The 16 August 2003 issue of
The Polygraph Chronicles, a bi-weekly electronic newsletter published by The Polygraph Place (http://www.polygraphplace.com), includes an article by polygrapher Nate Gordon (http://www.polygraph-training.com/Instructors.htm), who provides an overview of the American Polygraph Association's annual seminar held 3-8 August 2003 in Sparks, Nevada. Gordon mentions that one presenter gave a talk on how to rig a polygraph "test":
QuoteThere were excellent presentations offered, and one that gave me the sensation I was in a time machine. After attacking the CQT, due to its vulnerability to countermeasures, this presentor gave instructions on how to use techniques that ensured DI charts, when you already new [sic] the examinee was DI, and only wanted leverage for a confession.
I find the above to be a very disturbing notion. How does a polygrapher "know" that an examinee is "DI" ("deception indicated")? If such knowledge is based on real evidence, then why not just confront the examinee with that evidence?
FBI polygrapher Michael Templeton must have thought he "knew" that Egyptian student Abdallah Higazy, who was staying at a hotel adjacent to the World Trade Center on 11 September 2001, was lying when he denied knowledge of an aviation radio that was allegedly found locked in his room safe. But what Templeton, who extracted a false confession from Higazy, could not have known is that the hotel employee who claimed to have found the radio in Higazy's room safe was lying.
That how to rig a polygraph "test" was on the agenda at the American Polygraph Association's annual seminar is all the more reason for anyone suspected of a crime to refuse to submit to any polygraph "test."
I must admit even I am shocked that something like this was stated in public during a presentation at the APA seminar. I'll still wait for confirmation on this one (perhaps from one of our readers), but considering that this comes from a pro-polygraph source, it doesn't look good for the APA.
Speaking of confirmation, I believe that the APA annual seminar is open to non-members (at a substantial fee, of course). Perhaps someone here can tell me if I am mistaken.
I just may have to attend next year's APA convention if my schedule allows. Considering that this site is arguably the most widely read resource on polygraphy, we really should have someone at this affair gathering info for dissemination first hand. Besides, it might be interesting to meet some of our counterparts first hand.
Gino,
Note also that this polygrapher who gave a presentation on how to ensure a "deception indicated" outcome showed little confidence in
1) the validity of CQT polygraphy, and
2) the ability of polygraphers to detect countermeasures.
George
Blah blah blah blah blah whine blah blah blah blah blah blah poor me blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah my feeling's were hurt blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah.
Reminds me of the old Stuart Smalley routine on SNL. I'm good enough, smart enough, and people like me.
George,
If that which you have reported is confirmed to be true, i.e., the comments were made as reported and as part of an APA sanctioned talk and not immediately condemned by said group, then this finding is very significant and quite disturbing. Even one such as I, who regularly condemns CQT testing because of long held beliefs regarding the random and unacceptable error inherent in the technique, would not believe that there was a widespread market within the polygraph community for the sort of outright fraud described in this thread. It is hard to believe that audience participants would not have felt and expressed immediate revulsion for any notion that involved discussing ways examiners might manipulate an exam to produce DI results.
Thats why these polygraph people are dangerous.
Making sure that someone is DI is the same thing as planting evidence or falsifying a report. They have no problem with that!
But I am not surprised that they would admit to such a thing. It is not uncommon for bad cops to break the law, lie in court and commmit crimes. They do it, loudly and boldly until they get caught!
Now these polygraphers are caught admitting that they DI people on purpose. They can dance around that statement, retract it, do what ever they choose, but we know the truth from their own mouths.
They modify the results of the test to back up their theories!
Remember the DODPI racial bias study that was surpressed by the DODOI - same thing.
They know that the test is unfair, their own study suggests it, but they are going to stick by their 'profession' because it pays.
I love the irony that the people charged with exposing the truth, hide it and lie about it when it exposes them as liars.
Suethem,
QuoteNow these polygraphers are caught admitting that they DI people on purpose.
:o :o :o
And the "best" of them offers up these words of wisdom:
QuoteBlah blah blah blah blah
:D :D :D
What a joke. Just when you think they have their head in the sand far enough, they go and shove it even further down.
SaidMe wrote:
QuoteBlah blah blah blah blah whine blah blah blah blah blah blah poor me blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah my feeling's were hurt blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah.
You made no mention of my plans to attend next year's APA convention in your thoughtful and articulate post. Does this mean that we won't be meeting for a beer in the hotel barroom?
Gino
You can count on me having a beer with you. ;)
Quote from: George W. Maschke on Aug 17, 2003, 06:49 AMThe 16 August 2003 issue of The Polygraph Chronicles, a bi-weekly electronic newsletter published by The Polygraph Place (http://www.polygraphplace.com[/url), includes an article by polygrapher Nate Gordon (http://www.polygraph-training.com/Instructors.htm), who provides an overview of the American Polygraph Association's annual seminar held 3-8 August 2003 in Sparks, Nevada. Gordon mentions that one presenter gave a talk on how to rig a polygraph "test":
There were excellent presentations offered, and one that gave me the sensation I was in a time machine. After attacking the CQT, due to its vulnerability to countermeasures, this presentor gave instructions on how to use techniques that ensured DI charts, when you already new [sic] the examinee was DI, and only wanted leverage for a confession.
I find the above to be a very disturbing notion. How does a polygrapher "know" that an examinee is "DI" ("deception indicated")? If such knowledge is based on real evidence, then why not just confront the examinee with that evidence?
FBI polygrapher Michael Templeton must have thought he "knew" that Egyptian student Abdallah Higazy, who was staying at a hotel adjacent to the World Trade Center on 11 September 2001, was lying when he denied knowledge of an aviation radio that was allegedly found locked in his room safe. But what Templeton, who extracted a false confession from Higazy, could not have known is that the hotel employee who claimed to have found the radio in Higazy's room safe was lying.
That how to rig a polygraph "test" was on the agenda at the American Polygraph Association's annual seminar is all the more reason for anyone suspected of a crime to refuse to submit to any polygraph "test."
They must be so very proud.
On this topic I'd have to agree with Drew's assessment. I find it hard to believe that such information would be officially presented at an APA seminar. If it was ,I hope such content was not known by the association leadership prior to the presentation.
Clearly, anyone who legitimately utilizes polygraph would not advocate such misuse/abuse of an accepted technique. Nor would they allow such discredit to be brought upon polygraph by making public comments of this type.
Let me make it clear, that such "rigging" of an exam for "DI Charts" would be considered an ethical violation for examiners in any reputable government agency. If a government examiner were to "rig" an exam to get the result they wanted, they would be disciplined, likely dismissed, for ethical violations. I've seen worse for smaller infractions than what this passage suggests.
George,
I was unable to pull up the newsletter from your link. The home page for Polygraph Place only offered sign-up's for emailings of future newsletters (as far as I saw in my brief look there).
Also, have you checked for any records of this presentation? I'd like to see in full context what this presentation was all about, before we pass judgement.
I have sent the following inquiry to APA director Dave Knefelkamp, who was the seminar program chair, and cc'd it to other APA officers:
QuoteTo: Dave Knefelkamp <lie2me@skypoint.com>
From: "George W. Maschke" <maschke@antipolygraph.org>
Subject: APA Seminar Presentation on How to Rig a Polygraph Test?
Cc: Skip Webb <apa@mail4skip.com>, Don Weinstein <DONMARINE@AOL.com>, Vicky T. Murphy <vickie@polygraph.org>, Lawrence Wasser <LMWASSER@aol.com>, T.V. O'Malley <Tvpoly@aol.com>, John E. Consigli <johnconsigli@pol.state.ma.us>, Donnie W. Dutton <ddutton@sc.rr.com>, Michael L. Smith <smithapa@aol.com>, Roy Ortiz <rl-oasis-poly@att.net>, Daniel Sosnowski <sos4911@aol.com>, Steve Eliot <reliot86@aol.com>, Stuart Senter <stuanddee@msn.com>
Bcc:
X-Attachments:
Dear Mr. Knefelkamp,
The 16 August 2003 issue of The Polygraph Chronicles, a bi-weekly electronic newsletter published by The Polygraph Place (http://www.polygraphplace.com), includes an article by Nate Gordon, who provides an overview of the annual seminar held 3-8 August 2003 in Sparks, Nevada. Gordon mentions that one presenter gave a talk on how to rig a polygraph examination:
"There were excellent presentations offered, and one that gave me the sensation I was in a time machine. After attacking the CQT, due to its vulnerability to countermeasures, this presentor gave instructions on how to use techniques that ensured DI charts, when you already new [sic] the examinee was DI, and only wanted leverage for a confession."
I find the above to be a very disturbing notion. How does a polygrapher "know" beforehand that an examinee is "DI?" If such knowledge is based on real evidence, then why not just confront the examinee with that evidence?
Could you tell me who made this presentation and whether it had your prior approval?
Also, under what circumstances would the American Polygraph Association condone the use by its members of any techniques to ensure DI charts?
Sincerely,
George W. Maschke
AntiPolygraph.org
PS: A copy of this e-mail will be posted in the AntiPolygraph.org message board thread, Polygrapher Teaches How to Rig Exam (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=1262.msg10198#msg10198), where a discussion of this issue is ongoing. If you or anyone else from the APA would care to respond there, your input would be welcome.
Public Servant,
I have e-mailed you the 16 August 2003 issue of The Polygraph Chronicles. As you've noted, The Polygraph Place does not include an on-line archive current or past issues. If anyone else would like to receive a copy, contact me by e-mail or send a private message via this message board, and I'll forward it.
As you will note, the portion I cited is all that Nate Gordon wrote about the presentation in question. As you will also note, I have sent an inquiry to the APA officer who organized the seminar, and hope that we will receive clarification regarding this matter soon.
This speaker was being facetious in the opening of his presentation, and the remarks in my article were meant to indicate to everyone how scary such behavior would be. I agree with one of your responders that such behavior would be like "planting evidence," it would be extremely unethical, unprofessional, and I am sure would result in expulsion from the APA.
There is always concern about sites like yours that offer suggestions on how to beat the polygraph. I am of the opinion that if those who supposedly taught it actually knew, they would all have government jobs and top secret clearances.
However, I will give your readers the secret. If you are going to lie on a polygraph test the best way to "beat" it, is don't take it.
I am sorry about any confusion my article caused.
Sincerely,
Nate Gordon
Sincerely,
Nate Gordon
Quote from: Nate_Gordon on Aug 19, 2003, 04:12 PMI am of the opinion that if those who supposedly taught it actually knew, they would all have government jobs and top secret clearances.
I did, and I probably will again, but this time, it will be much easier "passing" the polygraph.
Gino and George
Looks like the APA fellow took the winds out of your sail. Too bad, seems like you guys were getting pretty worked up. I doubt you saw the humor in his presentation.
Mr. Gordon,
You write:
QuoteThis speaker was being facetious in the opening of his presentation, and the remarks in my article were meant to indicate to everyone how scary such behavior would be. I agree with one of your responders that such behavior would be like "planting evidence," it would be extremely unethical, unprofessional, and I am sure would result in expulsion from the APA.
Thank you for clarifying this. Was the point that the speaker was trying to convey with humor that just as it would be unethical for polygraph examiners to use techniques that ensure failing charts, so too is it unethical for polygaph subjects to use techniques that ensure passing charts? Or was it something else? (Skip Webb has e-mailed me that the remarks were "apparently based upon statements made on [on AntiPolygraph.org] in the past about the R&I polygraph technique," but I'm not sure which ones.)
QuoteThere is always concern about sites like yours that offer suggestions on how to beat the polygraph. I am of the opinion that if those who supposedly taught it actually knew, they would all have government jobs and top secret clearances.
Wishful thinking, Mr. Gordon. It was the experience of being falsely accused of deception based on polygraph chart readings that led Gino Scalabrini and I to research polygraphy, and ultimately to co-author
The Lie Behind the Lie Detector (http://antipolygraph.org/pubs.shtml). We didn't just make up the countermeasure information in our book. We based it on sources including peer-reviewed studies by Professor Charles R. Honts and collaborators and DoDPI documentation.
We know what we're talking about, and it scares the polygraph community. That's why Paul M. Menges, who teaches DoDPI's countermeasure course for polygraph examiners, has recently suggested that providing such information to the public should be made illegal (http://antipolygraph.org/articles/article-029).
That the polygraph community is very concerned about the kinds of countermeasures described on AntiPolygraph.org is also supported by the fact that the topic of countermeasures has been on the agenda at most polygraph organization seminars held since we went on-line (including the American Polygraph Association seminars for at least the last three years running).
That the polygraph community lacks confidence in its ability to detect countermeasures is supported by the game of "hide-the-countermeasure-studies" that DoDPI and the CIA played with the National Academy of Sciences (see
The Lie Behind the Lie Detector, 3rd ed., p. 160) and by the fact that no polygrapher has yet mustered the courage to accept Dr. Richardson's polygraph countermeasure challenge (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=418.msg1942#msg1942) (569 days and counting).
QuoteHowever, I will give your readers the secret. If you are going to lie on a polygraph test the best way to "beat" it, is don't take it.
Your sharing this "secret" suggests a lack of confidence in your ability to detect countemeasures....
American Polygraph Association past president Skip Webb, who is now the chairman of the APA's board of directors, sent me a courteous reply to the inquiry I had e-mailed to Mr. Knefelkamp (and cc'd to other APA officers). I think it is appropriate to reproduce it here:
QuoteDear Mr. Maschke,
Thank you for your note. I think that Mr. Gordon's post on your site explained that his comment and that made by the person providing the presentation at our annual seminar was made in jest and meant to be humorous. There certainly was no such presentation on our program. The remark was, by the way, apparently based upon statements made on your site in the past about the R&I polygraph technique. I assure you that the APA would never condone the "rigging" of a polygraph test. The word "rigging" was yours and not that of either Mr. Gordon or the lecturer. Thank you for allowing me to clarify this misunderstanding. I enjoy reading the comments on your site from time to time as do many of my colleagues. Your site contains a wealth of information for polygraph examiners about the people we test.
Sincerely,
Milton O. Webb, Jr.
Chairman of the Board of Directors,
American Polygraph Association
I agree that Mr. Gordon's post adequately explained his commentary in
The Polygraph Chronicles, and am very glad that the misunderstanding has now been clarified.
If anyone knows upon what statements about the R&I polygraph technique made on AntiPolygraph.org the remark was based, I'd be interested in knowing more about this.
I would note that although Mr. Gordon did not use the term "rigging," I believe it is an apt characterization of "techniques that ensured DI charts, when you already new [sic] the examinee was DI, and only wanted leverage for a confession."
Finally, I would invite Mr. Webb and other polygraph examiners who visit AntiPolygraph.org from time to time to consider participating in the discussions on this message board. If you believe any arguments put forth here to be unfair, misleading, out of context, or just plain wrong, please don't hesitate to say so. There is no need to "grin and bear it." Your views are welcome.
George
You know I would never grin and bear it. Regarding Drew's clock. I thought I told you guys to turn it off. Tick Tick Tick Tick Tick Tick ;)
Saidme,
You can turn off the polygraph countermeasure challenge clock by stepping up to the plate and accepting the challenge (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=418.msg1942#msg1942).
Quote from: George W. Maschke on Aug 20, 2003, 11:29 AMSaidme,
You can turn off the polygraph countermeasure challenge clock by stepping up to the plate and accepting the challenge (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=418.msg1942#msg1942).
I would think Saidme, with his oft-stated ability to detect countermeasures, would be the perfect man for the job...
Skeptic
George
As I've stated before, we (examiners) do it day in and day out. Regarding the challenge; I've already offered my services to Dr Drew. ;)
PLEASE STOP FEEDING THE TROLLS!!! ::)
Quote from: Saidme on Aug 20, 2003, 02:45 PMGeorge
As I've stated before, we (examiners) do it day in and day out....
So why can't you and your fellow polygraphers demonstrate this claimed ability to outsiders?
Quote from: SecondChancePoly on Aug 20, 2003, 03:28 PMPLEASE STOP FEEDING THE TROLLS!!! ?::)
SecondChancePoly,
This troll (Saidme) is proving our points in ways we could not possibly hope to.
George
Name calling seems out of character for you. Relax, don't sweat the small stuff, and it's all small stuff. ;)
Quote from: Saidme on Aug 20, 2003, 05:57 PMGeorge
Name calling seems out of character for you. Relax, don't sweat the small stuff, and it's all small stuff. ;)
Hmmm...is it "name-calling" to describe someone's actions accurately?
Skeptic
Polygraphy is like trolling for the truth. It is out there, but you don't know for sure where it is or what's being done to cover it up. Sometimes you come up empty-handed; sometimes you strike pay dirt. Some people get caught up in the net; smart swimmers know how to avoid being caught.
George et al,
Did you happen to see the number of views for this thread alone? Over 2500. Is that a computer error or did you strike a cord with someone? 2500 sure seems out of place considering the replies and other threads.
The 2500 views appear to be accurate. Seems like this one was big news within the polygraph community.
Mr Truth (or is it Mark Spitz) you know not of what you speak.
Gino, I think the reason this thread got so much attention was because of the fools you guys made of yourselves all over someone's sense of humor. By the way, I like Black and Tan's.
Quote from: Saidme on Aug 20, 2003, 10:08 PMMr Truth (or is it Mark Spitz) you know not of what you speak.
Oh yes, you are soooo correct about that. I have absolutely no idea about bamboozling a polygrapher, none whatsoever, no siree. Everyone in your profession is sharp as a tack, quick to point out the use of countermeasures. I can hardly wait to spend a few weeks in training, lay out some large bills for questionable software and equipment, and render "expert" opinions on an examinee's veracity. I want to be part of that gravy train just like you. I promise to uphold the honor and dignity of the profession. Christ, with all that high tech polygraph equipment and expert training, I won't have to troll for the truth; I'll be able to divine it with the pneumo tubes/GSR/BP cuff. If there is smoke, there is fire. That will be my motto/mantra. A little spike there in blood pressure? Aha! Caught another lying son-of-a-bitch. Chalk one up for the god guys, oops, I mean good guys.
Saidme,
I wasn't able to discern from your "blah blah blah whine" post whether or not you're for the behavior described in the quote.
Do you believe it is good practice to ensure you get a DI chart on someone you "know" is DI to provide leverage for a confession?
Quote from: Saidme on Aug 20, 2003, 10:08 PMGino, I think the reason this thread got so much attention was because of the fools you guys made of yourselves all over someone's sense of humor.
It's good to know that the polygraph community can have a good laugh at the trouble they cause for their victims -- real class. Even given the foolish assumption that this forced DI chart thing has never happened, there is plenty of abuse in the polygraph community, and I don't think its the least bit funny.
As for making fools of themselves,
"I'll still wait for confirmation on this one" from Scalabrini
"
would not believe that there was a widespread market within the polygraph community for the sort of outright fraud described in this thread" from Richardson
...looks like pretty guarded responses to me
There certainly wasn't anything in the original quote provided that would have clued people in that the speaker was being facetious.
And what was the reference to the time machine supposed to mean?
Quote from: Canadian Crusader on Aug 20, 2003, 09:23 PMGeorge et al,
Did you happen to see the number of views for this thread alone? ?Over 2500. ?Is that a computer error or did you strike a cord with someone? ?2500 sure seems out of place considering the replies and other threads.
There's no computer error. This message thread was linked to in a number of weblogs. Note that the number of views indicated does not include instances where messages in this thread have been viewed using the "recent posts" feature.
Onesimus
Let me clarify my blah blah blah whine post. I don't advocate any examiner pushing an exam to DI or NDI. I simply say let the chips fall where they may (as it should be).
I think it's good examiner's have a healthy sense of humor. Afterall, 90% of our time is spent with the bottom tier of the food chain.
I think earlier posts have put this issue to bed once and for all. Apparently there was no seminar given at the APA that advocated ensuring DI charts. And yes, I'll stand by my earlier statement that I believe Gino and George jumped the gun on this one and made fools of themselves. They saw (what they thought) was a golden opportunity to stick to the old polygraph community and it backfired. I would think they even realize that at this point.
Time machine? I haven't a clue. ;)
Saidme,
When will you and your community realize that you are all on borrowed time? You are one major incident away from the polygraph being put to sleep forever.
We are a very reactionary society. Our airliners got hijacked, so we locked cockpit doors and gave pilots guns. We tripled security in the terminals and x-ray everything in sight.
The 20 year old space shuttle crashes. We blame it on old systems and engineering and now we pour money into a new space progeam.
The northeast blacked out, and we blamed it on antique power systems which we will replace with new ones immediately, again abandoning the old systems and pouring money into new ones.
For Americans, it doesn't matter how old or poor a system is until it fails. And when it does fail, beware those involved with that system, for the index finger of blame holds much weight in the arena of public opinion.
For every one of these examples, there have been people (like all of us here) who bitched and moaned about how poor the current system was. Whether it was slack airport security, overused spacecraft, or old power lines, there have been people who have complained before the major incident hit.
It won't be a Barbara Walters 20/20 expose or a snipit on the evening news. It will have to be big. Real big.
So the next time a spy causes major havoc in a government agency, or some polygrapher "ensures a DI chart" on an innocent who happens to be the child of someone very important, it may be the spark that lights our overreaction fires.
And trust me, polygrapher, you will see how fast you are turned on. Those who say how great your profession is today will turn on you and tell you how sick an individual you are for manipulating peoples's lives. You will be spun around so fast, the only person you will be able to relate to is the pre-9/11 airport security guard.
Overreaction -- it's the American way.
Chris
PS - nice to see all the debate didn't die down while I was away.
steincj
Hate to knock you off your soap box but comparing the perceived failures of polygraph to a terroist attack, space shuttle disaster, or the northeast blackout is ludicrous. For every perceived (stress perceived)injustice with polygraph there are countless positive cases that will overshadow them. The only thing you were correct on is that you all bitch and moan. In the mean time you and your pals can hope and pray for some major disaster to further your cause.
Saidme,
Your reasoning that because of the untold numbers of successes the poly has had, the false positives and failed dreams of many applicants should be of little concern rings of the foundation of communism.
Are you a communist. Screw the few for the betterment of the many?
I will be getting back to your other post regarding continuing the poly after detecting CM's. I just have to wade through your 250 some posts to find it.
CC
I like some of your thinking; you wrote:
"because of the untold numbers of successes the poly has had,"
At least we can agree on that.
Regarding the false positives I do believe it's a concern and I think the polygraph community believes it to be a concern. All examiners (that I know) do their very best to avoid it. I think the majority of these cases probably occur in the pre-employment screening process which as I've stated in earlier posts, I don't support. While you're reading some of my masterpieces you might look for that one as well. ;)
Quote from: Saidme on Aug 21, 2003, 10:07 AM
I think it's good examiner's have a healthy sense of humor. Afterall, 90% of our time is spent with the bottom tier of the food chain.
What is the criterion for being in the bottom tier of the food chain? Who are you to judge? Is this your idea of humor?
Ahh! Methinks Saidme ist a convoluted ignoramus mit einer verdienstvollen Richtung des Schicksals. Wenn er dieses übersetzen kann, möglicherweise wurde der ursprüngliche Schlamm nicht auf einigem vergeudet. Ich hoffe einen Tag, dieses pseudoscience, das ein menschliches Leben wird nur überlassen dem Menschen beeinflußt, der ihn wünscht. Er ist die Plakatverkollkommnung des 3. Reich und der rassischen Reinheitbewegung, die ich wette.
Aldo
Quote from: Saidme on Aug 21, 2003, 02:11 PMsteincj
Hate to knock you off your soap box
No you don't. You knocked me off so you could get on.
Quotebut comparing the perceived failures of polygraph to a terroist attack, space shuttle disaster, or the northeast blackout is ludicrous.
First of all, how you get off saying that the polygraph only has "percieved" failures is beyond me. I sat in your damned chair. I was told I was a spy and unfaithful to my nation. I saw the failure of the polygraph firsthand, and watched 2 friends fail in similar fashion, at the hands of the same man and his foolish machine. These failures are in
no way "percieved."
I have been around LE all of my life, and the polygraph has always been a favorable tool, when used properly. But the widespread jurisdiction it has been granted well exceeds its narrow window of accuracy. Yet our agencies still hold blind faith in its effectiveness. Until a major incident opens their eyes, it will not change, and you will remain as self-righteous and arrogant about how wonderful your profession is until that day.
QuoteFor every perceived (stress perceived)injustice with polygraph there are countless positive cases that will overshadow them.
Funny you use the word "countless." The numbers are countless,
because they can't be counted. No lab can accurately reproduce real life polygraph test stressors, so your accuracy numbers are bogus. And how is it that polygraphers "count" their numbers, anyway? How can they know their failure rate if they don't know whether they let a deceptive individual pass? How many polygraphs did Aldrich Ames pass? When he did pass, was he "counted" as an accuarate test?
QuoteThe only thing you were correct on is that you all bitch and moan.
I stand corrected. Overreaction and bitching and moaning -- THEY are the American ways.
QuoteIn the mean time you and your pals can hope and pray for some major disaster to further your cause.
Once again, a polygrapher questions my patriotism. See, I would NEVER hope and pray for some major disaster. And I wouldn't ask anyone else to do so. That's a line I refuse to cross. But your DoDPI training teaches you to cross that line, doesn't it. Work that reaction out of the subject, right? It's the only way to "ensure the DI."
It's your soap box, Saidme.
Chris
So where's the saidme rebutal?
I will reply for Saidme.
When he comes to an intellectual standstill (which he does often) and is unable to counter something he will say:
"See George, arn't you proud of the people representing you" or some other one liner of that nature.
-OkieBoy
Quote from: OkieBoy on Aug 25, 2003, 01:39 AMI will reply for Saidme.
When he comes to an intellectual standstill (which he does often) and is unable to counter something he will say:
"See George, arn't you proud of the people representing you" or some other one liner of that nature.
-OkieBoy
Nods......nods......
Hey Chris.......good to see you back!
Just where has my favorite El Guano been on this one?
Regards,
Seeker