (or as Drew says somewhat more accurately, fear of consequences). The chatter about lies producing distinct responses per se is a conditioning technique designed to make the CQT more accurate and create more concern (and response) on the controls than the relevants*. The risk is that exceptionally honest individuals may not be swayed into lying on the controls.
*[edited] Assumes examinee is innocent. For a deceptive examinee, the intent is to create greater response on both Q's, the assumption being that the relevant Q will elicit a greater response even though the examinee is deceptive on both.
-Marty
Posted by orolan
- Jul 04, 2003, 11:41 PMMarty,
Your latest post causes me to wonder once again why polygraphers have to "know" what a lie looks like on the chart before they can find another one.
If the premise were correct that a lie will cause a significantly "taller" spike than a truth, why not establish a baseline using a series of questions the examiner knows the true answers to, ie "Is today Friday?", "Is your name Marty?", etc. With this baseline established, responses that were significantly stronger would be scored as lies.
What about it, polygraphers?
Your latest post causes me to wonder once again why polygraphers have to "know" what a lie looks like on the chart before they can find another one.
If the premise were correct that a lie will cause a significantly "taller" spike than a truth, why not establish a baseline using a series of questions the examiner knows the true answers to, ie "Is today Friday?", "Is your name Marty?", etc. With this baseline established, responses that were significantly stronger would be scored as lies.
What about it, polygraphers?
Posted by Marty
- Jul 04, 2003, 09:21 PMBreeze,
That is difficult to align with the secrecy of the CQT. Why not just use the DLT with everyone if you desired examinees to be accurately informed?
False positives for metabolic byproducts are rare, but then these are more easily quantified. OTOH, drug users that can't abstain long enough to pass a piss test shouldn't be hired for dog catcher. LE should use hair samples taken at time of application and occasionally through the hiring process. A lot more reliable and can't be gotten around by short term abstention.
-Marty
Quote from: The_Breeze on Jul 03, 2003, 01:43 PMFair enough but it doesn't address the basic issue. An accurately* informed examinee cannot be easily given a CQT. Perhaps compliance psychological techniques can be sufficiently powerful to create the required dissonance on the control Q's but it is pretty obvious that an accurately informed individual who makes the ethical choice not to use countermeasures will be more likely to render a false positive in a CQT.
We ask if an applicant has recieved advice or conducted research, not because its disqualifying, (its not) but because the advice may be very badly flawed.
QuoteIt also shows an applicant that the examiner is "current" and understands the issue. Personally, I would like to see an applicant do all the research he has time for in order to make an informed choice.
That is difficult to align with the secrecy of the CQT. Why not just use the DLT with everyone if you desired examinees to be accurately informed?
Quote
It would not be confined to polygraph, help is there for those wishing to confuse urinalysis and psychological testing as well.
False positives for metabolic byproducts are rare, but then these are more easily quantified. OTOH, drug users that can't abstain long enough to pass a piss test shouldn't be hired for dog catcher. LE should use hair samples taken at time of application and occasionally through the hiring process. A lot more reliable and can't be gotten around by short term abstention.
QuoteCall it feeble if you want to, but I can promise you that the applicant who follows advice as presented here, fails, uses CM's, is called on it, and finally confesses feels the process was anything but.There is no advice presented here that I've found that includes the examinee confessing. That said, I do believe CM's can be done poorly. One of the thing's I've been ruminating over is CM detection methodologies. I am of the belief that some types of CM's can be detected - in particular, when an examinee claims to not know about CQT's and CM's, and then uses them they become susceptible to the specific incident polygraph techniques (such as the GKT), which has more scientific basis than CQT or other screening techniques.
QuoteYou may not want to believe this, but we want]our applicants to pass.I believe you want examinees who are not deceptive on the R's to pass. Why would anyone think otherwise?
QuoteMarty, I hope that answers your question about research. You see, logging on to a site and becoming informed cannot impact an applicant.If that were only the case. If knowledgeable candidates were not problematic then polygraphers wouldn't be misleading examinees on the controls to start with. The theory is (as you well know) that selection and presentation of well chosen controls is crucial to minimizing false positives.
-Marty
Posted by guest from canada
- Jul 03, 2003, 06:55 PMThe breeze,
you make some valid points. thanks for the reply. I suppose if I were in your shoes I would be taking the same stance as you regarding the poly. I just fail to see the science in the poly and have very well been tainted to taking the anti poly stance due to a bad poly experience.
As for the gun registry we up here in Canada have to laugh too. It is th precusor to gun confiscation. The liberal thieves with their fearless leader Chretien have managed to spend approximately 1 billion dollars on a registry that was only supposed to cost around 2 million. It has yet to prove it has decreased gun crime by 0.1%. A complete and total waster of tax payers dollars. If Alberta were to vote for separation I would do it in a second. Next choice would be to join you guys down there!
you make some valid points. thanks for the reply. I suppose if I were in your shoes I would be taking the same stance as you regarding the poly. I just fail to see the science in the poly and have very well been tainted to taking the anti poly stance due to a bad poly experience.
As for the gun registry we up here in Canada have to laugh too. It is th precusor to gun confiscation. The liberal thieves with their fearless leader Chretien have managed to spend approximately 1 billion dollars on a registry that was only supposed to cost around 2 million. It has yet to prove it has decreased gun crime by 0.1%. A complete and total waster of tax payers dollars. If Alberta were to vote for separation I would do it in a second. Next choice would be to join you guys down there!
Posted by The_Breeze
- Jul 03, 2003, 01:43 PMNorth of the border friend and others:
How is that gun confiscation going? I hear its a bit over budget and suffers from non compliance-fix it so I can come up and slay a moose.
Why write here? thats actually your best point. Its hard to explain. Maybe a strange fascination with so much wasted talent giving such jaded advice, maybe to make an applicant think twice before doing something he will not do very well and wreck a career. I dunno.
Your premise is wrong of course but I understand you. My livlihood in no way depends on polygraph, should they be banned tomorrow, Im still working. I would rather have one of our applicants stand on thier merits rather than attempting some sort of artificial augmentation as they hide part of their background. We ask if an applicant has recieved advice or conducted research, not because its disqualifying, (its not) but because the advice may be very badly flawed. It also shows an applicant that the examiner is "current" and understands the issue. Personally, I would like to see an applicant do all the research he has time for in order to make an informed choice. It would not be confined to polygraph, help is there for those wishing to confuse urinalysis and psychological testing as well. Call it feeble if you want to, but I can promise you that the applicant who follows advice as presented here, fails, uses CM's, is called on it, and finally confesses feels the process was anything but.
You may not want to believe this, but we want our applicants to pass. So I post on occasion to provide some type of balance, you do not have to believe anything I say.
Marty, I hope that answers your question about research. You see, logging on to a site and becoming informed cannot impact an applicant. Using techniques to attempt to mask an omission will.
And finally George. LE work is filled with unscientific methods, as you know-you just focus on one of the tools that has offended you. To continue to throw up "lack of scientific method" at the end of all your arguements is weak. Because something cannot be proved to your satisfaction in a lab does not mean it is without merit!
For something like polygraph that lacks a scientific basis it sure does get to the right answer an overwhelming percentage of times (in my experience) You do not have to accept this, but then again, you have never seen the tool used, and your experience base is primarily from the testimony of others. Our applicants almost without fail will admit disqualifying information after failing an exam, and it will be specific to the area in which they failed. However this usually takes about 20 minutes of wading through denials. Sorry, ive just seen it too much to believe its random chance.
And please explain to me how a follow up exam, done for the purpose of verifying use of CM is an admission that detection is unreliable? Its simply additional evidence. Follow up exams are standard practice as things come into focus. The fact that very few people would be subjected to such a test I have already explained in a previous post. And as I explained to marty, knowledge is not and never will be a problem, augmentation is.
How is that gun confiscation going? I hear its a bit over budget and suffers from non compliance-fix it so I can come up and slay a moose.
Why write here? thats actually your best point. Its hard to explain. Maybe a strange fascination with so much wasted talent giving such jaded advice, maybe to make an applicant think twice before doing something he will not do very well and wreck a career. I dunno.
Your premise is wrong of course but I understand you. My livlihood in no way depends on polygraph, should they be banned tomorrow, Im still working. I would rather have one of our applicants stand on thier merits rather than attempting some sort of artificial augmentation as they hide part of their background. We ask if an applicant has recieved advice or conducted research, not because its disqualifying, (its not) but because the advice may be very badly flawed. It also shows an applicant that the examiner is "current" and understands the issue. Personally, I would like to see an applicant do all the research he has time for in order to make an informed choice. It would not be confined to polygraph, help is there for those wishing to confuse urinalysis and psychological testing as well. Call it feeble if you want to, but I can promise you that the applicant who follows advice as presented here, fails, uses CM's, is called on it, and finally confesses feels the process was anything but.
You may not want to believe this, but we want our applicants to pass. So I post on occasion to provide some type of balance, you do not have to believe anything I say.
Marty, I hope that answers your question about research. You see, logging on to a site and becoming informed cannot impact an applicant. Using techniques to attempt to mask an omission will.
And finally George. LE work is filled with unscientific methods, as you know-you just focus on one of the tools that has offended you. To continue to throw up "lack of scientific method" at the end of all your arguements is weak. Because something cannot be proved to your satisfaction in a lab does not mean it is without merit!
For something like polygraph that lacks a scientific basis it sure does get to the right answer an overwhelming percentage of times (in my experience) You do not have to accept this, but then again, you have never seen the tool used, and your experience base is primarily from the testimony of others. Our applicants almost without fail will admit disqualifying information after failing an exam, and it will be specific to the area in which they failed. However this usually takes about 20 minutes of wading through denials. Sorry, ive just seen it too much to believe its random chance.
And please explain to me how a follow up exam, done for the purpose of verifying use of CM is an admission that detection is unreliable? Its simply additional evidence. Follow up exams are standard practice as things come into focus. The fact that very few people would be subjected to such a test I have already explained in a previous post. And as I explained to marty, knowledge is not and never will be a problem, augmentation is.
Posted by Anonymous
- Jun 27, 2003, 04:25 PMSaidme,
You write:
Actually all people who visit this site have reason to do so....those who have committed crimes, those who have not, and those who know both groups....the American and international public needs to know what a fraud polygraphy is as a diagnostic instrument and how it likely affects all these groups and society in general.
You write:
Quote...Of course, most people undergoing a criminal specific issue polygraph test who visit this site have reasons to visit this site....
Actually all people who visit this site have reason to do so....those who have committed crimes, those who have not, and those who know both groups....the American and international public needs to know what a fraud polygraphy is as a diagnostic instrument and how it likely affects all these groups and society in general.
Posted by Saidme
- Jun 27, 2003, 04:16 PMTo our Candadian Guest
You mention: "I read your two posts and have to wonder the following? If this sites, and the "sting the poly" sites, mention or disclosing of CM's to beat the poly is actually helping you to detect and uncover applicants using them why would you open your mouth and state so."
Everyone we polygraph is not guilty of a crime. Those who choose to come on to these sites and make a conscious descision to "help themselves" place themselves in jeopardy. For those conducting pre-employment exams, if they see CM's they'll most likely address the issue. If discovered; bye bye job. At the very least the examiner will be suspicious causing the examinee undue hardship (further testing and interviews). For the criminal specific examinee whose not involved in the matter at hand, they now jeopardize placing themselves in the cross-hairs as well as dragging out a criminal investigation that might be solved in a shorter period of time.
Of course, most people undergoing a criminal specific issue polygraph test who visit this site have reasons to visit this site.
You mention: "I read your two posts and have to wonder the following? If this sites, and the "sting the poly" sites, mention or disclosing of CM's to beat the poly is actually helping you to detect and uncover applicants using them why would you open your mouth and state so."
Everyone we polygraph is not guilty of a crime. Those who choose to come on to these sites and make a conscious descision to "help themselves" place themselves in jeopardy. For those conducting pre-employment exams, if they see CM's they'll most likely address the issue. If discovered; bye bye job. At the very least the examiner will be suspicious causing the examinee undue hardship (further testing and interviews). For the criminal specific examinee whose not involved in the matter at hand, they now jeopardize placing themselves in the cross-hairs as well as dragging out a criminal investigation that might be solved in a shorter period of time.
Of course, most people undergoing a criminal specific issue polygraph test who visit this site have reasons to visit this site.