To all;
My present to the world and all those persecuted and wrongly accused by the polygraph.
And to those job seekers so it doesn't happen to you.
Let the cognitive training and disbelief begin !!!
This is a work in progress, but its time to unveil it !!!
Enjoy the preview screen shot !!!
:)
Why does it not suprise me that this site would introduce a POS that doesn't work!
Regards,
Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.......I am EOS Stupidor and I control the magic video !
EOS,
I guess you won't be putting Doug Williams on Welfare any time soon.
Regards,
sigh. Eos.....more misguided attempts at "helping folks". I will contact the various associations of parole and probation authorities to look for the proper peripherals, codecs and file names attached with your silly little quizmaster----so that we can see how many sexually violent predators are practicing to disengage the empirically proven success of sex offender treatment. Eos Eos Eos. Ladies and germs, I present.......................A good mind going to waste. :-/
This is like a six year old making his own computer from toy blocks. It fun, but its make-believe.
Just because you download a free VB Express tool and learn a little vocab, doesn't make you an expert, any more than squeakin' through polyschool with a "C"
Nice sandbox, though.
To all;
This is merely just one of the tools in my toolbox. The original CMTrainerI was just a prototype to try my theories.
I have upgraded and improved since that vintage.
But to give Doug Williams credit, he has the right idea. And if you want to pay for it, then so be it. I choose to add my research to the world for free.
Laugh it up funny boys ....
But I do seriously suggest that you be looking for other employment.
Carnivals always need midway workers for their slight of hand games.
Regards ....
Quote from: Paradiddle on Sep 30, 2007, 12:45 PMsigh. Eos.....more misguided attempts at "helping folks". I will contact the various associations of parole and probation authorities to look for the proper peripherals, codecs and file names attached with your silly little quizmaster----so that we can see how many sexually violent predators are practicing to disengage the empirically proven success of sex offender treatment. Eos Eos Eos. Ladies and germs, I present.......................A good mind going to waste. :-/
Paradiddle,
I will say that if you get any results from your information posting. Then post it, but the best part is, with out the key and the time use code to go with it. Its not usable or distributable. It has safeties designed to stop even the most avid geek, with a decompiler, or reverse engineering skills. So have it, as 256 Bit encryption is not breakable. I am not worried that it will fall into hands of questionable backgrounds. Once the internal timer goes off, it shuts itself down, until you get another time key, or installation key. A failsafe as it were, as each key is usable only once.
Regards ....
QuoteBut to give Doug Williams credit, he has the right idea. And if you want to pay for it, then so be it. I choose to add my research to the world for free.
A noble pursuit. Helping the spies and offenders of the world. Your mother would be proud.
QuoteIts not usable or distributable. It has safeties designed to stop even the most avid geek, with a decompiler, or reverse engineering skills. So have it, as 256 Bit encryption is not breakable. I am not worried that it will fall into hands of questionable backgrounds. <snip>
That's a relief. We wouldn't want any decent cops or supervising officers getting ahold of that now, would be. It is for spies, liars, and offenders alone. I'm sure they will appreciate it.
Hey, I met with a couple people last week who could use your help. How about sending it our way to pass along to them. See, 'cause if they pass/beat the test, then they won't have to 'splain nothin'. Its business as usual for them. Wee-hee. We won't pry into it. We promise. C'mon. Altruism should care not for criminal intent or personal history.
Eos, you said previously you do not help sex offenders. Yet, I see that you are trying to help two block. Lets all give you a golf clap. Apparently you are not as good of a good judge of character as you think. I also have to agree with Ludovico, you want your CM plan locked so only liars can get into it....do you see the problem with your logic. lol BTW, do you honestly think the liars will tell the truth in your CM trainer?
WW, Ludovico, ParaDiddle;
Why all the attention, if by your own proponents that countermeasures are worthless and detectable. My 1st stage software should be of no consequence or utilization. You should be able to detect anyone so trained in less than only 1 chart run.
Maybe the polygrapher that screwed me over would like the opportunity to apologize and recant the allogations he so boldly and crudely accused me of, later proven (with real science & a thoughful and professional LEO) that all accusations were 100% wrong, by the way. Still no apology, none, nada, zilch, an apology would have gone along way to defusing my anger, but polygraphers don't apologize, as they believe they are never wrong. But I have turned that anger into a much better venue. I would have liked much better to be using my intellect and skills to other productive pursuits. But that time has long gone, and this has become my hobby. This is way so much better, as I get to watch the screws turn this time. I will publish my research as I see fit ... if I ever do, pray I don't. As the only thing stopping me is the fact I would be helping lower life forms to skirt much needed control.
Ludovico:
If your going to use "A Clockwork Orange" Alex, maybe you should read the book and fully understand the meaning of the novel. The movie is a poor interpretation ....
Regards .....
Eos, who screwed you over?
Eos wrote "polygraph examiners believe they are never wrong..."
Jeeeeeesus that isn't true! Who burned you man?
Paradiddle, WW,
The issue at this point in time is irrelevant, the polygrapher / investigative agent in question is no longer with us, as he passed away from what I believeto be heart related issues, and never brought to task for the abuses. The issue is old/no news, guilty parties were caught and punished. But not without the collateral damage done to my honor and reputation.
Regards .....
QuoteMaybe the polygrapher that screwed me over would like the opportunity to apologize and recant the allogations he so boldly and crudely accused me of, later proven (with real science & a thoughful and professional LEO) that all accusations were 100% wrong, by the way. Still no apology, none, nada, zilch, an apology would have gone along way to defusing my anger, but polygraphers don't apologize, as they believe they are never wrong. But I have turned that anger into a much better venue. I would have liked much better to be using my intellect and skills to other productive pursuits. But that time has long gone, and this has become my hobby. This is way so much better, as I get to watch the screws turn this time. I will publish my research as I see fit ... if I ever do, pray I don't. As the only thing stopping me is the fact I would be helping lower life forms to skirt much needed control.
But, oh saintly puller of the levers behind the curtain... oh magnanimous purveyor of countermeasure training software, aren't you supposed to turn the other cheek.
QuoteLudovico:
If your going to use "A Clockwork Orange" Alex, maybe you should read the book and fully understand the meaning of the novel. The movie is a poor interpretation ....
Well, yeah. But the moral complexity is so nice and thick that it's more apparent to most than Karamazov.
Ludovico,
Turn the other cheek ? Humanity, caring, concern for other humans.
Foreign concepts to those who interrogate and terrorize for a living.
For evil to prevail, the only thing a good man has to do, is nothing.
Doing nothing is not within my personality. I have the audacity, intellect and
resources to wage this fight. I fully intend too !
Regards ....
Quote from: EosJupiter on Sep 30, 2007, 06:28 PMLudovico,
Turn the other cheek ? Humanity, caring, concern for other humans.
Foreign concepts to those who interrogate and terrorize for a living.
For evil to prevail, the only thing a good man has to do, is nothing.
Doing nothing is not within my personality. I have the audacity, intellect and
resources to wage this fight. I fully intend too !
Regards ....
I am suddenly awash with the notion that you may have some serious mental health issues Eos. I initially thought you misguided, but I am quickly becoming suspicious that a deeper problem exists. You perceive evil where there is some dust and neglect. Your "calling" is strikingly similar to an infamous young man's calling to impress Jodi Foster back in the 80's---a similar distorted perception that you've superimposed a sort of perscribed moral certification for. You no doubt have the intellect, but you claim a fight that does not exist---a virtual war between those that use an imperfect but scientifically valid tool to detect deception, and you ---who believe in unscientificly proven countermeasures for tests that you claim are unscientific. I am beginning to believe you Eos when you claim that you can beat the polygraph, as perhaps you are mentally unfit for the test-----a person who insanely believes that they are Aristotle will pass their tests if asked about such.
Eos,
If I e-mail you, would you give ME the key to your cool new program? After all, if it is really "air tight", then me having read through it shouldn't hurt anything, should it? Besides, I would really really like to check it out! Furthermore, as I have heard COUNTLESS times on this site, "REAL SCIENCE" doesn't need secrets. If you REALLY want to help everyone with your slick new program, then you should make it available to ALL (Just like the LBTLD)...
I mean, Gee, what if George M. had made his e-book available only to his closest friends? The rest of you wouldn't have ANYTHING legal to read in the john...
Soooooooo, what if I say "pretty please?" ::)
QuoteTurn the other cheek ? Humanity, caring, concern for other humans.
Foreign concepts to those who interrogate and terrorize for a living.
Wow. That's an awful lot of judgement there, huh boss. How could you possibly know that I lack compassion, or concern for other persons? You deduce that from my avatar, or from some tea leaves?
Would you say the same thing about all prison wardens? We do know that prisons incarcerate some inncocent persons. Does that make the existence of prisons invalid, or unethical? And while we're talking, is your concern one of simple scientific validity, or are you compelled to take on a moralistic approach to this matter. I ask because you talk about concern for science, but the intensity of moralizing in your dialog reeks of something other than science. You've got an axe to grind, but it ain't about science pal. With you, its personal. So what happened? Someone hurt your feelings? That kind of resentment is toxic. I hope you have people to talk to - besides your family, 'cause that kind of intensity will take its toll (unless they are more or less completely engaged in your struggle, and we often call that co-dependent).
I don't mean to sound flip at the moment. I'd like to hear your beef.
So tell us.
Quote from: Paradiddle on Sep 30, 2007, 07:00 PMI am suddenly awash with the notion that you may have some serious mental health issues Eos. I initially thought you misguided, but I am quickly becoming suspicious that a deeper problem exists. You perceive evil where there is some dust and neglect.
Paradiddle,
A deep seated anger maybe, that has fomented for years, but nothing as malevolent as you post or suspect. I am fully aware of any psychosis that I may present here. I have said many times I have authority issues, especially those that claim to be omnipotent, such as the polygraph industry. My fight ends when quarter is given that your process and machine are subject to human error, you police your own effectively, and you live by a code of ethics that has teeth and is enforceable, and verifiable. And above all else not treat people who want to work, who have valuable talents to add to this fight we are in, as criminals, who are considered suspect and guilty of something until polygraphed otherwise. My fight is done when this happens. As far as LE having the polygraph for uses on dumb criminals. Not an issue for me, just my opinion, and I speak only for myself
NoNombre:
You can depend on having it !!! As a matter of fact I planned on it, I will send you the complete tool kit, in robust detail & in depth , and fully intact, no keys needed as I know you wouldn't be passing it around except to other federal polygraphers. When I have it ready for prime time (soon), I want no mistakes about it. Almost 4 years of research to complete this. It will be ready. I have really no intention of ever fully releasing it. Just that fact that the toolkit exists is enough to prove my point. And thats really all I want.
Regards ....
QuoteI am fully aware of any psychosis that I may present here. I have said many times I have authority issues, especially those that claim to be omnipotent, such as the polygraph industry.
EOS,
You should be aware that psychosis, in modern clinical usage, refers to a lack of contact with reality. I'm not sure that's what you meant, and I'm quite sure we cannot deduce any psychosis through this forum "discussion." Most issues, including authority issues, are of the non-psychotic variety.
As to polygraph omnipotence, I think you might want to check yourself out there, bucko, for how much of that is your own projection. I know no polygraphers who think themselves omnipotent. As a whole they take their work quite seriously, but that's not the same as simple-minded belief in some form of perfect test. There is no such thing. Polygraph is just a test. Its a good test: lie and your prolly gonna get caught, tell the truth and cooperate and yer prolly gonna pass. If you wanna job or a good report, your best bet is to avoid becoming fodder for the cause and stay away from all the crazy-making at this site. You, EOS, might consider the possibility that you may have inadvertently done as much to mystify the thing as anyone else.
Quote from: Ludovico on Sep 30, 2007, 08:45 PMYou, EOS, might consider the possibility that you may have inadvertently done as much to mystify the thing as anyone else.
Ludovico,
This discourse has been highly entertaining and most stimulating. I haven't had this much fun on this website in many, many months. Stayed tuned to: "As the polygraph scribbles". A great name for a soap opera, don't you think. We have antagonists, protagonists, innocent bystanders. All the greatness of a first class soap. Intrigue and counter intrigue. Warms my heart to know that great drama is alive and well. And its all free !!!
Best Regards ....
Polys dont work they are shall we say voodoo machines just like the CVSA that... i know polygrpahers love so much and after all it is better and more accurate couhbullshitcough. We all know that the pg machine is just a tool the poly examiner is the real machine.. to the uneducated individual who doesnt kow a zig from a zag sure a pg can say oh my ''scientific machine'' just made a squiggly line you must be lying IS THERE SOMETHING ELSE YOUD LIKE TO ADD? Then the porr sap says oh yes mr. truth man ..blah blah blah.. Its an interview and interrogation plain and simple I could get the same reaction out of a suspect if I were to play the old radio trick or copier trick on them. You know I hear Copperfield needs an opening act....
It has been fun.
Nice to beat you too.
EOS,
You sound more like a bad guy in a bad re-make of a Batman flick about to unleash a new strain of Syphaletic-gonnacocca-pooperini on the fine citizens of Gotham City.
Now take off your cape and get back in bed.
MM
Quote from: Mysterymeat on Oct 01, 2007, 11:03 PMEOS,
You sound more like a bad guy in a bad re-make of a Batman flick about to unleash a new strain of Syphaletic-gonnacocca-pooperini on the fine citizens of Gotham City.
Now take off your cape and get back in bed.
MM
And this dear readers take note, is a typical example of the mind of an APA P/G Examiner.
Would you want this moron to test you ????? And would you trust his 'result'. ???
I would rather put my fate in the hands of Oscar the Talking Horse.
Jeez '04, I thought it was kind of funny.
Eos, have you read Mr. Sullivan's book, and if so, what say you 'bout the kinda things revealed from so many harmless applicants who held geat secrets at the cost of imperiling our country's well-being? Were they just gullible and without your super-de-duperdy Atari 64 CQ slide rule? do dish.
1904 Oscar was a grouch - I think you know him.
Quote from: Paradiddle on Oct 02, 2007, 01:25 PMEos, have you read Mr. Sullivan's book, and if so, what say you 'bout the kinda things revealed from so many harmless applicants who held geat secrets at the cost of imperiling our country's well-being? Were they just gullible and without your super-de-duperdy Atari 64 CQ slide rule? do dish.
ParaDiddle,
There are always two sides to every story. Sullivan now is suing the CIA. So much for honoring one of your own. If I were you, I wouldn't turn my back on your new best friends and allies.
Regards .....
I love your spooky innuendos Eos. Here is one. The IRS is coming for you.
;D sounds like a bunch of kids on here arguing about who has the bigger toy.
Hmmm....Rice, do you like kids? So what brings you to this realm chief?
Just wanted to let all you 'higher than thou' folks know I caught another one using CM's yesterday. Of course, he is a pedofile. Now, do you want to hide under a rock and deny culpability? BTW, EOS, this guy worked in a high up position at a COLLEGE! Aren't you guys just so proud.....you tried to help another sex offender.
Well, I'm off to run some more polygraphs. ;D
Quote from: Wonder_Woman on Oct 04, 2007, 10:10 AMJust wanted to let all you 'higher than thou' folks know I caught another one using CM's yesterday. Of course, he is a pedofile. Now, do you want to hide under a rock and deny culpability? BTW, EOS, this guy worked in a high up position at a COLLEGE! Aren't you guys just so proud.....you tried to help another sex offender.
Well, I'm off to run some more polygraphs. ;D
I guess that means that this paedophile actually told you that he he went to AP for advice.
Yeah sure.
Are you the spokeswoman for blondes?
Quote from: Wonder_Woman on Oct 04, 2007, 10:10 AMJust wanted to let all you 'higher than thou' folks know I caught another one using CM's yesterday. Of course, he is a pedofile. Now, do you want to hide under a rock and deny culpability? BTW, EOS, this guy worked in a high up position at a COLLEGE! Aren't you guys just so proud.....you tried to help another sex offender.
Well, I'm off to run some more polygraphs. ;D
WW,
Station in life, position nor education is relief from the law or justice, no one is above the law. If you caught him, have done the due diligence neccessary to bring him to court and punish him. Then my most hardy congratulations. One of my favorite terms for criminals is, "Hang'm High". What you are doing is not a problem for me. Enjoy ....
Regards ...
Quote from: EosJupiter on Oct 04, 2007, 02:15 PMQuote from: Wonder_Woman on Oct 04, 2007, 10:10 AMJust wanted to let all you 'higher than thou' folks know I caught another one using CM's yesterday. Of course, he is a pedofile. Now, do you want to hide under a rock and deny culpability? BTW, EOS, this guy worked in a high up position at a COLLEGE! Aren't you guys just so proud.....you tried to help another sex offender.
Well, I'm off to run some more polygraphs. ;D
WW,
Station in life, position nor education is relief from the law or justice, no one is above the law. If you caught him, have done the due diligence neccessary to bring him to court and punish him. Then my most hardy congratulations. One of my favorite terms for criminals is, "Hang'm High". What you are doing is not a problem for me. Enjoy ....
Regards ...
Eos
It is always great to get a pat on the back from a foe, but your congrats with one hand steals money and endangers children with the other hand. Wonder Woman probably spent a great deal more time and energy with the distraction of the countermeasures rather than the acute dynamic risk-associated behaviors of Chester. Your positive remark falls flat, as Chester may be a great fan of yours----I have had 2 clients who named you personally from reading your blogs (also Digithead on one occasion in '06). Thanks for nothing.
Quote from: Wonder_Woman on Oct 04, 2007, 10:10 AMJust wanted to let all you 'higher than thou' folks know I caught another one using CM's yesterday. Of course, he is a pedofile. Now, do you want to hide under a rock and deny culpability? BTW, EOS, this guy worked in a high up position at a COLLEGE! Aren't you guys just so proud.....you tried to help another sex offender.
Well, I'm off to run some more polygraphs. ;D
I thought countermeasures were useless? And besides, you can easily spot them, right? So what difference does it make? From your posts, it seemed that you thought this site was useless, no?
Plus there's that whole utility argument for using the polygraph for these offenders. You know, higher admissions of crimes, wider spectrum of victims, etc. Shouldn't the utility remain?
Plus if you worked for any length of time in sex offender treatment, you would know that sexual perversion and paraphilias cross all class, race, and educational levels just like alcoholism and drug addiction. I'm surprised that you seemed surprised that someone who works at a college would be a sex offender.
Heck, didn't a couple of guys who worked for Homeland Security and the DOJ respectively just get popped for soliciting sex with minors over the internet? That there might be, gasp, sex offenders who work in LAW ENFORCEMENT? Some might even be working as POLYGRAPHERS? And don't get me started on the whole clergy abuse scandal. It's shocking, isn't it?
Well, I'm off to continue my quest for LE to abandon this pseudoscience...
Hey d**k head, If you only had a clue. Yeah, CM's can be spoted! Plus, I have worked with sex offenders for many years. I actually suspect you of being one. My comment was directed to EOS stating he only educates those that don't look like scum bags. Turn it around all you want. The fact is, I caught the bastard using CM's. and you guys were helping him. And 1904, FU, the SO did admit researching CM's on this site! Any other good advise for sex offenders?
Oh yeah, 1904, just because you were a bad polygraph examiner doesn't mean the rest of us are. So go back to your dark hole. Throwing out a blond joke - do you have 'little mans syndrome?' Throw another cheap shot buckwheat!
Quote from: Wonder_Woman on Oct 04, 2007, 03:40 PM
Oh yeah, 1904, just because you were a bad polygraph examiner doesn't mean the rest of us are. So go back to your dark hole. Throwing out a blond joke - do you have 'little mans syndrome?' Throw another cheap shot buckwheat!
So tell me, what CM was that? You looked up and he had the pneumo tubes clenched between his teeth.
And you acutally spoted it. I susupect that he recievde bedd adivse.
BTW, do you eat with that potty mouth ?
Dyslexics Rule. KO ?
Quote from: Wonder_Woman on Oct 04, 2007, 03:40 PMHey d**k head, If you only had a clue. Yeah, CM's can be spoted! Plus, I have worked with sex offenders for many years. I actually suspect you of being one. My comment was directed to EOS stating he only educates those that don't look like scum bags. Turn it around all you want. The fact is, I caught the bastard using CM's. and you guys were helping him. And 1904, FU, the SO did admit researching CM's on this site! Any other good advise for sex offenders?
Oh yeah, 1904, just because you were a bad polygraph examiner doesn't mean the rest of us are. So go back to your dark hole. Throwing out a blond joke - do you have 'little mans syndrome?' Throw another cheap shot buckwheat!
Nice ad hom! Nailed three at once...
But you failed to address any of my questions. The polygraphers who post on this site regularly claim that countermeasures are ineffective yet now you're accusing this site of helping sex offenders. If this site and its countermeasures are ineffective, how are they helping sex offenders? If anything, it just gives you guys another reason for revoking them. That seems to me to be helping you guys if countermeasures are ineffective and you have great methods for detecting them...
As for good advise for sex offenders - follow your treatment protocol because that's the only way you're going to be able overcome your predilictions. The polygraph may be pseudoscience but the rest of the treatment plan is based on sound science and has ample proof that it does reduce recidivism. And stick to your supervision guidelines because that's the only way you're going to remain free...
And sorry, no, I'm not a sex offender but again, nice ad hom...
Quote from: Paradiddle on Oct 04, 2007, 03:15 PMEos, It is always great to get a pat on the back from a foe, but your congrats with one hand steals money and endangers children with the other hand. Wonder Woman probably spent a great deal more time and energy with the distraction of the countermeasures rather than the acute dynamic risk-associated behaviors of Chester. Your positive remark falls flat, as Chester may be a great fan of yours----I have had 2 clients who named you personally from reading your blogs (also Digithead on one occasion in '06). Thanks for nothing.
ParaDiddle,
Thats nice .....
To all I give this advice: I am no where near qualified to give any. If my beliefs are accepted by others, I am honored.
"Believe nothing just because a so-called wise person said it. Believe nothing just because a belief is generally held. Believe nothing just because it is said in ancient books. Believe nothing just because it is said to be of divine origin. Believe nothing just because someone else believes it. Believe only what you yourself test and judge to be true." - Buddha
Best Regards .....
Quote from: Paradiddle on Oct 04, 2007, 03:15 PMEos, It is always great to get a pat on the back from a foe, but your congrats with one hand steals money and endangers children with the other hand. Wonder Woman probably spent a great deal more time and energy with the distraction of the countermeasures rather than the acute dynamic risk-associated behaviors of Chester. Your positive remark falls flat, as Chester may be a great fan of yours----I have had 2 clients who named you personally from reading your blogs (also Digithead on one occasion in '06). Thanks for nothing.
Thanks Eos, I almost missed this one...
Named me personally? Wow! And what exactly did this sex offender say that I said? That I think the containment method is useful except for its reliance on CQT polygraphy? That I think CQT polygraphy is pseudoscience?
And to think, he actually named a person who posts under a anonymous pseudonym when he could have relied on the NAS, Lykken, Iacono, Furedy, Feinberg, Cross, Saxe, Seto, and other luminaries who have railed against CQT polygraph and its usage in real peer-reviewed research...
Somehow, it rings hollow...
Quote from: digithead on Oct 04, 2007, 04:04 PMQuote from: Wonder_Woman on Oct 04, 2007, 03:40 PMHey d**k head, If you only had a clue. Yeah, CM's can be spoted! Plus, I have worked with sex offenders for many years. I actually suspect you of being one. My comment was directed to EOS stating he only educates those that don't look like scum bags. Turn it around all you want. The fact is, I caught the bastard using CM's. and you guys were helping him. And 1904, FU, the SO did admit researching CM's on this site! Any other good advise for sex offenders?
Oh yeah, 1904, just because you were a bad polygraph examiner doesn't mean the rest of us are. So go back to your dark hole. Throwing out a blond joke - do you have 'little mans syndrome?' Throw another cheap shot buckwheat!
Nice ad hom! Nailed three at once...
But you failed to address any of my questions. The polygraphers who post on this site regularly claim that countermeasures are ineffective yet now you're accusing this site of helping sex offenders. If this site and its countermeasures are ineffective, how are they helping sex offenders? If anything, it just gives you guys another reason for revoking them. That seems to me to be helping you guys if countermeasures are ineffective and you have great methods for detecting them...
As for good advise for sex offenders - follow your treatment protocol because that's the only way you're going to be able overcome your predilictions. The polygraph may be pseudoscience but the rest of the treatment plan is based on sound science and has ample proof that it does reduce recidivism. And stick to your supervision guidelines because that's the only way you're going to remain free...
And sorry, no, I'm not a sex offender but again, nice ad hom...
Kim English and her team were instrumental in developing the containment approach, WHICH, includes the polygraph. CM's are ineffective to a trained polygraph examiner. We all know there are some examiners out there that think they know all and are not properly trained. Yeah the SO's may get past them by using CM's they get from you guys on this site. Does that answer your question. You too 1904. The other day I said old 'untrained' examiners. Not one of the examiners posting here has claimed 100% accuracy.
Talk about ad hom.... you guys (except EOS) throw out barbs regularly.... EOS is the type that can say FU to a person and they probably thank him for his advice and I have to say that GM is also pretty pleasant. 1904 things may be f-up where you are but we have EPPA in the US. Grow up and stop trying to be a bullyboy...I mis-spelled a word BFD. Should I write Pedophile 100 times so you know I know how to spell it.FU
Quote from: Wonder_Woman on Oct 04, 2007, 05:31 PMKim English and her team were instrumental in developing the containment approach, WHICH, includes the polygraph. CM's are ineffective to a trained polygraph examiner. We all know there are some examiners out there that think they know all and are not properly trained. Yeah the SO's may get past them by using CM's they get from you guys on this site. Does that answer your question. You too 1904. The other day I said old 'untrained' examiners. Not one of the examiners posting here has claimed 100% accuracy.
I know Kim quite well and I've had many arguments with her about the polygraph but she is one of the true believers unfortunately. The containment method with the exception of the polygraph is a great tool because it emphasizes individualized treatment, cooperation across all levels of treatment and supervision staff, and supposedly has continuous quality improvement built in...
The problem is that there is no research that has been able to disentangle the effect of using CQT polygraph from the other treatment protocols so claiming that it is responsible for the decline in recidivism is foolhardy. And given the plethora of research outside of pro-polygraph circles that shows that CQT is not based on sound scientific principles and is inherently unreliable demonstrates to me that its use in the containment method undermines the containment methods effectiveness. Not to mention the problems of habituation and sensitization...
And if poor training is factor then God help us all...
Regardless of the fact that no polygrapher claims 100% accuracy, the bulk of the science shows that CQT polygraph cannot have any high degree of accuracy, especially in screening applications like sex offender treatment...
Quote from: Wonder_Woman on Oct 04, 2007, 05:31 PMTalk about ad hom.... you guys (except EOS) throw out barbs regularly.... EOS is the type that can say FU to a person and they probably thank him for his advice and I have to say that GM is also pretty pleasant. 1904 things may be f-up where you are but we have EPPA in the US. Grow up and stop trying to be a bullyboy...I mis-spelled a word BFD. Should I write Pedophile 100 times so you know I know how to spell it.FU
Throwing out barbs to point out illogic is one thing. It's another thing altogether to call someone a "d**k head" or accuse them of being a sex offender. That's just childish and I think it is a sign of intellectual weakness. Your first paragraph in this post was at least well reasoned and on point. In my opinion, the only dialogue worth engaging in is respectful discourse. We may have our differences in opinion but I'm not going to call you names just because I disagree with you...
So please stop with the name calling and ad hom; it distracts from the real issues we should be discussing...
Don't kid yourself.
This site is not a real discussion. Its a circus.
Presently, we're at at a standoff... our version of:
my big sister is bigger than your big brother. (Kim English and digithead)
so who is right?
she's a published researcher and program evaluator in sex offender treatment, as you also claim to be.
only we don't really know who you are.
Quote from: Ludovico on Oct 04, 2007, 06:05 PMDon't kid yourself.
This site is not a real discussion. Its a circus.
Only because some people don't seem to understand respectful discourse and reasoned debate...
Quote from: Ludovico on Oct 04, 2007, 06:05 PMPresently, we're at at a standoff... our version of:
my big sister is bigger than your big brother. (Kim English and digithead)
If that's your interpretation, fine...
Quote from: Ludovico on Oct 04, 2007, 06:05 PMso who is right?
That's what reasoned debate is all about...
Quote from: Ludovico on Oct 04, 2007, 06:05 PMshe's a published researcher and program evaluator in sex offender treatment, as you also claim to be.
Kim is a wonderful researcher, a great writer, and she has many good ideas. She's done an incredible job over her career and I respect her greatly. I happen to disagree with her over the use of the polygraph. I don't think that sabotages any of her other work...
Quote from: Ludovico on Oct 04, 2007, 06:05 PMonly we don't really know who you are.
Nor do I know who any of you are. That's the beauty of anonymous boards...
Quote from: digithead on Oct 04, 2007, 05:57 PMQuote from: Wonder_Woman on Oct 04, 2007, 05:31 PMKim English and her team were instrumental in developing the containment approach, WHICH, includes the polygraph. CM's are ineffective to a trained polygraph examiner. We all know there are some examiners out there that think they know all and are not properly trained. Yeah the SO's may get past them by using CM's they get from you guys on this site. Does that answer your question. You too 1904. The other day I said old 'untrained' examiners. Not one of the examiners posting here has claimed 100% accuracy.
I know Kim quite well and I've had many arguments with her about the polygraph but she is one of the true believers unfortunately. The containment method with the exception of the polygraph is a great tool because it emphasizes individualized treatment, cooperation across all levels of treatment and supervision staff, and supposedly has continuous quality improvement built in...
The problem is that there is no research that has been able to disentangle the effect of using CQT polygraph from the other treatment protocols so claiming that it is responsible for the decline in recidivism is foolhardy. And given the plethora of research outside of pro-polygraph circles that shows that CQT is not based on sound scientific principles and is inherently unreliable demonstrates to me that its use in the containment method undermines the containment methods effectiveness. Not to mention the problems of habituation and sensitization...
And if poor training is factor then God help us all...
Regardless of the fact that no polygrapher claims 100% accuracy, the bulk of the science shows that CQT polygraph cannot have any high degree of accuracy, especially in screening applications like sex offender treatment...
Quote from: Wonder_Woman on Oct 04, 2007, 05:31 PMTalk about ad hom.... you guys (except EOS) throw out barbs regularly.... EOS is the type that can say FU to a person and they probably thank him for his advice and I have to say that GM is also pretty pleasant. 1904 things may be f-up where you are but we have EPPA in the US. Grow up and stop trying to be a bullyboy...I mis-spelled a word BFD. Should I write Pedophile 100 times so you know I know how to spell it.FU
Throwing out barbs to point out illogic is one thing. It's another thing altogether to call someone a "d**k head" or accuse them of being a sex offender. That's just childish and I think it is a sign of intellectual weakness. Your first paragraph in this post was at least well reasoned and on point. In my opinion, the only dialogue worth engaging in is respectful discourse. We may have our differences in opinion but I'm not going to call you names just because I disagree with you...
So please stop with the name calling and ad hom; it distracts from the real issues we should be discussing...
Kim English has done studies and I have attended several of her presentations (I have spoken to her too). One of her studies was from 1996-2001 'English, Pullen & Jones' Percentage accuracy as follows:
Diagnostic Accuracy Assessment ToolAcute Appendicitis CT 95%
Brain Tumor91%
Carotid Artery Disease 91%
Acute Appendicieis US 91%
Breast Cancer US 90%
Deception - Polygraph 88%
Multiple Sclerosis 83%
Xray 80%
Depression 74%
Also,
Diagnostic Accuracy by Target ConditionPolygraph 88%
MRI 86-87%
Cat Scan 85-86%
Ultra Sound 85%
Xray 82%
CSM 70%
MMPI 67%
Also, Just because I say FU doesn't mean I am intellectually weak. It means FU
I would believe that Kim English's study used the CQT. (Kim English, Director, Office of Research & Statistics - a true beleiver) But, hey, since you know her so well, why don't you ask.
Here is another one of her papers that explains how POLYGRAPHS are instrumental in the containment approach.
http://dcj.state.co.us/ors/pdf/docs/eoc51.pdf
Oh yeah, here is a snippet from her bio:
Ms. English has been the principal investigator on a number of studies funded by the National Institute of Justice, including two national surveys of probation and parole management practices pertaining to adult sexual offenders. One of the research products, "Managing Adult Sex Offenders in Community Settings: A Containment Approach," was published in 1996 by the American Probation and Parole Association. Current research includes assessing the impact of sex crime disclosures by offenders participating in specialized post-conviction polygraph exams.
Yeah, but if we ever meet by chance, at some conference somewhere, I'll recognize you instantly by the stained sweatpants.
but this
Quote
I know Kim quite well and I've had many arguments with her about the polygraph but she is one of the true believers unfortunately.
I find it unfortunate you have to take cheap shots at respectable people, whom you know, with statements like "true believers." Its just more evidence that you are not interested in a real conversation about the merits, weakness, possibilities and limitations of the polygraph in sex offender treatment, and engage in straw-man arguments by suggesting that Kim English is "true believer" in some mystified form of polygraph.
If you were "truly" interested in a real conversation, you wouldn't post anonymously, and you wouldn't make ad hominem statements about Kim. Its not a nice way to treat a friend or colleague with whom you share the same professional and social concerns. You might do that with a real friend in a private conversation, but you certainly wouldn't say things like that publicly, where such statements sway the feeble and influential minds of those beneath you, by filling them with psuedo-intellectual gibberish. Unless, of course, that's what you want to do.
Be well.
Quote from: Wonder_Woman on Oct 04, 2007, 06:50 PMKim English has done studies and I have attended several of her presentations (I have spoken to her too). One of her studies was from 1996-2001 'English, Pullen & Jones' Percentage accuracy as follows:
Diagnostic Accuracy Assessment Tool
Acute Appendicitis CT 95%
Brain Tumor91%
Carotid Artery Disease 91%
Acute Appendicieis US 91%
Breast Cancer US 90%
Deception - Polygraph 88%
Multiple Sclerosis 83%
Xray 80%
Depression 74%
Also,
Diagnostic Accuracy by Target Condition
Polygraph 88%
MRI 86-87%
Cat Scan 85-86%
Ultra Sound 85%
Xray 82%
CSM 70%
MMPI 67%
Ah, thanks for bringing it back to my expertise...
As I pointed out in prior posts and to Kim several years ago, accuracy in diagnostic testing has 5 statistics that are needed to measure it. So these comparisons are incomplete and do not show the whole picture.
Once again, these are the five things needed to assess "accuracy":
1. Sensitivity, which is the probability that the test is positive given that the person has the underlying condition.
2. Specificity, which is the probability that the test is negative given that the person does not have the underlying condition.
3. Positive predictive value (PPV), which is the probability that the person has the condition given that the test is positive. Its complement is the false positive rate.
4. Negative predictive value (NPV), which is the probability that the person does not have the condition given that the test is negative. Its complement is the false negative rate.
5. Base rate, which is the prevalence of the condition in the population or the probability that you've got someone with the condition. This is also the "chance" of just guessing correctly whether the person has the condition or not.
Sensitive and specificity are usually measured in lab studies.
The base rate, at least for diseases, is estimated from medical records.
PPV and NPV are both functions of sensitivity, specificity, and the base rate. These measure how the diagnostic tests perform when the true status of the underlying condition is unknown, which is the case in screening applications.
Basically, they are a measure of how well the test performs when compared against a gold standard. Any PPV or NPV less than 90% has no usefulness in my opinion.
Additionally, when the base rate is low (deception in employment screening), your PPV goes down and your false positive rate goes up. Conversely, when your base rate is high (deception in sex offending), your NPV goes down and your false negative rate goes up.
And without showing PPV, NPV, and base rates of the conditions those test measure, the numbers above are incredibly misleading and completely without context...
Additionally, unlike like the polygraph, all of those medical listed tests can be run sequentially or in concert to reduce the probability of error. Once a person has been polygraphed, because of the nature of the test there is a high likelihood of prior tests affecting future tests...
Quote from: Wonder_Woman on Oct 04, 2007, 06:50 PMAlso, Just because I say FU doesn't mean I am intellectually weak. It means FU
I'll leave it up to others to determine the strength of your argument.
Quote from: Wonder_Woman on Oct 04, 2007, 06:50 PMI would believe that Kim English's study used the CQT. (Kim English, Director, Office of Research & Statistics - a true beleiver) But, hey, since you know her so well, why don't you ask.
No need to ask, her study does use it...
Quote from: Ludovico on Oct 04, 2007, 07:15 PMYeah, but if we ever meet by chance, at some conference somewhere, I'll recognize you instantly by the stained sweatpants.
but this
Quote
I know Kim quite well and I've had many arguments with her about the polygraph but she is one of the true believers unfortunately.
I find it unfortunate you have to take cheap shots at respectable people, whom you know, with statements like "true believers." Its just more evidence that you are not interested in a real conversation about the merits, weakness, possibilities and limitations of the polygraph in sex offender treatment, and engage in straw-man arguments by suggesting that Kim English is "true believer" in some mystified form of polygraph.
If you were "truly" interested in a real conversation, you wouldn't post anonymously, and you wouldn't make ad hominem statements about Kim. Its not a nice way to treat a friend or colleague with whom you share the same professional and social concerns. You might do that with a real friend in a private conversation, but you certainly wouldn't say things like that publicly, where such statements sway the feeble and influential minds of those beneath you, by filling them with psuedo-intellectual gibberish. Unless, of course, that's what you want to do.
Be well.
Did you miss when I said this?
Quote from: digithead on Oct 04, 2007, 06:20 PMKim is a wonderful researcher, a great writer, and she has many good ideas. She's done an incredible job over her career and I respect her greatly. I happen to disagree with her over the use of the polygraph. I don't think that sabotages any of her other work...
As for calling her a true believer, it's not an ad hom given the fact that she ignores the evidence against the CQT. Ad hom is when you attack the person and not the argument. I'm not attacking her by calling her a true believer because she earnestly believes that the polygraph "works" as evidenced in her writing...
As for posting anonymously, we all have our reasons and I notice that very few of you pro-polygraph people also reveal who you are...
As for me, I've stated my opinions to Kim. Maybe next time when you're at one of her trainings, see if you can get her to out my identity because she certainly knows me...
Did you just make that up, or have been readin' the NRC report again?
Digit,
You must know that its not quite that simple, and that you do have some options about limiting ourselves to bayesian models. There are a lot of tests built on good 'ole inferentials. Take IQ tests, for example: is there a base rate for IQ?
The point is: when you limit things like this you are really engaging in a straw man argument, not a real discussion.
Certainly there is much to learn, we simply have to open the mind to do it.
and this
QuoteAs for calling her a true believer, it's not an ad hom given the fact that she ignores the evidence against the CQT. Ad hom is when you attack the person and not the argument. I'm not attacking her by calling her a true believer because she earnestly believes that the polygraph "works" as evidenced in her writing...
OK, maybe not ad hominem, but certainly straw man - because anyone who would be a true believer is certainly a fool. Right?
Funny, I thought Kim English's data indicated polygraph does contribute to the containment process.
'till then
Quote from: Ludovico on Oct 04, 2007, 07:40 PMDid you just make that up, or have been readin' the NRC report again?
Digit,
You must know that its not quite that simple, and that you do have some options about limiting ourselves to bayesian models. There are a lot of tests built on good 'ole inferentials. Take IQ tests, for example: is there a base rate for IQ?
The point is: when you limit things like this you are really engaging in a straw man argument, not a real discussion.
Certainly there is much to learn, we simply have to open the mind to do it.
'till then
And exactly what is the straw man that I'm arguing against? That polygraphers crow accuracy numbers that are misleading?
IQ and IQ testing are also one of the most controversial psychometric measures in science. Additionally, IQ is not a screen for presence or absence of a condition, intelligence is a construct that all people have so there is no base rate of intelligence. You've gotta compare apples to apples my friend, otherwise that's worse than straw men, it's misdirection...
QuoteQ and IQ testing are also one of the most controversial psychometric measures in science. Additionally, IQ is not a screen for presence or absence of a condition, intelligence is a construct that all people have so there is no base rate of intelligence. You've gotta compare apples to apples my friend, otherwise that's worse than straw men, it's misdirection...
You sir, are engaging in misdirection, when you lose sight of the fact that tests are just tests, and focus only on the voices of the idiots.
Intelligence, like cholesterol, is a normally occurring phenomena (though amorphous). Telling lies is also a normal occurence for humans, as is telling the truth at times. The questions that tests seek to answer are things like how much is too much (high blood pressure, for example), and what is normal (both blood pressure and IQ). Other questions, of interest to things like mental health test measures, include more specific questions like what does the test protocol of a depressed person look like, or what does the protocol of a narcissistic person look like? Similarly, what does the test data of a deceptive or truthful person look like? It is the role of bayesian and inferential mathematics, and signal detection models, to provide probability estimates as answers to those questions.
Its just testing.
To all concerned;
Action: Experiment Stopped
I wish to thank all those unsung players who helped so much to make this possible !!
And dragging Dr. Barland into this was more than I could have hoped for, it was
time to end the game.
Question ?: How to prove the polygraph technique is dangerous.
Answer !: Use all of the interrogators / polygraphers trick against them in a public forum.
Result: Denial of fact is not possible as its fully documented.
3 proofs:
1 - The polygraph needs fear and anxiety to work.
This is the same concept I used that you use on your subjects, I needed fear and anxiety with just the right
touch of theatrics to make it work. I displayed the trainer GUI for all the world to see. Next with the correct verbage to see what was biting.
With the obvious knowlege that all of my (444) posts would be analyzed. Watching the references to studies, and various
other comments made by our new resident polygrapher watchdogs, to try and dig me out. And of course my new best wanna be friends who needed help.The stage could not have been any more set. But again when you dragged Dr. Barland out, enough was gained to prove my concepts.
2 - Complete belief that the polygraph really can detect deception
I accomplished this concept , with the toolkit and trainer that theoretically could beat the polygraph. I am sure that quite a few people
out there have not slept very well knowing that this thing had the possibility of existing. I had your complete belief & buy in. Making the puppets
dance was easy from this point. I have saved all the references to piece together into a very nice expose.
3- Consequences for failure
This one was the best, Polygraphers on the unemployment line, or complete destruction of the polygraph. Like that would happen. Those consequences I wouldn't let happen because it would affect the families of those polygraphers & a great many others. No collateral damage. Our resident watchdog polygraphers fighting tooth and nail to stop the "Crazies" on this board. Knowing full well the consequences of failure. Trying to deduce my true intention from new friends. If I was really this intent on polygraph armageddon, I sure wouldn't post it for all to know about.
Summation: I have laid bare for all the world to see just how the polygraphs methods are used. Using your own concepts and practices.
The same way you posted the document about Dr. Drew Richardson.
Lessons learned: Its always the little guy with an idea and a pad of paper to conceptualize it, that wins the day. The rest is for the followers
of this board and history to decide. I did say I had proof.
Best Regards .....
EOS
You have lost it my friend. Welcome to the Twilight Zone.
Regards,
MM
Quote from: EosJupiter on Oct 09, 2007, 12:21 PMTo all concerned;
Action: Experiment Stopped
I wish to thank all those unsung players who helped so much to make this possible !!
And dragging Dr. Barland into this was more than I could have hoped for, it was
time to end the game.
Question ?: How to prove the polygraph technique is dangerous.
Answer !: Use all of the interrogators / polygraphers trick against them in a public forum.
Result: Denial of fact is not possible as its fully documented.
3 proofs:
1 - The polygraph needs fear and anxiety to work.
This is the same concept I used that you use on your subjects, I needed fear and anxiety with just the right
touch of theatrics to make it work. I displayed the trainer GUI for all the world to see. Next with the correct verbage to see what was biting.
With the obvious knowlege that all of my (444) posts would be analyzed. Watching the references to studies, and various
other comments made by our new resident polygrapher watchdogs, to try and dig me out. And of course my new best wanna be friends who needed help.The stage could not have been any more set. But again when you dragged Dr. Barland out, enough was gained to prove my concepts.
2 - Complete belief that the polygraph really can detect deception
I accomplished this concept , with the toolkit and trainer that theoretically could beat the polygraph. I am sure that quite a few people
out there have not slept very well knowing that this thing had the possibility of existing. I had your complete belief & buy in. Making the puppets
dance was easy from this point. I have saved all the references to piece together into a very nice expose.
3- Consequences for failure
This one was the best, Polygraphers on the unemployment line, or complete destruction of the polygraph. Like that would happen. Those consequences I wouldn't let happen because it would affect the families of those polygraphers & a great many others. No collateral damage. Our resident watchdog polygraphers fighting tooth and nail to stop the "Crazies" on this board. Knowing full well the consequences of failure. Trying to deduce my true intention from new friends. If I was really this intent on polygraph armageddon, I sure wouldn't post it for all to know about.
Summation: I have laid bare for all the world to see just how the polygraphs methods are used. Using your own concepts and practices.
The same way you posted the document about Dr. Drew Richardson.
Lessons learned: Its always the little guy with an idea and a pad of paper to conceptualize it, that wins the day. The rest is for the followers
of this board and history to decide. I did say I had proof.
Best Regards .....
huh? I think the only proof you have demonstrated is that you my friend need Haldol.
Paradiddle, MM,
Again we shall let the audience decide ....
Mind theatre ass kicking !!! Just another quality service I offer ....
Regards ....
EOS,
You sure didn't kick my ass! In fact, if you check my posts, you'll see I was pretty much calling you a Fruit Cake from the very moment you posted this garbage.
Enjoy your illness.
Regards,
MM
Eos,
Could you please send a copy of the CM trainer and the necessary key to:
4thetruth@swarmail.com
Thanks!
Nonombre... 8-)
NoNombre,
I can't send what no longer exists.
It will stay that way.
I have fought my fight.
Point proven.
But honorable adversaries you are in deed.
Regards ....
Yo Jup, what planet are you really from? ;)
The Planet Boogereater 5.
Quote from: Paradiddle on Oct 09, 2007, 10:17 PMThe Planet Boogereater 5.
Boogereater 5 ?? planet buck-o would have sufficed...... two words GROW UP
:'(
All:
Both overt and clandestine:
Its been a long time since I was on this thread, kinda light on the posts isn't it George? Some seem to be missing, but I understand that. But thats not what I am here for. I came to post a most interesting and first hand article. It does appear that some gamer friends of mine have a very interesting toy and software. DEFCON was a most interesting place to be. Looks like someone else may have had the same idea. Tough to keep a good idea down.
link: http://venturebeat.com/2010/07/30/hackers-show-how-to-build-and-beat-a-lie-detector/
---- Text -----
Hackers show how to build and beat a lie detector:
July 30, 2010 | Dean Takahashi
Hackers at the Defcon security conference in Las Vegas showed they could build a lie detector and beat it.
In the presentation, hackers who went by the handles Rain (above) and Urban Monkey (below) said they built a lie detector based on a pre-existing design that cost about $50.
The talk is typical of the somewhat alarming sessions at the Defcon hacker conference in Las Vegas. Black Hat and Defcon are sister conferences. While Black Hat is more corporate, Defcon is the Wild West. You can pay for your Black Hat badge with a credit card; at Defcon, attendees pay with cash. Photos of the crowd are not allowed. Federal officers attend the show and have to endure "spot the fed" contests. The environment is meant to welcome those hackers who are on the gray side of the law, and it is considerably downscale from Black Hat.
The modern polygraph was developed in the 1920s and then moved into the private sector in the 1930s. They slowly spread through police departments during the latter decades. The use spread in the McCarthy era in the 1950s and continued during the Cold War. In the 1980s, lie detectors became inadmissible in court in some jurisdictions due to abuses and numerous challenges to accuracy. The private sector continued to use lie detectors, and after 9/11, the use of polygraphs began to rise.
Previous hackers (dubbed Neuronumerous) built $50 lie detectors that measured breathing and heart rates. The device measures galvanic skin resistance, which measures sweat. It used an Atmel microcontroller as its brains. It used the Maven 2.2.1 build system and the Java programming language. Source code is at this site. Some 16 people contributed to the work. The testing environment was modeled as closely on industry standards as possible. That means keeping as few people in the room as possible, and controlling the room temperature.
They had subjects deliberately lie to an examiner, saying they had not chosen a certain number between one and ten when in fact they had done so. Then they had them tell the truth. That established the biometrics for someone lying and someone telling the truth. Then they had the subjects use countermeasures to try to fool the machine. These included things like biting their tongues and flexing their anal spincter muscles — things that could change both breathing, sweat and heart rates. Their results showed they could alter the results of the test by altering their bodily reactions during tests.
They argued that over time, anyone could be trained to beat a biofeedback device.
--- End Text ----
It does appear that theory, has been put into practice.
Isn't this just way too Cool
Best Regards