I've always wanted to be in law enforcement as a police officer. A police officer friend of mine was telling me that you have to pass a polygraph test and in his list of things they ask you, he included child pornography. I am 18 and graduated high school now, but all during high school pictures of naked girls in high school (probably age 15-18) were all over the place being circulated to me through text messages as well as email. Also, I still have media of me with old girlfriends from a year or two ago and we both were not 18 at the time. I guess most of these pictures could technically be classified as child pornography.
Its been on my mind 24/7 now......
Does this mean I can no longer become a police officer since technically I have been both in possession of and have distributed child porn?
Quote from: speed204 on Apr 21, 2008, 03:39 PM
Does this mean I can no longer become a police officer since technically I have been both in possession of and have distributed child porn?
Relax son... If the worse thing you have done as a teenager is look at teenage naked girls, you don't have any worries. Hell, you can have sex with teen age girls as a teenager and not worry, (as long as the age difference isn't too great, and the teenager isn't too young.
Because no police agency of any size or professionalism will hire teenagers to work anyway, you have a few years before worring about taking a polygraph.
My advice, either go to college or go into the military, (military police would be a good choice). About the age of 23 is a really good starting point for a cop, which means you can get your BA or put in at least one if not two stints in the army.
At your age, drinking and driving is a HUGE issue, as is speeding and reckless driving. Keep thy nose clean, and get some good life experience.
But when they ask me that question, isnt that little tidbit being on my mind going to mess up the polygraph?
I live in NJ and would like to go to NJ state police if I could make it. I'm a little relieved to see them on the list of departments that don't polygraph
QuoteBut when they ask me that question, isnt that little tidbit being on my mind going to mess up the polygraph?
Dude. That violates one of the guidelines for passing a polygraph.
DO NOT MAKE ADMISSIONS CONCERNING A RELEVANT QUESTION, no matter how minor it may be.
From what you've admitted to here, doesn't sound like you were involved in child porn........but
If "engaging in child porn" is one of the relevant questions, and you "react" to that question on their magic box, then admit what you've admitted here, they may very well blow it out of all proportion and use it to fail you.
You'd probably be better off, assuming you react and you probably won't, Then telling them you know somebody who was molested as a child. So the topic of child porn, molestation...etc. is sensitive for you.
You have the same problem most of us "false positives" HAD. We actually believed the test was accurate. That, and making minor admissions is what got us failed.
Read the "Lie Behind the Lie Detector".
TC
Quote from: speed204 on Apr 21, 2008, 08:22 PMBut when they ask me that question, isnt that little tidbit being on my mind going to mess up the polygraph?
YOu will be asked to fill out a criminal history background, which details all your life's criminal history, (like looking at child pornography).
Then, they ask you something like this. (Other than what you told us about, have you looked at any child pornography?)
If you can truthfully say no, then you have a 50/50 chance of passing, since the polygraph is unreliable anyway.
Quote from: speed204 on Apr 21, 2008, 10:12 PMQuoteBut when they ask me that question, isnt that little tidbit being on my mind going to mess up the polygraph?
Dude. That violates one of the guidelines for passing a polygraph.
DO NOT MAKE ADMISSIONS CONCERNING A RELEVANT QUESTION, no matter how minor it may be.
From what you've admitted to here, doesn't sound like you were involved in child porn........but
If "engaging in child porn" is one of the relevant questions, and you "react" to that question on their magic box, then admit what you've admitted here, they may very well blow it out of all proportion and use it to fail you.
You'd probably be better off, assuming you react and you probably won't, Then telling them you know somebody who was molested as a child. So the topic of child porn, molestation...etc. is sensitive for you.
You have the same problem most of us "false positives" HAD. We actually believed the test was accurate. That, and making minor admissions is what got us failed.
Read the "Lie Behind the Lie Detector".
TC
speed204,
firstly, this is a bit premature since most PD's require you to be 21 years old to apply. But for others reading this board I submit the following:
Mr Cullen's advice is just enough to keep you from ever being a police officer, EVER! Any rationalization that looking at child porn (regardless of your age) is not involved in child porn is just that, rationalizing and minimizing and cause for failing the polygraph test.
There seems to be an aggressive effort on this board to recruit more members of the false positive club by providing bad information, get you to be stupid in your pre-employment test, then fail, not get the job and join the disgruntled throngs of folks here (estimated at about five or six) who whine and bitch about not passing their test. :'(For my real answer; yes, it will be on your mind. Solution: tell them what you saw, when and estimate how many times and as stated (truthfully), they will qualify the question. This way, you should have no problems in your test.
Sackett
P.S. Oh yeah! Reading TLBTLD will not cause any problems on your test. Using and trying to employ what you read will!
Speed204,
Also, consider the National Academy of Science report
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309084369
which recommends scrapping pre-employment testing altogether.
They estimate that, for every liar they actually detect, there will be a hundred or more innocent people who fail the test while being truthful. That from the nation's top scientific researchers.
The goal of a pre-employment test is not to test the veracity of a few relevant test questions, the goal IS TO SEE WHAT THEY CAN GET YOU TO ADMIT TO, no matter how minor, or insignificant. They will blow it out of all proportion if they have to, to justify a "fail". Then again, they might not use it at all. You just don't know, so why risk it.
It is little different than a police interrogation with a fancy machine used as a prop to intimidate you. Oh yeah, another difference, no crime has been committed. IOW, it's a witch hunt.
As you can see from Mr. Sackett's (a polygrapher) response they want you to get everything off your chest, no matter how minor, so they can use it against you, if necessary. They are skilled interrogators. They are very good at getting you to make embarrassing admissions. Don't fall for it.
What you did IS NOT CHILD PORN! Sounds like normal high school behavior of a young man. When I was in HS in the 60's, we'd go "beaver huntin". The only reason our "shots" weren't recorded for posterity is that we didn't have cell phones or the internet back then. But to a polygrapher, with a "reaction" on the machine to account for, it will warrant further exploration and discussion.
Now, if you were a middle-aged TEACHER, taking photos of young students and posting them on the web. That WOULD BE child porn.
Stick to reality! Don't get sucked into the topsy-turvy fantasy world of polygraphy.
TC
QuoteThey estimate that, for every liar they actually detect, there will be a hundred or more innocent people who fail the test while being truthful. That from the nation's top scientific researchers.
The NAS report didn't quite say that. Rather, in situations where there is a
very low base rate of guilt (espionage, for example), there will be very many false positives for every true positive, even if polygraphy had an accuracy rate as high as 90% (which it doesn't).
GM,
When I tested at NSA, the four counter-intelligence questions did have a "low base rate of guilt".
Further, the polygraphers explained the questions thoroughly. For example, with the disclosure of classified info question. They explained they were talking about PURPOSELY removing classified info from a secure space with the INTENT of doing something untoward with it. IOW, pulling a Sandy Burglar.
With regard to the "foreign contact" question. They explained they were talking about KNOWINGLY maintaining a relationship with a KNOWN agent of a foreign government, with the intent of PASSING INFORMATION, or doing something otherwise unauthorized...etc.
Yet, they will then take something you say that doesn't come even close to that and blow it out of all proportion.
In my case, they made a big deal about some translation work I did for the Taiwan Coordination Counsel in Hawaii. I met an officer there when applying to attend a seminar in Taiwan. I was on active duty. My command knew about it, even wanted to pay for it and label it foreign language training.
I had to go to that office about three times. To apply, to get a visa, and to pick up a seminar packet prior to departing.
Of course I practiced my chinese during the visits. On the last visit, the officer suckered me into translating a 12 page fax just in from Taipei. It was a new directive explaining the new law pertaining to foreigner (americans) wanting to work in Taiwan. This officer needed it translated to have it available in english for people inquiring at his office about working in Taiwan. Too cheap to send it to a translation company.
Now, does that come anywhere near what they explained the "foreign contact" question really means? No? THEY BLEW IT OUT OF ALL PROPORTION!
This is what I mean, when I say don't mention insignificant shit concerning a relevant question. Don't speculate at all. They explained the question quite clearly, I understood it. Should have said No, I haven't DONE anything like THAT. End of story! Anything short of that and you're just giving them ammo!
This is precisely how you end up with a false positive.
TC
Mr Cullen
Lethe argues just the opposite, that the more you know, the less gulible you are, the more likely to be false positive. Can't your side agree on anything?
QuoteLethe argues just the opposite, that the more you know, the less gulible you are, the more likely to be false positive. Can't your side agree on anything?
No he didn't. Reread what he posted.
But despite what he wrote, people actually believe the machine can accurately detect deception. They believe the lie that the machine is 95-98% accurate. It's part of the "pop" culture. It simply is not true.
If one goes into the test knowing that this is a myth, that can only be to their advantage.
Many people just tested come here and to the PGP board in total shock that they told the true, yet were told that the magic box indicated deception. But that just shows how deeply they've fallen for the "myth". So they fall for this "parlor trick".
The more logical answer is that the machine CAN NOT detect deception. After all, they know they told the truth yet the polygrapher said they were lying. It is amazing how they can get a gullible, naive person will suspend all critical judgement in the exam room.
They told the truth, were told they were lying, yet conclude the problem must be with THEM and not the machine/process.
So what do you do if the person tested doesn't fall for it. It they continue to say:
"Look, I'm telling the truth, I don't care what your machine indicates. In fact, just because it shows a reaction doesn't necessarily indicate deception."
and
"You mentioned that the test is 95% accurate. I find that hard to believe. What study do you base that on....."
TC
So its best to explain this or just insist that I've not been involved at all?
Quote from: speed204 on Apr 24, 2008, 08:42 PMSo its best to explain this or just insist that I've not been involved at all?
It is best to explain it.
If you don't you will have to lie. Lying in order to get a job that entails a large amount of trust is simply unethical. You cannot start off behaving unethically and then hope to become ethical once you get the job.
QuoteIf you don't you will have to lie. Lying in order to get a job that entails a large amount of trust is simply unethical. You cannot start off behaving unethically and then hope to become ethical once you get the job.
That's true, it's just a shame applicants have to go through a process (polygraph) where they are systematically lied to.
It's quite ironic.
In speed's case, it's a roll of the dice. If he ends up with a reasonable polygrapher thats sees that speed was really not involved in child porn, no problem. But he may end up some arrogant jack ass that believes his own bullshit, they could use his admission against him.
Quote from: speed204 on Apr 24, 2008, 11:06 PMQuoteIf you don't you will have to lie. Lying in order to get a job that entails a large amount of trust is simply unethical. You cannot start off behaving unethically and then hope to become ethical once you get the job.
That's true, it's just a shame applicants have to go through a process (polygraph) where they are systematically lied to.
It's quite ironic.
In speed's case, it's a roll of the dice. If he ends up with a reasonable polygrapher thats sees that speed was really not involved in child porn, no problem. But he may end up some arrogant jack ass that believes his own bullshit, they could use his admission against him.
Unfortunately, that is true.
But he would be best served by being truthful regardless of how the people with whom he interacts behave. If they choose to lie and take guesses regarding his truthfulness it does not make it ethical or proper for him to lie in response.
If he tells the truth he may fail but he won't have anything that he did that he can or should second guess or regret.
Quote from: speed204 on Apr 22, 2008, 01:12 PMQuote from: speed204 on Apr 21, 2008, 10:12 PMQuoteBut when they ask me that question, isnt that little tidbit being on my mind going to mess up the polygraph?
Dude. That violates one of the guidelines for passing a polygraph.
DO NOT MAKE ADMISSIONS CONCERNING A RELEVANT QUESTION, no matter how minor it may be.
From what you've admitted to here, doesn't sound like you were involved in child porn........but
If "engaging in child porn" is one of the relevant questions, and you "react" to that question on their magic box, then admit what you've admitted here, they may very well blow it out of all proportion and use it to fail you.
You'd probably be better off, assuming you react and you probably won't, Then telling them you know somebody who was molested as a child. So the topic of child porn, molestation...etc. is sensitive for you.
You have the same problem most of us "false positives" HAD. We actually believed the test was accurate. That, and making minor admissions is what got us failed.
Read the "Lie Behind the Lie Detector".
TC
speed204,
firstly, this is a bit premature since most PD's require you to be 21 years old to apply. But for others reading this board I submit the following:
Mr Cullen's advice is just enough to keep you from ever being a police officer, EVER! Any rationalization that looking at child porn (regardless of your age) is not involved in child porn is just that, rationalizing and minimizing and cause for failing the polygraph test.
There seems to be an aggressive effort on this board to recruit more members of the false positive club by providing bad information, get you to be stupid in your pre-employment test, then fail, not get the job and join the disgruntled throngs of folks here (estimated at about five or six) who whine and bitch about not passing their test. :'(
For my real answer; yes, it will be on your mind. Solution: tell them what you saw, when and estimate how many times and as stated (truthfully), they will qualify the question. This way, you should have no problems in your test.
Sackett
P.S. Oh yeah! Reading TLBTLD will not cause any problems on your test. Using and trying to employ what you read will!
For those intelligent people that come here for information and read posts like this one. Please know that NO, your not crazy and YES, you where a victim of a false positive! YOU TOLD THE TRUTH AND FAILED
Examiners like Sackett need to minimize the impact of your claims of failure in spite of your truthfulness. If he does he perpetuates the myth that Polygraphs are 95-98% accurate.
This LIE, even though unfortunatly considered accecpted by most of the public is in no way proven by any scientific testing.
Sackett must make the public believe that your false postive was another case of a "whinning, disgruntled lier" and that there are so few of us.
Which leads us to the obvious..... Why would Sackett and his ilk be on here DAILY posting if false postives where so few, Polygraphs were accualy accurate and we "anti's" were here in so few numbers!
I do believe that even..... Sackett would have better things to do with his time.
ng1
We visit and post here because we hold our friends close and our enemies closer, but our time may have come now that Lethe has outed the polygraph industrtial complex for all the world to see.
Sergeant
That may be the wisest post I have read on this board.
QuoteWe visit and post here because we hold our friends close and our enemies closer,...
The truth is your enemy.
TC
"notguilty1",
you wrote: "Why would Sackett and his ilk be on here DAILY posting if false postives where so few, Polygraphs were accualy accurate and we "anti's" were here in so few numbers!"
Com'mon! There's five of you here! Probably 2 are the same person... I'm here to add balance to your diatribe. Yes, intelligent people do come here to get information, not out of intellectual concern or prowess, but ignorance. Some anti-posts here are actually well presented and articulate; albeit ignorant and misleading. Even smart people can be mislead.
Also, "I do believe that even..... Sackett would have better things to do with his time."
Nope, I'd have more time to spend on Polygraphplace.com and in testing...
Sackett
QuoteCom'mon! There's five of you here! Probably 2 are the same person... I'm here to add balance to your diatribe
Lot's of people post here.
There are "newbees" recently tested, like Ohio99, Speed204..etc who come here on a steady basis, looking for answers as to why they failed the polygraph while telling the truth. We answer their questions, then they leave.
Then there are the 5 or so, "regulars" who post on a long term basis.
It is probably no different at "Polygraphplace", minus the "snowjob" answers, of course.
Then there are the "lurkers". Note this thread has had 328 views, but only 20 posts.
TC
Quote from: notguilty1 on Apr 28, 2008, 10:08 PMQuoteCom'mon! There's five of you here! Probably 2 are the same person... I'm here to add balance to your diatribe
Lot's of people post here.
There are "newbees" recently tested, like Ohio99, Speed204..etc who come here on a steady basis, looking for answers as to why they failed the polygraph while telling the truth. We answer their questions, then they leave.
Then there are the 5 or so, "regulars" who post on a long term basis.
It is probably no different at "Polygraphplace", minus the "snowjob" answers, of course.
Then there are the "lurkers". Note this thread has had 328 views, but only 20 posts.
TC
Hey TC we can talk to Sackett till we are blue in the face. He has NO answers to the questions that show that polygraphs do not work! His days in this are numbered thanks to the internet and George. There are other sources on the net that expose this lie.
His mantra should be "DON'T BOTHER ME WITH FACTS JUST STOP THIS SO I CAN GO ON AND MAKE MY LIVING CAUSE.......... I CAN'T DO ANYTHING ELSE".
I have heard people swear by tarot cards, tea leaves, astrology, talking to the dead ect.
The lack of information is what Sackett and the Polygraph industry rely on that has been evidenced by the posts regarding the use of hand-helds against terrorisim. The compliant was not "what are you talking about this is proven technology? " instead it was " We know that this does not work but if you point that out it aids the enemy"
Like the people we would use this on are stupid and can't find this out on their own.
Sackett would still have me believe dispite my telling the truth in my Polygraph and failing, some how I must be lying and not know it cause the "machine" said so and of course his "analisis" .
The people that have false negs and come on here for explaination then stop coming STILL have the info NOW and will go and tell others.
Of course this doesn't sit well with Sackett or he wouldn't be here on a daily basis.
Quote from: notguilty1 on Apr 29, 2008, 11:25 AMQuote from: notguilty1 on Apr 28, 2008, 10:08 PMQuoteCom'mon! There's five of you here! Probably 2 are the same person... I'm here to add balance to your diatribe
Lot's of people post here.
There are "newbees" recently tested, like Ohio99, Speed204..etc who come here on a steady basis, looking for answers as to why they failed the polygraph while telling the truth. We answer their questions, then they leave.
Then there are the 5 or so, "regulars" who post on a long term basis.
It is probably no different at "Polygraphplace", minus the "snowjob" answers, of course.
Then there are the "lurkers". Note this thread has had 328 views, but only 20 posts.
TC
Hey TC we can talk to Sackett till we are blue in the face. He has NO answers to the questions that show that polygraphs do not work! His days in this are numbered thanks to the internet and George. There are other sources on the net that expose this lie.
His mantra should be "DON'T BOTHER ME WITH FACTS JUST STOP THIS SO I CAN GO ON AND MAKE MY LIVING CAUSE.......... I CAN'T DO ANYTHING ELSE".
I have heard people swear by tarot cards, tea leaves, astrology, talking to the dead ect.
The lack of information is what Sackett and the Polygraph industry rely on that has been evidenced by the posts regarding the use of hand-helds against terrorisim. The compliant was not "what are you talking about this is proven technology? " instead it was " We know that this does not work but if you point that out it aids the enemy"
Like the people we would use this on are stupid and can't find this out on their own.
Sackett would still have me believe dispite my telling the truth in my Polygraph and failing, some how I must be lying and not know it cause the "machine" said so and of course his "analisis" .
The people that have false negs and come on here for explaination then stop coming STILL have the info NOW and will go and tell others.
Of course this doesn't sit well with Sackett or he wouldn't be here on a daily basis.
Interestingly, you have no answers to the questions that polygraph does work; only your diatribe of misguided disinformation all provided by the "prophet" george. Keep your religion of anti-polygraph and I'll keep my belief in mine. You'r right, though. I will not change my opinion about my profession. Why? Because I do it everyday (not just talk about it) and know that it works just fine. It is not perfect, but nothing is.
A failed test years ago hardly makes you qualified to make informed opinions about anything. You can read a book about flying a plane, but I wouldn't trust you to fly me anywhere if that's all you had. George has NEVER utilized his prophecy or methods to pass a test, nor proven conclusively that any of them work by the readers of this forum. What little research exists he promotes to establish that a test "can be" manipulated. But that does not mean the methods work in real life.
I can prevent a doctor from determining I have a blood disease, all I have to do is keep moving my arm when they try to take the blood. Does that mean the doctor doesn't know what he's doing or the flobotomist is untrained or unprofessional? You can talk a good game, but you can't do it. Keep talking...
Polygraph is viable and provides utility in a place in our society which has yet to be replaced. Until then, and much to your anxiety and frustration, there is nothing you can do about it. Keep your dream alive that polygraph will go away. Not yet anyway and certainly not anytime soon. It's been around a long time and has yet to be proven invalid! But, when and if it does go away, it will be because we developed somethiing better; not hardly due to anything occurring or said on this board or at your hands.
BTW, what this board does is what I want it to. It makes reluctant, ignorant and lazy examiners better informed and thus, better at our profession. Otherwise, my days might me spent looking into books on polygraph at the local library and finding the chapters on "how to beat it" torn out...no doubt by the likes of you!
Sackett
QuoteHey TC we can talk to Sackett till we are blue in the face. He has NO answers to the questions that show that polygraphs do not work! His days in this are numbered thanks to the internet and George. There are other sources on the net that expose this lie.
I realize this.
But when I talk to him, I am really talking to the many lurkers here.
The more he talks, the better.
Most people who follow his posts will see him for what he is.
TC
Quote from: notguilty1 on Apr 29, 2008, 02:00 PMQuoteHey TC we can talk to Sackett till we are blue in the face. He has NO answers to the questions that show that polygraphs do not work! His days in this are numbered thanks to the internet and George. There are other sources on the net that expose this lie.
I realize this.
But when I talk to him, I am really talking to the many lurkers here.
Ding, Ding, Ding, we have a winner folks...
If by being losers, you really are winners.... then you are correct! :'(
Sackett
Quote from: notguilty1 on Apr 29, 2008, 02:00 PMQuoteHey TC we can talk to Sackett till we are blue in the face. He has NO answers to the questions that show that polygraphs do not work! His days in this are numbered thanks to the internet and George. There are other sources on the net that expose this lie.
I realize this.
But when I talk to him, I am really talking to the many lurkers here.
The more he talks, the better.
Most people who follow his posts will see him for what he is.
TC
You are so right! They will see a committed, professional polygraph examiner consistently trying desperately to spread the positive aspects and utility of polygraph, all the while being savagely attacked with inuendo based hyperbole and rhetoric.
see me for what I am?! Yes, TC, and remember, tracers work both ways...
Sackett
Quote from: notguilty1 on Apr 29, 2008, 02:00 PMQuoteHey TC we can talk to Sackett till we are blue in the face. He has NO answers to the questions that show that polygraphs do not work! His days in this are numbered thanks to the internet and George. There are other sources on the net that expose this lie.
I realize this.
But when I talk to him, I am really talking to the many lurkers here.
The more he talks, the better.
Most people who follow his posts will see him for what he is.
TC
Hey TC,
Yes the "lurkers" are the ones, the ones that he needs so desperatly to convince that his "science" works. That somehow their looking for the answer to the big question..... "WHY DID I FAIL SINCE I TOLD THE TRUTH? "is ...... YOU DON'T KNOW IT, BUT YOU ACCUALLY LIED. The machine said so and it doesn't lie!!
I have never met anyone that had to defend their profession so vigerously as he and the examiners here do.
Certainly not the doctors that he chooses to continually conpare himself and his "science" to I am sure that must make a few doc's skin crawl.
Well, I guess self preservation is at the root of his obsession to come here several times a day to recite the examiners creed
If he looses this gig he has ............. nothing but a broken machine! ;D
Quote from: notguilty1 on Apr 29, 2008, 07:45 PMQuote from: notguilty1 on Apr 29, 2008, 02:00 PMQuoteHey TC we can talk to Sackett till we are blue in the face. He has NO answers to the questions that show that polygraphs do not work! His days in this are numbered thanks to the internet and George. There are other sources on the net that expose this lie.
I realize this.
But when I talk to him, I am really talking to the many lurkers here.
The more he talks, the better.
Most people who follow his posts will see him for what he is.
TC
Hey TC,
Yes the "lurkers" are the ones, the ones that he needs so desperatly to convince that his "science" works. That somehow their looking for the answer to the big question..... "WHY DID I FAIL SINCE I TOLD THE TRUTH? "is ...... YOU DON'T KNOW IT, BUT YOU ACCUALLY LIED. The machine said so and it doesn't lie!!
I have never met anyone that had to defend their profession so vigerously as he and the examiners here do.
Certainly not the doctors that he chooses to continually conpare himself and his "science" to I am sure that must make a few doc's skin crawl.
Well, I guess self preservation is at the root of his obsession to come here several times a day to recite the examiners creed
If he looses this gig he has ............. nothing but a broken machine! ;D
Yes, yes "notguiltyone", this IS all for the lurkers.
This is a "ANTI" polygraph board. I am here to add a polite and respectful opposition to the crap being espoused here. Don't like it? Please feel free to find another forum to "play" in. I am getting rather comfortable here and enjoy the banter/discussions (when of substance). I'm sure it has not passed your wise and informed observation that I do not repond to ignorance or stupidity in which my input would be of little use to those who are "lurking." I don't need to point out your foolishness or ignorance when you make it that easy for me.
I only compare myself to the medical profession as a passing gesture because it can resonate with most readers. I certainly am not going to compare myself to something below my station or profession. Besides, doctors generally make more incorrect diagnoses than polygraph examiners, so why not use the analogy?
If you think I am here out of any sense of self preservation, you flatter yourself and very undeservingly. You and the rest the rest have very little impact on my profession overall. I'm simply trying to reach some of those who would be otherwise misguided by your diatribes.
BTW, I come here several times a day because I have just enough spare time in my busy schedule to address the propaganda being promoted here. Are you suggesting I shouldn't come here as often? ;)
Sackett
[You're absolutely correct NG1! These polygraph people should not compare themselves to doctors. Why, just last week we had a MURDER in which the medical doctor informed us that our victim had TWO gunshot wounds to the head. In fact, annotated such on his medical charts. Only a few problems with the medical "opinion" (There's that nasty word opinion). The evidence at the scene didn't suggest MURDER, and then, the autopsy showed only one gunshot wound to the head. Oh my God! It was actually a suicide.
Well, that settles it. We now have proof positive that the medical profession is quackery. The sky is falling! The sky is falling!
Come on guys. Is that the best you can do. I know, you hate to concede, but as you are well aware the polygraph has been effective (not perfect) for decades. Polygraph use is on the increase. And the polygraph is going to continue to increase. And there will be, on that very rare occasion, a wrong call made and an opinion will be rendered that is "wrong," just like the good doctor did to us. But, you don't see us running around and accusing the doctor of being a quack. He made a decision based upon the information that was before him. It happens because it isn't a perfect world. ::)
Quote from: notguilty1 on Apr 29, 2008, 09:23 PM[You're absolutely correct NG1! These polygraph people should not compare themselves to doctors. Why, just last week we had a MURDER in which the medical doctor informed us that our victim had TWO gunshot wounds to the head. In fact, annotated such on his medical charts. Only a few problems with the medical "opinion" (There's that nasty word opinion). The evidence at the scene didn't suggest MURDER, and then, the autopsy showed only one gunshot wound to the head. Oh my God! It was actually a suicide.
Well, that settles it. We now have proof positive that the medical profession is quackery. The sky is falling! The sky is falling!
Come on guys. Is that the best you can do. I know, you hate to concede, but as you are well aware the polygraph has been effective (not perfect) for decades. Polygraph use is on the increase. And the polygraph is going to continue to increase. And there will be, on that very rare occasion, a wrong call made and an opinion will be rendered that is "wrong," just like the good doctor did to us. But, you don't see us running around and accusing the doctor of being a quack. He made a decision based upon the information that was before him. It happens because it isn't a perfect world. ::)
Hey Yankee,
The fact in your doctor case is that the doc correctly called the "death" by a gunshot wound!! He is a doctor not a cop.
Now if the guy was alive when he called it and not dead at all and the "gun shot wound "was a ingrown hair then he would be a quack!
Polygraphers on the other hand often find liers truthfull and the honest liers. I know it happened to me.
So, you see your example makes no sense. But if you can compare yourselves to doctors then I wouldn't expect you to see the obvious.
You guys keep compairing yourselves to the medical profession.
Let me say this slowly..... Y O U A R E N O T D O C T O R S!!
You have taken a course that takes a few weeks so, a barber would be a better comparison ( training wise ) and you use this nonsense to sit in judgment of others when the results amout to nothing more than the examners opinion.
There are many many examples of this if you care to read.
If the "occasions that wrong calls" as you put it are so "rare", then why is this site so successful?? It can't be because of us "few" whinners and liers that make is so.
The only thing your machine, I will agree is effective for, is that in many cases people who really believe in it's ability to accually detect lies that in fact are, or plan on lying will confess instead.
In that case, the process did work but does that mean the Poliygraph machine worked? NO it doesn't! cleaver I admit but not evidence that the machine works.
Although the Poligraph industry would have us believe that even that case would be a sucessfull result even though the computer could have been turend off!!
::)
NG,
Maybe they should start wearing white lab coats?
I think it would make for a good "visual" to go along with their charade of pseudo-scientistic respectability.
TC
Quote from: notguilty1 on Apr 30, 2008, 12:59 AMNG,
Maybe they should start wearing white lab coats?
I think it would make for a good "visual" to go along with their charade of pseudo-scientistic respectability.
TC
Hey TC, Yes!! white lab coats would help their comparison to doctors that way they would at least look like doctors, but then again barbers wear white coats and....... they are still barbers.
I still can't believe they think that comparison makes any sense but, I guess to keep thier BS alive they have to hold on to that.
Sorry boys!
I don't look good in white.... ;D
Sackett
Quote from: notguilty1 on Apr 29, 2008, 11:29 PM
Hey Yankee,
The fact in your doctor case is that the doc correctly called the "death" by a gunshot wound!! He is a doctor not a cop.
No, you are misrepresenting the information which has been provided, which is not at all unusual. :-/You see my little friend, when you get caught, as you have just been, misrepresenting the truth, you are deemed dishonest or lacking in credibility. The doctor in the situation I described specifically said the victim had "two" gunshot wounds to the head, not "a" gunshot wound to the head. There is an obvious and distinctive difference. You do understand the difference between singular and plural, yes? The doctor was mistaken, but not deliberately or intentionally as you have been caught doing, and made an opinion based upon the evidence before him. But, he was still wrong in the end.
And no, we don't try to compare ourselves with doctors (but I do like the idea of the white lab coat – it could portray an aura of academic knowledge). We are a separate, respected profession. The analogies (analogy - a similarity between like features of two things, on which a comparison may be based) are simply to provide an example so that people who are actually trying to learn something can understand. Just as an auto mechanic is a profession (they make mistakes, too). We could use them for analogies also.
And Sackett, you might not look good in white, but I sure do!! ;)
Quote from: notguilty1 on Apr 30, 2008, 07:10 PMQuote from: notguilty1 on Apr 29, 2008, 11:29 PM
Hey Yankee,
The fact in your doctor case is that the doc correctly called the "death" by a gunshot wound!! He is a doctor not a cop.
No, you are misrepresenting the information which has been provided, which is not at all unusual. :-/You see my little friend, when you get caught, as you have just been, misrepresenting the truth, you are deemed dishonest or lacking in credibility. The doctor in the situation I described specifically said the victim had "two" gunshot wounds to the head, not "a" gunshot wound to the head. There is an obvious and distinctive difference. You do understand the difference between singular and plural, yes? The doctor was mistaken, but not deliberately or intentionally as you have been caught doing, and made an opinion based upon the evidence before him. But, he was still wrong in the end.
And no, we don't try to compare ourselves with doctors (but I do like the idea of the white lab coat – it could portray an aura of academic knowledge). We are a separate, respected profession. The analogies (analogy - a similarity between like features of two things, on which a comparison may be based) are simply to provide an example so that people who are actually trying to learn something can understand. Just as an auto mechanic is a profession (they make mistakes, too). We could use them for analogies also.
And Sackett, you might not look good in white, but I sure do!! ;)
Yankee,
Your need to "catch people" is deep and if you need to extend that to your off time, have fun. Just like the silly Polygraph test I failed cost me nothing except time, your on line "examination" has little effect on me or the truth regarding Polygraphs.
You may not compare yourself to a doctor but your friend Sackett does it all the time. As for the comparision you mentioned analogy -
a similarity between like features of two things, on which a comparison may be basedIf you guys did start wearing lab coats that would be the only comparision to medical doctors!!
And your suggestion about using lab coats -
but I do like the idea of the white lab coat – it could portray an aura of academic knowledgeI hope you woud enjoy the aura becasue thats the only thing that would bring "academic knowledge" to you guys.
Look Yankee I'll say it once again for you too.
If Polygraphs worked you and Sackett would have no need to come here and convince the viewers that your non-science is valid.
Show me a web site where doctors go to convince people that thier science is valid...... It doesn't exsist. Why?? Because you need to do what you can to limit the damage that GM, this site and posters who have the drive to come here and expose what you do!
So, go ahead and do what you do. There are many unsuspecting victims out there. But, they will seek information just look at the number of "views" on this site.
Your science is already insignificant in a court of law ..... Why??? Because studies have shown it to be UNRELIABLE.
Just because your machine says "he's lying" dosen't make it so even when he confesses since there have been many cases where a examinee has confessed in a post failed Poly interogation only to be proven innocent by other means later. So much for Polygraphs.
But you know what Yankee you need not worry if Sackett is right there are only 5-6 of us "anti whiners" out there ;D
Sorry to rehash this topic, but I'm currently in the same boat.
I'm going for my polygraph test for my shriff's office in a few weeks and one of the questions is supposedly going to be about child pornography. I've never subjected myself to it as it is disgusting, but the first two things that come to mind when discussing the topic are: when I was in high school, seeing pictures of girls in class, and also a coworker of mine was arrested for child pornography a few years back. If those two things are on my mind when I answer no, will the test read a false positive? Or should I just tell my BI about those two things? There wasn't a very clear answer in the above posts. Thanks in advance everyone!
Quote from: Bluestang01 on Jan 15, 2016, 01:21 PMSorry to rehash this topic, but I'm currently in the same boat.
I'm going for my polygraph test for my shriff's office in a few weeks and one of the questions is supposedly going to be about child pornography. I've never subjected myself to it as it is disgusting, but the first two things that come to mind when discussing the topic are: when I was in high school, seeing pictures of girls in class, and also a coworker of mine was arrested for child pornography a few years back. If those two things are on my mind when I answer no, will the test read a false positive? Or should I just tell my BI about those two things? There wasn't a very clear answer in the above posts. Thanks in advance everyone!
Do not mention those things when asked about whether you've ever viewed child pornography. The only correct answer is "no." Any mention of seeing naked pictures of classmates while in school, or offering an excuse as to why you might show a reaction to a question about having viewed child pornography -- is inviting a very uncomfortable interrogation and an accusation of deception. Don't do it.
Instead, read The Lie Behind the Lie Detector, available on this site, and learn the dos and don'ts of polygraphy:
https://antipolygraph.org/lie-behind-the-lie-detector.pdf
Sorry, but I'm not reading 220 pages about a polygraph. But what if I say no and in the back of my head in thinking of these instances and it says I lied? Then I just have to accept my fate?
Quote from: Bluestang01 on Jan 15, 2016, 01:21 PMwhen I was in high school, seeing pictures of girls in class, and also a coworker of mine was arrested for child pornography a few years back.
Having a coworker who got into trouble is not viewing child pornography. What were the particulars about the high school girls? Were they sexually suggestive poses? How did you come across them? Were the girls the same age as yourself?
Same grade as me, just an image that a girl took of herself and sent to a guy. He then sent it around to a bunch of different people. It was never sent to me specifically and I never owned a copy of it, I just saw it at a party one night when someone pulled it up and was showing everyone. I'm sure it's really no big deal and normally I would say absolutely not, I've never viewed it. But with the polygraph I'm afraid I'm gonna be thinking about it and it trigger my response. Basically, should I tell the background investigator my concern for the question and see what he says?
Quote from: Bluestang01 on Jan 15, 2016, 10:48 PMSame grade as me, just an image that a girl took of herself and sent to a guy.
Was the picture simple nudity, or was it sexually suggestive? Not all nudity involving minors is child pornography. This is kind of a tough call and I'm out of my comfort zone here. I think I'll defer to others to chime in. But, I'm inclined to go with Greybeard.
Quote from: Bluestang01 on Jan 15, 2016, 01:43 PMSorry, but I'm not reading 220 pages about a polygraph.
Too bad. You might have made a great shriff.
Bluestang01, you haven't done anything that I haven't heard a thousand times before. If it's all truthful, don't sweat it. Examiners know everybody has concerns. Often the concerns are of no relevance to the examiner, such as what you've described. You absolutely DO want to tell your examiner about this, and anything else that's worrying you. We don't expect you to present being physically relaxed (and we don't want you to try to relax!), but we DO want you to be mentally relaxed, if that makes sense to you. Discussing your concerns is the best way to "let go" of those issues that may give you problems in your exam.
VenturousOne, I appreciate you jumping in and giving Blustang01 some advice from your perspective. I think the prevailing concern is that since he viewed a picture of a nude classmate, would the examiner consider such an admission to viewing child pornography? May I solicit your input on this?
Child pornography is rarely interpreted as viewing nude 16 or 17 years olds, which I suspect is what occurred here. Many examiners define child pornography as "pre-pubescent," truly children. If a cell phone shot of a high school female being passed around is the issue, Bluestang has nothing to worry about (except maybe from the one who was photographed!). But again, he must voice the concern to his examiner. Far too many otherwise qualified applicants go down in flames because they withhold info that the hiring agency could not care less about. But trying to hide that conduct, which likely results in a failed exam, will typically exclude that person.
Quote from: VenturousOne on Jan 20, 2016, 08:02 AMChild pornography is rarely interpreted as viewing nude 16 or 17 years olds, which I suspect is what occurred here. Many examiners define child pornography as "pre-pubescent," truly children.
Since when do polygraph examiners have the discretion to define what is and what isn't child pornography?
The polygrapher's job is to collect potentially disqualifying information, and any admission to having viewed nude images of a person under the age of 18 is potentially disqualifying. Under Florida law, for example, transmission of a picture of the kind Bluestang01 described is a 3rd degree felony:
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0800-0899/0847/Sections/0847.0137.html
And minors have been criminally prosecuted for transmitting such pictures:
http://www.wired.com/2009/01/kids/
Quote If a cell phone shot of a high school female being passed around is the issue, Bluestang has nothing to worry about (except maybe from the one who was photographed!).
I don't see how you can provide such assurance with any confidence.
QuoteBut again, he must voice the concern to his examiner. Far too many otherwise qualified applicants go down in flames because they withhold info that the hiring agency could not care less about.
How do you know this to be true?
QuoteBut trying to hide that conduct, which likely results in a failed exam, will typically exclude that person.
Again, how do you know that trying to hide potentially embarrassing but non-relevant information is likely to result in a failed exam? And if such is indeed the case, what does that have to say about the validity of polygraphy?
Quote from: VenturousOne on Jan 20, 2016, 08:02 AMFar too many otherwise qualified applicants go down in flames because they withhold info that the hiring agency could not care less about. But trying to hide that conduct, which likely results in a failed exam, will typically exclude that person.
So, in other words, if there is anything on your conscience at all, like breaking your grandmother's favorite dish when you were 10 years old and then lying by blaming it on your brother, you need to get it off your chest 30 years later when you are taking a polygraph for a sensitive position. Maybe it's easy to get that confused with spying for the former Soviet Union. Really ? This is polygraph practice is absurd. The only good thing about the use of the polygraph is that it shows how low some people will stoop to make a buck.
Wandersmann, indeed polygraph is a CA$H COW.
I am in the same boat as the original poster, however Nude pictures (it was a nip slip) were posted to a girls facebook page when we were both in high school and I saved the images for viewing later. And years later after I turned 18, I stumbled upon nude photos of an actress who was 17 at the time they were taken and I saved them too. I have since deleted them from my computer since I have realized that it was a terrible thing to do and look at. I have never seeked out any Child Porn, but I am afraid that I will not only fail the polygraph, (I intend to fully disclose what I've said here) but also be arrested and charged with child pornography. Can anyone help ease my mind or warn me off applying?
QuoteI am in the same boat as the original poster, however Nude pictures (it was a nip slip) were posted to a girls facebook page when we were both in high school and I saved the images for viewing later. And years later after I turned 18, I stumbled upon nude photos of an actress who was 17 at the time they were taken and I saved them too. I have since deleted them from my computer since I have realized that it was a terrible thing to do and look at. I have never seeked out any Child Porn, but I am afraid that I will not only fail the polygraph, (I intend to fully disclose what I've said here) but also be arrested and charged with child pornography. Can anyone help ease my mind or warn me off applying?
Well obviously you are guilty of possessing and viewing child pornography. Whether you can be prosecuted for it depends on where you live, but the laws of most states are unbelievably stupid on this subject so don't count on common sense or judicial discretion to save you.
This means that if you do disclose what you've said here to any public authority, you will be arrested and charged. Any public servant who credibly knows that you are a sex offender and does not forward your confession to the police becomes guilty of abetting your offense. So no one will dare fail to report you, due to fear of being arrested himself.
You see, in too many cases, fear of prosecution under stupid law prevents a person from exercising common sense. For example, Aunty is forbidden to tell you to
forget about temporarily saving illegal pictures when in high school and
don't bother recruiters with petty crap, because that would be the same as telling you to lie. Which, like looking at a jail bait nip slip pic, is a terrible thing to do.
So because Aunty does not want to entertain Federal Agents at 3:30 AM, she is not able to give you the best benefit of her years of accumulated wisdom and maturity. Instead, Aunty must tell you that a career in law enforcement is forever closed to you. Thus conscience doth make cowards of us all.
-Aunty.
Quote from: speed204 on Apr 21, 2008, 03:39 PMI've always wanted to be in law enforcement as a police officer. A police officer friend of mine was telling me that you have to pass a polygraph test and in his list of things they ask you, he included child pornography. I am 18 and graduated high school now, but all during high school pictures of naked girls in high school (probably age 15-18) were all over the place being circulated to me through text messages as well as email. Also, I still have media of me with old girlfriends from a year or two ago and we both were not 18 at the time. I guess most of these pictures could technically be classified as child pornography.
Its been on my mind 24/7 now......
Does this mean I can no longer become a police officer since technically I have been both in possession of and have distributed child porn?
Also very important: Now that you're 18, stay well away from any girl that isn't! ::)
Quote from: PhilGainey on Apr 22, 2008, 02:56 PMGM,
When I tested at NSA, the four counter-intelligence questions did have a "low base rate of guilt".
Further, the polygraphers explained the questions thoroughly. For example, with the disclosure of classified info question. They explained they were talking about PURPOSELY removing classified info from a secure space with the INTENT of doing something untoward with it. IOW, pulling a Sandy Burglar.
With regard to the "foreign contact" question. They explained they were talking about KNOWINGLY maintaining a relationship with a KNOWN agent of a foreign government, with the intent of PASSING INFORMATION, or doing something otherwise unauthorized...etc.
Yet, they will then take something you say that doesn't come even close to that and blow it out of all proportion.
In my case, they made a big deal about some translation work I did for the Taiwan Coordination Counsel in Hawaii. I met an officer there when applying to attend a seminar in Taiwan. I was on active duty. My command knew about it, even wanted to pay for it and label it foreign language training.
I had to go to that office about three times. To apply, to get a visa, and to pick up a seminar packet prior to departing.
Of course I practiced my chinese during the visits. On the last visit, the officer suckered me into translating a 12 page fax just in from Taipei. It was a new directive explaining the new law pertaining to foreigner (americans) wanting to work in Taiwan. This officer needed it translated to have it available in english for people inquiring at his office about working in Taiwan. Too cheap to send it to a translation company.
Now, does that come anywhere near what they explained the "foreign contact" question really means? No? THEY BLEW IT OUT OF ALL PROPORTION!
This is what I mean, when I say don't mention insignificant shit concerning a relevant question. Don't speculate at all. They explained the question quite clearly, I understood it. Should have said No, I haven't DONE anything like THAT. End of story! Anything short of that and you're just giving them ammo!
This is precisely how you end up with a false positive.
TC
When I was polygraphed by NSA in 1982, I was accused, out of the blue, by the butch polygrapher of concealing homosexual activity and maintaining contact with foreign intelligence services.
Those bizarre accusations were the final confirmation for me of the absurdity of the polygraph, except as a tool to intimidate the unaware! ::)
Quote from: PhilGainey on Apr 28, 2008, 10:08 PMQuoteCom'mon! There's five of you here! Probably 2 are the same person... I'm here to add balance to your diatribe
Lot's of people post here.
There are "newbees" recently tested, like Ohio99, Speed204..etc who come here on a steady basis, looking for answers as to why they failed the polygraph while telling the truth. We answer their questions, then they leave.
Then there are the 5 or so, "regulars" who post on a long term basis.
It is probably no different at "Polygraphplace", minus the "snowjob" answers, of course.
Then there are the "lurkers". Note this thread has had 328 views, but only 20 posts.
TC
and many of those lurkers may be from the IC.
I personally don't care, because I have nothing to lose anymore! :P
Quote from: VenturousOne on Jan 20, 2016, 08:02 AMChild pornography is rarely interpreted as viewing nude 16 or 17 years olds, which I suspect is what occurred here. Many examiners define child pornography as "pre-pubescent," truly children. If a cell phone shot of a high school female being passed around is the issue, Bluestang has nothing to worry about (except maybe from the one who was photographed!). But again, he must voice the concern to his examiner. Far too many otherwise qualified applicants go down in flames because they withhold info that the hiring agency could not care less about. But trying to hide that conduct, which likely results in a failed exam, will typically exclude that person.
I believe that any pornographic photography involving persons under 18 years of age is criminalized in the USA. I doubt very much that leniency would be shown toward an offender if the photographic images depicted involved 16 and/or 17 year olds. :-/
Quote from: notguilty1 on Apr 30, 2008, 10:33 AMQuote from: notguilty1 on Apr 30, 2008, 12:59 AMNG,
Maybe they should start wearing white lab coats?
I think it would make for a good "visual" to go along with their charade of pseudo-scientistic respectability.
TC
Hey TC, Yes!! white lab coats would help their comparison to doctors that way they would at least look like doctors, but then again barbers wear white coats and....... they are still barbers.
I still can't believe they think that comparison makes any sense but, I guess to keep thier BS alive they have to hold on to that.
Did alchemists have a particular garb for their "profession"? If they did, that might make a suitable costume for polygraphers! ;D
Quote from: xenonman on Jul 25, 2016, 01:01 AMDid alchemists have a particular garb for their "profession"? If they did, that might make a suitable costume for polygraphers!
Yes -- the duty uniform of a polygrapher should be a pointy cap with stars and comets and orbs all over it, and a long robe with voluminous sleeves. Wand optional.
Quote from: AuntyAgony on Jul 25, 2016, 01:36 AMQuote from: xenonman on Jul 25, 2016, 01:01 AMDid alchemists have a particular garb for their "profession"? If they did, that might make a suitable costume for polygraphers!
Yes -- the duty uniform of a polygrapher should be a pointy cap with stars and comets and orbs all over it, and a long robe with voluminous sleeves. Wand optional.
That would certainly show them as the "mad scientists" which those high-tech voodoo charlatans certainly are! :D :D