The Associated Press reports that four agents of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) who infiltrated the Mongols motorcycle gang had to first pass a lie detector test by a private detective:
Quotehttp://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hrHOy4sPvBKCo0W7ItrIx-pmaE4gD93VFSI80
Feds say they drive a stake into Mongols gang
By THOMAS WATKINS – 5 hours ago
LOS ANGELES (AP) — An undercover investigation in which federal agents infiltrated the notorious Mongols motorcycle gang has ended with dozens of members arrested in six states and prosecutors say it could herald the end of what they call a criminal group.
"This is one of those celebrated investigations in which the organization from top to bottom has been charged and targeted," said Michael Sullivan, acting director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. "It puts a stake in the heart of the Mongols."
At least 61 Mongol Motorcycle Club members were arrested under a racketeering indictment. Agents served 110 arrest warrants across Southern California and in Nevada, Oregon, Colorado, Washington and Ohio.
Members of the Mongols, a Southern California-based group of 600 or so members, claims it is a social club but prosecutors say it's a criminal gang involved in murder, torture, drug trafficking and other offenses.
The 177-page indictment describes a tightly organized group routinely engaging in violence. It alleges the group, which is mostly Latino, sometimes attacks black people and commits robberies, steals motorcycles, and funds itself in part by stealing credit card account information.
John Torres, the ATF agent in charge in Los Angeles, described the pivotal role his organization's four undercover agents played in the investigation.
The unidentified federal agents infiltrated the gang and were accepted as full members, a difficult process that requires winning the trust of top leaders over a period of months, Torres said.
They had been given completely new identities, including Social Security numbers and life stories. To be accepted into the Mongols, the agents had to pass a lie detector test and background test carried out by private detectives.
Torres declined to comment on how they were able to pass the polygraph test. The agents started out doing errands for the gang, including security work at Mongol parties, and later became "full-patch" members, meaning they could wear the group's insignia.
The agents were required to live away from their real families for days on end in homes set up to make it look like they lived a Mongols lifestyle, Torres said. Four undercover women ATF agents also were involved, pretending to be biker girlfriends and attending parties with the agents. Women are not allowed to be full members of the gang.
Torres said the agents never committed any crimes during their work.
Among those arrested were the gang's former national president Ruben Cavazos, who wrote a memoir of his life called "Honor Few, Fear None: The Life and Times of a Mongol," published by HarperCollins in June.
Another former Mongols national president, Roger Pinney, alleged in an interview with The Associated Press that Cavazos was the problem, not the club in general.
"They were just on the verge of cleaning up their act," said Pinney, who is no longer a member and is serving probation from his role in an infamous brawl in Laughlin, Nev., in 2002. "It's not a club-run deal, it's individuals who are the ones who decide to commit crimes."
Pinney doesn't believe the raid will force the Mongols off the road. "This is all going to blow over. The Mongols aren't going away, and neither are the Hells Angels," he said.
But U.S. Attorney Thomas O'Brien has asked for an injunction that would seize the Mongols' trademarked name. If the order is approved, any Mongol would no longer be able to wear a jacket displaying the gang's name or emblem.
"It would allow law enforcement to seize the leather jackets right off their back," O'Brien said.
Quote from: George_Maschke on Oct 22, 2008, 11:28 AMThe Associated Press reports that four agents of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) who infiltrated the Mongols motorcycle gang had to first pass a lie detector test by a private detective:
California does not require Polygraph Examiners to be licensed, certified or even trained. All one has to do to become a polygraph examiner in California is to buy a polygraph on Ebay or elsewhere. The private detective/polygrapher was listed as an "unnamed Co-Conspirator" in the Mongol's indictment.
QuoteOn June 23, 2007, in San Diego County, California, defendant MUNZ directed an unidentified co-conspirator to administer a polygraph examination to three undercover law enforcement officers as a condition to their membership in the Mongols gang.
http://extras.mnginteractive.com/live/media/site205/2008/1021/20081021_022540_Mongols_-_indictment.pdf
I'll bet you a Double Whopper with cheese along with supersized fries and a coke that if this person is ever named it will either be John Grogan or one of his proteges.
Sancho Panza
I just can't understand how they could have passed (false negative). The test if very accurate, at least 95%.
There is something fishy here! Maybe they had a bad examiner. Maybe they used countermeasures. Whoops! Forgot, CMs don't work. Well, no test is perfect. Even X-ray exams have error rates. The fact they passed doesn't prove a thing except that this site is a menace to national security!
TC
Quote from: PhilGainey on Oct 22, 2008, 02:03 PMI just can't understand how they could have passed (false negative).
Or maybe the government threatened the private detective/examiner with an indictment of his own if he didn't pass the agents. They flipped at least 4 hard core bikers while the agents were still under cover. Compared to flipping a 1%er getting a private eye to roll over in the face of a RICO indictment that includes murder doesn't seem like that much of a stretch.
If he wasn't helping the agents on purpose, eventually he'll be arrested. The government intends to literally seize the jackets off of their backs. I don't think a criminal private eye will walk away unscathed unless he has already cut a deal.
Sancho Panza
Quote from: SanchoPanza on Oct 22, 2008, 12:57 PMQuote from: George_Maschke on Oct 22, 2008, 11:28 AMThe Associated Press reports that four agents of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) who infiltrated the Mongols motorcycle gang had to first pass a lie detector test by a private detective:
California does not require Polygraph Examiners to be licensed, certified or even trained. All one has to do to become a polygraph examiner in California is to buy a polygraph on Ebay or elsewhere.
You are absolutely correct. Anyone can hang out a shingle and offer polygraph services to the public in my home state of California. By the same token, anyone can offer services as a phrenologist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phrenology), graphologist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphology), or palm-reader (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chiromancy). I think it is a sign of California's relative enlightenment that it does not grant licenses to practitioners of such quackery as polygraphy.
QuoteThe private detective/polygrapher was listed as an "unnamed Co-Conspirator" in the Mongol's indictment.
QuoteOn June 23, 2007, in San Diego County, California, defendant MUNZ directed an unidentified co-conspirator to administer a polygraph examination to three undercover law enforcement officers as a condition to their membership in the Mongols gang.
http://extras.mnginteractive.com/live/media/site205/2008/1021/20081021_022540_Mongols_-_indictment.pdf
The passage you cite is perplexing, because it is hard to fathom how the co-conspirator directed to administer a polygraph examination to three under-cover law enforcement officers could have remained "unidentified," unless perhaps it was a third party who actually administered the polygraph examinations. A press release (http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/cac/pressroom/pr2008/142.html) by the U.S. Attorney for the Central District of California states:
QuoteDuring the investigation, four male ATF agents worked undercover and successfully infiltrated the Mongols to become "full-patch" members. Four female ATF agents also went undercover to pose as their girlfriends. The undercover agents had to undergo rigorous scrutiny by the Mongols, including polygraph examinations, to be accepted as members of the Mongols. They also had to develop and maintain "biker personas" to prolong their undercover investigation.
It is hard to conceive that ATF could be ignorant of the identity of the person who polygraphed its agents.
QuoteI'll bet you a Double Whopper with cheese along with supersized fries and a coke that if this person is ever named it will either be John Grogan or one of his proteges.
I'll have to decline that wager. That said, I would indeed be surprised if the Mongols' polygraph examiner were a member in good standing of either the American Polygraph Association (http://www.polygraph.org) or the California Association of Polygraph Examiners (http://www.californiapolygraph.com). Although I would disagree with the great majority of the members of these organizations regarding the merits of polygraphy, we're on the same side of the law, and I have to think that few, if any, would knowingly assist such a criminal enterprise.
QuoteOr maybe the government threatened the private detective/examiner with an indictment of his own if he didn't pass the agents. They flipped at least 4 hard core bikers while the agents were still under cover. Compared to flipping a 1%er getting a private eye to roll over in the face of a RICO indictment that includes murder doesn't seem like that much of a stretch.
Good point. Indeed, I wouldn't assume that the ATF agents used countermeasures to pass the polygraph. The polygrapher might have been flipped with threats and promises.
Quote from: George_Maschke on Oct 22, 2008, 03:49 PMQuote:
The private detective/polygrapher was listed as an "unnamed Co-Conspirator" in the Mongol's indictment.
Quote:
On June 23, 2007, in San Diego County, California, defendant MUNZ directed an unidentified co-conspirator to administer a polygraph examination to three undercover law enforcement officers as a condition to their membership in the Mongols gang. http://extras.mnginteractive.com/live/media/site205/2008/1021/20081021_022540_Mo...
The passage you site is perplexing, because it is hard to fathom how the co-conspirator directed to administer a polygraph examination to three under-cover law enforcement officers could have remained "unidentified," unless perhaps it was a third party who actually administered the polygraph examinations. A press release by the U.S. Attorney for the Central District of California states:
That was a cut and paste from the actual indictment.
In the context of an indictment, the language you find perplexing does not mean that ATF does not know the identity of the co-conspirator. It means that either the ATF attorney did not identify the person to the Grand Jury OR that the Grand Jury withheld the identity of the person at the request of ATF. Both are common occurrences when the unidentified person is the subject of further proceedings or has agreed to testify against his cohorts.
Perhaps you can direct me to the N.A.S Reports on Phrenology, Graphology and Chiromancy.
Sancho Panza
Quote from: SanchoPanza on Oct 22, 2008, 06:51 PMThat was a cut and paste from the actual indictment.
In the context of an indictment, the language you find perplexing does not mean that ATF does not know the identity of the co-conspirator. It means that either the ATF attorney did not identify the person to the Grand Jury OR that the Grand Jury withheld the identity of the person at the request of ATF. Both are common occurrences when the unidentified person is the subject of further proceedings or has agreed to testify against his cohorts.
Thank you for explaining.
QuotePerhaps you can direct me to the N.A.S Reports on Phrenology, Graphology and Chiromancy.
While the NAS hasn't been tasked with investigating these pseudosciences, note that the fact that the NAS has produced a report on a practice does not ipso facto confer legitimacy upon it. As the chair of the NAS's Committee to Review the Scientific Evidence on the Polygraph succinctly put it: "The polygraph has been the gold standard, but it's obviously fool's gold."
It is certainly possible that the feds got to the examiner and persuaded him to "pass" the agents in exchange for leniency or something similar. Is there any indication that is what happened?
Since it does strain the limits of coincidence that four separate examinees all managed to pass a polygraph despite being completely deceptive, it is hardly surprising that a polygraph supporter offers up the rather lame excuse that the person conducting the examination must not have been a "real" polygraph examiner. A licensed, certified, and trained polygraph examiner couldn't have missed the fact that four examinees were law enforcement agents rather than career criminals, right? Something that obvious could hardly have escaped detection, I would hope.
Didn't Harmon Leon go on the TV show "Lie Detector" and completely and utterly fool Ed Gelb? As the former president of the APA, I assume he would qualify as a licensed, certified, and trained polygraph examiner? Didn't he completely miss the fact that Leon had a tack in his shoe that he stomped on repeatedly? Hardly a tour de force for the polygraph.
How much more reasonable is to simply conclude that the polygraph does not detect deception?
Sergeant.
Of course it isn't suprising. That is because it is plausible. Owning a polygraph doesn't automatically make you polygrapher any more that owning a badge makes you a cop. Like untrained cops, untrained polygraphers might be a bit easier to deceive.
Considering the failure of a Polygraph for the Mongols would probably (based on their reputation and history) result in your family never knowing where your body was buried, No trial, No opportunity to complain that polygraph doesn't work on bulletin boards like this, just lights out, I don't see ATF risking an attempt at countermeasures even with an untrained examiner. Multiply that times four and you are really broadening their risk versus consequences.
Quote from: Sergeant1107 on Oct 23, 2008, 06:21 AMDidn't Harmon Leon go on the TV show "Lie Detector" and completely and utterly fool Ed Gelb?
I hadn't heard this Harmon Leon story so I looked it up.
I viewed the video on YOUTUBE here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kv-cUD5RY9M
I read Harmon Leon's account here: http://www.sfweekly.com/2005-05-25/news/bullshitting-the-lie-detector/
and also read the response to his article by the shows producer here: http://www.sfweekly.com/2005-06-22/news/the-infiltrator-who-proved-nothing/
Saying that he completely fooled Ed Gelb is a bit of an exaggeration, even for you.
First, Harmon Leon was not on parole or probation so when he ansered "
yes" to the question, "Do you plan to tell the truth on this test whether you knowingly used marijuana while on probation?"
He was telling the truth.
When he answered "
No" to the question "Did you do marijuana while on probation last January?"
He was again telling the truth.
The results of his polygraph were that he was telling the truth on these questions.
But, your conclusion is that he "Fooled" Ed Gelb.
In Summary Gonzo Journalist tells truth on the test. Test shows Gonzo Journalist told the truth on the test. Conclusion: Person administering test Fooled? HARDLY
Second The real message you should get from all three sources is that even though Harmon Leon claims "After searching the Internet, I decided the best way to beat a polygraph test was to put a tack in my shoe and poke myself when each question was asked." He failed to cause sufficient distortion in his charts to prevent Ed Gelb from arriving at the conclusion that this Gonzo Journalist who successfully lied to the producers about his arrest and probation to the extent of forging a police report had in fact told the truth about using marijuana on probation.
I don't know where on the internet he got his countermeasure advice, but I do know that the N.A.S. study stated that there isn't any credible evidence or scientific research that supports the idea that it is easy to train examinees to "beat" both the polygraph and trained examiners.
Sancho Panza
For extended commentary on Harmon Leon's exploit, see Harmon Leon Infiltrates PAX TV's Lie Detector Show (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=3974.msg30102#msg30102).
Quote from: SanchoPanza on Oct 23, 2008, 08:34 AMSergeant.
Of course it isn't suprising. That is because it is plausible. Owning a polygraph doesn't automatically make you polygrapher any more that owning a badge makes you a cop. Like untrained cops, untrained polygraphers might be a bit easier to deceive.
Considering the failure of a Polygraph for the Mongols would probably (based on their reputation and history) result in your family never knowing where your body was buried, No trial, No opportunity to complain that polygraph doesn't work on bulletin boards like this, just lights out, I don't see ATF risking an attempt at countermeasures even with an untrained examiner. Multiply that times four and you are really broadening their risk versus consequences.
Quote from: Sergeant1107 on Oct 23, 2008, 06:21 AMDidn't Harmon Leon go on the TV show "Lie Detector" and completely and utterly fool Ed Gelb?
I hadn't heard this Harmon Leon story so I looked it up.
I viewed the video on YOUTUBE here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kv-cUD5RY9M
I read Harmon Leon's account here: http://www.sfweekly.com/2005-05-25/news/bullshitting-the-lie-detector/
and also read the response to his article by the shows producer here: http://www.sfweekly.com/2005-06-22/news/the-infiltrator-who-proved-nothing/
Saying that he completely fooled Ed Gelb is a bit of an exaggeration, even for you.
First, Harmon Leon was not on parole or probation so when he ansered "yes" to the question, "Do you plan to tell the truth on this test whether you knowingly used marijuana while on probation?" He was telling the truth.
When he answered "No" to the question "Did you do marijuana while on probation last January?" He was again telling the truth.
The results of his polygraph were that he was telling the truth on these questions.
But, your conclusion is that he "Fooled" Ed Gelb.
In Summary Gonzo Journalist tells truth on the test. Test shows Gonzo Journalist told the truth on the test. Conclusion: Person administering test Fooled? HARDLY
Second The real message you should get from all three sources is that even though Harmon Leon claims "After searching the Internet, I decided the best way to beat a polygraph test was to put a tack in my shoe and poke myself when each question was asked." He failed to cause sufficient distortion in his charts to prevent Ed Gelb from arriving at the conclusion that this Gonzo Journalist who successfully lied to the producers about his arrest and probation to the extent of forging a police report had in fact told the truth about using marijuana on probation.
I don't know where on the internet he got his countermeasure advice, but I do know that the N.A.S. study stated that there isn't any credible evidence or scientific research that supports the idea that it is easy to train examinees to "beat" both the polygraph and trained examiners.
Sancho Panza
Of course you don't seem to realize that, owning a badge with the intent to, or actually use it for it's intended purpose, will get you arrested for impersonating an officer of the law. Owning a polygraph machine with the intent to, or actually using it for it's intended purpose ........ well, not
Quote from: notguilty1 on Oct 23, 2008, 11:25 AMOf course you don't seem to realize that, owning a badge with the intent to, or actually use it for it's intended purpose, will get you arrested for impersonating an officer of the law.Owning a polygraph machine with the intent to, or actually using it for it's intended purpose ........ well, not
Wrong again Notguilty1. But at least you are consistently wrong.
It is illegal to administer a polygraph examination without a license in more than half of our states.
If I may reiterate,
Owning a polygraph doesn't automatically make someone a polygrapher any more that owning a badge makes someone a cop.Sancho Panza
Quote from: SanchoPanza on Oct 23, 2008, 12:15 PMQuote from: notguilty1 on Oct 23, 2008, 11:25 AMOf course you don't seem to realize that, owning a badge with the intent to, or actually use it for it's intended purpose, will get you arrested for impersonating an officer of the law.Owning a polygraph machine with the intent to, or actually using it for it's intended purpose ........ well, not
Wrong again Notguilty1. But at least you are consistently wrong.
It is illegal to administer a polygraph examination without a license in more than half of our states.
If I may reiterate, Owning a polygraph doesn't automatically make someone a polygrapher any more that owning a badge makes someone a cop.
Sancho Panza
Sancho wrote:
"It is illegal to administer a polygraph examination without a license in more than half of our states."
But it's perfectly legal in the other half of our states!
Sancho wrote:
"Owning a polygraph doesn't automatically make someone a polygrapher any more that owning a badge makes someone a cop."
Apparently, Sancho it does in the states where licensing is not required.
However, your example as usual falls short because, even in those states using a badge if your not authorized to will land you in jail.
QuoteIt is illegal to administer a polygraph examination without a license in more than half of our states.
Yet it is illegal to administer a haircut without a license in all of them.
Quote from: 515F5859360 on Oct 23, 2008, 07:18 PMQuoteIt is illegal to administer a polygraph examination without a license in more than half of our states.
Yet it is illegal to administer a haircut without a license in all of them.
Good point!
Quote from: 737D7A7B140 on Oct 23, 2008, 07:18 PMYet it is illegal to administer a haircut without a license in all of them.
Gino Where did you go to school? Your research is lacking is not much better than Notguilty1.
Barber/haircutting licensing statutes ONLY apply to people who charge for their services. In every state that requires Polygraph licensing the licensing requirements apply whether or not a fee is charged. Therefore people are allowed to cut hair in all fifty states without a license.
Sancho Panza
P.S. for future reference If Notguilty1 speaks up from the amen pew then your facts are probably wrong.
sp
Quote from: SanchoPanza on Oct 23, 2008, 08:43 PMQuote from: 737D7A7B140 on Oct 23, 2008, 07:18 PMYet it is illegal to administer a haircut without a license in all of them.
Gino Where did you go to school? Your research is lacking is not much better than Notguilty1.
Barber/haircutting licensing statutes ONLY apply to people who charge for their services. In every state that requires Polygraph licensing the licensing requirements apply whether or not a fee is charged. Therefore people are allowed to cut hair in all fifty states without a license.
Sancho Panza
P.S. for future reference If Notguilty1 speaks up from the amen pew then your facts are probably wrong.
sp
Seems as if Sancho is the self proclaimed expert in all that is and who knows that may even be so.
However he still FAILS to realize that in the states that licensing is NOT required for Polygraphs it doesn't matter if you charge or not it's still a pseudo-science that is not deemed in need of licensing by what he admits is nearly half the states in our country.
However, in ALL states licensing is required to cut hair. Since most here can agree that we are talking about a "profession" as in
"earning a living" I think the charging for services was implied. I don't know too many people walking around with a Polygraph under their arm as a party entertainment. ( though it would probably have the best use there )
Sancho, your put downs only serve to show those who come here for some information what they are to encounter when dealing with those in your "profession".
Now as usual the topic has gone away from the core issue which is that Polygraph is a pseudo-science and time and time again whether by personal experience or yet another news story. The inaccuracy and unreliability of polygraph is shown.
Quote
Gino Where did you go to school? Your research is lacking is not much better than Notguilty1.
Barber/haircutting licensing statutes ONLY apply to people who charge for their services. In every state that requires Polygraph licensing the licensing requirements apply whether or not a fee is charged. Therefore people are allowed to cut hair in all fifty states without a license.
Sancho Panza
A straw man argument at its finest.
The lack of a "not for profit" exemption in state-level regulation of polygraphy is completely irrelevant to my argument.
Many professional licenses have not-for-profit exemptions.
In cosmetology, these exist simply because people often cut hair for family members, friends, etc.
A similar exemption is in place for non-profit work in many other professions. For example, in a vast majority of local areas, homeowners are allowed to engage in "do it yourself" electrical and plumbing projects provided they adhere to local code.
It is an utter non-sequitur to draw the conclusion of "therefore people are allowed to run wire and plumb without a license" because of such an exemption.
The lack of a non-profit exemption in polygraphy regulation is meaningless anyway, as I can't fathom non-profit polygraphs actually occurring in large enough numbers to be a problem. If this distinction in legislation is as important as you make it out to be, I'm sure that you can provide documentation of prosecutions for engaging in
not-for-profit polygraphy without a license.
This may actually become an issue some day in the future, as more people learn just how simplistic the procedure actually is. If the public was actually aware that one can purchase an instrument from eBay and conduct polygraphs with the same validity as the most experienced polygraph examiner, I think that you would see quite a few people choose to "cut out the middleman."
Quote from: 5B5552533C0 on Oct 23, 2008, 07:18 PMYet it is illegal to administer a haircut without a license in all of them.
Gino Scalabrini. You should really take some dance lessons.
When you use "absolute" statements, like the one above, in your argument, you are either 100% correct or 100% wrong. Qualifying your statement in rebuttal is just a feeble attempt to bolster your argument by selective observation.
Sancho Panza
Again...
If this distinction in legislation is as important as you make it out to be, I'm sure that you can provide documentation of prosecutions for engaging in not-for-profit polygraphy without a license.
Quote from: 2B2522234C0 on Oct 24, 2008, 11:55 PMI'm sure that you can provide documentation of prosecutions for engaging in not-for-profit polygraphy without a license.
Let me see if I understand your request here.
My point is that legislation prohibiting polygraph without a license is an effective detrrent to the practice.
You want me to research proof that I am wrong.
Nice try Señor Scalabrini.
Sancho Panza
As usual Sancho has managed to get us off track.
The original point. It seems that some ATF agents managed to beat a polygraph administered by, I am sure a hand picked or at random examiner ( why would they go through the trouble and then leave it to chance ) by a notorious biker gang by lying all the way through.
Seems to me that the odd thing here is that the Mongols were not informed of the fallibility of the test. But then, .... they are gang members not rockets scientists.
Quote from: notguilty1 on Oct 25, 2008, 05:55 PMAs usual Sancho has managed to get us off track.
Notguilty1. Off track? You couldn't find the track if you lived on the infield at Talladega.
Every time a news report of a polygraph examination doesn't turn out the way you think it should you resort to the same old causal reductionism and arrive at the fallacious conclusion that the results you don't agree with must be caused by an inherent problem with polygraph in general.
Absent concrete information that these agents were somehow taught some sort of countermeasure that allowed them to pass their polygraph, not only are your conclusions premature, they fail to acknowledge more plausible explanations offered by people who know considerably more about polygraph than having failed one in the past. You know even less about how Law Enforcement operations are conducted.
Instead you act like your selective observations from reading stories similar to yours on this site coupled with an ad nauseum repetition of the same old drivel automatically grants you similar status with Dr. Mascke, TwoBlock, Sergeant, Cullen, or even Gino, who even though we disagree about polygraph, at least provide stimulating and often refreshing discourse. Hardly.
Sancho Panza
Quote from: SanchoPanza on Oct 25, 2008, 08:16 PMQuote from: notguilty1 on Oct 25, 2008, 05:55 PMAs usual Sancho has managed to get us off track.
Notguilty1. Off track? You couldn't find the track if you lived on the infield at Talladega.
Every time a news report of a polygraph examination doesn't turn out the way you think it should you resort to the same old causal reductionism and arrive at the fallacious conclusion that the results you don't agree with must be caused by an inherent problem with polygraph in general.
Absent concrete information that these agents were somehow taught some sort of countermeasure that allowed them to pass their polygraph, not only are your conclusions premature, they fail to acknowledge more plausible explanations offered by people who know considerably more about polygraph than having failed one in the past. You know even less about how Law Enforcement operations are conducted.
Instead you act like your selective observations from reading stories similar to yours on this site coupled with an ad nauseum repetition of the same old drivel automatically grants you similar status with Dr. Mascke, TwoBlock, Sergeant, Cullen, or even Gino, who even though we disagree about polygraph, at least provide stimulating and often refreshing discourse. Hardly.
Sancho Panza
Yep!.... EVERY time, which are many many times that Polygraph shows itself to be what it is, an unproven, unreliable ( for detecting deception) pseudo-science you bet cha I point it out.
OK maybe this case is premature so, I'll give you one ( of many but I'll keep it simple ) that isn't.
Would you care to explain how Gary Ridgeway admittedly passed a lie detector simply by lying?
Perhaps the agents passed by simply lying. Gary Ridgeway did it and so have many others. Hell, I failed by telling the truth so I can't see it not happing.
Personally, I don't know how they passed as I don't know how I failed mine. Thats up to the industry you defend to explain.
Thus far Sancho you haven't done such a bang up job at it.
Again Sancho, your put downs only go to show what is expected from your profession and those who support it.
Your list of the people you attribute to "my status" is growing. I find myself in good company.
See everybody is good for something. I was looking for an illustration to explain causal reductionism stemming from selective observation and here you build a fine example into your post and top it all off with a conclusion that gives a pretty good example of non sequiter.
When you rely only on examples where polygraph may have been less than perfect to arrive at your conclusions, you ignore the thousands of polygraph examinations whose results were confirmed accurate. If polygraph were pure chance as you claim there should be somewhere closer to a 50/50 split.
The reason we should be looking for some explanation other than countermeasures in the Mongols case stems from the N.A.S. report you like to cherry pick.
Quoteclaims that it is easy to train examinees to "beat" both the polygraph and trained examiners require scientific supporting evidence to be credible. However, we are not aware of any such research. The Polygraph and Lie Detection (2003)
Board on Behavioral, Cognitive, and Sensory Sciences and Education (BCSSE)
Committee on National Statistics (CNSTAT) PG 147
I do not believe that under those circumstances the goverment would encourage agents to attempt countermeasures because if they were caught trying them they would have been killed.
The number of people in your "group" is growing? If the petition here is any indication It's growth is less than 200 a year. There are more people than that reporting alien abductions.
Sancho Panza
Quote from: SanchoPanza on Oct 25, 2008, 11:17 PMSee everybody is good for something. I was looking for an illustration to explain causal reductionism stemming from selective observation and here you build a fine example into your post and top it all off with a conclusion that gives a pretty good example of non sequiter.
When you rely only on examples where polygraph may have been less than perfect to arrive at your conclusions, you ignore the thousands of polygraph examinations whose results were confirmed accurate. If polygraph were pure chance as you claim there should be somewhere closer to a 50/50 split.
The reason we should be looking for some explanation other than countermeasures in the Mongols case stems from the N.A.S. report you like to cherry pick.
Quoteclaims that it is easy to train examinees to "beat" both the polygraph and trained examiners require scientific supporting evidence to be credible. However, we are not aware of any such research. The Polygraph and Lie Detection (2003)
Board on Behavioral, Cognitive, and Sensory Sciences and Education (BCSSE)
Committee on National Statistics (CNSTAT) PG 147
I do not believe that under those circumstances the goverment would encourage agents to attempt countermeasures because if they were caught trying them they would have been killed.
The number of people in your "group" is growing? If the petition here is any indication It's growth is less than 200 a year. There are more people than that reporting alien abductions.
Sancho Panza
Sancho,
The reason Polygraph results don't amount to a 50/50 chance split is because as with any scam ( and I use that term simply because the test is no test, but an interrogation tool as you well know thus it scams people into a possible confession all be it some times for the good ) the "operator" has the upper hand since he has the experience in getting the desired results.
As for the Mongols case, I do agree there may be another reason besides countermeasures though we cannot exclude them. It could be that once again Polygraph simply failed to deliver what it is used for.
Bottom line is that Polygraph was used to detect lies and failed.
I noticed that you conveniently avoided explaining the Gary Ridgeway case, one that has no question....... I am not surprised.
Quote from: notguilty1 on Oct 26, 2008, 12:39 PMI noticed that you conveniently avoided explaining the Gary Ridgeway case, one that has no question
Thats just one of the differences between you and I. You read an article or two, add your preconceived notions that you formed mostly from the other posters here and you use this severely limited and one-sided information to form a concrete opinion and make statements like "the Gary Ridgway case, one that has no question" That is a pretty good example of Selective Observation.
I still have questions about the Ridgway case and until those questions are answered, I still have the ability to retain an open mind.
While news reports state that he "passed his polygraph", we don't really know what the word "passed" means in this context because no one has ever said what questions he was asked. Everyone seems to assume that he was asked if he committed one or more murders, but we don't know that. He may have been polygraphed as a witness rather than a suspect. If he gave them leads that they were trying to confirm the the questions might have been different and he may not have even been asked "THE BIG QUESTION. I know that a blind review of his polygraph charts were later scored as inconclusive by an examiner who did not know the name of the person taking the test or the case that was being investigated. I know that false positives and false negatives occur in tests. Most of all I know that a relatively small group of reported errors does not invalidate polygraph. I also know that it really isn't fair to judge the state of Polygraph today by a test that was conducted 24 years ago especially absent more case specific information.
So I am not avoiding explaining the Ridgeway case, I am am just refusing to jump to conclusionsas long as plausible alternative explanations exist. Jumping to conclusions with limited information seems to be your job.
Sancho Panza
Quote from: SanchoPanza on Oct 26, 2008, 03:36 PMQuote from: notguilty1 on Oct 26, 2008, 12:39 PMI noticed that you conveniently avoided explaining the Gary Ridgeway case, one that has no question
Thats just one of the differences between you and I. You read an article or two, add your preconceived notions that you formed mostly from the other posters here and you use this severely limited and one-sided information to form a concrete opinion and make statements like "the Gary Ridgway case, one that has no question" That is a pretty good example of Selective Observation.
I still have questions about the Ridgway case and until those questions are answered, I still have the ability to retain an open mind.
While news reports state that he "passed his polygraph", we don't really know what the word "passed" means in this context because no one has ever said what questions he was asked. Everyone seems to assume that he was asked if he committed one or more murders, but we don't know that. He may have been polygraphed as a witness rather than a suspect. If he gave them leads that they were trying to confirm the the questions might have been different and he may not have even been asked "THE BIG QUESTION. I know that a blind review of his polygraph charts were later scored as inconclusive by an examiner who did not know the name of the person taking the test or the case that was being investigated. I know that false positives and false negatives occur in tests. Most of all I know that a relatively small group of reported errors does not invalidate polygraph. I also know that it really isn't fair to judge the state of Polygraph today by a test that was conducted 24 years ago especially absent more case specific information.
So I am not avoiding explaining the Ridgeway case, I am am just refusing to jump to conclusionsas long as plausible alternative explanations exist. Jumping to conclusions with limited information seems to be your job.
Sancho Panza
Fortunately for me there are many more differences between us and I love it that way.
Sancho! What's there to know? Ridgeway was Polygraphed as a suspect to murder, and passed, then, went on to commit more murders. Seems cut and dry to me.
As for when the poly took place. The recording device has changed since then but the technology remains for the most part unchanged as does the expectations of reliable results in detecting deception, it's accuracy rate ( the industry still lies about that, big) or the industry lie that it is in fact a test at all instead of a interrogation tool.
You like to "keep an open mind" when Polygraph fails which BTW makes your mind wide open. However, you don't extend the same open mind to me or others here and else where that you do for a convicted killer! Or Sancho, is the jury still out on Ridgeway for you?
Talk about one sided !!
Quote from: notguilty1 on Oct 26, 2008, 07:44 PMwe don't really know what the word "passed" means in this context because no one has ever said what questions he was asked. Everyone seems to assume that he was asked if he committed one or more murders, but we don't know that. He may have been polygraphed as a witness rather than a suspect.If he gave them leads that they were trying to confirm the the questions might have been different and he may not have even been asked "THE BIG QUESTION. I know that a blind review of his polygraph charts were later scored as inconclusive by an examiner who did not know the name of the person taking the test or the case that was being investigated. I know that false positives and false negatives occur in tests. Most of all I know that a relatively small group of reported errors does not invalidate polygraph.
You just refuse to read anything that doesn't support your opinion don't you? I guess if you can just allow yourself to ignore things you don't agree with you can aways declare yourself right. I haven't said anything about Ridgway not being a killer. I just said that because specific information concerning his polygraph has never been released it is a fallacious argument for you to conclude and contend that his polygraph results prove anything one way or the other about the accuracy or validity of polygraph. This is an entirely different issue from is guilt or innocence. The way that blood is collected at crime scenes hasn't changed much in 25 years, the composition of blood hasn't changed much either. What has changed is the way it is analyzed and our understanding of the information we receive from it.
The consensus among scientists are that alien abductions have not really happened, but they must be wrong because there are ten times as many people claiming abduction by aliens than are complaining about failing a polygraph while telling the truth.
Sancho Panza
Quote from: SanchoPanza on Oct 26, 2008, 09:02 PMQuote from: notguilty1 on Oct 26, 2008, 07:44 PMwe don't really know what the word "passed" means in this context because no one has ever said what questions he was asked. Everyone seems to assume that he was asked if he committed one or more murders, but we don't know that. He may have been polygraphed as a witness rather than a suspect.If he gave them leads that they were trying to confirm the the questions might have been different and he may not have even been asked "THE BIG QUESTION. I know that a blind review of his polygraph charts were later scored as inconclusive by an examiner who did not know the name of the person taking the test or the case that was being investigated. I know that false positives and false negatives occur in tests. Most of all I know that a relatively small group of reported errors does not invalidate polygraph.
You just refuse to read anything that doesn't support your opinion don't you? I guess if you can just allow yourself to ignore things you don't agree with you can aways declare yourself right. I haven't said anything about Ridgway not being a killer. I just said that because specific information concerning his polygraph has never been released it is a fallacious argument for you to conclude and contend that his polygraph results prove anything one way or the other about the accuracy or validity of polygraph. This is an entirely different issue from is guilt or innocence. The way that blood is collected at crime scenes hasn't changed much in 25 years, the composition of blood hasn't changed much either. What has changed is the way it is analyzed and our understanding of the information we receive from it.
The consensus among scientists are that alien abductions have not really happened, but they must be wrong because there are ten times as many people claiming abduction by aliens than are complaining about failing a polygraph while telling the truth.
Sancho Panza
Look, If you want to continue with your circular logic then go right ahead, I realize you need it to bolster your stand.
However, I am sure to the rest of the world, when they say that Ridgeway passed his Polygraph it is understood that he was asked questions that pertained to his involvement in the murders that they were investigating.
Of course to admit this would be for your to face one of Polygraphs major failures. And why would you want to do that?
Quote from: notguilty1 on Oct 26, 2008, 10:43 PMwhen they say that Ridgeway passed his Polygraph it is understood that he was asked questions that pertained to his involvement in the murders that they were investigating
You're wrong.
You need to look up the difference between "understood" and "assumed"
You should probably read the definition of "circular logic" as well. The statement that Polygraph doesn't work because Gary Ridgeway passed his polygraph somehow proves that Gary Ridgway passed his polygraph because polygraphs don't work would be a near classic example of circular logic, more properly called circular reasoning.
Besides this is just one of the plausible explanations offered.
Sancho Panza
A follow-up article by Associated Press reporter Thomas Watkins suggests that the ATF agents who infiltrated the Mongols biker gang were indeed trained in polygraph countermeasures and used them successfully:
Quotehttp://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081028/ap_on_re_us/biker_gang_busts;_ylt=AgujwtFpKR4OK5RNetu4JxRvzwcF
Polygraphs tested mettle of agents in biker case
By THOMAS WATKINS, Associated Press
Mon Oct 27, 8:16 pm ET
WEST COVINA, Calif. – Weeks of drinking and carousing to win acceptance in a notorious motorcycle gang came down to a nerve-racking moment for three undercover federal agents: taking a polygraph examination in a room full of armed bikers.
Flunking could threaten what would become a three-year probe into the Mongols Motorcycle Club — not to mention the agents' own safety.
Federal prosecutors say all three Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives agents were prepared for the challenge and passed the tests, critical moments in the investigation that culminated last week in multistate raids and at least 64 arrests on charges including murder, drug trafficking and torture.
The Mongols had been infiltrated before, so gang leaders went to extraordinary lengths to test their "prospects," including running background checks and having a private investigator administer the polygraph tests.
The Mongols ratcheted up pressure by standing directly behind the agents while they were hooked up to the polygraph, Assistant U.S. Attorney Christopher Brunwin said.
"Is it scarier to see the threat that is facing you, or ... taking a lie detector test while someone is standing behind you with a weapon?" the prosecutor said. "They could be getting ready to shoot."
Each agent had been given all they needed to assume a new life — an apartment away from their family, a new Social Security number and a cover story. They had also been trained to pass the lie detector.
"It's a remarkable undertaking that the agents whose lives were at risk displayed this level of courage," Brunwin said.
In all, four ATF agents were accepted into the Mongols "brotherhood," though one agent was not required to take a polygraph test. Officials did not say why.
John Torres, the ATF agent in charge in Los Angeles, declined to discuss how the three beat the polygraph, but said undercover agents generally compile cover stories that echo their own lives so they can tell them more believably.
"Our guys are highly trained and they were pretty much hand selected to do this mission and for their ability to think fast under pressure and beat the box," Torres said, referring to the polygraph machine.
Though the ATF is able to train its agents to pass a polygraph test, the agency still uses lie detectors as part of its screening of potential new hires. ATF spokesman Mike Hoffman said the polygraph is just one of a slew of tests of a candidate's background.
A straightforward polygraph test is accurate about 90 percent of the time, said Edward Gelb, a Los Angeles-based polygraph examiner and past president of the American Polygraph Association. To beat the odds, people can learn how to control their pulse, breathing rates and other responses, though doing so convincingly can be tricky.
"They would have to learn to control their responses without appearing to be controlling them," Gelb said.
California polygraph examiners do not require any state certification, so Gelb wondered how much experience the Mongols' tester had.
The Mongols' background checks and lie-detector tests were not only to prevent a repeat of the 1998 infiltration that led to at least 29 arrests, but to assess aspiring members' willingness to commit crimes for the gang, prosecutors said.
Mongols circulated photographs of the undercover agents among the criminal underworld to see if anyone recognized them, Brunwin said.
On one occasion, a Mongol grew suspicious after coming across an old photograph of one agent posing with ATF colleagues.
"They were telling him, this sure looks like you," Brunwin said. "It seemed like he'd been caught."
The agent convinced them it wasn't him.
Torres said not all agents can handle undercover work. Those that do it feed off the thrill of maintaining a facade.
"It is the adrenaline, it's being able to get one over on the bad guy," Torres said.
Torres said the agents in the Mongols investigation never committed a crime during the investigation, he said, and were still subject to random drug tests.
Four women colleagues posed as girlfriends to help in the ruse, providing backup and an excuse that allowed the male agents to avoid having sex with women who hung out with Mongols, Brunwin said.
According to the indictment, the Mongols awarded each other special clothing patches, or "wings," after they engaged in extreme sex acts, like having sex with a woman with a venereal disease.
The 84-count racketeering indictment against the primarily Latino gang lists allegations including murder, attempted murder, racially motivated attacks on black people, torture, and gun and drug offenses. At least 44 defendants have appeared in court, all of them pleading not guilty. It wasn't immediately known if they had been assigned defense attorneys.
Last week, the government barred Mongols members from wearing clothing displaying the group's trademarked name or logo in what was called a first-of-its-kind seizure of a gang's intellectual property.
Among those arrested were the gang's former national president Ruben "Doc" Cavazos and current president Hector "Largo" Gonzalez. The gang is based in Southern California, but federal and local agents arrested members is six states from the West Coast to the Midwest.
Until his arrest, Cavazos lived with his son and other family members at a home on a quiet and well-to-do street with sweeping mountain views in West Covina, about 20 miles east of Los Angeles. Neighbors said he moved in a couple years ago and had landscaped the front of his property with a new retaining wall and several palm trees.
A woman at the house who declined to identify herself said Cavazos worked as a hospital CAT scan technician.
A neighbor who asked not to be named for fear of retaliation said he often would often be woken at 3 or 4 a.m. by the sound of several motorbikes.
QuoteThough the ATF is able to train its agents to pass a polygraph test, the agency still uses lie detectors as part of its screening of potential new hires. ATF spokesman Mike Hoffman said the polygraph is just one of a slew of tests of a candidate's background.
Just one of a slew?
Passing a polygraph is absolutely required to get a job at ATF/FBI...etc.
TC
So all this Pelosi (nicer word for bullshit) that countermeasures don't work is just that. Huh? This speaks well for our security organization's reliance on the polygraph.
doesn't it? And our stupid poluted congress allows it to happen just as they are allowing this country to be controlled by the world banking system.
Old Baron Rothschild once made the statement "Give me control of a country's wealth and I will care not about their laws"
Very interesting.
This would seem to confirm not only are countermeasures effective, but also that the same government agencies utilizing polygraphs in pre-employment screening are fully aware of how easily they can be defeated.
Quote from: Sergeant1107 on Oct 28, 2008, 02:49 AMVery interesting.
This would seem to confirm not only are countermeasures effective, but also that the same government agencies utilizing polygraphs in pre-employment screening are fully aware of how easily they can be defeated.
Yes, seems to be quite a blow to Poligraphy and polygraph operators.
Hi, cesium back again...
Quote:
A straightforward polygraph test is accurate about 90 percent of the time, said Edward Gelb, a Los Angeles-based polygraph examiner and past president of the American Polygraph Association.
Ninety percent? I have heard 98% from some corners of their peanut gallery. Backtracking?
To beat the odds, people can learn how to control their pulse, breathing rates and other responses, though doing so convincingly can be tricky.
"They would have to learn to control their responses without appearing to be controlling them," Gelb said.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081028/ap_on_re_us/biker_gang_busts;_ylt=AgujwtFpKR4OK5RNetu4JxRvzwcF
So it -can- be done. I thought countermeasures were detectable by a "skilled polygrapher". :P I even had one tell me he taught their detection at Quantico. I also don't know how it's tricky. If you're not using props like a tack in the shoe, it's internal, so what's the tricky part? Probably Gelb injecting some fiction for sensationalism purposes.
Okay, so control your responses and look casual at doing it. Blackjack players do that all the time and count the heck out of a 6-deck shoe in the process. Must be about as easy for a poly. And it's -not- hard to control physiological responses, for I did so using techniques I learned here. I am no actor or Houdini who can control involuntary actions.
I still have to hand it to those agents for not totally losing it in the face of those bikers. Every CM in the world is useless if you're 180/110 with a 140 pulse... probably (lol). Though such a high baseline could mask any reaction to a question...
It's worth noting that Ed Gelb failed to detect the crude countermeasures Harmon Leon employed when he infiltrated the Lie Detector television program (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=3974.msg30102#msg30102).
George: Is this you talking about your own "reputable polygraph examiner"?
Falsely Accused: A resource for those...falsely-accused....3:16
http://www.falsely-accused.com/library/faqs.html◀ Back to resultsFalsely Accused: A resource for those falsely accused
George. Is this your "for profit" website? And why did you feel it necessary to sell out to the polygraph industry? Why call your personal polygraph associate "reputable" when you are so against polygraph testing?
http://www.falsely-accused.com/library/faqs.html
I know this is you - Live Search - polygraph - videos - about page 8!
What's up?
Yes, it is George! Looks like he is trying to pass himself off as a lawyer.
Go to Go to page: http://www.falsely-accused.com/library/faqs.html
Click on question below:
Should I submit to a polygraph examination?
Tell me is isn't so!! George referring to his polygraph associate as a "reputable polygrapher"!!
Quote from: Dis May Ed on Oct 29, 2008, 10:26 AMYes, it is George! Looks like he is trying to pass himself off as a lawyer.
Go to Go to page: http://www.falsely-accused.com/library/faqs.html
Click on question below:
Should I submit to a polygraph examination?
Tell me is isn't so!! George referring to his polygraph associate as a "reputable polygrapher"!!
I guess it depends on who pays George. He calls those polygraphers that are in business with him "reputable" - and those that call him a liar are not! What about this George? You have this website "dedicated to exposing and ending polygraph waste, fraud, and abuse" and the other you have one referring people to your own polygraph associate who you describe as "reputable". Care to offer an explanation, George?
Is there anything on that site that lists George by name? I didn't see anything that did.
The person in the video doesn't look like George.
Posts in this thread by "U.P. Chuck" and "Dis May Ed" suggesting that I am somehow connected with a website called Falsely-Accused.com originated from a single IP address that traces to Norman, Oklahoma, home of Doug Williams (http://www.polygraph.com), who in the past has masqueraded (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=2053.msg14860#msg14860) on this website as a satisfied customer of his own services and last year bizarrely challenged me to a fistfight (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=3584.msg24891#msg24891), stating: "I look forward to beating your bloated face into a bloody pulp, and stomping your fat ass."
For the record, I have no connection with Falsely-Accused.com.
QuotePosts in this thread by "U.P. Chuck" and "Dis May Ed" suggesting that I am somehow connected with a website called FalselyAccused.com originated from a single IP address that traces to Norman, Oklahoma, home of Doug Williams, who in the past has masqueraded on this website as a satisfied customer of his own services and last year bizarrely challenged me to a fistfight, stating: "I look forward to beating your bloated face into a bloody pulp, and stomping your fat ass."
For the record, I have no connection with FalselyAccused.com.
Didn't Doug Williams used to be a polygrapher? That profession must really do something to people. Even those who have disavowed the polygraph and have come clean about it.
Or maybe you're just having an effect on his bottom line, even though this site is non-profit.
TC
George
As you well know, polygraphers are notorious for making asses of themselves on this site.
I guess there can never again be a claim made by polygraph supporters that countermeasures don't work.
It seems obvious that the ATF would not have had undercovers attempt countermeasures (with a Mongol standing behind their chair, presumably ready to kill them if they failed) unless they were certain the agents could successfully defeat the polygraph.
Sergeant1107
Has ATF charged or named the examiner who was involved? Why not? On the other hand, if the examiner was in on the game, wouldn't ATF say CM's were used to cover him from Mongol payback? At this point, neither of us really knows for sure, do we?
Quote from: pailryder on Nov 03, 2008, 12:02 PMSergeant1107
Has ATF charged or named the examiner who was involved? Why not? On the other hand, if the examiner was in on the game, wouldn't ATF say CM's were used to cover him from Mongol payback? At this point, neither of us really knows for sure, do we?
I believe the indictment listed the polygraph examiner as an "unnamed co-conspirator." The question of whether that person is being charged was not answered, to my knowledge.
It is certainly possible that the ATF applied pressure to the polygraph examiner before the tests were administered, but I think it is not likely. A scenario that would provide sufficient pressure upon the examiner to ensure the agents all passed their polygraph but at the same time kept the examiner in the dark regarding the profession of the uncercovers is difficult to imagine. It is equally unlikely, in my opinion, that the ATF decided to confide to the examiner that he would be testing undercovers in the hope that he would not divulge what he knew to the Mongols. When dealing with organized crime it is relatively common to find potential informers to be much more afraid of underworld reprisals than they are of being charged with a crime.
The simplest explanation seems to be that the undercovers used countermeasures to defeat the polygraph.