Some time ago (11/27/01) as part of a post largely dealing with DoDPI-sanctioned criteria for determining the presence of respiratory-channel response(s), I reiterated a challenge to the polygraph community that I had first made in a public presentation (10/17/01) to the National Academy of Sciences panel investigating the validity of polygraph screening. That challenge (which has not yet been accepted or even really responded to) was made as follows:
QuoteI would suggest using the roughly 15 members of the distinguished NAS panel looking at polygraph issues as an examinee pool, teach 2-3 to produce countermeasures, and then have the whole group participate in a simulated crime (one used by DoDPI or others). A base rate (unknown to participating examiners) will be applied in the programming of guilty and innocent subjects. Exams will be conducted, DI/NDI/Inc results recorded, as well as any determinations of the location and nature ( I will teach things other than the respiratory manipulations referred to for purposes of this particular posting/response) of any countermeasures suspected by examiners. Although such an exercise would have clearly insufficient numbers and statistical power, I believe the anecdotal evidence of accuracy with and without countermeasures as well as the correct and wrongful (yet another source of false positives for the polygraph community) determinations of countermeasures would be quite revealing to those with an interest in this exercise. I would suggest that the polygraph examiners participating come from the ranks of federal polygraph instructors or operators, leading civilian polygraphers or any other group whose credentials and experience would be deemed impeccable in polygraph circles. And finally, I would suggest that elements of the experimental design, simulated crimes, conduct of the examinations, results determinations, and post-test interviews of both examiners and examinees be recorded by a major investigative television production that would be selected to cover this important and hopefully interesting subject.
Although I am happy for this basic format to be modified to a design having sufficient power to reasonably allow for reaching levels of statistical significance for any results obtained, I believe it is very important that this process and outcome(s) be publicly available and, if possible, covered by any interested media outlet. I believe this is an appropriate time to renew this challenge for the following reasons: (1) It has languished far too long without a meaningful reply, (2) As we begin a new year, it will be interesting to see how far in the year we progress with those who promote CQT polygraph testing continuing to cower from the truth about its weaknesses, and (3) the current thread dealing with the validity of polygraph screening should be viewed in the light of realizing that any (I believe substantial) lack of validity of CQT polygraph testing in the absence of countermeasures is only greatly exacerbated with the application of properly applied countermeasures.
Drew,
Thank you for putting this challenge directly to the polygraph community. The first person who should accept your challenge is American Polygraph Association president Milton O. "Skip" Webb, Jr. Mr. Webb told Eric Zorn of the Chicago Tribune that purchasers of Doug Williams' manual, "How to Sting the Polygraph" have the same slim chance as anyone else of beating a polygraph "test." (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=77.msg252#msg252) Clearly, Mr. Webb doesn't believe such countermeasures work. Now he has the chance to prove it. What do you say, Mr. Webb?
Or perhaps our friend and sometime interlocutor Gordon Barland will accept your challenge. Dr. Barland has attempted to scare visitors to AntiPolygraph.org (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=139.msg521#msg521) into believing that the federal polygraph community has a reliable technique for identifying polygraph countermeasures that is more sophisticated than merely trying to bluff the subject into an admission. But when hard questions were put to him, he fell silent. What do you say, Gordon? Are you confident in your ability to detect countermeasures? Will you accept Drew's challenge?
David M. Renzelman, chief of the Department of Energy's polygraph program, told the National Academy of Sciences at its public meeting on 17 October 2001 that his polygraphers went through the countermeasures course at the Department of Defense Polygraph Institute, and that afterwards, when they practiced against each other, they had a 100% accuracy rate in detecting countermeasures attempts. But Mr. Renzelman curiously did not accept the challenge that Dr. Richardson put to him. What do you say, Mr. Renzelman? What are you afraid of?
Another luminary of the polygraph community who ought to take Drew's challenge is Mr. Harry Reed, president of the Illinois Polygraph Society, who last year claimed to reporter Brad Burke of the Peoria Journal Star that polygraph professionals can easily detect attempts to foil a polygraph "test." Mr. Reed did not respond when I challenged him to support his claim (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=295.msg1392#msg1392). Well, Mr. Reed, here's your opportunity to prove that you were not simply lying to a reporter who could not easily verify or refute the accuracy of your claim. You'll accept Dr. Richardson's challenge, won't you?
Drew, your challenge has indeed languished too long without a meaningful reply. The silence of those who profess to be "dedicated to truth" (American Polygraph Association motto) condemns them.
Drew/George,
Great idea Drew. To take it out of its languor, have you (or George) forwarded it to any media people, and/or the people you mention in your post, George?
Maybe Shawn Efran of CBS News would be interested in this as a follow up to his "Final Exam" piece. Maybe that Chicago reporter who was going to moderate that debate should know about this. Of course the NAS people should know about it too. Maybe Diane Sawyer, as a folllow up to her 60 Minutes piece from the 1980's. Jeff Stein from Salon.com? Kathleen Koch from CNN? The FAS people? John Stossel? Perhaps Honts or some other academic would want to run a parallel study incorporating the same principles.
The basic idea is to get not only this web site, but a media outlet to challenge the polygraph people, so their refusal would be reported, with its obvious implications.
Let me know if you want to explore this further, or need any assistance.
Mark,
I agree that Drew's idea is a great one. And indeed, it is one of which the news media ought to take note when reporting on polygraph issues. I will pass word of it to Mssrs. Efran, Stein, Zorn, and Burke, as well as the FAS. I'm not sure how to get in touch with Diane Sawyer (who has gone from CBS to ABC), John Stossel, or Kathleen Koch. Could you e-mail me if you have contact information?
It's interesting that you suggested the idea of Charles Honts running a parallel study. When he spoke at the National Academy of Sciences polygraph meeting at Woods Hole, Massachusetts in July, he mentioned that he had secured funding for a polygraph countermeasures study using The Lie Behind the Lie Detector (http://antipolygraph.org/pubs.shtml) as the source of countermeasures information. I don't know anything more, though, about the protocol for his study or its status.
Indeed, if the polygraph community lacks the courage to accept Drew's challenge (as seems to be the case), this needs to be reported widely, and the polygraph "professionals" need to be held accountable.
Mark and George
I bugged all three major network news magazines but, only 60 minutes 11 took me up on the challenge. Scott Pelley was an investigative reporter for a Dallas TV station before he went network. NBC and ABC would not touch the subject. I told John Stossel that he would be a natural to moderate the debate. Evidently I didn't faze him.
I really pushed for a cross-the-table debate between you two, Geno and Dr. Richardson and the polygraph community. I suggested they study the antipolygraph website before engaging the debate. They should be familiar with the website by now.
I was disappointed that Scott Pelly didn't have discussions about the invalidity of the polygraph.
I guess it's time to start a new round of letters and emails to the TV magazines. It's way past time for the scam artist to be forced to find another scam in which to be involved.
Keep us informed if the planted seed starts to sprout.
As Drew mentioned, he first made this countermeasures challenge at a public meeting of the National Academy of Sciences' Study to Review the Scientific Evidence on the Polygraph on 17 October 2001. A transcript (http://antipolygraph.org/nas/richardson-transcript.shtml) of Dr. Richardson's remarks is now available on AntiPolygraph.org. Here is the relevant excerpt:
QuotePolygraph Countermeasures Challenge
...I indicated something about willingness -- I'm happy to -- if the polygraph people here want to take exception with anything that I've said [unclear] I'm more than happy to address that. But what I would suggest to you all, if anybody wants to do this is -- I know we have 13, 14, 15 people here -- what I'd be willing to do is [unclear] in the absence of polygraph people at some point -- is to take two or three of you to show you countermeasures, to demonstrate them to you, to let you demonstrate to yourselves that you can do it, and then we will actually have you all -- all of you -- participate in a simulated crime [unclear]. I know you've all taken stim tests [unclear] what you saw was absolutely meaningless. It has absolutely nothing to do with a polygraph exam, and I'll tell you why. But what I think -- it would be very useful for you to see a simulated crime using the control question test because that's basically what you're being asked to evaluate in terms of polygraph screening. So what I would suggest that we do is I teach two or three of you to do polygraph countermeasures, to do a simulated crime, a standard one that -- perhaps one done at DoDPI. And then the professional polygraph examiners, whether it be DoDPI instructors, the federal agency polygraph examiners, [whether] it be well-known civilian examiners -- anybody -- we go down there, and we see -- we do a polygraph exam. Some of you are going to be programmed guilty. Some of you will be programmed innocent. The issue will be, can they determine where the countermeasures are? Which of you used countermeasures and where did you do it?
What I predict will happen is that they will fail absolutely miserably, and that they will falsely accuse some of you of using polygraph countermeasures. I can almost guarantee it. But the proof is in the pudding.
None of the senior federal polygraphers in the room accepted Dr. Richardson's challenge.
it's cost nothing to claim that it's easy to beat the polygraph when you are not the person sitting in the chair. Countless suspects have been caught over the years. Teaching countermeasures is similar as teaching criminals to cover their tracks or destroy evidence. People should just stop doing it.
Dear Mr. Ngoo,
I believe you are an Assistant Superintendent of the Singapore Police Force (http://www.spinet.gov.sg/). Do you mean to say that it is not easy to beat a polygraph "test?" If so, perhaps you or someone else on the Singapore Police Force would care to accept Dr. Richardson's challenge?
Certainly, the polygraph has been useful over the years as an aid to interrogation, and has helped to convince guilty (and gullible) suspects to confess their crimes. But the polygraph technique has no scientific basis, and peer-reviewed research indicates that it is vulnerable to countermeasures that polygraphers cannot detect.
In the United States, large numbers of truthful persons (especially those applying for public jobs in law enforcement, emergency services, and intelligence) are wrongly accused of deception every year, and it is to help such persons protect themselves against the danger of a false positive outcome that AntiPolygraph.org makes information about polygraphy, including polygraph countermeasures, freely available. (See The Lie Behind the Lie Detector (http://antipolygraph.org/pubs.shtml).)
An unintended but unavoidable consequence is that the same information is also available to liars seeking to beat the polygraph. Law enforcement agencies like yours that rely on the polygraph need to understand that CQT polygraphy has no scientific basis, has zero diagnostic value, and is easily defeated through the use of simple countermeasures, information about which is readily available via the Internet.
Quote from: dominique ngoo on Feb 10, 2002, 07:13 AMit's cost nothing to claim that it's easy to beat the polygraph when you are not the person sitting in the chair. Countless suspects have been caught over the years. Teaching countermeasures is similar as teaching criminals to cover their tracks or destroy evidence. People should just stop doing it.
I guess I don't understand. On the one hand you assert that the polygraph is a devastating interrogation tool, but on the other you write that teaching countermeasures results in a ruined polygraph test, with criminals 'covering their tracks'.
Which is it?
Beech Trees,
apologies for not replying you earlier cos I don't visit this site
too often. I thought there should'nt be any confusion since my posting was in simple English. Nevertheless, let me simplify it further. I did not say that the polygraph is a devastating interrogation tool. Neither did I say that countermeasure results in a ruined polygraph test. My posting is still up there. It is downright dishonest of you to try put words into my mouth and then accuse me of saying something you don't understand. Although we are in cyberspace, I hope you show the world that your society still have some self respect. The problem is not with what I posted. Itz with the way you interpret it. Itz probably so bizarre that you confused even yourself.
p/s - George, if your intention is to help the truthful and innocent, God Bless America. At least someone out there is concerned about the rights of the innocent. It seems to me so far that criminals in your country have more rights than law abiding citizens. However, the way your site teaches countermeasure WILL NOT protect anyone against the danger of a false positive. On the contrary, it may even put them into a load of trouble. Countermeasure techniques such as distorting breathing at CQ are so primitive and easy to detect. Stop challenging people to accept Richardson's challenge. Nobody out there is answerable to Richardson. Not Mr Webb. Certainly not Dr Barland, Mr David M Renzelman, Mr Harry Reed or anyone else.
Quote from: Dominique Ngoo on Apr 17, 2002, 12:36 PM
However, the way your site teaches countermeasure WILL NOT protect anyone against the danger of a false positive. On the contrary, it may even put them into a load of trouble. Countermeasure techniques such as distorting breathing at CQ are so primitive and easy to detect. Stop challenging people to accept Richardson's challenge. Nobody out there is answerable to Richardson. Not Mr Webb. Certainly not Dr Barland, Mr David M Renzelman, Mr Harry Reed or anyone else.
First, if you are indeed from Singapore (aka the City of Fine), I'd like to say that you have a beautiful country-I've traveled through many times and done quite a bit of touring there: Sentosa Island, over to Johor Bharu, etc.
With that said, I respectfully disagree with your position that the countermeasures taught here will not protect someone from a false positive. I am living proof that when employed correctly, they will. I endured two LAPD polygraphs: one resulted in a false positive and an investigation that revealed nothing, the other I passed with flying colors by employing countermeasures.
I utilized the very techniques that you described as primitive and easy to detect to ensure the correct outcome was reached (non-deception indicated). My examiner never accused me of using countermeasures, and according to him, he's very experienced. (LAPD Detective/Polygrapher for many years and now works for the LASD as a polygrapher.) How is it that I could fool him so easily?
While you are correct that no one is answerable to Dr. Richardson, it certainly would be nice to see one of the polygraph advocates you listed accept his challenge. They are the ones who have stated that countermeasures are easy to detect. Dr. Richardson is merely asking them to back up their claims. If countermeasures are in fact easy to dectect, I can't imagine why they wouldn't jump at the chance to disprove his claim. It begs the question: "What are they afraid of?"
AMM,
I really have no idea how and why you failed the 1st test and passed the 2nd one. Problem with this type of discussion is that people hide their identity resulting in what they said being unverifiable. If I were you and a polygrapher gave me a false positive, I'll sue his pants off. I urge you to do just that if what you said is true. Sites like this one is not ideal for you to view your "grievance" cos lots of folks don't visit this kind of site. I'll also name him instead of just saying he's a LAPD detective/polygrapher and now works for LASD. How are we to know who you are talking about? Without naming him, you also did not give him a chance to respond and whatever story you tell is one-sided.
Dominique,
You wrote:
Quotep/s - George, if your intention is to help the truthful and innocent, God Bless America. At least someone out there is concerned about the rights of the innocent. It seems to me so far that criminals in your country have more rights than law abiding citizens. However, the way your site teaches countermeasure WILL NOT protect anyone against the danger of a false positive. On the contrary, it may even put them into a load of trouble. Countermeasure techniques such as distorting breathing at CQ are so primitive and easy to detect. Stop challenging people to accept Richardson's challenge. Nobody out there is answerable to Richardson. Not Mr Webb. Certainly not Dr Barland, Mr David M Renzelman, Mr Harry Reed or anyone else.
You claim that countermeasure techniques such as distorting breathing are "primitive and easy to detect." However, the breathing manipulations explained in
The Lie Behind the Lie Detector (http://antipolygraph.org/pubs.shtml) are based directly on U.S. Department of Defense Polygraph Institute (DoDPI) doctrine. DoDPI recognizes 12 scorable breathing reactions, which we've described in the 2nd edition, along with illustrations.
How can a polygrapher determine whether a reaction on the pneumo channels of the polygraph instrument was voluntary or involuntary? Could you direct me and other skeptical readers to any published articles or books that support your claim that such countermeasures are easy to detect?
With regard to your demand that I stop challenging people to accept Dr. Richardson's challenge, I'll stop when the polygraph community proves its claimed ability to detect the kinds of countermeasures described in
The Lie Behind the Lie Detector.While it is true that neither Mr. Webb, Dr. Barland, Mr. Renzelman, Mr. Reed, nor anyone else is answerable to Dr. Richardson (or to me), they have all
publicly suggested, claimed, and/or implied that polygraph countermeasures don't work and/or that the polygraph community has developed better-than-chance techniques for their detection. So long as those in the polygraph community make such claims, AntiPolygraph.org will continue to publicly challenge them to support them.
Until the polygraph community proves its claimed ability to detect countermeasures, Dr. Richardson's unanswered challenge will remain a daily embarrassment to those who profess to be "dedicated to truth" (American Polygraph Association motto) whilst peddling a fraud, and the number of days this challenge has gone without takers will be prominently displayed on the AntiPolygraph.org home page (http://antipolygraph.org).
George, I've no idea what's the DoDPI doctrine is about. From the way things are happening over your side, it seems your community is quite messy. Although AMM wrote sarcastically that my country is a Fine country, I'm glad it is not like yours. With regard to the CM challenge, I think most propoly folks won't take it up because being in Goverment service, they can't do that and not because they cannot substantiate their claim. If you (or Mr Drew) take that as a "victory" then what I can say is I sympathize with your lot. For those innocent persons out there, my advice is to co-operate, follow instructions so that the examiner can prove your innocence. Always remember, lots of folks wrongly accused of some crime were proven innocent and the plaintiffs who lied against them were taken to task. If indeed anyone was framed (like some folks claimed), they should name that person who framed them and then sue him till his pants drop.
Quote from: Dominique Ngoo on Apr 18, 2002, 06:27 AM
George, I've no idea what's the DoDPI doctrine is about.
This after you previously posted:
QuoteCountermeasure techniques such as distorting breathing at CQ are so primitive and easy to detect.
It takes a brave man to admit he knows absolutely nothing about the topic on which he is commenting.
QuoteFrom the way things are happening over your side, it seems your community is quite messy.
Yes, we don't cane our citizens for drawing on walls.
QuoteWith regard to the CM challenge, I think most propoly folks won't take it up because being in Goverment service, they can't do that and not because they cannot substantiate their claim.
An interesting theory. On what evidence to you base such a statement? Presuming for a moment your assertion is true, it would appear our Federal government is prohibiting an acceptance to the challenge because they know the sham would be exposed.
QuoteIf you (or Mr Drew) take that as a "victory" then what I can say is I sympathize with your lot. For those innocent persons out there, my advice is to co-operate, follow instructions so that the examiner can prove your innocence.
Mr. Ngoo, I am aware you are not a citizen of the United States and thus might not be too conversant with our system of laws. In our country, a citizen is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.
That means that the person sitting in the polygraph chair is innocent already, there is no NEED to submit to a polygraph interrogation.
My advice is to hold fast, assert your inalienable rights, educate yourself, and fight back whenever possible.
QuoteAlways remember, lots of folks wrongly accused of some crime were proven innocent and the plaintiffs who lied against them were taken to task. If indeed anyone was framed (like some folks claimed), they should name that person who framed them and then sue him till his pants drop.
Unfortunately not all citizens here can afford to hire a civil attorney, especially when faced with the monolithic federal government as the defendant.
Beech Trees,
You are certainly quite low down. You lied the 1st instance by claiming that I said that the poly is a devastating interrogation tool. You lied the 2nd instance by claiming that I said CM results in a ruined poly test. You are lying again by claiming that I admit not knowing anything about the topic I am discussing. I know what I say and say only what I know. I don't pretend to be a know-all. Have some respect in a forum like this. Don't twist what people say.
I appreciate the fact that your country is a great democracy and don't cane it's citizens for drawing on walls. But that does not mean I prefer it to my country's system. Check what that kid did to his dad. When I was in your country not too long ago, all the folks introduced to me said they wished for a system like ours.
I wholly agree with you that a man is presumed innocent until proven guilty and take my hats off for those who exercise their rights and refuse a poly test. I cannot say the same for those who 'volunteer' for a test, promise to co-operate and then end up doing everything else except co-operate. My view is that these are dishonest cowards. They fall into the same category of people who twist people's words.
Quote from: Dominique Ngoo on Apr 18, 2002, 01:59 PM
Beech Trees,
You are certainly quite low down.
Ditto.
QuoteYou lied the 1st instance by claiming that I said that the poly is a devastating interrogation tool.
Nope.
QuoteYou lied the 2nd instance by claiming that I said CM results in a ruined poly test.
Nope.
QuoteYou are lying again by claiming that I admit not knowing anything about the topic I am discussing.
We seem to have differing opinions then over what
QuoteGeorge, I've no idea what's the DoDPI doctrine is about
means. Could you clarify what 'I have no idea' means?
QuoteI know what I say and say only what I know. I don't pretend to be a know-all. Have some respect in a forum like this. Don't twist what people say.
To the best of my knowledge, I haven't twisted or distorted anything you have written here. I have asked for clarifications on what you wrote, and you continuously reply that I am twisting your words, putting words in your mouth, lying, etc.
Respect is earned, Mr. Ngoo, not bestowed. I've been pretty civil in my discourse with you, and the fact that you take such umbrage at the slightest misunderstanding of whatever point you are trying to make is obfuscating the discussion even further. May I suggest climbing down off your high horse and answering my questions?
QuoteI appreciate the fact that your country is a great democracy and don't cane it's citizens for drawing on walls. But that does not mean I prefer it to my country's system. Check what that kid did to his dad. When I was in your country not too long ago, all the folks introduced to me said they wished for a system like ours.
I'd be curious to see the statistics concerning American citizens seeking to emigrate from here to Singapore. But, perhaps that is a topic for another discussion.
QuoteI wholly agree with you that a man is presumed innocent until proven guilty and take my hats off for those who exercise their rights and refuse a poly test. I cannot say the same for those who 'volunteer' for a test, promise to co-operate and then end up doing everything else except co-operate. My view is that these are dishonest cowards. They fall into the same category of people who twist people's words.
How do you feel about those people in authority deceiving citizens in order to gain their trust, lying to them about the methodology of polygraphy, and then subjecting those persons to an unscientific process that is as accurate as flipping a coin? A process which, if 'failed', in many cases dooms the citizen to unwarranted persecution? Does that sit well with you?
Mr. Ngoo,
First, let me apologize. I never intended to offend you, your country or anything else. I was merely repeating the self-deprecating humor I heard from Singaporeans regarding the country's extensive system of "fines." Virtually everywhere I went in Singapore, vendors sold T-shirts, postcards, etc. with listings of infractions and their corresponding "fines." (For example: Vandalism = Cane & Jail.) Most carried the title:"Singapore: The city of Fine." I'm sure you've seen them. Believe me, no sarcasm was intended. Your country's strict laws are the reason I felt completely at ease to walk the streets or ride the MRT at 2am by myself. (Can't do that in LA.) I think our respective country's can learn a lot from each other.
You are correct that anonymity typically makes a person's claims unverifiable and one-sided, but I have a good reason to stay anonymous and intentionally vague. If my identity were revealed, I would most certainly be disqualified from the police application process.
The City has an almost unconditional belief in the polygraph and will disqualify someone who (stupidly) admits to countermeasure use. Their belief is that countermeasure use means you must be lying about something. (I simply used them to avoid a second false positive.) Likewise, suing my first polygrapher would also most certainly result in my non-hire. (For some reason, employers don't like to be sued by applicants.) Plus, applicants are forced to sign a waiver that precludes you from suing your polygrapher. You see, that way, the polygrapher can accuse you of anything they want without ANY reprecussions.
Trust me, I'm not trying to air a grievance, I'm just saying that I successfully employed countermeasures (which weren't difficult to master) and don't believe the assertions that they are easy to detect. The point of this website is that we shouldn't be relying on polygraphs in the first place; polygraphs simply don't work.
I just read your post to Mr. Ngoo and I wondered which tactic you used and how were you able to verify their effectiveness before you took the test? Did you use the sphinctre exercise alone or a combination of countermeasures? If I get a second shot at the test I will be using them. since I found out about my failure and told my family members and acquaintances about it they all think that i have used drugs....this really sucks.
Sorry, I guess we were sleeping.....just noticed that Drew Richardson is identified as "top FBI polygraph expert"....just how did he rise to such a lofty position????....I have it on good information that he conducted few polygraph examinations in the field and caused the FBI more problems then he was worth...and they ultimately removed him from his polygraph position...I think th term thatw as used was that he was considered a "pariah". Maybe you might want to consider removing his "credentials" on your homepage?
Dr. Drew C. Richardson,
Laboratory Division
The boys,
Quotejust noticed that Drew Richardson is identified as "top FBI polygraph expert"....just how did he rise to such a lofty position
Dr. Richardson's credentials to evaluate and comment on polygraphy are unassailable. He earned a doctorate in physiology (a
legitimate scientific field with extreme relevance to polygraphy) from George Washington Medical Center in 1991. His doctoral dissertation research, which pertained to polygraphy, was funded by the NSA. Lastly, Dr. Richardson is a graduate of the DoDPI basic polygraph examiner's course and has worked in the bureau's now defunct polygraph research unit. This certainly sets him apart from the pack among polygraphers. As you know, one can become a polygraph examiner with no college education and as little as eight weeks of training (even barber college is 26 weeks long in most states).
QuoteI have it on good information that he conducted few polygraph examinations in the field. . .
And your point is? A scientist studying astrology would not need to spend years staring into crystal balls and flipping Tarot cards before declaring that astrology is a farce. Legitimate standardized tests do not depend heavily on the skill of the person scoring the test. He conducted enough examinations to realize that polygraphy was a fraud.
Quote[Dr. Richardson] caused the FBI more problems then he was worth...and they ultimately removed him from his polygraph position...
The only "problem" Dr. Richardson caused the FBI was to draw attention to fraudulent and unethical behavior. After leaving polygraph research (I'm not sure of the circumstances under which he left), Dr. Richardson went on to become the chief of the FBI's Hazardous Materials Response Unit. This seems like a pretty substantial accomplishment, especially for someone who in your opinion "caused problems." Obviously someone in the bureau felt that he had redeeming qualities.
QuoteI think th term thatw as used was that he was considered a "pariah." [grammatical error w/ period outside trailing quotation fixed]
I'm sure that the polygraphers at the FBI (and at other agencies) referred to him as this and far worse.
QuoteMaybe you might want to consider removing his "credentials" on your homepage?
Don't hold your breath.
theboys,
Dr. Richardson was only a "pariah" to the extent that he was retaliated against for having had the moral courage to speak truth to power on such matters as polygraphy.
If you good ol' boys in the federal polygraph community doubt his expertise, then why don't you accept his polygraph countermeasure challenge?
Cowards.
Just as you and your cronies demand of all those who post on you site George/Gino/et al....ANSWER THE QUESTION!!!...How did Drew get to be the/a "top FBI polygraph expert".....was he in charge of the program?........(no)......was the most experienced?.....(no).....was he the most senior polygraph examiner....(no)......was he the authorized and appointed spokesman fo the agency?........(no).....well, let's see....he WAS (by virtue of rank) a Supervisory Special Agent....but he did not supervise any polygraph examiners.....he did work in the research lab at Quantico....you got us there....along with Dr. Podlesney.....maybe Drew can tell you why that happened.....not challenging his academic credentials...Jeez! Gino don't get soooooooooooooo defensive......challenging his moniker "top FBI polyraph expert" status.....we just wanted to know how he reached that lofty position......your own site talks about exposing fraud.....all or nothing...let's go!.....and don't get us started on morals.....right Drew? ;)
the boys,
To answer your question (forgive me for having mistaken it for a rhetorical one), it was my decision to refer to Dr. Richardson as the FBI's top polygraph expert, and I did so on the strength of his qualifications as a research physiologist who understands the scientific principles underlying polygraphy.
Would the United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary call before their august body (http://antipolygraph.org/hearings/senate-judiciary-1997/richardson-statement.shtml) slackers, rookies, and n'er do wells?
I find this line of attack really pathetic and more than a little sad.
During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act. -- George Orwell
Boy....if we were Drew...we would be upset to hear someone describe us as " slackers, rookies, and n'er do wells"....that isn't what we said.....and surely that isn't what you meant...now was it beech trees? ...and oh, by the way.....perhaps you should learn the process of how one gets to be called to OFFER testimony before ANY legislative body....we assure you no one looked out there in the hinterland, saw Drew and said "we gotta have him". ;D
Quote from: theboys on Apr 22, 2002, 04:40 PM
Boy....if we were Drew...we would be upset to hear someone describe us as " slackers, rookies, and n'er do wells"....that isn't what we said.....and surely that isn't what you meant
Your inference is that Dr. Richardson's credentials with regard to the pseudo-science of polygraphy aren't sufficient. Certainly Dr. Richardson should take umbrage at anyone labeling him as a slacker, rookie, or n'er do well-- fortunately I never did, as my post clearly illustrates.
I find it curious that you refer to yourself in the plural.
Quote...now was it beech trees? ...and oh, by the way.....perhaps you should learn the process of how one gets to be called to OFFER testimony before ANY legislative body....we assure you no one looked out there in the hinterland, saw Drew and said "we gotta have him". ;D
Why don't you tell us how that process took place, since you seem to be inferring you're quite 'in the know' about the whole affair?
Just a little tidbit, from someone in the know; Drew NEVER ran a single operational test in the field. I will bet there are a lot of people out there who do not even know that. Get a more credible expert....puleeze!
Arizona,
Although not so, I truly do wish that what you have stated were correct. To my chagrin, I must shamefully admit that I did conduct a handful of CQT polygraph exams in connection with Bureau field cases following the completion of DoDPI's basic examiner course. I must further admit that I did this knowingly and willingly and did so fully aware (as a result of my DoDPI training and experience) of polygraphy's theoretical shortcomings. My basis for any commentary regarding polygraphy on this site or elsewhere is not my admitted limited operational polygraph experience, but involvement in the world of recognized serious science (chemistry and forensic toxicology) which has allowed for the comparisons with polygraphy (polygraph screening in particular) which apparently are so embarrassing and troublesome for you and your colleagues. In fact, those who I have looked to for leadership over the years in this effort, e.g., David Lykken, Bill Iacono, Leonard Saxe, John Furedy, and others (all luminaries in the worlds of psychology/psychophysiology including two former advisors to DoDPI and two past Presidents of the Society for Psychophysiological Research) have, to their credit, made invaluable contributions to the peer reviewed literature and our understanding of polygraphy's shortcomings without ever having conducted a single field polygraph examination amongst the group. I claim no leadership role in this effort, but perhaps if you do, you might care to reveal your identity along with your educational and other credentials including your professional affiliations so that we might examine and compare them with those of the gentlemen I have named. If you would simply care to discuss further issues related to the substance of polygraphy (validity, scientific control, susceptibility to countermeasures, etc), as I have done with others, I would be happy to engage in such an exchange with you...
Drew,
You wrote:
Quote
In fact, those who I have looked to for leadership over the years in this effort, e.g., David Lykken, Bill Iacono, Leonard Saxe, John Furedy, and others (all luminaries in the worlds of psychology/psychophysiology including two former advisors to DoDPI and two past Presidents of the Society for Psychophysiological Research) have, to their credit, made invaluable contributions to the peer reviewed literature and our understanding of polygraphy's shortcomings without ever having conducted a single field polygraph examination amongst the group.
1. How do each of these individuals purposed polygraph should be used? (i.e. format, setting, etc....)
2. In their purposed use, how accurate and scientifically valid is polygraph?
3. More importantly, how would you see polygraph used and how accurate and scientifically valid would polygraph be in that use?
You wrote:
Quote
If you would simply care to discuss further issues related to the substance of polygraphy (validity, scientific control, susceptibility to countermeasures, etc), as I have done with others, I would be happy to engage in such an exchange with you...
I have debated the issue of polygraph's scientific validity with both George and you. Aside from the differing opinions you and I have on definitions of the scientific terminology, the debate seemingly has concluded with George unable to provide credible evidence to support his conflicting view of polygraph's validity. Polygraph has most certainly been shown to have high validity, when used in criminal specific issue testing.
At Dr. Richardson's recent requst, we've changed his description on the AntiPolygraph.org home page from "top FBI polygraph expert, Laboratory Division" to "former Supervisor Special Agent, FBI Laboratory Division." Dr. Richardson sent me the following note:
QuoteDear George,
Although I appreciate your kind personal characterization of me as a top polygraph expert, I would ask you to change that characterization on the home page of the antipolygraph.org website to Former Special Agent, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Laboratory Division. Although I completely understand that your characterization is meant to be simply your personal assessment (and although I do appreciate such from one as intelligent, reasoned, and articulate as you), I am asking for the aforementioned change for the following two reasons:
(1) In theory, a naive reader might misconstrue your personal characterization as an official title or status in the FBI which does not/did not exist for me or anybody else, and
(2) I would like to remove this as a possible source of distraction from the very badly needed discussion of substantive polygraph issues that you and others deeply care about. Thank you for your assistance in handling this matter and best wishes for a pleasant 4th of July and in your continuing efforts,
Drew Richardson
Perhaps "the boys" or "ARIZONA" might now see fit to step forward from behind the veil of anonymity and accept Dr. Richardson's challenge?
200+ days and still no takers!
What are the polygraph "professionals" afraid of?
:-*
On 18 September 2002 (AntiPolygraph.org's 2nd anniversary), Dr. Richardson recorded a personal message regarding his polygraph countermeasure challenge. It may be listened to as a WAV file here:
http://antipolygraph.org/audio/polygraph-challenge.wav
I am innocent and paid 350.00 to prove my innocence. I thought the polygraph was a legitimate source and soon found out how inaccurate it really is.
It had shown that I was being deceitful by 99%.
What a joke the test is and what a waste of money.
Please, if you are innocent do not take this test.
Carrie,
What were you accused of?
What were you asked (specific questions) during your polygraph examination?
Batman
you george...we are sooooooooooooooooo scared of you
Even though pro-polygraph visitors seem to have given up on rational debate since the publication of the NAS report, IMHO the effort they are putting in to libelling George, and the fury with which they do it speaks volumes.
These are not honest people, and they do not have our best interests at heart.
Skeptic
Quote from: guest on Nov 21, 2002, 11:54 PM
you george...we are sooooooooooooooooo scared of you
As we approach the 300th day of Dr. Richardson's countermeasure challenge, it is abundantly clear that our friends in the polygraph community are indeed running scared.
George and Skeptic,
How does turning the deaf ear to a hollow challenge signify that the "polygraph community is running scared"? How does it signify that examiners are all "dishonest" and "do not have our best interests at heart"? And to whom does "our" refer -- the general public or the proponents of this site?!
Again, your monolithic view of the "polygraph community" displays blatent ignorance, regardless of the attempts at intellectual elitism by many of the anti-poly community. Stereotyping as such detracts from any credibility this thread ever had. Polygraph is used by countless organizations and countless INDIVIDUALS. The post by Gino stating that since the APA has 2,200 members, then that is the only number of downloads of TLBTLD that were by examiners, clearly shows you have no idea (I'll make a short post there). And while there are bad apples in every bunch, most of the examiners I work with, I would trust with my wife or my life (of course since they are fellow LE agents I likely have trusted them with the latter at some time).
Ever think that the challenge is being answered, not on this site, not on some stage, or in a lab selected by Drew; but out there in the field of investigations--in the real world--where we face such challenges everyday. I continue to serve justice effectively, even with your site here. Keep on sending them in, and I'll answer the challenge!!
By the way...what have you done with Drew. I haven't posted lately because the threads have been filled with pointless, often ad hominem, banter -- from both sides. Perhaps he could re-start the intellectual exchange here. Otherwise, to get a bit of a mental workout, I'll have to continue to purchase books and enroll in graduate classes -- and they are much more expensive than this. :)
Regards
Public Servant,
You write:
Quote...By the way...what have you done with Drew. I haven't posted lately because the threads have been filled with pointless, often ad hominem, banter -- from both sides. Perhaps he could re-start the intellectual exchange here...
Although it's nice to be missed, I suppose I should point out that few people "do" much with me. I'm sure several present and former bureaucrats tasked with managing me would swear to that :) My absence from the message board is largely a reflection of two things:
(1) The NAS panel polygraph study and report is largely an exhaustive and comprehensive affirmation of much of what I have said for the last decade or so. My opening statement made before the Senate several years ago would not be a bad executive summary for the 300 plus page NAS written report. Aside from the continuing saga of the victimization of polygraph screening examinees and a historical perspective of the debate, there is not much I feel I can add to the story as already told. Even the victimization story is perhaps bettered through the telling by the victims themselves. Although I continue to follow the important work and goals of this site and its message board and do intend to follow up with commentary on same concerning a few issues raised by the NAS panel, I hope to spend available time with more comprehensive and substantive writing. I am now discussing the parameters of one such work with a possible coauthor and an interested commercial publisher. I'm further looking forward to several planned speaking engagements which I hope will serve in some small way to affect public policy leading to changes regarding polygraph screening both needed and justified following the release of the NAS report.
(2) I and my colleagues at Brain Fingerprinting Laboratories, Inc. have been quite busy with casework, continued R&D, media relations, general business development and all the many other things which are part and parcel of a new technology company. We are quite excited about various opportunities we see to assist in both very interesting individual cases as well as to participate in longer and more involved contracted work. Although largely occupied with the aforementioned activities, I do look forward to continued discussion with you on matters of mutual interest. Best Regards,
Drew Richardson
Drew,
Good to hear from you. I don't have much time to post now but I also look forward to new discussions.
Keep us posted on the Brain Fingerprinting research and leave us links for new info. I'm interested in whether there are new techniques being developed (test type, not monitoring methods) or still working on validation of the techniques described in the link you provided a few months ago. Feel free to post that and other links for those who may not have seen the others.
Regards
I think it is obvious why Drew's challenge is unanswered. The two possible outcomes of interest are assymetrical in impact. Since the polygraph is widely believed by the general public to be accurate and difficult to beat, the only outcome that would be widely reported would be if Drew showed countermeasures to be effective. The expected is not news.
Another factor is that the polygraph depends on the emotional response to material (guilt inducing) deception making Drew's challenge difficult. This is also what makes validating the polygraph essentially impossible.
This problem will likely become larger. There is often little difference between a naive, innocent person's response to the fear of being, incorrectly, thought a thief vs. a guilty person correctly discovered to be one. As the public becomes more aware of the deficiencies of the polygraph the former's response will likely increase and the latter's decrease for obvious psychological reasons.
-Marty
I don't think you will get any takers but not for the reasons you think.
Polygraph examiners could care less about this offer. The people I give exams to are not PHD's or PHD candidates who have studied the polygraph for years and years and who have little time for anything else constructive in their lives.
The polygraph community is not interested in any meaningless test in some laboratory controlled setting just to satisfy one or two malcontents.
The fact of the matter is the polygraph works and it works well. I don't think the polygraph community is really concerned with one or two individuals with a personal vendetta against the polygraph because of personal shortcomings.
This site has enabled me and many of my fellow examiners to attend training and seminars that would have never even been held if it weren't for sites like this.
Thank You and keep up the good work.
Polylawman,
Apparently you are as clueless now as before you attended those seminars. I'd ask for your money back if I were you. And I suppose it comes as no surprise to you that no one is buying your excuses for cowardice when it comes to accepting the countermeasure challenge.
Quote from: polylawman on Nov 29, 2002, 10:20 PM
The polygraph community is not interested in any meaningless test in some laboratory controlled setting just to satisfy one or two malcontents.
No doubt many practioners of homeopathy believe the same, lol. The difference is that people can choose of their own accord to use homeopathic techniques.
I found this review quite good, if a bit dated. Not much seems to have changed though. The anecdotal stories at the end are really worth reading. They help clarify why so many believe this works and the environment where it does work somewhat. (naive subjects)
http://skepdic.com/polygrap.html
-Marty
Mr. Maschke, you accomplish nothing with your childish taunts on the home page of your web site. I assure you that no one will respond to Richardson's "challenge" for a variety of reasons, most of which he himself should be aware. There will not be any response to this because surely government (state or federal) examiners would be severely chastized (at the very least) for doing so, and have probably been TOLD not to do so. Richardson knows this and to think that a government examiner would jeopardize his job by responding to you is foolish and he knows this. Private examiners simply are not going to do it...period. I know you will say that it was the examiners who said it, but that was ages ago (over a year ago at your count), so, you accomplish nothing save irritating most of the examiners who read this site and who may stop engaging in any "debate" with your proponents at all. Placing that "challenge" and commenting about "cowardice" (to include the yellow banner) is childish and ignorant. Do yourself and your cause a favor and remove it...unless of your course your only original aim was to anger the examiners. Before any of your fellow posters comment "see, we got one mad" . I am not mad, I just view it for what I believe IMHO what it is intended to be. Think about it George, you are only damaging your cause.
Torpedo,
Thank you for sharing your strong feelings on George's polygraph countermeasure challenge. I sincerely appreciate your thoughts, comments and concerns. That being said, you do seem a bit "peeved" at George for posting the challenge. I on the other hand, applaud George's efforts.
I don't think George is the least bit concerned about offending the professional polygraph community.
Final note; I also do not feel (strictly my opinion) that any polygrapher that visits this website is the least bit bothered by the countermeasure challenge.
Respectfully,
x
Torpedo,
If you genuinely believed that the temporary banner on the AntiPolygraph.org home page commemorating the one year anniversary of Dr. Richardson's polygraph countermeasure challenge was "only hurting [AntiPolygraph.org's] cause," I somehow doubt it would upset you so greatly as to motivate you to plead for its removal.
The banner is intended to inform the general public, who are being lied to by a community of polygraph "professionals" who falsely claim to be "dedicated to truth" (American Polygraph Association motto).
The polygraph community has indeed displayed great cowardice in refusing to offer any evidence in support of its publicly made claims to be able to detect countermeasures. The overarching reason that Dr. Richardson's challenge has gone a full year without takers is that the polygraph community has no confidence in its ability to reliably detect countermeasures.
Quote from: Torpedo on Jan 28, 2003, 10:24 PM
Mr. Maschke, you accomplish nothing with your childish taunts on the home page of your web site.
Looks like it's accomplished one thing, at least.
Quoteso, you accomplish nothing save irritating most of the examiners who read this site and who may stop engaging in any "debate" with your proponents at all.
Since actual, logical debate from the polygraph proponents who visit this site is currently almost nonexistent, this wouldn't be a terrible loss. ;)
Skeptic
George, please do not misunderstand me. I am NOT pleading with you or your ilk to do anything. If I came across in that manner, please know that I would "plead" with you for nothing. I was merely making an observation. At least you acknoledged that it was temporary; pewrhaps the dame you do to your reputation will also be temporary. Despite Skeptic's comments (I stated this in the post) it did not make me angry. You did cement the belief among polygraph examiners that they are talking to the proverbial "brick wall" and anything...ANYTHING they say will not even be considered as having any credence. There position then?.....why bother. An old adage comes to mind: "It does no good to wrestle with a pig, you will both get dirty and the pig loves the mud". Good day Porky!
Torpedo,
It would appear that the world of polygraph countermeasures leaves you with only two choices: the frustrated anonymity that you now display or the public embarrassment you would face if you were to accept the challenge. George's banner (a great idea for letting the public know of the cowardly nature of the blustering con men who reside in polygraph suites) does not change that.
Proud to be an "ilk" ;D
Skeptic
Anonymous,
Do all polygraph examiners fall under your description, "cowardly nature of the blustering con men who reside in polygraph suites"?
How many polygraph examiners do you actually know, not know of, but actually know?
Have you ever had the opportunity to observe a real world polygraph examination on a criminal subject?
You make some very strong indictments of all polygraph examiners, many of whom are far from "cowardly, blustering con men."
Are you quoting any particular study that indicates all polygraph examiners are cowardly? Is there some basis of fact for a statement like the one you have made? I'm sure you're not simply popping off without any valid scientific peer group review. After all, guys like you and George profess to be all about scientific validity.
I am a polygraph examiner. I don't think that I'm either a coward or a blustery con man. None of the polygraph examiners I work with are cowardly or con men, although some might be a bit blustery on ocassion.
What is it that you do for a living? Just curious. Are there any cowards or blustering con men in your line of work? If so, does that make all of you the same?
Batman
Batman,
If you perform CQT polygraph exams preceded by stim (acquaintance tests) you are a de facto con man. You've certainly exceeded all expectations in brilliantly passing the bluster test, and because I haven't seen your name on the I'm-qualified-and-I'm-able-and-willing-to-meet-the-challenge sign up list (needless to say a very short list at the present time), well...what can I say about the cowardice label???
Anounymous,
Nice try Numb Nuts, but how about answering the questions I put to you? You ain't afraid now are ya?
Come on, go back to my post and answer the questions. Consider it a "challenge". You seem to be all ballsy about meeting challenges.
My money says you don't know JACK shit about real polygraph examinations or examiners, other than what you've read on this site. You're starting to sound like Beech Trees and smell like Triple X.
I've come clean on what I do, now it's your trun to stand tall.
If not, then maybe I should start throwing down a little chicken feed.
I'm starting to think you live in a hen house and shit through feathers.
Batman
Batman,
You write:
Quote...I'm starting to think you live in a hen house and shit through feathers....
I'm beginning to feel a bit like a polygraph examiner. I can push a few buttons and have you dancing at my command (rather foolishly I might add too).
;D
Anonymous,
I guess your response says it all.
I'd suggest you put up or shut up! I've done called you out, and you done turned tail and run!
Until you stand tall and answer some simple questions, well, maybe we should just start calling you a cowardly blow-heart.
Look out for the rooster bucko, he's got a lock on your cute little chicken butt. If you want to get out of the chicken coop then meet the challenge. (No cute little smiley face here.)
Batman
Batman,
You forgot to anonymousy threaten to kick his ass... or am I the only one that merits such professional conduct from you?
Batman,
As long as I'm kicking your ass in arguing the merits of any and all points raised, I don't believe I'll stoop to your level and try to argue hopelessly through the sort of self-delusion you display when citing the importance of your job description. Not one iota of support to any position you raise is furnished thereby. Sorry, pal...
Batman, way to go. I think we proved OUR point. The majority of "the ilk" are self-serving idiots. They will not answer our legitimate questions and are incredibly artful at "blustery"....hmmm, isn't that one of their words. Hey, I have an idea, why don't we (the polygraph examiners) start using this "medium" to communicate with one another, slapping each other on the back (much like they do), and ignoring real world issues. I still think (IMHO...they like to throw that around as forgiveness for personal attacks) George's loyalty to our country is questionable and most of those who post from his ILK are dolts who do not know better...they just follow like sheep. One thing for sure....we can sleep easy knowing that none of them passed our examinations and hold positions requiring national security clearances. Come to think of it, I wonder why George doesn't come back to the FBI (or some other agency) and attempt his countermeasures to get through the test. Wouldn't that be an absolute test of the things he "stands" for? Now let
let's see how they respond to these button pushes!!!!!
(insert ridiculous little smiley face here) :o
Torpedo,
We'd love to see the cowards come out of their closed/secret/censored chat forum on polygraphplace.com and debate us. Please extend the invitation. Cheers...
Hey Chicken Shit (aka Anonymous),
Come on "pal", meet the challenge. What do you do for a living other than posting bullshit on this site? Why won't you answer? How can it hurt?
Also, just what exactly is your experience with polygraph?
For the record, I have been a polygraph examiner since 1984. I have administered polygraph examinations in support of just about every type of investigation. I have held positions at both the field level and at the Quality Control level. I have been on the receiving end of no less than four polygraph examinations.
So, what is your polygraph related experience? What exposure have you had? How many polygraph examinations have you either administered or recieved? Lets make it easy, how many have you even observed?
In most debates one has to establish some level of bonifides to be considered knowledgable on a particular subject. On the subject of polygraph it's time for you to establish yours, then maybe we can debate.
I'm not asking you to stoop to any level lower than what you have already reached. Simply lay out a few of your credentials as it pertains to the topic of polygraph. It's a fair request given the fact you want to engage in a debate on the topic.
From what I can see here, the only person who has had any real exposure to polygraph is Mr. Richardson, and I would venture to say, most of his was spent in the area of research for the FBI, not on the streets running charts. As far as I know, George has never placed the pneumo tubes on anyone, at least for the purposes of administering a polygraph examination. Simply taking one and failing it does not an expert make.
You're all pretty quick to attack Ed Gelb's supposed credentials (and I am no fan of his), but your so damn reluctant to cite a few of your own.
Stop with the bullshit and get serious. If you want to debate then establish your right (other than just having an opinion and an asshole to voice it) to do so. Lay out your credentials by answering a few simple questions. Once you do that then maybe we can talk. Until then, get back to the barn yard and keep pecking!
Torpedo, I'm with ya brother!
Batman
Quote from: Batman on Jan 29, 2003, 08:02 PM
In most debates one has to establish some level of bonifides to be considered knowledgable on a particular subject. On the subject of polygraph it's time for you to establish yours, then maybe we can debate.
Ridiculous, unless one is claiming personal experience on a subject. It is
not necessary to have such to carry on a meaningful debate -- it is simply necessary to be able to back up assertions with authoritative sources. This happens all the time in debate.
Batman, I honestly wouldn't care a whit whether you are a polygrapher or not, unless you either a) lied one way or another about it, calling into question your intentions or b) made claims that directly require personal knowledge. Most of what we discuss here doesn't require personal knowledge.
QuoteStop with the bullshit and get serious. If you want to debate then establish your right (other than just having an opinion and an asshole to voice it) to do so. Lay out your credentials by answering a few simple questions. Once you do that then maybe we can talk. Until then, get back to the barn yard and keep pecking!
So, in other words, until one is a terrorist, no one has the right to criticize terrorists or call them cowards?
For the record, no, I'm not saying polygraphers are the moral equivalent of terrorists -- far from it. But the idea that one has to be a veteran polygrapher to see -- and criticize -- the polygraph's flaws, or have been or known a polygrapher to recognize the unwillingness of the profession to back up oft-stated claims, is ludicrous on its face. This is, indeed, a form of cowardice.
Still not much in the way of logical debate from the "pro-polygraph" side. An awful lot of "non-anger" about that countermeasure banner, though.
Skeptic
Batman,
You write:
Quote...For the record, I have been a polygraph examiner since 1984. I have administered polygraph examinations in support of just about every type of investigation. I have held positions at both the field level and at the Quality Control level. I have been on the receiving end of no less than four polygraph examinations....
But the question is, have you learned anything from this couple of decades of activity. Your discourse here does not provide a great deal of evidence of such nor any reason to be encouraged with the prospect of future discourse...
You further write:
Quote...In most debates one has to establish some level of bonifides to be considered knowledgable on a particular subject. On the subject of polygraph it's time for you to establish yours, then maybe we can debate....
Perhaps you are better off not knowing...If it turned out that I had no "bonifides," how would your ego handle this finding in view of the continual drubbing you take in ongoing debates? ;)
Batman: Don't let these losers get to you. You are absolutely right about George. He should be more clear about his qualifications to give all the advice he is so free with - but at least he knows what his advice is worth. As you have correctly said all he has ever done is to fail his test and now he spends all his time telling people how to pass theirs. And as to Drew Richardson - it seems his real motivation is to discredit the polygraph so that he can sell people on his "brain wave" Rube Goldberg invention. As to the other 7 dwarfs they simply parrot what they have heard from their master Masche. Talk about the blind leading the blind! But you have to admit they are very entertaining - especially if you just sit back and watch them lead each other into the ditch. Too bad we can't buy them all for what they are worth and sell them for what they think they are worth - we would be rich.
Quote from: wuzafuzz on Jan 29, 2003, 10:51 PM
Batman: Don't let these losers get to you. You are absolutely right about George. He should be more clear about his qualifications to give all the advice he is so free with ..... Too bad we can't buy them all for what they are worth and sell them for what they think they are worth - we would be rich.
You really are clueless, aren't you. I suppose that's one of the attributes of being anonymous. Coward. "Batman" has the decency to register. You are just noise.
-Marty
Doesn't take much "noise" to get you going does it Marty? Please tell my how registering makes you any less anonymous or any more brave. And why don't you speak to the points I made instead of making a personal attack?
Quote from: wuzafuzz on Jan 30, 2003, 12:14 AM
Doesn't take much "noise" to get you going does it Marty? Please tell my how registering makes you any less anonymous or any more brave. And why don't you speak to the points I made instead of making a personal attack?
Oh, the irony.
Sure looks like the banner has gotten some attention. If any of our new arrivals are polygraphers, would you care to prove you can detect countermeasures, as so many of you have claimed?
Skeptic
Quote from: Batman on Jan 29, 2003, 06:17 PM
Anonymous,
I guess your response says it all.
I'd suggest you put up or shut up! I've done called you out, and you done turned tail and run!
Batman
my goodness what part of the sticks do you come from?????
scuse me while I done turn tail and run!! :o
Quote from: wuzafuzz on Jan 30, 2003, 12:14 AM
Please tell my how registering makes you any less anonymous or any more brave. And why don't you speak to the points I made instead of making a personal attack?
Registering makes it possible to relate your posts to prior posts. One then can lbetter judge your (and others) posts in a specific context and be reasonably certain their alias isn't being spoofed. As for the personal attacks, I was reacting to your similarly personal attacks on George et al. I don't generally respond that way to personal attacks directed at me. They bother me less than those directed at others I have come to respect. While I think the "yellow" taunt of the challenge is somewhat gratuitous, the response of the polygraph community on the whole has been rather poor.
After reading Drew's challenge details, his offer is actually reasonably well thought out and provides some measure of scientific validity. Too bad no one has seen fit to take him up.
-Marty
One of the things that comes through with most of the polygraph examiners and proponents posting on this site (Gordon, Public Servant and JB excepted, maybe a couple of more I'm missing), is that in the debate on the validity or invalidity of the polygraph, it's almost always about us. We're whiners, we're disgruntled, we're unpatriotic, we're losers, we're liars, we have no experience conducting a polygraph, we're unethical, we're blind followers of George, we're angry, we're resentful, and so on.
The more you talk about us, the more you reveal the bankruptcy of your arguments in support of the polygraph.
Now I know that some anti-poly people retort and make some personal attacks too, and some of those are probably unnecessary and a waste of time. But they are, in comparison to posts about the polygraph itself, a small fraction. Whereas the pro polygraph people seem to be obsessed with us, as though personal attacks on us might somehow make the polygraph technique valid.
So say what you want about us, but in the process, you should add: we're right.
Oh, Mark, Mark, Mark....you haven't bneen reading the same posts have you. It seems to me that you of "that" ilk have been slandering "us" with a variety of monikers that sound and look an awful lot like your list. I am sorry, but George gets targeted because he is the pseudo-leader of this crew. When you are at the top, you take the good with the bad. You say that at least one thing....you are right...I am glad that you feel that way...and you certainly have a right to your personal opinion. My opnion? I disagree that you are right...and vehemently. The one thing I can say is thank God none of you have security clearances!
QuoteOh, Mark, Mark, Mark....you haven't bneen reading the same posts have you. It seems to me that you of "that" ilk have been slandering "us" with a variety of monikers that sound and look an awful lot like your list. I am sorry, but George gets targeted because he is the pseudo-leader of this crew. When you are at the top, you take the good with the bad. You say that at least one thing....you are right...I am glad that you feel that way...and you certainly have a right to your personal opinion. My opnion? I disagree that you are right...and vehemently. The one thing I can say is thank God none of you have security clearances!
Torpedo,
Let's just say you're right about everything in your post. And let's just say that all the insults about us are true. And let's just say that all our insults against the pro-poly people are wrong. Then a couple of facts remain:
1) The NAS report still trashes polygraph screening.
2) The polygraph community's response to the NAS report has been feeble. They have rebutted none of it. They haven't even tried to. Is it really their best rejoinder that nobody on the distinguished panel has ever conducted a polygraph, therefore they aren't qualified to issue an opinion?
3) Drew's countermeasures challenge is, as Marty has also stated, a good framework within which to assess the polygrapher's ability to detect countermeasures. If they don't like Drew, and don't like anyone on this board, and don't want to be seen as knuckling under to anyone here, why not set up their own countermeasures testing, similar to the one Drew has outlined, and see what happens. Or why don't they point to any research which shows that they can reliably detect countermeasures?
Incidentally, Drew Richardson and I both held top secret clearances, and I believe others on this board held or still hold top secret clearances, such as Fair Chance and others. As far as I know, none of us on this site ever betrayed the trust placed in us. Certainly, no proof of such has ever been forthcoming. UNLIKE Aldrich Ames, Ana Belen Montes, Larry Wu Tai Chin, all of whom held top secret clearances and passed their polygraph.
It therefore seems your assurance is misplaced, and you should actually be concerned not about us holding clearances, but about who among those who "passed" their polygraphs is betraying this country.
Quote from: Torpedo on Jan 30, 2003, 07:28 PM
The one thing I can say is thank God none of you have security clearances!
Torpedo,
I still hold a Secret Clearance, what do you have to say about that?
The FBI has labeled me deceptive regarding issues of national security, however, I still have my clearance. Honestly, how do you explain that?
If the FBI thinks I am a spy, surely they would IMMEDIATELY inform the DoD that I am a security risk. Why haven't they?
I'll tell you why -- The FBI knows that the pre-employment screening ploygraph is a joke, and that no one else in the government would take them seriously if they ever tried to investigate or prosecute the heinous accusations produced by polygraphers.
As a matter of fact, if I chose to go back to Active Duty, I am positive (based on my specialty) that I would immediately have my Top Secret reinstated. How could that happen, Torpedo? The polygraph is certain I'm a spy!!!!
Maybe you ought to think before you type. If you are going to blast someone, you ought to hit them personally, rather than the cowardly blanket statement you chose. Your intention was to discredit Mark's trustworthiness (without any proof that he is not worthy to hold a security clearance). But in turn you have blasted many others on this site, including myself, again with no proof.
I ask you as a former Security Manager, former TS/SCI holder, and current Secret Clearance holder, why should
YOU have a clearance?
Polygraphers make life-changing decisions with little to no proof, yet credit their decisions to the mighty polygraph strip, which only they can read. Self-decieving liars, in my book, are not trustworthy, and should not hold a security clearance.
Next time, think before you type.
Chris
Captain Chris....you are sooooooooooooooo right. I was mistaken......you may have your clearances as a former, former, former etc....but I will bet that just like George, your access have been stripped....Now isn't that correct?
Batman
I have been away for a while but, fast searching, I have not seen answers to questions to my last two or three posts. One which comes to mind is "wasn't there, in fact, a lie told to the NAS by the feds about 'yes, we have countermeasures but they are secret and can't be divulged', and 'no, we do not have countermeasures'" Which one was a lie?
Now it's time for you and your buddies "stand tall" and answer a question.
As for con men in nearly every profession - Hell yes, there is. I was in the oil business. Full of con men. Now I am in the precious metals business. Full of con men. In the recent pass, I have put a couple of them on their ass, out cold, for trying to con me. But, far and away, the largest group of con men and women are our elected politicians and their appointees. If anyone of the general public pulled the crap they do, we would find ourselves in the cross bar hotel. What are you doing toward putting them there. Are you afraid to tackle anyone but street people?
QUESTION. Are these questions going to get intelligent and truthful answers or, am I going to get stupid shitty remarks?
Quote from: Twoblock on Jan 31, 2003, 02:36 AM
Batman
....Now I am in the precious metals business. Full of con men. In the recent pass, I have put a couple of them on their ass, out cold, for trying to con me. ...
Hi twoblock,
I've always been amazed at the virtual identity of the specific gravity of Gold and Tungsten (19.2 ish if memory serves). Gold is fairly unique except for Tungsten because of the high density but this could be a vulnerability. Have you ever run across people trying to pass 24k gold with Tungsten cores?
My engineering training coming out I'm afraid.
-Marty
Quote from: Torpedo on Jan 30, 2003, 10:09 PM
Captain Chris....you are sooooooooooooooo right. I was mistaken......you may have your clearances as a former, former, former etc....but I will bet that just like George, your access have been stripped....Now isn't that correct?
Torpedo,
I thought we talked about you
thinking before you
write? Oh well, I gess it will take a while for that to sink in. Meanwhile you'll have to continue to make a fool of yourself in public. Can't say I won't enjoy it, though!
If I could send you a picture, I'd send a screenshot of my online ARMY PERSCOM records, complete with my name, today's date and my current level of SECRET, with the same dates as in my personal staement, clearly displayed. But since I can't send that image, you'll have to take my word for it. Now I know this will be very hard for you, since you are a ploygrapher, and you can't take me at my word unless you have me hooked up to your machine. But try, please, for your dignity. I can only laugh at your expense for so long . . .
Chris
PS - If you really want proof, you can give me a place to send a regular e-mail (via private message) and I will gladly send you the screenshot. Then you can apologize to me, and then Mark, and then everyone else on this site you offend. Boy, that could take a while . . .
Marty
I am sure tungsten cores in gold are more easily accomplished than polygraphers detecting countermeasures. Led cores are more difficult but still better than chance validity.
When I have time, maybe this weekend, I will send you an e-mail with more technical data.
Quote from: Twoblock on Jan 31, 2003, 12:52 PM
Marty
I am sure tungsten cores in gold are more easily accomplished than polygraphers detecting countermeasures. Led cores are more difficult but still better than chance validity.
When I have time, maybe this weekend, I will send you an e-mail with more technical data.
Lead is more maleable and melts nicely but has a density far lower than Tungsten so would be easy to spot. I think a specific gravity test and some sort of acoustic check (tungsten would impact sound propogation) would be all that's needed. I have, from time to time thought about designing a counterfeit detection kit for bullion coins. Have no idea about how big a problem it is though. I would appreciate any info you might have in regard to that and thank you for the offer.
BTW, US currency is magnetic. A strong magnet easily attracts a bill. Probably better than those Iodine pens that blacken when exposed to starchy paper. Never seen a cashier use a magnet for that though.
-Marty
Batman (and the rest of the polygraphers)
By your posts, you have been to this site a couple of times since I asked questions in my above post. Your buddies probably have also. Enough time to answer questions that I posed.
You don't stand very tall either, do you? Except in ridiculing people and calling them names.
By your silence, you stand convicted of everything, and more, of which you accuse the "failed poly's" that post on this website.
I BELIEVE Public Servent is the only one who has attempted to answer "some, not all" of the pertinent questions that I have asked.
No guts, no glory!!!
Time to put this puppy to sleep...
Torpedo,
As like Chris, I was determined DI on my FBI polygraph (one year ago), but I continue to work on TS investigations. My supervisor and co-workers find the FBI's accusations to be "laughable." How do explain my continued access to classified information?
Quote from: GUEST on Feb 03, 2003, 05:33 PM
Time to put this puppy to sleep...
Torpedo,
As like Chris, I was determined DI on my FBI polygraph (one year ago), but I continue to work on TS investigations. My supervisor and co-workers find the FBI's accusations to be "laughable." How do explain my continued access to classified information?
He can't, GUEST.
You see, if Torpedo or Batman were to admit that many (if not most) people here "failed" polygraphs without deserving to, they'd have to acknowledge that they participate in an activity that screws people over, robs our country of needed talent and endangers national security every day. It's much easier to rationalize that you are a liar and a cheat who somehow slipped through the cracks, or will lose your clearance soon.
After all, you can't prove you're
not scum, can you?
;)
Skeptic
Quote from: Skeptic on Feb 03, 2003, 07:26 PM
After all, you can't prove you're not scum, can you?
After my second examination in which the FBI found me deceptive and not acceptable for employment, my current Department of Justice law enforcement agency CEO said "Don't worry about it, their loss is our gain." I was still working on very sensitive equipment concerning high level cases which the FBI uses for information! It was only later during my appeal that someone used some common sense at the FBI and put two and two together.
A "Brother Agency" in the Federal government has no faith in the polygraph as a pre-screening tool. My agency is only interested in factual evidence which will stand up in court or a group of reasonable people.
Regards.
Fair Chance
I believe it was you who told me, when Batman first started posting on this site, "this one is too tough for you". Well, it appears that I am too tough for him and the rest when it comes to the question of fed lies. He and the rest have gone silent when backed into a corner.
Since I have to get ready for the mining season, I have to leave my 'puter' and do some meaningful work until next winter. Won't be able to enjoy this website. Keep up the good work.
Adios
My Dear Mr TwoBlock,
Sir, with all due respect, you don't know jack. The Batman is currently out of the Bat Cave and unavailable to answer the call. Upon his return I'm sure he will respond.
Signed,
Alfred, the butler
Quote from: Skeptic on Feb 03, 2003, 07:26 PM
After all, you can't prove you're not scum, can you?
What's amazing is that I shouldn't have to prove I'm not scum. Why is it that the DoD gave me a TS/SCI clearance, but the FBI doesn't think I'm worthy for the same?
Why is it that the DoD does a full background check, taking up to a year, to give someone a TS clearance, while the FBI only does a polygraph and a 3 month background check for their TS?
The FBI makes accusations agianst me about my time serving the DoD -- accusations about mishandling and unauthorized release of classified information to foreign spies. What gives the FBI the right to make such accusations, based on polygraph results, when the DoD owned me? If it is so obvious to the FBI, shouldn't the DoD have been aware of these heinous acts? Is the FBI that much better than the DoD?
Even with the inter-agency disrespect, the most ironic thing is that omniscient FBI polygraphers get their training from the DoD Polygraph Institute. If the DoD trains the FBI to run a polygraph, shouldn't they use the machine in similiar ways?
Puzzling . . . .
Quote from: Torpedo on Jan 30, 2003, 10:09 PM
Captain Chris....you are sooooooooooooooo right. I was mistaken......you may have your clearances as a former, former, former etc....but I will bet that just like George, your access have been stripped....Now isn't that correct?
Torpedo,
TODAY IS YOUR LUCKY DAY!!!I just received a letter from the Army Reserve Personnel Command. Even though I am on Inactive Ready Reserve (IRR) staus, they are ordering me to resubmit for my TS clearance.
Now I want you to get on the phone and call all of your powerful polygraph friends, and make sure that scum spy like me doesn't get my TS back, OK? You can't let a known threat to national security like me go from Secret back to TS!!!
Please, gather all of your polygraph powers-that-be and stop my TS!!! The reputation of your beloved machine depends on it . . . .
This is going to be fun to watch!
Chris
Scientists attack polygraph's accuracy
http://www.oaklandtribune.com/Stories/0,1413,82%257E1865%257E912692,00.html
Tool unreliable in detecting unloyal government workers, researchers say.
By Ian Hoffman, STAFF WRITER,
Polygraph tests used by nearly every federal national-security agency as a screening tool will flag loyal workers as security risks and free actual spies from suspicion, a panel of top scientists reported Tuesday.
Gathered by the National Research Council, scientists said the theory and research supporting polygraphy is too weak and the accuracy of the test is "insufficient to justify reliance on its use in employee security screening."
"National security is too important to be left to such a blunt instrument," said panel chairman Stephen Fienberg, a statistics professor at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh.
Two lawmakers called on the U.S. Department of Energy to replace its polygraph screening program, targeting 16,000 employees mostly in California, New Mexico and Washington, D.C., with a testing program solely for interrogation of suspects.
Yet beyond the Energy Department and its national labs -- Livermore, Los Alamos and Sandia -- the polygraph is deeply embedded in the U.S. national-security apparatus, with an estimated 40,000 workers or applicants tested every year at the CIA, Defense Department, National Security Agency, Secret Service, DEA and -- in the wake of the Aldrich Ames and Robert Hanssen spy cases -- the FBI.
Thousands more are tested at state and local law-enforcement agencies. This summer, many in Congress
who voted to polygraph nuclear weapons scientists were themselves "put on the box" in an FBI search for leaks at the Senate and House intelligence committees.
Inventors such as psychologist and feminist theorist William Moulton Marston -- later known for creating Wonder Woman, whose lasso compelled truth telling -- devised polygraphy to interrogate World War I spies. The polygraph became hugely popular over the next 80 years, and no one has been more captivated by its mystique than Americans and their law officers.
Yet, said NRC panelist Kathryn Laskey, a professor of systems engineering at George Mason University, "We stress that no spy ever has been caught using the polygraph."
The conclusions of the 310-page report are not new. Scientists have criticized polygraphs as poorly grounded and researched since their creation.
The 310-page NRC report, however, is among the most comprehensive and authoritative on the subject, and the first to highlight the national security risks of growing federal reliance on a test that invariably clears the spies and saboteurs it was designed to catch.
Employees of the nation's three nuclear-weapons labs hailed the report as powerful vindication, in large measure because it echoed their attacks on the scientific foundations of polygraphy and found them equally weak or nonexistent.
"It's time to stop it, for everybody," said Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory physicist Jeff Colvin, president of the Society for Professional Scientists and Engineers, a labor union.
"It doesn't get any better than this. There's no wiggle room here," said Dr. Alan Zelicoff, a physicist and physician at Sandia National Laboratories in Albuquerque, N.M. "We've been spending millions of dollars on a test that is not worthless, but worse than worthless because it does more harm than good."
In 1999, Congress went into a lather over suspected Chinese thefts of U.S. nuclear secrets and instituted polygraph tests for thousands of career nuclear-weapons employees. Scientists denounced the tests as "voodoo" and "junk science" that insulted their dedication to national-security work.
"You're talking about people who for the most part are very loyal and find it terribly offensive that their loyalty is questioned," veteran Livermore weapons designer David Dearborn said Tuesday. "Then you have an undependable piece of electronic flimflammery, and someone pops up and says 'I think you're being deceptive,' and your clearance is pulled. ... What are we getting as a nation in return? We're getting political cover at best. Because if that's the best we can do to catch spies, we're in trouble. You're not catching the people who are spying, and yet you are having large numbers of people suffer as they're treated like criminals."
Rep. Ellen Tauscher, the Alamo Democrat whose district includes Livermore and Sandia labs, persuaded the Energy Department to limit the population of polygraphed scientists to a minimum. It now includes somewhere in excess of 700 at both labs, mainly workers who handle weapons parts or weapons materials or have access to highly classified intelligence information.
In the wake of the report, Tauscher said she still supports screening polygraphs, used with other tools such as background checks, for those scientists, as long as the Energy Department's National Nuclear Security Administration doesn't over-rely on them.
Polygraphs, Tauscher said, "have been a silver bullet, and this report tells us what we knew intuitively -- that they are not."
Contact Ian Hoffman at ihoffman@angnewspapers.com
New Mexico senators Jeff Bingaman and Pete V. Domenici, who represent employees of Los Alamos and Sandia in Albuquerque, called on NNSA to abolish the screening tests.
"Polygraph tests may have a role to play in law enforcement, but they don't work as a screening tool for our national laboratories," Bingaman said. "In the panic to protect classified information, Congress rushed to implement a policy that had the effect of treating prospective lab employees as suspects. From a practical standpoint, this policy never made sense to me. Now we have scientific evidence that it doesn't work. It's time to change this flawed policy."
NNSA acting administrator Linton Brooks said the NRC report pinpointed the problem: "How to administer a program that is maximally effective at weeding out security risks while minimizing damage to the vast majority of loyal, patriotic employees. There is no easy answer, but it is a question we will examine very seriously in the coming months."
Polygraph testing is undeniably unreliable, unethical and unfair. Polygraph testing depends solely on trickery, deceit and untruths as told by the polygraph examiner conducting and controlling the polygraph exam.
The national public is beginning to realize the significant impact of unethical ramifications polygraph testing is having on countless innocent people.
The polygraph examiner "claims" to be able to determine truth from deception simply by monitoring the breathing pattern, pulse rate, blood pressure, and the palm sweat of the individual subjected to polygraph testing.
In addition to the above; some polygraph examiners also claim to possess the ability of detecting polygraph countermeasures.
One must ask; if polygraphers can determine truth from deception by merely watching a test subject breath, pulse rate, BP, and palm sweat... then by what methods do they detect polygraph countermeasures...??
I guess a spike on the chart following a test question (via employed c/m's) is obviously different in comparison than a spike caused by an assumed lie and/or deception...
Tell me this; how can one determine the precise difference between a spike caused by a "suspected" lie, verses a "suspected" countermeasure..??
Respectfully,
triple_x
As I mentioned before, I have applied with a local LE agency. I recently passed my background investigation and I will soon take to polygraph. As I said before, I am going to have to lie on the polygraph and use countermeasures in order to pass it. If I pass it, then countermeasures work. If I fail, then we can go from there. Wish me luck.
Hi,
Several years ago, I applied for a position with a Sheriff's department as a Civilian Prison Guard. I was polygraphed, and the Detective FAILED me.
The "problem" he cited was that my responses to questions regarding the use of illegal drugs (specifically Cocainne) had registered with a large 'swing'. He claimed that he ran the test 'three times', and that I had the same 'swing' each time.
Anyway, I know that I have NEVER used any illegal drug of ANY type, especially not Cocainne. I am a very religious and honest person. I have never committed a crime, and I still want to serve my community.
I contested the result via letters, and ultimately the Department denied my application because my "Credit Report" was not "up to standards". The Drug "issue" never came up again.
Well, now I want to apply as a Reserve Deputy Sheriff in a different county, and they will require a Polygraph.
I have read the lie-behind-the-lie book, but I am not certain how to handle the next Polygraph Examination (since it will be a second time).
I HATE the "test" because I know from first-hand experience that the thing is flawed.
What am I supposed to do???
Please help me figure this out. I don't know of anyone other people I can ask.
Thank you in advance.
--Concerned
(withholding my name so I dont get denied on the application).
Concerned,
If I were in your shoes, I would use countermeasures to reduce the risk of a false positive outcome.
(Note that your post would have been better posted in a new message thread. This is done by clicking on the "New Thread" link in the upper right corner of the page.)
Ok,
thank you.
Also, I'm sorry about posting in this older (non-related) thread.
Two Years of Cowardice from the Polygraph Community
I note that today, Wednesday, 28 January 2004, marks the second anniversary of Dr. Richardson's polygraph countermeasure challenge, and still no polygraph operator has displayed the courage to accept it. (Nor, to the best of my knowledge, has any polygrapher demonstrated any ability to reliably detect countermeasures in any other venue.)
??? im having to take a lie detector test because i was accused of do somthing i wont to know can the state gov make me take it. the court of arizona is making me take it i would like to know how do i not fail even if im telling the trulth
How many polygraph exams has Dr Richardson conducted?
JB Dawson,
What relevance does the number of polygraph examinations that Dr. Richardson has administered have to do with the subject of this discussion thread, which is his challenge to the polygraph community to prove its claimed ability to detect countermeasures?
Are you willing to accept his challenge?
At one time you described him as an expert - so I thought it only logical as to inquire as to the number of exams Dr Richardson has conducted?
JB,
Drew Richardson is most certainly a polygraph expert. His expertise derives not from years spent rolling polygraph charts, but rather through scientific research. His doctoral dissertation applied novel cardiovascular indices to a lie detection task, and he collected his research data at DoDPI, where he also completed the polygraph examiner basic course. Dr. Richardson also worked in the FBI's polygraph research unit and conducted a modest number of polygraph examinations in criminal investigations. The National Academy of Sciences' Committee to Review the Scientific Evidence on the Polygraph recognized his expertise when it invited him to make a presentation during its series of public meetings:
http://www.antipolygraph.org/nas/richardson-transcript.shtml
Dr. Richardson has also been recognized as an expert on polygraph matters in a variety of legal settings.
I repeat my question to you: are you willing to accept his challenge?
Perhaps I will answer your question when you answer mine. It was a simple question; however, in lieu of answering it you choose to engage in a long drawn out discussion about the relevance of the question. So, how many polygraph examinations has Dr. Richardson conducted? The fact that nobody has accepted his challege to this point is not evidence to support your position that polygraph examiners can't detect countermeasures.
JB,
Indeed, your question was simple. But I don't know exactly how many polygraph examinations Dr. Richardson has administered. I answered your question to the best of my ability when I mentioned that it was a "modest" number. What bearing does the number of polygraph examinations that Dr. Richardson has administered have on the relevance of his challenge, in your opinion?
I would agree with you that the fact that no one has thus far mustered the courage to accept Dr. Richardson's challenge is not dispositive evidence that polygraph examiners can't detect countermeasures, but I believe that it is strong circumstantial evidence that polygraph examiners have little confidence in their ability to do so.
George,
The relevance to my question may not have anything to do with his challenge; however, I hardly would consider a person an expert when they have only actually ran a "modest" number of "real" exams. In my eyes, it's like your credibility...you've never actually employed countermeasures during a real exam and defeated it. Therefore, although you are very intelligent on the subject of polygraph - you have no real world experience. Your "evidence" that examiners can't detect countermeasures is dated and did not involve the use of examiners trained in countermeasures and how to deal with them.
Frankly I suspect that most examiners who are trained and experienced in managing examinees who employ countermeasures are not in a position that would allow them to accept the challenge. For instance, if a Federal examiner was up to your challenge, realistically what are the chance their agency would allow them to participate in such a challenge?
JB DAWSON,
Please sir... if polygraphers could win the challenge they would certainly trip over themselves lining up to beat Dr. Drew.
The argument that -mom won't let them come out to play- holds no water at all.
What about all the retired Fed polygraphers double dipping- Where are they?
Quote from: JB Dawson on Feb 12, 2004, 03:15 PMGeorge,
...In my eyes, it's like your credibility...you've never actually employed countermeasures during a real exam and defeated it. Therefore, although you are very intelligent on the subject of polygraph - you have no real world experience.
I am unaware of
anyone who has used CM's in a real life situation and identified themselves - for obvious reasons.
Also, do you maintain that critics of homeopathy or chiropractic medicine must have been practitioners to make valid criticisms or observations?
As Stossel says, "give me a break."
-Marty
Quote from: suethem on Feb 12, 2004, 04:35 PMJB DAWSON,
Please sir... if polygraphers could win the challenge they would certainly trip over themselves lining up to beat Dr. Drew.
The argument that -mom won't let them come out to play- holds no water at all.
What about all the retired Fed polygraphers double dipping- Where are they?
What makes you think just because a person may be a "retired Fed polygrapher" that the person is trained in how to deal with countermeasures? What you mail fail to realize is that just because a person is a polygraph examiner (local, State, Federal) does not mean they have been trained how to manage people who try and employ countermeasures... The reasearch that is often cited on this site established that examiners untrained in how to deal with countermeaures aren't able to reliably detect countermeasures - that is it. It says nothing about examiners who are trained :)
Quote from: Marty on Feb 12, 2004, 05:27 PM
I am unaware of anyone who has used CM's in a real life situation and identified themselves - for obvious reasons.
Also, do you maintain that critics of homeopathy or chiropractic medicine must have been practitioners to make valid criticisms or observations?
As Stossel says, "give me a break."
-Marty
Yawn...George already acknowledged on this site that he himself has never done what he advises others to do...
JB DAWSON,
Are you telling us that there is not one polygrapher, trained (ha) in uncovering countermeasures, that is up for the challenge?
Where are they all hiding?
With the weapons of mass destruction?
Quote from: JB Dawson on Feb 12, 2004, 03:15 PMGeorge,
The relevance to my question may not have anything to do with his challenge; however, I hardly would consider a person an expert when they have only actually ran a "modest" number of "real" exams.
JB,
Indeed, I think your question is without relevance to Dr. Richardson's challenge. If you disagree with anything that Dr. Richardson has said or written on polygraph matters, why not simply point out his error for all to see?
QuoteIn my eyes, it's like your credibility...you've never actually employed countermeasures during a real exam and defeated it.
So what? I don't claim to speak on the subject of countermeasures based on personal experience. Rather, the information on countermeasures in
TLBTLD is based on research, with citations that readers may check and evaluate for themselves.
QuoteTherefore, although you are very intelligent on the subject of polygraph - you have no real world experience. Your "evidence" that examiners can't detect countermeasures is dated and did not involve the use of examiners trained in countermeasures and how to deal with them.
Indeed, Honts et al.'s studies in which experienced polygraphers (forewarned that subjects would be attempting countermeasures and fully appraised of the countermeasures that they would be attempting) were unable to detect countermeasures at better-than-chance levels are several years old.
But the circumstantial evidence that polygraphers lack confidence in their ability to detect countermeasures is very strong and recent:
- Dr. Gordon H. Barland's misleading comments regarding a case where a person was "not successful" in employing countermeasures in remarks at a 1999 public hearing on DOE polygraph policy. (He neglected to mention that the subject admitted to having employed countermeasures.) At the time, Dr. Barland was DoDPI's top expert on countermeasures.
- DoDPI and CIA's unethical stonewalling of the National Academy of Sciences regarding supposed countermeasure studies.
- DoDPI countermeasure course instructor Paul M. Menges' 2002 article (http://antipolygraph.org/articles/article-029.shtml) suggesting that providing countermeasure information to the public should be outlawed.
- The fact that no research indicating any ability by polygraphers to detect countermeasures has been published.
- The fact that no polygrapher "has the guts" to accept Dr. Richardson's challenge.
QuoteFrankly I suspect that most examiners who are trained and experienced in managing examinees who employ countermeasures are not in a position that would allow them to accept the challenge. For instance, if a Federal examiner was up to your challenge, realistically what are the chance their agency would allow them to participate in such a challenge?
Federal polygraph program managers no doubt rightly fear that accepting Dr. Richardson's challenge would expose their inability to reliably detect countermeasures.
In any event, countermeasures have been on the agenda of a great many (if not most) polygraph association seminars since AntiPolygraph.org went online. Certainly, many polygraphers, including recently retired federal examiners now in private practice, have received such training.
What prevents
you from accepting Dr. Richardson's challenge?
I would like to see one polygrapher step up to the plate with out twisting or confusing any ones previous statement.
I am a non bias partisan that has enough common sense to see every polygrapher on this web site evade the simplest of all questions, will you accept the damn challange or not "Yes or No".
Is there any polygrapher with enouge balls to answer the 2 year old challenge with a simple "Yes or No" with out picking me or any one else apart. Rember a simple "Yes or No".
Nice attempt KISS but it will never happen. If polygraphers could detect countermeasures like they claim of course they would jump at this opportunity and probably want to have it televised.
They can't detect CM's therefore you will never see one accept the challenge. They don't want anyone to see behind the little white curtain, mind you I strenuously applaude George for publicly revealing the polygraph secret. Wish I had known before I let a lier hook me up.
$5,000 Reward Offer!
Observing that there is currently insufficient incentive for Drew Richardson's Challenge to be accepted, a little pot sweetening seems in order. After some consideration I make the following offer.
-------Polygrapher reward re: Drew's Challenge.---------
I offer $1,000 USD for the first qualified applicant who accepts and participates in Drew Richardson's Polygraph Countermeasure Challenge. I further offer an additional $4,000 USD should the applicant win the challenge. This offer is only extended to the polygraphist, neither Richardson nor any affiliate of AntiPolygraph.org will be rewarded by this offer (beyond bragging rights). These are the initial terms:
1. The first qualified (as specified in Richardson's challenge) applicant that accepts the challenge within 60 days after this is publicly posted, will then work with Drew Richardson to establish an acceptable test protocol using Drew's initial challenge as a starting point. Since I have no control over either Drew or the challenger it is critical that good faith exists on the part of both participants. If no qualified applicant accepts the challenge within the initial 60 days the reward offer expires.
2. After the 60 day application window Richardson and the challenger shall have 120 days to negotiate protocol details and fulfill the challenge. After agreement on the protocol details between Richardson and the Challenger and before the actual challenge begins, I shall place $5000 into an escrow account to assure the offered rewards are available.
3. All aspects of the Challenge shall be public and non-proprietary excepting necessary secrecy around countermeasure detection techniques as Richardson has previously proposed.
Tick Tick .....
7 Weeks til the $5,000 Reward Offer expires..........
Here's a chance to show your CM detection skills, put AntiPolygraph.org to shame and earn a little green. Remember, the cash can only go to the challenger, not Drew Richardson or AntiPolygraph.org, so what are you all waiting for?
-ChallengeCash
Tick Tick Tick Tick .....
Less than 5 weeks til the $5,000 Reward Offer expires..........
Here's a chance to show your CM detection skills, put AntiPolygraph.org to shame and earn a little green. Remember, the cash can only go to the challenger, not Drew Richardson or AntiPolygraph.org, so what are you all waiting for?
-ChallengeCash
i'm willing to take your poltgraph test any time your ready to set it up!a polygraph cannot really tell if your liying or telling the truth so go on ahead and give me the polygraph any time you want to..........
Quote from: richard colby on Apr 13, 2004, 07:09 PMi'm willing to take your poltgraph test any time your ready to set it up!a polygraph cannot really tell if your liying or telling the truth so go on ahead and give me the polygraph any time you want to..........
Another one of the mental giants in your cry baby army Capt. George.
If you smell the BS, it's only because it's coming from you. You can spew out all the personal attacks you want, but for what? Do you have anything worthwhile to say, or are you here to attack people? You can rag on someone else for being a "mental giant," but I seriously doubt you are a mental giant yourself. You want my Mensa ID? How many degrees do you have? And by the way, the word is "crybaby," not "cry baby." But only a mental midget would make that mistake.
Mr. Truth, I defer to your expertise on the subject of being a crybaby. ;D Next to George you are certainly one of the biggest ones on this board. :P :P :-[ :-X
ISBS,
Actions speak louder than words. If you really think you smell B.S. here, why don't you simply take Dr. Richardson's challenge and show us, especially now, while the $5,000 cash incentive is in effect?
Your childish taunts and unwillingness thus far to engage in any meaningful discussion reflect poorly on yourself (and do nothing to enhance the public image of the polygraph community).
Tick Tick Tick Tick Tick .....
Less than 4 weeks til the $5,000 Reward Offer expires..........
Here's a chance to show your CM detection skills, put AntiPolygraph.org to shame and earn a little green. Remember, the cash can only go to the challenger, not Drew Richardson or AntiPolygraph.org, so what are you all waiting for?
Polygraphers should respond by private message on this board if you don't feel comfortable inquiring on the public thread. Go for the gold. I would like to lose the $5,000 but this is a time limited offer.
-ChallengeCash
Quote from: George W. Maschke on Apr 20, 2004, 03:50 AMISBS,
Actions speak louder than words. If you really think you smell B.S. here, why don't you simply take Dr. Richardson's challenge and show us, especially now, while the $5,000 cash incentive is in effect?
Your childish taunts and unwillingness thus far to engage in any meaningful discussion reflect poorly on yourself (and do nothing to enhance the public image of the polygraph community).
Indeed, actions speak louder than words. The mouth and feet seem to be going in different directions. One would have inferred from the CM detection bragging a few months back that I would have to deal with a flood of polygraphers all eager to make a cool 5 grand. And if CM's can be so readily detected I can't imagine a more effective way to get the message across that examinees shouldn't use them than having a polygrapher claim the big one.
Well, you have nearly 4 more weeks.
-ChallengeCash
Tick Tick Tick Tick Tick Tick Tick .....
Less than 3 weeks til the $5,000 Reward Offer expires..........
Here's a chance to show your CM detection skills, put AntiPolygraph.org to shame and earn a little green. Remember, the cash can only go to the challenger, not Drew Richardson or AntiPolygraph.org, so what are you all waiting for?
Polygraphers should respond by private message on this board if you don't feel comfortable inquiring on the public thread. Go for the gold. I would like to lose the $5,000 but this is a time limited offer.
I am astonished at the lack of interest by polygraphers in earning $5,000! Of course to WIN the $5,000 the ability to detect Countermeasures has to actually be demonstrated. Perhaps that is a bit harder than I anticipated.
-ChallengeCash
Tick Tick Tick Tick Tick Tick Tick .....
Less than 2 weeks til the $5,000 Reward Offer expires..........
Here's a chance to show your CM detection skills, put AntiPolygraph.org to shame and earn a little green. Remember, the cash can only go to the challenger, not Drew Richardson or AntiPolygraph.org, so what are you all waiting for?
Polygraphers should respond by private message on this board if you don't feel comfortable inquiring on the public thread. Go for the gold. I would like to lose the $5,000 but this is a time limited offer. To clarify for you procrastinators and help those that confuse 60 days for 2 months, the offer expires on May 20'th at 23:59:59 [time correction, 24hr time] PDT.
While polygraphers maintain CM's are easily and nearly always detected, I am starting to really suspect that detecting CM's is either not so easy or is a rare skill. It should be obvious that the best way for polygraphers to deal with CM's is to demonstrate they are detectable. Demonstrating this, with protection against technique disclosure, should be attractive. Especially with a $5,000 reward.
-ChallengeCash
Tick Tick Tick Tick Tick Tick Tick Tick .....
2 days til the $5,000 Reward Offer expires and:
[glb]The Silence is Deafening[/glb]
Here's a chance to show your CM detection skills, put AntiPolygraph.org to shame and earn a little green. Remember, the cash can only go to the challenger, not Drew Richardson or AntiPolygraph.org, so what are you all waiting for?
The offer expires on May 20'th at 23:59:59 PDT.
While polygraphers maintain CM's are easily and nearly always detected, I am becoming increasingly convinced detecting CM's is not easy. It should be obvious that the best way for polygraphers to deal with CM's is to demonstrate they are detectable. Demonstrating this, with protection against technique disclosure, should be attractive. Especially with a $5,000 reward.
So far the lack of interest in winning the $5,000 suggests polygraphers, assertions to the contrary, have little confidence in winning Richardson's Challenge.
-ChallengeCash
Countermeasure detection must indeed be a rare skill, as I recently used said countermeasures to beat a 'test'.
Tick Tick Tick Tick Tick Tick Tick Tick Tick .....
[glb]The Silence is STILL Deafening[/glb]
Less than 24 hrs until the $5,000 Reward Offer for Winning Drew Richardson's Challenge expires today at 23:59:59 PDT.
-ChallengeCash
The Drew Richardson Challenge Countermeasure Detection $5,000 Reward offer by "ChallengeCash" has expired with NOT A SINGLE POLYGRAPHER INQUIRY.
That would seem to speak for itself.
ChallengeCash
Quote from: polylawman on Nov 29, 2002, 10:20 PMI don't think you will get any takers but not for the reasons you think.
Polygraph examiners could care less about this offer. The people I give exams to are not PHD's or PHD candidates who have studied the polygraph for years and years and who have little time for anything else constructive in their lives.
The polygraph community is not interested in any meaningless test in some laboratory controlled setting just to satisfy one or two malcontents.
The fact of the matter is the polygraph works and it works well. I don't think the polygraph community is really concerned with one or two individuals with a personal vendetta against the polygraph because of personal shortcomings.
This site has enabled me and many of my fellow examiners to attend training and seminars that would have never even been held if it weren't for sites like this.
Thank You and keep up the good work.
This is a new response to an old posting you made on the antipolygraph message board (your message shoud be shown above, if I did this quote-paste thing right):
I'm a typical person, which is what you say polys are for, not the PhDs who can deface them, right?
No; poly don't work well, or there would not be such protest.
I want you to hear my story; which I wouldn't bother telling you if it weren't true...
________
I initiated a poly to disprove an accusation a young woman made to my wife about a sexual act I allegelly conducted w/her. I felt my only way to disprove it was to take a poly.
Confident, I contacted an attorney, and he set me up with one of the two BEST (i.e., highest credibility) poly examiners in the area. I paid TOP dollar, because I didn't want any dispute as to the legitimacy of my results. I paid $500 to the attorney and $600 to the examiner (I had been out of work for 6 mons by this time, and couldn't afford it, but what's money when it comes to the integrity of your name, right?).
I took the test and it showed 'deception' on the issue. The poly operator (who had been a really nice guy until the pt when the results came back), got in my face and pointed his finger and said very forcefully, "You lied! Admit it! You touched that young woman didn't you?!". I was floored. I DID NOT TOUCH HER; I HAD TOLD THE TRUTH.
I went home and told my wife I failed the poly. She believes the girl and her accusations, and the poly... it has changed our marriage.
I can only hope that when my children grow older, I will be a credible enough figure in their lives that they believe me, though my wife doesn't.
Let me ask you this, since you're such a believer... do you think so many people would be involved w/the antipolygraph website if they didn't feel the injustice of polys??? Do you think they're ALL lyers w/nothing better to do???
False poly results can chng your life; don't you think that if polys can make such an impact on your life, they should be right... ALWAYS??? If you don't think they should always be right, are you acceptable to changing someone's life for the worse, as long as you get paid to do it???
Not a profession I could stomach.
Polys... don't do them if you're innocent.
1,000 days and still no takers!
Today marks the 1,000th day since Dr. Richardson posted his polygraph countermeasure challenge, and still not even one polygraph operator has had the confidence in his or her supposed ability to detect countermeasures to accept the challenge (even with the $5,000 cash incentive that one of our readers so generously offered).
I ask again, what do you suppose the polygraph operators are afraid of?
::)
Three years and still no takers!
Friday, 28 January 2005 marked the 3-year anniversary of Dr. Richardson's standing polygraph countermeasure challenge, and still not a single polygraph operator has mustered the courage to accept it.
One thing I don't get about all this countermeasures stuff:
If a person continually shows an abnormal response to a "relevant" question, despite a manipulation to the "control" questions, wouldn't that be a dead giveaway to an experienced polygrapher?
What I mean by "abnormal response" is an obvious reaction that is consistent throughout the exam. A person who HAS used illegal drugs, for example, and lies about it, is really going to have much more of a response to that question than the polygrapher usually sees on that question. If that strong response is consistent over the course of the whole examination, it seems to me that any polygrapher worth his salt would see that reaction despite the control question manipulations. And don't polygraphers move the relevant questions around during the test so that you'd have to manipulate ALL of the control questions at the right time to get them to counter the obvious and consistent relevant question response?
Not only that, but wouldn't it appear strange to a polygrapher that not just one or two control questions "spike" off the chart, but that ALL of them do? It's my understanding that people taking a polygraph usually are MUCH more concerned about one particular control question than the others, so I think that if all the control questions are showing very high reactions it might lead to suspicion.
About the "challenge" that is the topic of this thread, how would using simulated crimes in a lab setting prove anything anyhow? And it's certainly not practical or even possible to take the "challenge" using real polygraphs, so the "challenge" isn't realistic. No wonder the "challenge" is ignored.
Quote from: Sluggo on Jun 25, 2004, 07:32 PM
This is a new response to an old posting you made on the antipolygraph message board (your message shoud be shown above, if I did this quote-paste thing right):
I'm a typical person, which is what you say polys are for, not the PhDs who can deface them, right?
No; poly don't work well, or there would not be such protest.
I want you to hear my story; which I wouldn't bother telling you if it weren't true...
________
I initiated a poly to disprove an accusation a young woman made to my wife about a sexual act I allegelly conducted w/her. I felt my only way to disprove it was to take a poly.
Confident, I contacted an attorney, and he set me up with one of the two BEST (i.e., highest credibility) poly examiners in the area. I paid TOP dollar, because I didn't want any dispute as to the legitimacy of my results. I paid $500 to the attorney and $600 to the examiner (I had been out of work for 6 mons by this time, and couldn't afford it, but what's money when it comes to the integrity of your name, right?).
I took the test and it showed 'deception' on the issue. The poly operator (who had been a really nice guy until the pt when the results came back), got in my face and pointed his finger and said very forcefully, "You lied! Admit it! You touched that young woman didn't you?!". I was floored. I DID NOT TOUCH HER; I HAD TOLD THE TRUTH.
I went home and told my wife I failed the poly. She believes the girl and her accusations, and the poly... it has changed our marriage.
I can only hope that when my children grow older, I will be a credible enough figure in their lives that they believe me, though my wife doesn't.
Let me ask you this, since you're such a believer... do you think so many people would be involved w/the antipolygraph website if they didn't feel the injustice of polys??? Do you think they're ALL lyers w/nothing better to do???
False poly results can chng your life; don't you think that if polys can make such an impact on your life, they should be right... ALWAYS??? If you don't think they should always be right, are you acceptable to changing someone's life for the worse, as long as you get paid to do it???
Not a profession I could stomach.
Polys... don't do them if you're innocent.
Well, actually, is there ANY profession that is always right? Doctors make mistakes. Does that mean they should quit healing the sick because they don't have a perfect healing record? Lawyers make mistakes--sometimes they successfully prosecute the innocent or unknowingly (yeah, I know, with defense attorneys it's less likely) help the guilty go free. Should we can the legal system? Cops make mistakes--they accidentally hurt someone or make a poor decision once in awhile. Should we stop having them patrol our streets? All--and I mean ALL parents make mistakes. That's the most important job of all, don't you agree? Should we sterilize everyone and stop making babies?
From everything I've read and heard, the polygraph machine is the best thing we have for finding out the truth at a much better-than-chance rate. If it works the majority of the time, and the polygraphers are trained with a strictly certified training program and then policed with inspections and quality control checks, isn't it preferable to use it than to throw away the best tool available?
I know, you could come back and say, "Well, if it hurts one innocent person it's not worth catching most of the bad apples." But with all the corruption problems we already have in law enforcement, I'd rather that a few "innocent" job-seekers be turned down based on a polygraph rather than that a whole lot more bad apples become cops.
Oh, and one more thing: A few more people on this forum need to play devil's advocate--it makes the forum better and stimulates both sides of the equation rather than simply having a bunch of disgruntled polygraph failures bitching and moaning to each other.
1. Attorneys get disbarred.
2. Judges get removed from the bench.
3. Police get fired and sometimes prosecuted.
4. Parents loose there kids to social services.
This argument has no merit, to keep using something that hurts 2 in 10, that are innocent of anything wrong.
Anal Sphincter says " "Well, if it hurts one innocent person it's not worth catching most of the bad apples." But with all the corruption problems we already have in law enforcement, I'd rather that a few "innocent" job-seekers be turned down based on a polygraph rather than that a whole lot more bad apples become cops.
Come on Anal Sphincter, I have conducted many back ground investigations on officers for new hires, we have complete access to everything in there background. If they are a bad apple it will show during this process, I would hate to think I was the cause of someone who deserved to be an officer, and then denied him/her the chance over a polygraph test. We have been lied to about them for 80 years now.
So yes I really think they should completely outlaw there use. If we can spend 500 million dollars to send a probe to mars to take pictures of rocks, then surely they can design a reliable lie detector.
I would be willing to bet that Anal Sphincter was turned down at some point in his life when he applied for a career in law enforcement.
Devils advocate no thanks concerning this subject.
Quote from: AnalSphincter on Feb 09, 2005, 04:17 PMAbout the "challenge" that is the topic of this thread, how would using simulated crimes in a lab setting prove anything anyhow? And it's certainly not practical or even possible to take the "challenge" using real polygraphs, so the "challenge" isn't realistic. No wonder the "challenge" is ignored.
That same argument can be used to refute the various "studies" that "prove" the polygraph's supposed validity.
Now jeff your paying attention. That is my argument in a nut shell.
Yes, Jeffery, you are right. That's why I told Gino that throwing out references to studies would make us look like two people arguing over the meaning of an obscure Biblical passage. However, I've read much of the literature cited on this website, and none of it can be supported as well as what I have cited myself. Do my cited studies prove the polygraph to be 100% accurate? Of course not. But they are good evidence that it is a tool worth keeping, and that it's the best tool we have. It does what it is supposed to do.
I have nothing against SOME of the arguments George and Company make; however, so much of what they say can't be backed up, AND they don't have any real-world experience to corroborate so many of their foolish claims.
You're agreement seems to be, that even if it's not perfect, it's that best we got.
But consider this: there are several postings on here that are from law enforcement officers (FBI, in one case) that discuss how investigations were launched against them, where nothing was found. Your tax dollars at work, and money in a poly operator's pocket no matter what the outcome.
One email on this site discussed how an agent failed a poly question re: espionage and he was removed from his work environment for a yr, while over $1MM was spent on an investigation on him, and nothing was found. First and only time that's happened? Doubt it. ;)
The poly's never has caught a person who has committed espionage. That would even suggest that the poly would remove suspension from those who are engaged in the activity. --Maybe the poly's a tool for that activity???? Scary thought.
Other times, people who are under suspicion pass, and walk, based on that one event. Ted Bundy killed more co-eds after a poly gave him his 'get outta jail free' pass. Operator gets paid though, no matter if the device doesn't work.
I don't believe the poly can help in investigations; can't be used in court... all the work done on convicting an offender is based on hard evidence, not on if your pulse races when someone strap's you to a machine that indicates your pulse races when asked, "did you touch that child's privates?".
A lady that was raped came to this website for help when the rapist passed the poly, and she was asked to take one. Her fear (rightly so) was that the event was so tramitic, she was afriad of getting a false positive.
So, a poly CAN BE a huge hindrance to getting to the truth.
If we removed the poly as an instrument for determining suspession (because, that's all it can really be used for), what would we miss out on?
I do know that if that happened, operators would have a hard time finding use of their GEDs and poly experience in other vocations.... 8)
"One E-mail on this site discussed . . . "
Who cares what one E-mail on this site said. You believe everything you read, Sluggo, even when you can't even cite which E-mail you are referring to? My sister's best friend's boyfriend's brother-in-law's dad said that polygraph is 100%, so it must be true . . .
And I'm somewhat familiar with the Bundy case. I wouldn't base his "walking" on the polygraph results.
People on this website talk as if the polygraph should only be used if it is 100% accurate, which even the best DNA tests ARE NOT. Until we get a better instrument than the polygraph, it will be and should be used. It gets to the truth more often than anything else out there. Sounds like a useful tool to me.
Early empirical work in this area by Honts, Raskin, and Kircher (1987) suggested that countermeasures could be detected, but later work by Honts and his colleagues suggests that polygraph examiners do a poor job in detecting countermeasures (Honts, 1986; Honts, Amato, and Gordon, 2001; Honts and Hodes, 1983; Honts, Hodes, and Raskin, 1985; Honts, Raskin, and Kircher, 1994). Unfortunately, this work shares the same limitations as the work suggesting that countermeasures have a substantial effect and is based on many of the same studies. There have been reports of the use of mechanisms to detect countermeasure in polygraph tests, notably, reports of use of motion sensors in some polygraph equipment to detect muscle tensing (Maschke and Scalabrini, no date). Raskin and Kircher (1999) present some evidence that these sorts of detectors can be effective in detecting specific types of countermeasures, but their general validity and utility remain a matter for conjecture. There is no evidence that mental countermeasures are detectable by examiners. The available research does not address the issue of training examiners to detect countermeasures.
Even if the motion sensors detect some minor movement they
can not fail a tested person on that alone.
what do you think anal
Danger of Overconfidence Overconfidence in the polygraph—a belief in its accuracy not justified by the evidence—presents a danger to national security objectives. A false faith in the accuracy of polygraph testing among potential examinees may enhance its utility for deterrence and eliciting admissions. However, we are more concerned with the danger that can arise from overconfidence in polygraph accuracy among officials in security and counterintelligence organizations, who are themselves potential examinees, Nevertheless, if the proportion of major security risks in the population being screened is equal to or less than 1 in 1,000, it is reasonable to expect even with optimistic assessments of polygraph test accuracy that each spy or terrorist that might be correctly identified as deceptive would be accompanied by at least hundreds of nondeceptive examinees mislabeled as deceptive, from whom the spy or terrorist would be indistinguishable by polygraph test result. The possibility that deceptive examinees may use countermeasures makes this tradeoff even less attractive
My point anal, its not good enough until something better comes around. You will have to convince me that your argument in the right one.
PG111: "Even if the motion sensors detect some minor movement they
can not fail a tested person on that alone.
what do you think anal"
Well, here's the fact regarding that statement: With Federal agencies, and with any state or local agency I've heard of, a polygraph examiner may halt an examination at any time he or she feels an examinee is not being cooperative. It is a judgment call which he or she has full discretion to make. Would it be called a failure? No, because good data was not collected. But if the examinee wants the job, he or she must cooperate fully, or at least convince the examiner of that cooperation. A report can easily be written about what the examiner believes to be countermeasures. And "butt pad" or other sensor "spikes" that aren't used for numerical analysis purpose, but rather to detect possible countermeasures, may result in an unfavorable report; and I'm sure you know what an unfavorable report means to an examinee's employment prospects.
PG111 wrote: "My point anal, its not good enough until something better comes around. You will have to convince me that your argument in the right one."
No, I don't have to convince you of anything, PG. It is not my goal to force my beliefs on you. I simply want to point out some of the misperceptions people on this forum have about the polygraph so that you are better informed.
As for your study citations, I will tell you the same thing I told very senior user Gino Scalabrini in my last reply to him, which is basically this: We could throw out referenced studies until we both have carpal tunnel syndrome, and all we'll look like are two religious scholars arguing over the interpretation of some obscure Biblical passage. I think the studies I have cited are superior to anything else I have found, but that's my opinion, of course, both as a scholar and as someone with real-world experience. However, most of the people on this forum won't read the studies or really care. What they will do, hopefully, is remember that there are two sides to the story--something the people who host this website don't seem to want the worried little boys and girls to realize.
Anal wrote: A report can easily be written about what the examiner believes to be countermeasures. And "butt pad" or other sensor "spikes" that aren't used for numerical analysis purpose, but rather to detect possible countermeasures, may result in an unfavorable report; and I'm sure you know what an unfavorable report means to an examinee's employment prospects.
Back to my point, polygraph should not rule out someone's chances of a job, based on
speculation and conjecture, note the underlined quote of an examiner. Now on the other hand if the tested admitted using means other than truth on the polygraph then they do not deserve the job.
I like you anal, we could argue this for years and I truly hope we do.
PG111
Anal I do agree with you about polygraph having its place in criminal investigations. I have received good results in this manner, really turns up the heat on the dirt bag who has raped, assaulted, robbed, murdered someone. But the police investigating are the ones who break the bad guy into confession. Not the polygraph alone. my 02
Conjecture is one thing; a perceived lack of cooperation is another. If the examiner believes he or she is not collecting good data--for whatever reason--the exam results should not be reported.
You are somewhat likeable yourself, PG. ;) However, this forum will only entertain me for so long before the same old opinions, by both "anti-" people and "pro-" people will bore me to tears :'( . Then I'll find myself another controversial forum of interest. George and Company must realize that. Once my voice of reason leaves the scene, they can go back to scaring little boys and girls about the "boogeyman" of polygraph, and they can continue telling bedtime fairy tales that make those scared little boys and girls feel better.
One more thing about which you and I are in total agreement: Polygraph does NOT make cases. Any decent polygrapher can get a guilty person to produce guilty polygraph charts--the guilty hang themselves. However, not everyone can get a confession or admission; that's where a good polygrapher's skill truly comes into play.
Quote from: AnalSphincter on Feb 14, 2005, 11:33 AMConjecture is one thing; a perceived lack of cooperation is another. If the examiner believes he or she is not collecting good data--for whatever reason--the exam results should not be reported.
You are somewhat likeable yourself, PG. ;) However, this forum will only entertain me for so long before the same old opinions, by both "anti-" people and "pro-" people will bore me to tears :'( . Then I'll find myself another controversial forum of interest. George and Company must realize that. Once my voice of reason leaves the scene, they can go back to scaring little boys and girls about the "boogeyman" of polygraph, and they can continue telling bedtime fairy tales that make those scared little boys and girls feel better.
One more thing about which you and I are in total agreement: Polygraph does NOT make cases. Any decent polygrapher can get a guilty person to produce guilty polygraph charts--the guilty hang themselves. However, not everyone can get a confession or admission; that's where a good polygrapher's skill truly comes into play.
Oh is that where the polygrapher states he has to review the charts and he goes into the other room to consult the Ouija Board? I know it is a skill to master that board. The polygraph and the Ouija Board are very similar in nature, you don't need a college education to operate eithier of them and both results are quite questionable. Hell, even I have come up with inconclusive results on the Ouija, the marker was half on yes and half on no. I am still confident the Ouija is effective in the majority of cases it is used :)
You sound a little scared, anxietyguy. Could you use a bedtime fairy tale story? Stick around then, and I'm sure someone from the "anti-" crowd can come up with a good one.
Is what "where the polygrapher states he has to review the charts and he goes into the other room?" Your reply makes so little sense that I was simply going to ignore it, but perhaps I should give you at least a chance to clarify your statements.
Having never used a Ouija board myself, I can't speak with any authority on the subject, but if you say it's effective, please point me in the direction of some studies on the subject. I really would be interested.
It has been my experience that when the examiner leaves the room to review the charts, it is to confer with the police and have a smoke etc. We have found it seems to help letting the accused stew a while by his/her self. This being criminal cases of course.
I am sorry your simple mind can't figure it out. Well lets put it this way I would rather put my faith in the Ouija Board then the polycrap. I havent seen you respond to your own messages lately not enough time? Keep on posting your BS but many allready know that countermeasures work, including yourself.
I admit it's difficult to decipher unintelligible comments. I'm not a mind reader, so I need something that makes sense if I am to respond to it.
Could countermeasures work? Perhaps so, but you would need much practice using a real polygraph, and preferably some good feedback from an experienced polygrapher to use them successfully, and I don't think most of the scared little boys and girls on this forum have the opportunity or the means.
Calling something a bad name like "polycrap" doesn't support your view; it just makes you look stupid.
It is ironic that you make that point because you being an analsphincter, the name really fits you. Maybe if you would spend more time doing research then responding to your own posts on this forum, you may increase your own IQ. Polygraphy was the only field you could get into? Being Jesus and all I figured you would find a respectable job. Though your personality has been shown on this forum that you are one to play God. Well you will have your day my friend. I laugh at you and your machine because like your simple mind it can be beat. Keep posting I do not whine about the polygraph, I have passed two myself and have not failed any. I still think it is BS along with you. The polygraph is a waste, which makes you a waste of flesh.
Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me, anxietyguy.
If you can do nothing but make unfounded, ignorant claims about polygraph and come up with ever more insulting remarks, I will stop responding to your posts. Come up with something that makes sense and is worth responding to, and maybe I'll address you again.
That was the desired effect.
Quote from: AnalSphincter on Feb 09, 2005, 04:17 PMOne thing I don't get about all this countermeasures stuff:
If a person continually shows an abnormal response to a "relevant" question, despite a manipulation to the "control" questions, wouldn't that be a dead giveaway to an experienced polygrapher?
No, it wouldn't. A person who is truthfully answering a relevant question might nonetheless show strong reactions when answering them for reasons other than deception. It was with this understanding that John E. Reid developed the probable-lie "control" question "test" (CQT).
If a polygrapher is going to assume that anyone who consistently shows a strong reaction to a relevant question must be lying, then he might as well use the relevant/irrelevant technique, which had been widely abandoned by the polygraph community, but seems to be making a comeback as the trickery on which the CQT relies becomes more widely known.
QuoteWhat I mean by "abnormal response" is an obvious reaction that is consistent throughout the exam. A person who HAS used illegal drugs, for example, and lies about it, is really going to have much more of a response to that question than the polygrapher usually sees on that question. If that strong response is consistent over the course of the whole examination, it seems to me that any polygrapher worth his salt would see that reaction despite the control question manipulations.
But polygraphers have no way of differentiating between the anxious-but-innocent examinee and the anxious-and-deceptive one. Moreover, consistent responding to a relevant question at a lower level than resonses to associated "control" questions has not been demonstrated to be a reliable indication either of deception or countermeasure use.
QuoteAnd don't polygraphers move the relevant questions around during the test so that you'd have to manipulate ALL of the control questions at the right time to get them to counter the obvious and consistent relevant question response?
Yes. But so what?
QuoteNot only that, but wouldn't it appear strange to a polygrapher that not just one or two control questions "spike" off the chart, but that ALL of them do?
In applying countermeasures, it is not the objective to create reactions that "'spike' off the chart," as you put it, but rather more subtle reactions that are in line with what polygraphers generally expect to see. Moreover, since all control questions are specifically intended to evoke a response, it should hardly appear "strange" to a polygrapher that an examinee would physiologically react to them.
QuoteIt's my understanding that people taking a polygraph usually are MUCH more concerned about one particular control question than the others, so I think that if all the control questions are showing very high reactions it might lead to suspicion.
It might well lead to suspicion, but the fact that a subject responds strongly to all "control" questions has not been demonstrated to be a reliable indication either of deception or countermeasure use.
QuoteAbout the "challenge" that is the topic of this thread, how would using simulated crimes in a lab setting prove anything anyhow? And it's certainly not practical or even possible to take the "challenge" using real polygraphs, so the "challenge" isn't realistic. No wonder the "challenge" is ignored.
Dr. Richardson's challenge affords the polygraph community an opportunity to demonstrate its claimed ability to detect countermeasures in a controlled setting under double-blind conditions. Considering the present absence of any credible evidence that polygraph operators can reliably detect countermeasures (and the existence of peer-reviewed research that suggests they can't), Dr. Richardson's challenge should be welcomed by any polygrapher who truly has confidence in his ability to detect countermeasures.
OK, George, I have a few moments now to respond thoughtfully to your post.
First of all, a confession. When I made the post you quoted--which was, I recall, my first post on this forum--I wanted to appear as just another anxious, worried visitor. I fully expected that none other than you, George, would reply to it, since it expresses apparent ignorance with regard to the polygraph, and I knew someone like you probably could not resist a chance to address my feigned ignorance and perhaps develop another unwitting convert to your cause. Truth be told, I know all the answers to each question that I asked in that first post; however, I thought I'd ask those seemingly ignorant questions as a way of dipping a toe in the water, so to speak, to discover its true temperature. In other words, I wanted to test you, George, in order to ascertain just how much true knowledge you had vs. how much tired, unfounded rhetoric you might also have. I'm pleased to announce that my post had its desired effect. You actually do possess some knowledge of the polygraph, albeit regurgitated knowledge you have obtained from books rather than actual experience. In fact, I have little argument with some of your statements, which proves that you reguritate quite well. :P Of course, if we both just sit here and regurgitate, I think we'll make everyone sick, but sometimes it takes reguritation to fight regurgitation. :-/ At least my reguritation is backed up by actual experience.
That said, I'll take a few moments to respond to your response. I won't really address all of your responses, since I already know the answers to my own questions. However, I'd like to discuss countermeasures a bit.
With regard to countermeasures, there are several studies--some old, some new--to which I may refer you. These studies are based almost entirely on laboratory experiments, upon which the "anti-" crowd-- such as yourself--so often rely. I question the credibility and practicality of applying any laboratory study of the polygraph to the real world, but since the "anti-" crowd really has nothing but laboratory studies to support many of its arguments, these studies should suffice for you, George. The studies I refer to are the following:
Ben-Shakhar, G. and Dolev, K. (1996) Psychophysiological detection through the guilty knowledge technique: the effects of mental countermeasures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 273-281.
Elaad, E. and Ben-Shakhar, G. (1991) Effects of mental countermeasures on psychophysiological detection in the guilty knowledge test. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 11, 99-108.
Honts, C.R., Raskin, D.C. and Kircher, J.C. (1987) Effects of physical countermeasures and their electromyographic detection during polygraph tests for deception. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1, 241-247.
Now, what these studies show is that, while countermeasures may increase false negative outcomes (guilty suspects classified as "innocents"), they have absolutely no effect on innocent examinees. (Ben-Shakhar, G. "A critical review of the control questiions test." Handbook of Polygraph Testing. Academic Press, 2002.)
What does that last statement mean to this forum, George? It means that by providing countermeasure knowledge to your audience you are doing absolutely nothing to help the innocent except make them screw with their own heads and possibly be detected by the polygrapher. Meanwhile, you are providing the guilty with knowledge that may help them avoid being detected altogether. When seen in that light, so much for your forum being a service to the innocent.
With regard to your comments on the CQT and the R/I tests, I don't know that the R/I technique is really making a "comeback." It never really left. The NSA uses it almost exclusively. However, I foresee the use of the DLT (directed lie test) increasing. Also, the GKT, which is based on more sound scientific principles than the CQT and has been used by Japanese law enforcement almost exclusively with excellent results, may also be incorporated with more frequency within the U.S. Finally, the BLT, an old standby, will never go away. It's high in cholesterol, true, but yum, yum, yum!
One more thing. The "challenge" which is the subject of this thread is an empty challenge. Even if the pro-polygaph community were to accept such a challenge and "prove" its own agenda, the "pro-" people wouldn't really prove anything since they couldn't effectively equate their laboratory findings to the real world. At the same time, the "anti-" crowd, which eagerly accepts any favorable laboratory study as "proof" of its own agenda, would justifiably, albeit uncharacteristically, reject such findings on the same basis. So what's the point? For those reasons, as well as such a study's prohibitive cost in dollars and time, the "challenge" is ignored.
Quote from: AnalSphincter on Feb 16, 2005, 03:52 PM....With regard to countermeasures, there are several studies--some old, some new--to which I may refer you. These studies are based almost entirely on laboratory experiments, upon which the "anti-" crowd-- such as yourself--so often rely. I question the credibility and practicality of applying any laboratory study of the polygraph to the real world, but since the "anti-" crowd really has nothing but laboratory studies to support many of its arguments, these studies should suffice for you, George. The studies I refer to are the following:
Ben-Shakhar, G. and Dolev, K. (1996) Psychophysiological detection through the guilty knowledge technique: the effects of mental countermeasures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 273-281.
Elaad, E. and Ben-Shakhar, G. (1991) Effects of mental countermeasures on psychophysiological detection in the guilty knowledge test. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 11, 99-108.
Honts, C.R., Raskin, D.C. and Kircher, J.C. (1987) Effects of physical countermeasures and their electromyographic detection during polygraph tests for deception. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1, 241-247.
Now, what these studies show is that, while countermeasures may increase false negative outcomes (guilty suspects classified as "innocents"), they have absolutely no effect on innocent examinees. (Ben-Shakhar, G. "A critical review of the control questiions test." Handbook of Polygraph Testing. Academic Press, 2002.)
What does that last statement mean to this forum, George? It means that by providing countermeasure knowledge to your audience you are doing absolutely nothing to help the innocent except make them screw with their own heads and possibly be detected by the polygrapher. Meanwhile, you are providing the guilty with knowledge that may help them avoid being detected altogether. When seen in that light, so much for your forum being a service to the innocent.
A.S.,
It is pretty obvious why countermeasures wouldn't help the "innocent" in GKT's. The most obvious one being that the innocent examinee is unaware of the specific knowledge associated with the crime. On a CQT, an innocent examinee is fully aware that reacting to the key question will likely have him/her found deceptive. Worse, innocent examinees with a modicum of independence and motivation will likely research the CQT and quickly discover the deception involved. This perhaps was less true in the one CQT study you cite that predates widespread internet access.
QuoteWith regard to your comments on the CQT and the R/I tests, I don't know that the R/I technique is really making a "comeback." It never really left. The NSA uses it almost exclusively. However, I foresee the use of the DLT (directed lie test) increasing. Also, the GKT, which is based on more sound scientific principles than the CQT and has been used by Japanese law enforcement almost exclusively with excellent results, may also be incorporated with more frequency within the U.S.
Increased use of the DLT does help alleviate some of the issues around informed examinees. It still needs, as the National Academy of Sciences recommends, serious validation efforts.
As for the GKT, it really would be a major step forward if it saw more use in forensics instead of CQTs. It has the potential, unrealized at this point, of widely being accepted in legal procedings. Other techniques (hi Drew!), which may identify awareness of information, may be less susceptable to CM's which can produce false negatives in GKTs.
One other point. Ben-Shakhar's CQT review in Kleiner's "Handbook" is quite worth reading. He addresses screening application of the CQT only in the last few paragraphs, where he describes the additional, inherent, flaws. Simply, he is strongly dismissive of CQT for screening.
Marty
I have no real argument with your arguments, Marty. Nice explanations, and you pointed the reader to additional information. Yes, Ben-Shakhar is one of the more vocal critics of the CQT, but his findings regarding countermeasures both oppose and support my own personal views regarding the CQT. He is indeed much more supportive of the GKT.
Regarding your comment about the internet and the CQT, I strongly agree. One reason why I am here on this forum is because the internet has made it possible for the innocent, curious examinee to research the polygraph prior to his or her exam. Unfortunately, there is a lot of misinformation on the Net regarding the polygraph--much more on this website than any other--and the innocent, curious examinee may use that misinformation to his or her downfall. Meanwhile, some of the information on the Net--again, much more on this website than any other--may actually aid the guilty examinee in producing a false negative, something I would hope no "anti-" member of this forum or its administrators would actually condone.
Thank you for an intelligent post. Intelligent posts are rare on this forum, and welcome.
A.S.
In a couple of different posts you mention that various research has shown/indicated that countermeasures are more effective for the guilty examinee trying to "beat" the exam than for the innocent examinee trying to protect himself from the error inherent in the (presumably we are largely talking about the PLCQT) lie test. Two points about the latter group of people and their examinations:
(1) Clearly they would not have to be concerned regarding and to make a judgment about using countermeasures if you and your colleagues would cease and desist from using techniques (CQT exams in particular) that are rife with error, lacking any serious theoretical foundation and which are particular insidious for innocent examinees. I am pleased to see you comment favorably about Gershon's work and opinion and hope that you are fully utilizing the considerably more sound and preferred concealed information tests.
(2) With regard to countermeasure effectiveness as employed by innocent examinees, I will suggest that much of the research you cite would not be expected to show anything about effectiveness in a real world setting. Simulated crime studies have essentially no negative consequences for examinees (in fact many have the rather comical circumstance of positive rewards for passing polygraph exams in the absence of negative consequences for failing the exam and no positive incentive for anyone to commit the crime(s) in the first place). It is responsiveness to the negative consequences (imprisonment, job loss, etc.) connected with relevant issues that produces false positive results for innocent examinees in the real world. In the absence of such consequences, there is very little for a properly applied countermeasure to be effective in thwarting. Although a bit beyond a message board discussion, this leaves us with what I and the thousand plus individuals who have contacted me over the last decade have claimed and know...CQT examinations (particularly in a screening application) are producing untold numbers of false positive results across this country and elsewhere and need to be of concern to both agencies using these exams and the individuals placed in positions of having to take them.
Actually, what I said, Drew, was that research shows that certain countermeasures may assist a guilty examinee in producing a false negative, but it also shows that those same countermeasures do absolutely nothing for the innocent examinee. Other, very credible research I have cited that was done in field conditions shows that the CQT is 90.5% accurate when using independent examiners to review the raw data, and even more accurate when the original examiners were used. Think about that for a moment.
Now, suppose we just throw the research away and go on common sense alone. If the polygraph works much better than chance, as even the NAS claims, what would using countermeasures do for an innocent examinee? Would it make the polygraph work even better? If so, then I think that George and Company's scare tactics with the scared little boys and girls who run to this forum seeking answers are unfounded.
When you say that the CQT is producing "untold numbers of false positives," where is the evidence? Do you have any idea how many polygraphs are done in the U.S. alone each year? Well, I'm willing to bet that if you took all those polygraphs and subtracted the few people on this obscure forum who claim to have unjustly failed the polygraph, you would come out to about 98% accuracy for the polygraph. The other 2% are here, Drew, bitching, whining and moaning. And how much of that 2% actually deserved to fail the polygraph because, surprise, surprise, they were actually lying to a relevant issue? You "anti-" people have an inflated opinion of yourselves and your silly forum. Just because you come here and find 10, 100, or even 1000 people to agree with you, you in an extremely small minority. The bitchers, whiners, moaners and worriers are all here. You who failed the polygraph--many or most of you justifiably--have a bone to pick while the world goes on around you. The millions of others who passed the polygraph fair and square aren't here, Drew. They have no reason to be. They go about their daily lives, while mostly scared little boys and girls and those who feed their fears hang out here.
Don't worry, though--I will become bored with you all, and you can have your silly forum with your silly and mostly unfounded opinions all to yourselves. The other 100 million or so people who have successfully passed the polygraph are mostly ignorant of your very existence.
Thank you for your input Dr. Richardson; I enjoy your insight.
-----
And AnalF...
Quit flattering yourself by who responds to your postings, and on what you determine as, "Intelligent posts are rare on this forum, and welcome.".
Most users of this website will debate notions of the actual value Polys provides to society.
BTW, I recently retook two polys I failed a few yrs back, as sort of as a 'piece of mind' kinda thing. --And found that CMs can't be detected.
- Both poly operators had worked w/the Dallas Police dept.
- Both were Cert for Sex Offender Testing.
- One had over 13 yrs exp, one was coming up on 20.
- One has been the past Chair Tx Asso of Poly Examers.
- One used CQTs, the other used relevant/irrelavent Qs.
I used CMs in both (....since the truth didn't work the first times...). I passed both (not that that matters, since they aren't reliable anyway...).
NEITHER "certified examiner" DETECTED CMs.
So, there's your answer re: the ability of CM detection.
Also, I'm not an expert on using CMs, but they sure seem to work fine for us novice types. So, again, if it's so easy to trick this tricky machine.... what's the value of keeping them?
So, which relevant issues did you lie to, and which countermeasures did you use? And are you sure you didn't just come up inconclusive on those polys and then squeak by the next time? Remember, there is a chasm to leap from outright passing to outright failing a polygraph.
Also, I don't need to flatter myself on this forum. Some of you flatter me enough when I simply read your sorry replies to my posts. I am flattered simply by comparison.
Also, Drew, as I've said in another thread to George, I see other forms of polygraph with a bright future. I see the R/I and CQT remaining steady, while the GKT and DLT are coming up strong on the outside. I really do like the GKT, which is based on good scientific principles, and I favor the DLT over the CQT simply because it is less stressful for both the innocent examinee and the polygrapher.
Re: "So, which relevant issues did you lie to, and which countermeasures did you use? And are you sure you didn't just come up inconclusive on those polys and then squeak by the next time? "
I didn't lie on the relevant Qs. At no pt did I say I lied.
I said I used CMs on the control Qs, and the CMs were undetected. That's the pt of CMs; use them on the control Qs, right?
Failed both polys outright the first time. Went in w/the standard, "I have nothing to hide, so why would I need to research polys?" doctrine. If you're interested, you can pull up my posting history.
Had the poly examiners ask me the same relevant Qs as the first times.
Passed both exams w/no inconclusive or "disception indicated" results this time. --I do have hardcopies of the results. Not that they're worth anything; it was just a 'piece of mind' thing.
But, you WOULD think, "there is a chasm to leap from outright passing to outright failing a polygraph. " .... but there wasn't. Food for thought.
Even goes to show the relability and consistancy of device... isn't. ;)
Before I open up a can of whoop-ass on you ( :)), what, exactly, do you mean by "It was a peace of mind thing?"
A few yrs back, I initiated two polys at reputable firms to disprove two 'he said/she said' accusations. I told the truth both times, and failed both polys. Turned my relation w/my wife upside down.
Since polys are still the industry's way of determining truth, it was just killing me to have poly records showing I lied on accusations, and I felt the need to initiated two more polys to clear my name, if you will. The failures bothered me so much, that recently I paid $500 to retake the polys.
Now I have two reports stating 'no deception indicated' that offset the two that say I showed 'deception'.
I haven't told my wife of the retakes; wouldn't make any difference now anyway. It was just for... "piece of mind".
Yes, I used CMs, but if the truth doesn't work, what can you do?
Pt being, that you thought CMs can be detected. I went to two seasoned professionals of reputable status, and neither even questioned if there was use of CMs.
Very peculiar that you would fail any polygraph that YOU paid to have done. I have seen the questions used by hired examiners, and they don't often adequately address the relevant issue(s). Hired polygraphers have a vested interest in PASSING those who hire them, so you obviously weren't getting your money's worth.
Finally, when you paid some more money, you got a hired gun to actually "clear" you, which is what I've seen hired polygraphers do with guilty defendants. I'm not saying you were guilty of anything; I just find it curious that your hired gun didn't do the job he was paid to do.
If what you say is true, that's a reflection of the poly community, and that makes it a non-honorary profession.
That's just more ammo as to why polys shouldn't be used.
Quote from: AnalSphincter on Feb 18, 2005, 09:18 PMVery peculiar that you would fail any polygraph that YOU paid to have done. I have seen the questions used by hired examiners, and they don't often adequately address the relevant issue(s). Hired polygraphers have a vested interest in PASSING those who hire them, so you obviously weren't getting your money's worth.
Finally, when you paid some more money, you got a hired gun to actually "clear" you, which is what I've seen hired polygraphers do with guilty defendants. I'm not saying you were guilty of anything; I just find it curious that your hired gun didn't do the job he was paid to do.
So basically you are discrediting your profession even more then it already is? If a polygrpaher based himself on integrity why would it matter who pays for the exam?
I agree with sluggo.
Actually, Sluggo, perhaps you misunderstand or perhaps I just didn't say enough. When a polygrapher prepares for a polygraph, he or she first speaks with the detective or investigator in charge of the case. Before that time, the polygrapher usually knows nothing about the case. Because a criminal polygraph is what they call a "single issue" test (unlike a screening polygraph where there are usually multiple issues), the polygrapher asks the detective or investigator what the most important issues is. The most important issue might be whether the suspect touched that child's private parts. The single issue, then, is addressed in a question such as, "Did you touch that boy's penis?" or "Did you touch that girl's vagina?" A single issue polygraph is very, very focused, always on what the detective or investigator feels is the MOST important issue. The detective or investigator tells the polygrapher which most important question, based on the evidence, needs to be addressed in the polygraph.
When people hire a private polygrapher--someone who freelances as a polygrapher, perhaps after his or her retirement--THEY play the part of the detective or investigator. THEY provide the polygrapher with the issue THEY want addressed. In the case of a defendant, the defense attorney requesting the exam plays that very important part. The attorney provides the issue to the polygrapher. Remember, the hired polygrapher doesn't know the case beforehand. In fact, the hired polygrapher often simply does an exam addressing the issue provided, and the chips fall where they may.
So you see, when a polygrapher is provided an issue to address which is NOT the strongest issue that should be addressed, then the examinee may pass the polygraph. For example, in the above example, instead of being provided with "Did you touch that boy's penis?" the attorney might tell the polygrapher that the question should be "Did you force that boy to have sex?" Either act is a crime, right? But a defendant can easily rationalize his way out of the latter question if "all" he did was touch that boy's penis, rather than engage in penetration with the child.
It is very, very important that the strongest issue be addressed. People are fascinating creatures. They can rationalize or justify just about anything, so it is important that, when the issue is addressed by the polygrapher, it be the strongest and most important issue possible.
What Gino, George and others without experience don't know because they haven't been there is that very often when a person produces a false negative it is not because the polygraph didn't work, but because the correct issue was simply never addressed.
Basically you are saying that the polygrapher is not a cognitively thinking person, but one who readily takes orders? If the examiner cannot develop the questions, what business does he or she have asking the questions? Are polygraphers not investigators? Or is it that polygraphers are asking questions without basis? It would seem to me that polygraphers are goats to true investigtion, providing direction is whatever manner they are directed. Science is not a truly descriptive word for polygraphy, rather hypothesis. You can guess to your heart's content. But guessing is truly no more than opinion (i.e. bullshit). My polygraphister ( I love that because it is humorous and true) must only have been guessing.
The polygrapher is NOT the investigator. The polygrapher must approach the exam with a non-biased attitude, not caring whether the examinee passes the exam or not.
If the polygrapher were also the case officer, that would be a serious conflict of interest, don't you think?
While the polygrapher words the actual questions, the issues are really decided by the detective or the investigator, with defense attorneys playing that part in a private exam. The results of such an exam, it is agreed, will not be reported UNLESS the defendant passes the exam.
::)
I hope everyone is getting to enjoy this beautiful weather we're having rather than sitting in front of the computer writing a paper for college like myself.
However, I feel I must put my young two cents in. How can people stand for something and say it's just without justifying it. Actions speak much louder than words, I'm tired of hearing talk by politicians and Fox5. Even Bill Mauer's 'Real Talk' portrays his propaganda. I agree with most of it, but why is it so hard to get a straight answer from anyone interviewed on CSPAN. Which I might add is the most unbiased media aired today. Politicians avoid subjects like the one's expressed in this site out of fear. Aren't the selfish men we've elected because we didn't have a good choice supposed to inflict justice? So why is this not an issue in the media? Why was Fox5 talking a couple weeks back about Terry Schiavo's mother and her simple followers trying to make it in the supreme court? Why haven't they brought this issue up? This is all just my opinion and it must not mean much to you elder folks. I'm after all just 22. But it seems to me that through my research that polygraphing isn't a 100% thing. How come in 1992 Dr. Lykken of Minnesota concluded from his studies that more than half of rape VICTIMS failed polygraphs recalling their own cases? Then, Congress addressed security in our nuclear weapons facilities and asked the D.O.E. to instate polygraph testing of SOME employees. (check this website out)http://www.fas.org/sgp/othergov/polygraph/sandia.html
If security was that important to require polygraph testing of applicants, why not all of them. Since administers of these tests use personal opinion to read results of the machines and make judgements about those readings, could ethnicity or sex affect their decision? If it did, how would they be proven guilty of discriminating against anyone? Would they call in another polygrapher working for the same system to confer with those results. By the way, I'm white and good looking and polite. Winning people has never been hard. If people with authority don't have strict rules placed, how can they be trusted. Ask this question, see if you can find out. How many muslim secret service agents does Bush employ? I wonder. He's very christian, as if that makes this country better or worse. Have you ever heard anybody who goes too far with jesus and infringes it on somebody else? How is that a teaching of Jesus. I'm Presbyterian. Does that explain alot?
A very recent study by Eli Lehrer points out that basic polygraph technology has not changed in the last 60 to 70 years. Skeptics and polygraph professionals agree that the fundamental technology, which measures breathing, pulse, blood pressure and galvanic skin response (sweating) has remained unchanged since ... the 1930s. American Polygraph Association President Richard Keifer says that computers have simplified the work but agrees that the measurements have not changed.
http://www.fas.org/sgp/othergov/polygraph/sandia.html
Go to that government website and read the entire thing if you have time. Can you find a phrase including 100% anywhere? Polygraph testing can't prove anything. The only thing it can be used for would be fear. If you want to terrorize innocents into prison, go ahead you analsphincter. And at the same time, keep telling yourself you do just work. How many scientists have proven your Psudoscience false? How many people have you reproached into demur of you? Who are you to judge without proof?
Sweet dreams analsphincter.
THe kid has a point here and is much wise in his analysis. Again if the Polygraph Industry is so based on integrity then why not open their message board so everyone can see it. The Answer to this by perpetuating the lie and in playing the game the longer they can dupe the public, that they provide a vital service., yeah right. I personally believe that a complete and exhaustive background inverstigation would do more than any piece of garbage polygraph. But that involves effort and expense, something that these agencies have non of, or want to have. The other best part that I think is hilarious, is they state that their profession is college accredited. If you check out the accreditation used by DODPI and other agencies that use that school. Its the same one that accredits trade schools, 3rd tier bottom feeder trade schools. Not real schools like the regional colleges and universities. That degree and $1.75 will get you coffee at Dunkin Donuts.
Real universities wouldn't even accept the credits with the exception of the diploma mills that are part of ACICS.
Now to the meat of this entry. This web site is vital to those who believe that being forearmed is always preferable to being unjustly accused and mentally BBQ'd.
I will use a quote fromt he movie "War Games", the best move is not to play the game !! This web site evens the game playing board, back to where the individual is in charge and not the bottom feeder polygrapher ... and yes I have authority figure issues, unless I am the authority. I hope any polygraphers reading this, realize based on another post on this site that the numbers of downloads from this site is increasing all the time. The american public is savvy and my generation takes nothing at face value. The polygraphers game is going the way of the Dinosaur, just a matter of time. And to add insult to injury, the CM's do work. The best part of all is knowing that the joke was on the polygrapher.
This is my first post as you see and you wont see me changing my name later and come one as someone else.
Anal, I think you are a narrow minded person because from the beginning you showed to be adeceptive person showing your true character and trying to psychoanalyze every one that disagreed with your opinion and come to a conclusion that everyone else's lying except for you.
I truly believe that a private polygrapher would have less reasons to show deceptive practices then someoneworking for the FBI, Police Department, or any other law enforcement agencies since everyone that works for law enforcement assumes everyone is lying. The lines on a polygraph look- like EKG reading and a EKG willgive basically the same kind of reading when certain questions are asked because your pulse rate changes with questions of specific origin.
I have had my dealings with the police department in the past and always, and I mean always, been treated unfairly and presumed guilty when I am totally innocent for a fact.
You just like any other law enforcement personnel is only human, and humans make the most mistakes especially when working law-enforcement agencies and the more guilty people you have the better you look.
I will be more than happy to give you my real name, my address, my phone number, and any other information you need to get to my house or local area and have some from this form of reputable statue to witness on videotape and hardcopy that I can pass any polygraph given regardless of the questions.
I would love to be the one that put you in your place.I'm not saying there arenot some legitimate polygraphers but again when you work for law-enforcement you can make them read what you want, how you interpret it,to say if someone is guilty or not.
to give someone that much power over someone else is wrong because I'm sure you will not like my attitude toward you and you will form a bias opinion of me and try to make me look bad because you have no facts, just scare tactics and interrogation techniques that you are trained to use or have read about and I know what your first questions would be if I've read about this site or not and from there you assume I am guilty because I have come to this site to be informed instead of scared.
so to the people who read this forum I can honestly say that a polygraph is nothing to be afraid of it has no validity or is based on no scientific fact, just scare tactics.
I look forward to your response soon. sorry for the bad wording.
Im from Florida and according to law a polygraph is not admissable in a court of law so why take one.... but people like Anal will tell you if you have nothing to hide then why not take one................
Where supposed to be innocent until proven guilty... and never trust a states attourney....
Law enforcement will lie to you to make there job alot easier, in some cases this is a good thing but in other cases it makes the cops fat and lazy but thats a whole different story....
JUST REMEMBER THIS....You are guilty until proven innocent.
Why I put my opinion in is because I was married and my ex suffers from SAIDS, DIVORCE RELATED MALICIOUS MOTHER SYNDROME, Parental Alienation Syndrome, Stockholm Syndrome, Borderline Personality Disorder and being a pathological liar and every chance she gets she accuses me of something that I wouldn't even think of doing and I have been in court several different times over false accusations and outright lies but this doesn't constitute me happen to take a polygraph test.
Sincerely, Wally.
You most certainly ARE NOT INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY in today's legal system.
I am currently living what can only be described as a nightmare that I cannot wake up from. I stand to lose my family and my freedom due to the "Child Saving Industry" and there is nothing I can do to stop it.
I can take and pass a lie detector test, but that won't stop the process. I can proclaim my innocence from the top of a mountain, but that won't undo the harm my reputation has suffered. I can fight the system and go through the system and lose my life savings in the process, but that won't necessarily keep me out of prison.
How has our legal system come to this? An accusation with no basis in fact and no corroborating evidence is systematically destroying me and I can't stop it.
Quote from: EosJupiter on May 18, 2005, 05:51 AM...if the Polygraph Industry is so based on integrity then why not open their message board so everyone can see it?...
Good point.
Several recent posters have made the claim that examinee knowledge of the testing procedure is no longer a concern for polygraph examiners. Claims have also been made that countermeasures do not work and are easily detectable anyway, and if you attempt to use countermeasure you will automatically fail. So why the closed board? If the people viewed as "cheaters" have an open board why wouldn't the people with the motto "Dedicated to Truth" have one as well?
Judging by recent message board comments, not only is the taking up of the challenge long overdue, but sufficient time has passed since the challenge was put forth, that those who have actually read it have forgotten its content or, more likely, some who now comment have never read it at all. It has nothing to do with me taking polygraph exams or being sufficiently motivated to do anything (less perform a teaching function). For any interested persons, I suggest you read or re-read my initial post which began this thread (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=418.msg1942#msg1942 ).
Nonombre or any other polygraph examiner,
I know it has been stated that no polygraph examiner will take this challenge as there is nothing to lose on the part of the examinee employing countermeasures. This would be akin to a lab study, which most agree is not the same as an actual field exam.
With regard to nothing to lose, I must present the following question: What of the applicant who has no fear of being deceptive when there is no other means to prove otherwise? I will use an extreme example to help clarify the question (with a bit of humor). As we are aware screening exams routinely contain questions about unlawful sexual conduct. Applicant A was raised in a farm setting. Upon reaching puberty, he enters into an illicit encounter with Dolly the sheep. This is a one time occurence. No one was around to witness this conduct as the barn doors were closed. During the in-test phase of the polygraph exam, Applicant A is asked if he has ever committed a sex act with an animal. Applicant A knows that there is no way to for the hiring agency to know or discover this conduct. Where is the fear of being caught which would evoke fight or flight?
To me this would seem to be along the same lines for the oft-given reason to refrain from attempting Dr. Richardson's challenge. Your thoughts?
Quote from: Brandon Hall on Aug 24, 2005, 02:57 PMNonombre or any other polygraph examiner,
I know it has been stated that no polygraph examiner will take this challenge as there is nothing to lose on the part of the examinee employing countermeasures. This would be akin to a lab study, which most agree is not the same as an actual field exam.
With regard to nothing to lose, I must present the following question: What of the applicant who has no fear of being deceptive when there is no other means to prove otherwise? I will use an extreme example to help clarify the question (with a bit of humor). As we are aware screening exams routinely contain questions about unlawful sexual conduct. Applicant A was raised in a farm setting. Upon reaching puberty, he enters into an illicit encounter with Dolly the sheep. This is a one time occurence. No one was around to witness this conduct as the barn doors were closed. During the in-test phase of the polygraph exam, Applicant A is asked if he has ever committed a sex act with an animal. Applicant A knows that there is no way to for the hiring agency to know or discover this conduct. Where is the fear of being caught which would evoke fight or flight?
To me this would seem to be along the same lines for the oft-given reason to refrain from attempting Dr. Richardson's challenge. Your thoughts?
Brandon,
Excellent example! However, please allow me to place your example in the light of what actually happens in most polygraph situations:
Applicant A was raised in a farm setting. Upon reaching puberty, he enters into an illicit encounter with Dolly the sheep. This is a one-time occurrence. No one was around to witness this conduct as the barn doors were closed. During the in-test phase of the polygraph exam, Applicant A is asked if he has ever committed a sex act with an animal. Applicant A, who knows if his affair with Dolly is ever exposed, would not only lose the job he had been hoping for, but he would be open to the ridicule of others, unbelievable embarrassment for his family, and probable criminal prosecution.
Applicant A is now scared out of his mind. He "knows" if he is asked about abnormal sexual conduct, he will indeed be caught, screwed (no pun intended), his world destroyed, his life over.
There my friend is a PERFECT example of fight or flight and why the fear of consequences is an important part of the equation.
Regards,
Nonombre
P.S. I hope Dolly is not a personal friend :)
Nonombre,
Thanks for the reply. However, I think you missed my point. As stated there are no witnesses, save good 'ole Dolly and she can't talk. Where is the fear of being caught? Knowing such conduct cannot be confirmed why would the examinee be fearful? (note: I'm not trying to start a circular argument)
Also, please explain why the applicant would be subjected to public humiliation and ridicule. Would the examiner release information attesting that the examinee failed a question regarding sexual conduct with a farm animal. I was under the impression that such information was not for public consumption. Also, again, no witnesses = no prosecution as there would be a lack of or at minimum extreme deterioration of evidence.
QuoteP.S. I hope Dolly is not a personal friend
Seems polygraph examiners jump to conclusions and assumptions with an accuracy rate of pre-employment polygraph exams. Much the same as you (I hope) I have never met Dolly. :P ;)
Quote from: Brandon Hall on Aug 24, 2005, 10:25 PMNonombre,
Thanks for the reply. However, I think you missed my point. As stated there are no witnesses, save good 'ole Dolly and she can't talk. Where is the fear of being caught? Knowing such conduct cannot be confirmed why would the examinee be fearful? (note: I'm not trying to start a circular argument)
Also, please explain why the applicant would be subjected to public humiliation and ridicule. Would the examiner release information attesting that the examinee failed a question regarding sexual conduct with a farm animal. I was under the impression that such information was not for public consumption. Also, again, no witnesses = no prosecution as there would be a lack of or at minimum extreme deterioration of evidence.
Seems polygraph examiners jump to conclusions and assumptions with an accuracy rate of pre-employment polygraph exams. Much the same as you (I hope) I have never met Dolly. :P ;)
Okay, last question first. Dolly and I are just friends (and you can't prove any different).
Next, as you assume, A ethical police polygraph examiner would never publically release information,. However, you must understand that has little effect on what goes through the mind of the polygraph subject. Many times, they come into the room convinced their dirty laundry will end up on the front yard line for all to see. We don't in any way tell them that, they believe it on their own.
Which leads me back to my original arguement. As a calm, rational person, sitting in your easy chair, posting on an internet web site, you feel quite comfortable there are no witnesses to you and Dolly, so therefore you have nothing to fear. However, I would argue that in a good many cases, there is a significant fear, even real terror that the person(s) "dirty" little secret will be discovered during the investigative/polygraph process. We call that "fear of detection of deception." Brandon, this is not a circular argument in my opinion, just an honest difference in positions.
Nonombre
Nonombre wrote:
QuoteOkay, last question first. Dolly and I are just friends (and you can't prove any different).
:D ...and some people think polygraph examiner's don't have a sense of humor.
This statement does however give credibility to my post.
I would agree that the ignorant examinee would believe that the laundry would be pinned on the line within minutes of the exam's conclusion.
Let me expand on the question. What of the knowledgeable examinee (not someone trained in polygraph, but someone who has done a bit of self-study on the topic)? This would be an examinee that knows there is no way for such information to be discovered. What fear would such an examinee have of discovery? I would assert that there is no fear much as would likely be the case in the poly challenge. Could such an examinee be deemed as non-cooperative?
Also, the only Dolly I have met is Dolly Madison. She has some tasty treats but I would never do anything bah-ah-ah-ad with them. :)
Dr. Richardson,
I have an idea. From what I've gathered watching this thread, the **stated** reason the polygraph community refuses to accept the challenge is because there is no fear of consequences.
How about we design some way that both sides have substantial "skin in the game". Monetary perhaps. A bet! Whoever loses pays and pays big time. If that's not possible, a serious and public loss of face. What's important is that this applies to either side. For the record, I think you'll win.
Food for thought.
Dippityshurff,
You write:
Quote
Dr. Richardson,
I have an idea. From what I've gathered watching this thread, the **stated** reason the polygraph community refuses to accept the challenge is because there is no fear of consequences.
How about we design some way that both sides have substantial "skin in the game". Monetary perhaps. A bet! Whoever loses pays and pays big time. If that's not possible, a serious and public loss of face. What's important is that this applies to either side. For the record, I think you'll win.
Food for thought.
For the record, I expect to win too :) As far as any loss of face is concerned, I suppose the national media coverage that I have insisted upon to cover all aspects of the procedure will likely take care of that issue. I do not have time to discuss all the ramifications of fear of consequences and how it relates to external validity (completely misrepresented by commenting polygraphers and perhaps overstated with this exercise), but with regard to monetary incentives, a time-limited one was previously offered by one of the regulars on this site (5000.00) to any qualified (see my initial post for qualifications) polygrapher (and specifically not payable to me) who could systematically show an ability to detect countermeasures. There were no takers on this offer.
QuoteFor the record, I expect to win too As far as any loss of face is concerned, I suppose the national media coverage that I have insisted upon to cover all aspects of the procedure will likely take care of that issue. I do not have time to discuss all the ramifications of fear of consequences and how it relates to external validity (completely misrepresented by commenting polygraphers and perhaps overstated with this exercise), but with regard to monetary incentives, a time-limited one was previously offered by one of the regulars on this site (5000.00) to any qualified (see my initial post for qualifications) polygrapher (and specifically not payable to me) who could systematically show an ability to detect countermeasures. There were no takers on this offer.
Perhaps the Challenge incentive can be re-instated. Any polygraphers want to chime in on what they think might stimulate their interest?
-ChallengeCash-
Dippityshurff raises one of the issues that arose in my mind when Drew first made his offer. The suggestion is that the question of whether examiners can truly recognize mid-level countermeasures is to be settled by the results of a laboratory experiment.
The web masters for this site, together with most people who have posted on this site categorically reject the results of laboratory research regarding the accuracy of the polygraph because they are not "real life" settings. Why reject mock crime accuracy research yet advocate mock crime countermeasure research?
If you are so eager to accept the results of a laboratory CM study, why not accept the results of the many dozens of laboratory validity studies that have been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals?
Peace.
Gordon
Hello Gordon,
Very nice to hear (indirectly) from you. I don't speak for this message board or any of its other posters, but I will tell you why I distinguish between the necessities of lie detection research and that of countermeasure research. I would agree (based on a differing rationale) with many polygraphers that real life conditions are needed for lie detection research. By now you are no doubt aware that I am very skeptical about the fundamental underpinnings of most lie detection practice. In particular I tend to believe that real world consequences (further investigation, imprisonment, denial of employment, etc.) stemming from having been found deceptive of relevant-question related activities are every bit of much of concern to innocent/truthful examinees as they are to guilty/deceptive examinees. This is why I believe this sort of examination is greatly prone to false positive results, why the lies of polygraphers suggesting control material is really relevant is specious to the most naive of examinees and largely doomed to failure, and why I have been contacted by hundreds (if not in excess of a thousand) people representing themselves or others claiming to have been falsely accused (generally screening examinations) of deception.
And now to the general thrust of your question--the reason I distinguish the countermeasure research and believe it is potentially less dependent on real world conditions is the following. I believe you have a type of control built into this research not present with the detection of deception research. That is regardless of the level of motivation/fear of consequences/etc, that condition is equal across various likely to be compared groups, e.g.. those deceptive study examinees employing countermeasures have the same motivation as those deceptive examinees who do not employ countermeasures (again independent of whatever the level of the fear of consequences (stemming from being found deceptive regarding relevant question activities) is, it should be roughly the same for these groups within a given simulated-crime study). Although I would prefer to see real life consequences, at least in the absence of such, you do have the ability to compare apples with apples so to speak. I don't believe this is true in basic lie detection research where an absence of a fear of consequences would mask the mechanism I previously suggested was that which made control question lie detection prone to false positive results. In that case, I believe that extrapolating the level of false positives from a simulated-crime study to the circumstances of the real world is akin to predicting numbers of oranges from apple inspection. Again, very nice to hear your message board voice--I'll look forward to continued discussion on this and other issues. Best Regards, Drew
Quote from: nonombre on Aug 24, 2005, 11:36 PM
Okay, last question first. Dolly and I are just friends (and you can't prove any different).
Next, as you assume, A ethical police polygraph examiner would never publically release information,. However, you must understand that has little effect on what goes through the mind of the polygraph subject. Many times, they come into the room convinced their dirty laundry will end up on the front yard line for all to see. We don't in any way tell them that, they believe it on their own.
Which leads me back to my original arguement. As a calm, rational person, sitting in your easy chair, posting on an internet web site, you feel quite comfortable there are no witnesses to you and Dolly, so therefore you have nothing to fear. However, I would argue that in a good many cases, there is a significant fear, even real terror that the person(s) "dirty" little secret will be discovered during the investigative/polygraph process. We call that "fear of detection of deception." Brandon, this is not a circular argument in my opinion, just an honest difference in positions.
Nonombre
Nonombre: I am absolutely astounded by your ability to know what's going on in the mind of an examinee. Did they teach you that in school? Give me a freak'in break! You have no idea what an examinee is thinking. How could you and why do you believe that you can read minds? Is it because of the things examinees confess to you? Surely you would not be gullible enough to believe everything that someone tells you? Your comments are a perfect example of too much reliance on this tool. You know how to record a person's heart rate, sweat activity and breathing patterns, so you can read minds.
I disagree with your statement about an examinee fearing that his dirty laundry will be on display for all to see. I could buy that arguement if you were talking about a current employee, but you're not--you're talking about job candidates. If one is not already employed by the prospective agency, he is not thinking in those terms and therefore, not concerned about what agency employees will find out.
It is true that an examinee may be thinking whether the deed he may be about to confess to is proveable and I would think that definitely has some influence on whether one confesses. The thought about whether certain deeds I was asked about being proved through corroborative (your favorite word) statements definitely made me spill my guts when I really didn't want to. I knew the answers to the questions could be found in a background check, thus I came clean. However, I probably would have confessed to the deeds without witnesses anyway, because I believed all the bogus hype about polygraphs actually being able to detect lies. Stupid me.
I also would never have believed that anything I told the examiner would have been disclosed to my family or that I would be prosecuted for it. Applicants disclose past drug use to LE agencies all that time, that doesn't mean they'll be booked and thrown in the slammer for hitting a bong when they were a teenager. Take your and Brandon's example of Dolly. Do you really think your hypothetical examinee would think that he would face charges for getting it on with Dolly on the family farm when no one else was looking? That's ridiculous. There are some practices that are still on the books as illegal, but aren't enforceable. Take for example, adultery--illegal in some states- but you don't see cops barging into bedrooms to enforce it. Spirit vs. letter of the law. Adultery would even be proveable since it would require the participation of another individual. The only evidence you would have with Dolly is the examinee's confession, but yet, you would expect the examinee to believe that on his way out the door, employees would be lined up, laughing at him with fingers pointed and that an agent would stop by his house to tell his family about his rendezvous with Dolly just before officers arrive to take him downtown for booking?
P.S. Just for the record, my misdeeds had nothing to do with Dolly.
Great example!
So your hypothetical applicant who is not a security risk based on this episode years and years ago has a real problem. He can;
1. Be honest and confess - which will result in loss of the job and a permanent file of his behavior.
2. Lie - either deny the behavior, use countermeasures, or make up some 'indiscretion' which will explain his emotional reaction to the polygraph examiner.
So honesty is punished, dishonesty rewarded, and national security not really served in any way. Pre-employment lifestyle questions and control questions are prone to develop information which might be derogatory but which is not relevant.
looking for some insight, wanted to apply for a police job, they do polygraph. Prior to 2 months ago I had'nt smoked marijuana for over 8yrs (smoked 5 times before the 8 yrs) I want to make sure... if I lie on my recent drug use, I would just have to make sure I have a stronger reaction to control questions (tounge biting ect) than relevant questions? just want to make sure how should I treat the drug use questions?
Thanks
Quote from: icotto56@yahoo.com on Sep 01, 2005, 01:30 AMlooking for some insight, wanted to apply for a police job, they do polygraph. Prior to 2 months ago I had'nt smoked marijuana for over 8yrs (smoked 5 times before the 8 yrs) I want to make sure... if I lie on my recent drug use, I would just have to make sure I have a stronger reaction to control questions (tounge biting ect) than relevant questions? just want to make sure how should I treat the drug use questions?
Thanks
Please note that this is not the right message thread for posting personal inquiries - you should have started a new topic. Moreover, the purpose of this website is not to help liars to gain positions of trust for which they are not qualified, but rather to help truthful persons protect themselves against an invalid "test."
Quote from: Administrator on Sep 01, 2005, 03:01 AM
...the purpose of this website is not to help liars to gain positions of trust for which they are not qualified, but rather to help truthful persons protect themselves against an invalid "test."
and in what way do you plan to tell the difference?
Nonombre ;)
Nonombre,
Perhaps it's a bit like your suggestion to trust and confide in your (presumably a good) polygrapher.....hmmm.....how do you know the difference? ;)
Quote from: nonombre on Sep 02, 2005, 12:03 AMand in what way do you plan to tell the difference?
Nonombre ;)
The general approach I take is to assume that all requests for information are for legitimate purposes, unless there is reason to believe otherwise (as was the case with icotto56's post).
Quote from: George W. Maschke on Sep 02, 2005, 04:14 AM
The general approach I take is to assume that all requests for information are for legitimate purposes, unless there is reason to believe otherwise (as was the case with icotto56's post).
I'm sorry, Mr. Maschke, but I akin your position to leaving a loaded shotgun at the entrance to the subway station and "assuming" it will only be picked up and used by little old ladies to protect themselves.
Regards,
Nonombre
Quote from: nonombre on Sep 02, 2005, 04:17 PM
I'm sorry, Mr. Maschke, but I akin your position to leaving a loaded shotgun at the entrance to the subway station and "assuming" it will only be picked up and used by little old ladies to protect themselves.
Nonombre,
I would be interested to listen to your explanation of that opinion. How exactly is providing information on the way a polygraph is conducted in any way similar to placing a deadly weapon in a public place?
Providing information is not wrong or irresponsible, and certainly not akin to leaving a dangerous weapon unattended.
I am still of the opinion that putting any faith in a supposedly scientific test that can be "beaten" after reading a couple of pages on the Internet is the truly irresponsible act. If the polygraph relies on examinee ignorance in order to function, wouldn't that suggest a problem with the polygraph itself rather than a problem with anyone who provides information to enlighten the ignorant?
Quote from: Sergeant1107 on Sep 02, 2005, 04:45 PM
Nonombre,
I would be interested to listen to your explanation of that opinion. How exactly is providing information on the way a polygraph is conducted in any way similar to placing a deadly weapon in a public place?
Providing information is not wrong or irresponsible, and certainly not akin to leaving a dangerous weapon unattended.
I am still of the opinion that putting any faith in a supposedly scientific test that can be "beaten" after reading a couple of pages on the Internet is the truly irresponsible act. If the polygraph relies on examinee ignorance in order to function, wouldn't that suggest a problem with the polygraph itself rather than a problem with anyone who provides information to enlighten the ignorant?
Sergeant,
You are certainly entitled to feel that way. However, to have the testicular fortitude to place controversial information on the Internet and then absolve yourself of any responsibility by saying it is only for the use of "honest people," is either the height of stupidity or the epitome of pure arrogance. I am not sure which.
No, on second thought, I'm pretty sure. It is stupidity. I mean the Anti-polygraph.com administrator ACTUALLY told somebody who planned to use this material to successfully lie, "...The purpose of this website is not to help liars (like you) (my emphasis) to gain positions of trust for which they are not qualified, but rather to help truthful persons...
"Rather to help truthful persons...???!!
What did the administrator think? Did he actually believe the bad guy would lean back from his computer, scratch his head, and say, "Well, since I am a liar, I better not download any of this material, because it's meant for honest people, and I am a lying schmuck."
Maybe the administrator believes by making that weak, mealy-mouthed caveat, he absolved himself or Antipolygraph.org of criminal or civil responsibility, should this information fell into the "wrong hands." BTW, he is wrong there too. There is lots of legal precedent that substantiates you are responsible for what you write, no matter what disclaimer you use.
I mean, you have to admit, that whole exchange was pretty laughable... ;D
Nonombre
Quote from: nonombre on Sep 02, 2005, 05:23 PM
Sergeant,
You are certainly entitled to feel that way. However, to have the testicular fortitude to place controversial information on the Internet and then absolve yourself of any responsibility by saying it is only for the use of "honest people," is either the height of stupidity or the epitome of pure arrogance. I am not sure which.
Nonombre-
I still can't understand your hostility to the information made available on this site. Your opposition to it only adds to its credibility.
Quote
No, on second thought, I'm pretty sure. It is stupidity. I mean the Anti-polygraph.com administrator ACTUALLY told somebody who planned to use this material to successfully lie, "...The purpose of this website is not to help liars (like you) (my emphasis) to gain positions of trust for which they are not qualified, but rather to help truthful persons...
Innocent until proven guilty. The example you cite was of a person unworthy of assistance. Once he disclosed that, no direct assistance was provided. If he gains by information freely found on this site, that is not the fault nor problem of this site, but rather society's reliance on junk-science polygraphy.
Quote
"Rather to help truthful persons...???!!
Absolutely. Of course, that is another topic for debate, but surely you agree that many agencies abuse screening polygraph victims.
Quote
What did the administrator think? Did he actually believe the bad guy would lean back from his computer, scratch his head, and say, "Well, since I am a liar, I better not download any of this material, because it's meant for honest people, and I am a lying schmuck."
Maybe the administrator believes by making that weak, mealy-mouthed caveat, he absolved himself or Antipolygraph.org of criminal or civil responsibility, should this information fell into the "wrong hands." BTW, he is wrong there too. There is lots of legal precedent that substantiates you are responsible for what you write, no matter what disclaimer you use.
Yeah. So what? On what legal basis can the disclosure of factual, truthful information cuase one to be held liable??? C'mon; you're a lawman. Enlighten us. The information on this site was obtained through either FOIA requests, libraries or newspaers etc. What law gives ANY institution standing to bring claim agains that information disclosure??? Name one. I dare you.
Would it be bad if a criminal beat a polygraph with info on this site? Sure. But I'd lay blame at the system that put too much faith in polygraphy; not the site that exposed the fraud.
Quote from: nonombre on Sep 02, 2005, 05:23 PMSergeant,
You are certainly entitled to feel that way. However, to have the testicular fortitude to place controversial information on the Internet and then absolve yourself of any responsibility by saying it is only for the use of "honest people," is either the height of stupidity or the epitome of pure arrogance. I am not sure which.
No, on second thought, I'm pretty sure. It is stupidity. I mean the Anti-polygraph.com administrator ACTUALLY told somebody who planned to use this material to successfully lie, "...The purpose of this website is not to help liars (like you) (my emphasis) to gain positions of trust for which they are not qualified, but rather to help truthful persons...
"Rather to help truthful persons...???!!
What did the administrator think? Did he actually believe the bad guy would lean back from his computer, scratch his head, and say, "Well, since I am a liar, I better not download any of this material, because it's meant for honest people, and I am a lying schmuck."
No one is maintaining that the information provided on AntiPolygraph.org will only be used by honest people. The point in the administrator's reply to icotto56 (which I posted) is that the
purpose of this site is not to help liars obtain positions of trust for which they are not qualified. While it is self-evident that the information on AntiPolygraph.org is available for anyone to download and read, persons who obviously intend to lie about relevant issues should not expect to have their questions answered.
QuoteMaybe the administrator believes by making that weak, mealy-mouthed caveat, he absolved himself or Antipolygraph.org of criminal or civil responsibility, should this information fell into the "wrong hands." BTW, he is wrong there too. There is lots of legal precedent that substantiates you are responsible for what you write, no matter what disclaimer you use.
What law(s) do you think I or anyone else associated with AntiPolygraph.org may have broken by telling the truth about polygraphs?
As for the ethical considerations involved in making such information public, see my article, "A Response to Paul M. Menges Regarding the Ethical Considerations of Providing Polygraph Countermeasures to the Public." (http://antipolygraph.org/articles/article-029.shtml)
Gotta side against George and Gino and whomever else is officially associated with this message board. I would predict that it is a matter of time until this site is sued for the information provided. What laws have been broken? Well, I am not a Barrister, so I decline to comment on something I am without expertise on (Wish others would step out of the polygraph arguement for their ignorance as well). But I am fairly well read and educated and it is a well substantiated matter of fact that one can be sued in the United States for just about anything. Gun makers, Big tobacco, hot coffee, spoon bending psychics who sue James Randi for proving they are frauds ........the list is endless. so agree or disagree with Mr. Menges or Mr. Maschke, I think it's clear, wether the greater good is served by this site or not, a lawsuit is in the future.
George, I think the debate regarding the use of polygraph for screning is a welcome one. I fully defend your right to say anything you want. But don't be so simple that you think you are above a lawsuit by the parent of a pedophile who attempted countermeasures and used your book to do it. My advice, set up a legal defense fund.
Quote from: uiop on Sep 03, 2005, 12:48 AMGotta side against George and Gino and whomever else is officially associated with this message board. I would predict that it is a matter of time until this site is sued for the information provided. What laws have been broken? Well, I am not a Barrister, so I decline to comment on something I am without expertise on (Wish others would step out of the polygraph arguement for their ignorance as well). But I am fairly well read and educated and it is a well substantiated matter of fact that one can be sued in the United States for just about anything. Gun makers, Big tobacco, hot coffee, spoon bending psychics who sue James Randi for proving they are frauds ........the list is endless. so agree or disagree with Mr. Menges or Mr. Maschke, I think it's clear, wether the greater good is served by this site or not, a lawsuit is in the future.
George, I think the debate regarding the use of polygraph for screning is a welcome one. I fully defend your right to say anything you want. But don't be so simple that you think you are above a lawsuit by the parent of a pedophile who attempted countermeasures and used your book to do it. My advice, set up a legal defense fund.
Though much of what you state is arguably correct (anyone can be sued for just about any reason) with a halfway clueful lawyer, the lawsuit woud likely be dismissed by any competent court (and certainly any judgement overturned on appeal).
But I think a lawsuit would be a good thing. If played right, it could force discovery on some very interesting documents. I'd love the feds to give this cite credibility by trying to challenge it in court. They'd be admitting that what was on this site was correct -- that the polygraph is a fraud and can be easily beaten! I'd alomst consider that a measure of success for this site.
Howeer, I think the suit would be better targeted against the city/state/federal agency that relied on a bogus "test" to let a suspect go without a proper investigation.
Should that day occur (that this site is sued) I'd suspect they could raise plenty of money (not to mention ACLU support) to generate the publicity they need to not only expose polygraphy as a fraud, but to defeat the suit.
Bottom line: the last thing the Pro Polygraph community wants is a "free speech" suit against this site, with all the publicity it will bring to this site and polygraphy. Unless this suit is brought in a "secret court" I wouldn't expect it to happen. If brought by a private party, I'd expect government efforts to discourgage it.
Actually, it wouldn't matter very much if a competent Judge overturned the suit or not. The point behind many such lawsuits is to bleed one side out of funds and therefore "Win". It's not a matter of law, it's a matter of achieving a goal. Research the many suits launched by the church of Scientology and you will see my point.
Lawsuits considering polygraph occur all the time. After all, despite opinions to the contrary, polygraph results and testimony are used in New Mexico routinely and in other venues provided the prosecution and defense agree. I also agree a lawsuit would be great, as part of the discovery process would include the backgrounds of George Maschke and Dr. Richardson. I personally can't wait.
As for your statement that the polygraph can be easily beaten, I'll place an understanding that you in fact mean screening polygraphs, not other tests which are statistically valid. Although I debate your assertion on the previous matter "the easily part".
If any agency has allowed a Suspect go without proper investigation, I agree they need to be sued and brought to justice. But in reality, how often, if ever, has this occurred?
I don't speak for anyone in the "polygraph community". But most of those that I have met have no problem with a fair assessment of the technique and a furtherance of the field. I consider many polygraphers as close friends and have seen them work well after 15 hours to provide victims with the satisfaction they deserve. Many of my cases which were exhausted after investigation failed to produce any additional leads were successfully resolved by a dedicated polygrapher.
Your reference to a secret court is an interesting one.
It seems odd to me that no one is mentioning a lawsuit against the Office of Technology assessment or the National Academy of Sciences, both of which tested the polygraph and concluded that it is no better than random chance in non-specific issue testing.
So, let's see... Testing the polygraph and determining it is no better than chance in some cases, and significantly less than 100% accurate in other cases is acceptable. That won't get you sued, because that's not irresponsible, right?
But creating a web site where the results of those tests are posted for all to see is irresponsible? Or perhaps posting a web site where individuals with bad polygraph experiences post their stories for all to see is the irresponsible part? Or posting documents which are available to anyone in the country under FOIA? Is that the irresponsible part?
Maybe it is the continuous refusal of people affiliated with this site to give specific advice on the message board to people who want to lie about their background or a crime they've commited? No, that doesn't sound irresponsible to me.
I think it is tragically ironic that instead of admitting that polygraphs are worse than worthless for non-specific issue testing, people are instead putting their energies into censoring the currently available information about them.
The APA should definitely change its motto to: "Dedicated to Truth about YOU, not us."
Quote from: Jeffery on Sep 03, 2005, 02:38 AM...the polygraph...can be easily beaten!
Jeff,
I realize that the above mantra is one of the favorites of the people on this site. I also know that I for one have caught a number of examinees trying to use the methods taught here and elsewhere trying to "beat the box." They have all lost in the end.
However, I would like to pursue this topic down a slightly different road if I may:
After many years as an investigator, I have determined that:
1. Urinalysis screening can be "easily beaten" by the consumption of any number of altering substances, or the use of certain "cleansing techniques."
2. Handwriting exemplars can be "easily beaten" by the application of certain techniques when generating the questioned document and when ordered to provide the exemplar.
3. Rapists are now applying condoms prior to the rape to "beat" the application of DNA examination.
4. Pistols have been seized from gang members in which the barrels have had the identifying lands and grooves (characteristics) removed. Therefore "easily beating" the application of ballistics examination.
5. And of course, gloves are standard issue to any burglar trying to "easily beat" the utilization of fingerprint examination.
Now what would you say, if there were a Website out there that provided detailed instructions in each of these areas (and others)?
What if their mantra was something like "The government has no right to make you submit to these draconian measures in order to "railroad innocent people" into prison?
What if they qualified their rhetoric with statements like "This site is only meant for the innocent? We know that guilty people will use our methods too, but that is okay, because our "intent" is that only the innocent should use our measures."
What would you say?
What would you say to the mom who has just lost her child to a rapist who used the methods you provided to escape detection/prosecution?
What would you say?
Regards,
Nonombre :-/
Nonombre,
It would be entirely consistent with your stated logic to hold glove makers accountable if someone uses their product to avoid leaving fingerprints at a crime scene. Even though the glove manufacturer intended for those gloves to be used to protect someone's hands, the fact that they could easily be used to avoid identification at a crime scene would make the glove manufacturer responsible. Does that make any sense?
Part of the challenge in living in a society with continuous technological and informational advances is having to do our job despite the easy availability of information and gadgets which make our job more difficult.
If someone commits a crime and has learned how to avoid leaving DNA, or how to avoid leaving tool marks, or how to avoid leaving fingerprints, what difference does that make? It is still our job to collect evidence, establish probable cause, and arrest them. Would it make our job easier if none of that information existed? Sure, be that's not something that we can control.
The government and law enforcement cannot attempt to control the dissemination of information. If you start down that road where will you logically stop?
Quote from: Sergeant1107 on Sep 03, 2005, 01:56 PMNonombre,
It would be entirely consistent with your stated logic to hold glove makers accountable if someone uses their product to avoid leaving fingerprints at a crime scene. Even though the glove manufacturer intended for those gloves to be used to protect someone's hands, the fact that they could easily be used to avoid identification at a crime scene would make the glove manufacturer responsible. Does that make any sense?
Ah, but Sergeant, I would have absolutely no argument with the glove manufacturer. My argument would be with the website that advised the would be burglar on exactly which type of glove to buy, which material would be the best is order to provide the most mobility and yet still avoid detection.
I would be against the site that taught the best crime scenes in which to wear the gloves and how to dispose of the gloves in such a fashion as to assure that the police never found them.
And I would be against the site that justified its actions by claiming it was performing some sort of "public service."
Now I do stipulate that things do change and as you imply we have to stay one step ahead. We have to accept that the bad guys are at least as interested in avoiding detection as we are in making sure they don't get away.
However, I do maintain that we all have to accept responsibility for what we say and do. If I was to operate a web site that taught how to make explosives and someone used my information to kill his neighbor, then I should be held civilly and/or criminally liable.
Regards,
Nonombre
Nonombre
I'm at a loss at comprehending the statements of you and other polygraphers.
In one breath all of you say you can catch 100% of all who use countermeasures. In the second breath you condem this site for providing information that allows criminals to beat the polygraph. If you can catch countermeasures, then what is your problem with this site? The information provided here is useless.
uiop
What Federal Statue or section thereof could a lawsuit be brought? Also, under what jurisdiction? Federal court is the ONLY venue here but, what jurisdiction?
I would contribute heavily to the defense if the other side had the funds to fade a multi-million dollar countersuit. Hell, I would contribute heavily if they didn't. I don't think a federal judge would accept an action against free speach.
to Quote
It seems odd to me that no one is mentioning a lawsuit against the Office of Technology assessment or the National Academy of Sciences, both of which tested the polygraph and concluded that it is no better than random chance in non-specific issue testing.
Well, Sergeant, have you read either document? Are you familiar with the research and the lack of research that went into these studies? The bias that effected the "outcome" I submit you read and research both and then allow an open minded critique of both items you cited. Unlike the allegations often lodged on this cite, I am completely open to any and all well thought out criticism of any technique available to law enforcement. I have read both documents and for some reason, I seem to feel differently about the "results". I was disappointed that the Academy did not take ALL available studies and information and disregarded the findings of several agencies in the process of preparing their document.
To quote...
What Federal Statue or section thereof could a lawsuit be brought? Also, under what jurisdiction? Federal court is the ONLY venue here but, what jurisdiction?
Please reread my posting where I clearly stated I am not an attorney and will not discuss matters beyond my expertise. I satted, and will state again that the day is coming when I feel this site will be under some legal recourse. Free speech? Hmmm. I think Nonombre makes a lot of sense.
I have to say that I simply don't understand these responses.
This site is not encouraging anyone to break the law. This site is not providing any classified material to anyone. This site is not advocating that people lie.
It is the opinion of the people who created this site that the polygraph requires examinees to be ignorant of the "testing" procedure. This site provides information on the "testing" procedure, which they believe will make it more difficult to fool people into believing the polygraph will detect their lies.
It is also the opinion of the people who created this site that augmenting specific mental and physical reactions during specific parts of the "testing" procedure will not be detected and will help prevent the examinee from being labeled as deceptive. Information on how and when to use such countermeasures is therefore available on this site.
This site makes reference to studies by the OTA and the NAS which concluded that polygraph testing was not as accurate as it was claimed to be. This site also provides the opportunity for people who feel they have unfairly "failed" a polygraph to tell their side of the story.
Polygraph supporters have continuously argued that examinee knowledge of the "testing" process is not a factor in determining the accuracy of the polygraph. It logically follows that they can't be upset that such knowledge is available here.
Polygraph supporters have also argued continuously and vehemently that countermeasures are easily detectable and don't work anyway. It logically follows that they can't be upset about countermeasure information being available on this site.
Polygraph supporters have also argued that the OTA and NAS studies were biased and inaccurate, and that polygraphs actually have an accurate rate of 80%, 90%, or even higher. Logically they can't be upset about a web site that refers to such studies when they believe those studies were biased and inaccurate to begin with. I also don't see how they could be upset about personal accounts by people who feel they were unfairly treated.
Again, I just don't understand their responses. What are they so upset about? Why are they threatening lawsuits and making denigrating comments about the site creators' lack of personal responsibility?
Sergeant wrote......"Again, I just don't understand their responses. What are they so upset about? Why are they threatening lawsuits and making denigrating comments about the site creators' lack of personal responsibility?"
Well, I guess you don't understand because you are not making an arguement in response to any criticism. I could say just as easily...If polygraph isn't accurate, then why need countermeasures? If polygraphers are fat, lazy cavemen, why need countermeasures?
I strongly suggest that ths site will stand a lawsuit. I have never threatened to bring one. Quote where I have done so.
Nonombre and Dark Cobra, who are apparantly polygraphers, make some very interesting points. Why not argue the points?
Use of countermeasures, if detected will place the innocent practitioner in a position of looking guilty. I have personally witnessed someone who was caught and admitted to the use of countermeasures lose out on an opportunity. Everyone who enters the federal hiring process has his/her case looked at by an adjudicator, who makes reccommendations.
People who don't use drugs don't buy cleansing agents to defeat drug tests. Such is my arguement against countermeasures. Before you go there, I know, I know. Polygraph is innaccurate and countermeasures are necessary to give a "truthful chart". Well, since the two agencies I took my polygraphs with used the R/I technique I lack the knowledge to understand what benefit use of countermeasures would have been.
regards,..
uiop
As I asked nonombre, if countermeasures are so easily detected, what is the problem you have with this site? As yet no response from nonombre. Also, who would spend the time and money to sue a website that lists useless information. I thick this picture needs much more clarification like what you think is sueable in this website. Could it be that polygraphers KNOW that catching countermeasure is pure chance and are using scare tactics to future examinees?
Twoblock. I think your "question" is an attempt at baiting, which may be the reason why you have no response from Nonombre. In regard to your other question about my outlining actionable information or content, please refer to my previous postings. In regard to your statement of "catching countermeasures being pure chance", refer to studies produced prior to 2001 which discussed this issue and also to the latest edition of "The lie behind the lie detector" which advises not using the anal spincter as a countermeasure. So, if catching countermeasures is pure chance, this seems to be an interesting update to the material.
regards,
uiop,
To what studies do you refer? The peer-reviewed literature (see studies by Honts and others, abstracts provided in the bibliography of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector) showed that even experienced examiners were unable to detect countermeasures at better-than-chance levels of accuracy.
uiop
If I am baiting, it is baiting for intellegent answers to valid questions.
I was on my college debate team. I won a very large percentage of my debates by giving intellegent answers to EVERY question asked and covering every aspect of the debate. If the other side refused/coundn't answer portions of the subject matter, they lost.
You made a statement, more tha once, about this site being sued. Surely you have a reason for making that statement. It struck me that you might have heard something to that effect or that you read something here that caused you to make that statement. You don't have to be a lawyer or know one iota about the law to give your reason for making that statement. So don't use that as a crutch.
As I stated, nonombre and other polygraphers has bragged that they will catch anyone using countermeasures. If that is so, doesn't it render countermeasure information on this site moot? If the info is useless then why do they constantly rail against George and this website? As I remember, one polygrapher did say "send them to us, George, and we will catch them". If he can, then give him a mark on the blackboard.
uiop, there is nothing in this post that requires legal knowledge to answer. Therefore, if you care to respond, please don't use "political sidestep".
There was a polygrapher that posted on this site, a long time ago, that I admired. His handle was Public Servant. He debated from the vest. I even offered him a moose hunt in Alaska. He put forth his side of the debate and left. He didn't continue to rail against George and this site.
Quote from: Twoblock on Sep 04, 2005, 08:07 PMuiop
You made a statement, more tha once, about this site being sued. Surely you have a reason for making that statement. It struck me that you might have heard something to that effect or that you read something here that caused you to make that statement. You don't have to be a lawyer or know one iota about the law to give your reason for making that statement. So don't use that as a crutch.
As I stated, nonombre and other polygraphers has bragged that they will catch anyone using countermeasures. If that is so, doesn't it render countermeasure information on this site moot? If the info is useless then why do they constantly rail against George and this website? As I remember, one polygrapher did say "send them to us, George, and we will catch them". If he can, then give him a mark on the blackboard.
uiop, there is nothing in this post that requires legal knowledge to answer. Therefore, if you care to respond, please don't use "political sidestep".
Twoblock,
If I may, please allow me to jump into the discussion and make a couple of points:
#1. I never "bragged" that I will catch anyone using countermeasures. In fact, I am sure that I have probably been "beat" more than once. I will tell you this however. I have caught a good number of people attempting the countermeasures taught on this site and when I catch them, they lose the very thing they were attempting to gain (job, plea agreement, etc). Sooo, my message to anyone in my testing room who might be looking to attempt the measures taught on this site is best put in the words of one of my favorite movie stars..."You feel lucky....Punk?"
#2. I have no information about anybody (government or private) getting ready to sue this site. I know what I was trying to put across (and I think uiop as well) is that in this country, anybody can sue anyone at any time over anything and stand a good chance of winning.
Remember the old lady who sued McDonald's because the coffee was to hot and scalded her? How about the NYC mugger who sued because he had been shot by a prostate NYC transit policeman he (the mugger) was literally beating the crap out of? The civil court ruled he should have been allowed to finish the beating and leave without having to fear being shot by the victim he was beating senseless.
Fact is, court records are literally STUFFED with examples of people who sued and won over some of the most insane things.
Now consider this: The mother of a dead 12 year old girl who sues Anti-polygraph.org because the perpetrator (a convicted sex offender) learned how to "beat" his post conviction exam with the material downloaded from this site.
Ah, but "Wait" says the lawyer representing Maschke and company. If the local government had not relied on this "pseudo science," this perp would have never been given a test he could "beat" so easily.
The government puts Mr. Polygraph examiner on the stand who promptly produces reams of information gleaned from other sex offenders who apparently did not discover this "public service" website. They did not learn how to "beat" a polygraph so easily. In their cases, they appropriately failed their exams, confessed to all the ugly stuff they were doing, and were promptly stuffed back into jail cells where they belonged (and before they could hurt anyone else).
All but one it seems. The animal that raped and murdered this poor 12-year-old girl...He was "educated." He learned well. Mr sex offender was a good 'poster child" for this "public service" website.
Now the question I have is a simple one. If an old lady can sue McDonalds for millions of dollars over hot coffee? I mean, McDonalds never "intentionally" planned on hurting the old woman. they had no prior knowledge, no plan of action. They just served her hot coffee, the way everyone wants it.
Oh, but Anti-polygraph.org is a very different story indeed. The actions they take, the material they provide, is quite intentional indeed. They know EXACTLY what they are doing. They have even admitted many, many, times that they are FULLY AWARE this material may and in fact HAS fallen into the wrong hands. But that is "okay," for they are performing (in their eyes) a public service for the greater good. They are simply exercising their "freedom of speech."
Tell that to the mother of a dead little girl...
Yes my friends, this lawsuit is most definately coming. I feel it in my bones. Maybe the fact that Mr. Maschke resides out of the country will provide him some protection. Maybe not...
Regards,
Nonombre
NoNombre,
I would expect responses like this from no brain cretons or from inept and callious people to resort to legal challenges. Likewise scared and pompous examiners trying to scare folks not to believe what george and company have provided. Lets see this web site is hosted in Canada and again free to all. Whats wrong mr psychophysiologist, this site doing you and the voodoo you do into ground. LIke anything produced in the free world it has both dark and light capabilities .... anything built for honest purposes can be used for dark and evil things .... Its a risk that a free society must endure. You and the rest of your interrogators must be feeling the heat knowing that you better start thinking of new careers. Oh I can think of one, "Would you like fries with that shake ", McD's is always hiring. Because its about the only thing your most likely qualified for. Next time in a war of wits please come armed, and again the counter measures work, too bad you just can't detect them. EJ .... Facts there is no substitute
nonombre
# 1. Maybe "bragged" was a tiny bit strong in your case but, in your posts you were rather "upbeat" about your ability to detect countermeasures. Others have openly bragged.
#2. I didn't include you in this statement. It was uiop that made the statement. I agree that lawsuits may be brought against anyone for far almost anything, but why wouldn't you and uiop include Doug Williams since his for profit website was offering this info years before this site was in existance? There are other websites also. This and other reasons is why I maintain that legal action against this site wouldn't make it to the discovery stage.
As re: to what I would say to your example woman whos 12 yr. old daughter was raped and murdered by a scumbag pervert who beat the machine and its operator, "sue the hell out of the state parole office, the PO and the poly operator for stupidly putting so much faith in a machine that can be easily beaten.
The polygraph community would be illadvised to get involved in such a lawsuit. I can "feel it in my bones" that would be the death of the polygraph.
You haven't responded to an important question. That is what percentage accuracy you would put on detecting countermeasures; 50, 70, 80, 90 %? Surely you wouldn't say 100%. If you say 80% or above, wouldn't that make the info on this site useless?
If I have missed responding to anything, please call me on it.
You made a statement, more tha once, about this site being sued. Surely you have a reason for making that statement. It struck me that you might have heard something to that effect or that you read something here that caused you to make that statement. You don't have to be a lawyer or know one iota about the law to give your reason for making that statement. So don't use that as a crutch.
uiop, there is nothing in this post that requires legal knowledge to answer. Therefore, if you care to respond, please don't use "political sidestep".
Forgive me if I misunderstood your question. Bear with my. If you are asking for my reason as to why I think this site willbe sued, I'll state the obvious. This site produces information, regardless of the larger debate of accuracy of polygraph, which will eventually (frankly I'm surprised it hasn't yet) come to the attention of a victims family. Then and there, an attorney will sue on behalf of his client and their family. It's not hard to see that. Am I aware of such a situation? No. Is that clear enough? I will continue not to reason actionable aspects of the case as the Law is not my expertise. I assure you there was no "political sidestep" or use of a crutch involved. Merely I will not debate the law as I don't posess an adequate legal background.
regards,
Quote from: Twoblock on Sep 04, 2005, 11:57 PMnonombre
# 1. Maybe "bragged" was a tiny bit strong in your case but, in your posts you were rather "upbeat" about your ability to detect countermeasures. Others have openly bragged.
#2. I didn't include you in this statement. It was uiop that made the statement. I agree that lawsuits may be brought against anyone for far almost anything, but why wouldn't you and uiop include Doug Williams since his for profit website was offering this info years before this site was in existance? There are other websites also. This and other reasons is why I maintain that legal action against this site wouldn't make it to the discovery stage.
As re: to what I would say to your example woman whos 12 yr. old daughter was raped and murdered by a scumbag pervert who beat the machine and its operator, "sue the hell out of the state parole office, the PO and the poly operator for stupidly putting so much faith in a machine that can be easily beaten.
The polygraph community would be illadvised to get involved in such a lawsuit. I can "feel it in my bones" that would be the death of the polygraph.
You haven't responded to an important question. That is what percentage accuracy you would put on detecting countermeasures; 50, 70, 80, 90 %? Surely you wouldn't say 100%. If you say 80% or above, wouldn't that make the info on this site useless?
If I have missed responding to anything, please call me on it.
Twoblock,
Thank you for responding. I much prefer debating you over the mindless likes of EosJupiter and others of his caliber.
I guess I should get right to your question. My answer is I truly don't know the percentage of success in detecting countermeasures. I am not sure how anyone would know. I am willing to admit it is probably not 100%. I do believe very strongly based on my personal experience that we catch a large percentage, even the vast majority. Truth is though, I really don't know...:(
So I guess that based on a motivational standpoint, this reality probably serves to separate our population back into two groups. The guilty will probably feel they have nothing to lose by attempting countermeasures...
The innocent will wonder if they should "throw the dice."
I would advise them not to.
'nough said...
Nonombre
Dog gone it, nonombre, you finally cut through the fog on one point. You believe that you catch a vast majority. You should believe in what you're doing. Otherwise you're just satisfied with drawing a paycheck. However you didn't touch the other questions. Importantly, your problem with this site. Do you really think the info herein contained is useful to a criminal? If I was confident in my ability I would enjoy my "catch'em & wreck'em workshop. I would say send'em on down. On the other hand if I believed the info was useful enough to beat me even 20% of the time, as a polygrapher I would be worried to hell and back. I would request to go back the beat. I just can't tolerate 80% efficiency from me or anyone else. And when it comes to wrecking some innocent person's job opportunity --- hell I won't even go there now. It's almost my bedtime.
Quote from: Twoblock on Sep 05, 2005, 01:21 AM--- hell I won't even go there now. It's almost my bedtime.
Good night Twoblock and sweet dreams. More debate tomorrow, I'm sure...
Nonombre
Nonombre
Caliber, well I usually prefer .50 depleted uranium rounds, but thats a story for another night. Lets see, you seem to need a refresher in constitutional law, and please do pay attention, as some of the words may be either to big or too painful for you to handle.
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
The part that directly relates to polygraph exams is:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons
Article V:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Heres is the important part:
nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law
The polygraph by shear intent and use, and by signing any of the waivers involved in the examinations circumvents these 2 protections. And you polygraphers enjoy the fact that most subjects have no idea what their rights are. So now pay attention, mr polygrapher this may elude you, in employing a polygraph, not only are you invading the security of my person, but you are trying to get me to incriminate myself and denying me, my liberties. This includes unreasonable search. This also applies to pre-employment polygraphs as well, when they were outlawed in the US, the Courts directly quoted the 4th and 5th Amendments. And if I sound like a lawyer, I will let you decide, but I will soon finish law school, and, I plan on being a defense lawyer, and for good or bad everyone is entitled to a competent and thorough defense. And I will be damned if anyone of my clients will ever be advised to to take a polygraph or if they do, they will be forarmed and advised to use CM's
Now lets see what caliber you are ....
So when I pull up in my Lexus and order a cheese burger, please do have it hot at the pick up window.
EJ...... Facts their is no substitute
Dear All,
Uiop and Nonombre are hardly the first polygraph supporters to publicly fantasize about a lawsuit being filed against AntiPolygraph.org. But perhaps our pro-polygraph friends should be careful what they wish for. Because of the significant 1st Amendment issues involved, any such lawsuit could very well result in the spotlight of national media attention being focused on some very dark corners of polygraph practice.
In the meantime, as of today, Dr. Richardson's challenge has gone 1,316 days without takers...
George, Your warning against a wish for a lawsuit was telling.
I would expect you would be encouraging such a lawsuit so your legal merits could shine through. I feel this is not the case. I think a lawsuit would bring this site and many of the true named supporters under some unwelcome scrutiny.
Quote from: uiop on Sep 05, 2005, 01:03 PMGeorge, Your warning against a wish for a lawsuit was telling.
I would expect you would be encouraging such a lawsuit so your legal merits could shine through. I feel this is not the case. I think a lawsuit would bring this site and many of the true named supporters under some unwelcome scrutiny.
So sue me. ;)
Quote from: EosJupiter on Sep 05, 2005, 02:45 AMNonombre
Caliber, well I usually prefer .50 depleted uranium rounds, but thats a story for another night. Lets see, you seem to need a refresher in constitutional law, and please do pay attention, as some of the words may be either to big or too painful for you to handle....
...And if I sound like a lawyer, I will let you decide, but I will soon finish law school, and, I plan on being a defense lawyer, and for good or bad everyone is entitled to a competent and thorough defense. And I will be damned if anyone of my clients will ever be advised to to take a polygraph or if they do, they will be forarmed and advised to use CM's
Now lets see what caliber you are ....
So when I pull up in my Lexus and order a cheese burger, please do have it hot at the pick up window.
Mr. EosJupiter, what is your position on client control?
Good luck on your bar exam.
Nonombre
Uiop wrote:
QuoteI would expect you would be encouraging such a lawsuit so your legal merits could shine through. I feel this is not the case. I think a lawsuit would bring this site and many of the true named supporters under some unwelcome scrutiny.
Get out the microscope and put me on a slide. ;D
I concur Brandon ..... !!! :)
Let the light shine in, The defense team on this lawsuit would have way too much fun !!! Because opinions and conjecture are easily defeated, just like a polygraph, and watching the cockroaches scurry for darkness out of the light would be an interesting imperical exercise. Thanks George for getting this thread back on track .... And the challenge goes on !!
EJ ..... Facts, their is no substitute !!!
Ahh, George. Degrading yourself to such a level rather than defend your position?
Brandon. No meaningful input from you either? I'm surprised.
Eos. Try a grammar class. You may find it useful.
Nonombre: Why waste anymore time?
Quote from: uiop on Sep 05, 2005, 08:21 PMAhh, George. Degrading yourself to such a level rather than defend your position?
Brandon. No meaningful input from you either? I'm surprised.
Eos. Try a grammar class. You may find it useful.
Nonombre: Why waste anymore time?
I cannot understand for the life of me why you and nonombre make light of a very hurtful situation and even more so defend a completely useless device. Just because your personal career was not derailed or you weren't personally slandered does not mean that your system is perfect. Your lack of empathy speaks volumes. You and nonombre are the type of individuals who fail to think outside of the box - that because something was not written in a textbook and your experiences were favorably similar to those in the textbook - that anything else would be completely incredible.
But I guess that's just human nature - to believe only in those experiences we go through.
Remember, even those people living in the Hitlerian era believed that it was right to kill people of other ethnicities - because the government preached to it and so the great majority of the people thought it was right. Did it make it right? The truth is that even then, very few people thought outside of the box - either because they were afraid or because they actually believed that because the government implemented this rule, it
must be right. I think the latter is your way of thinking.
And yes, do tell Nonombre not to waste his time because after what we've been through (some more than others) it's a no-win situation.
OK Uiop, you dragged me in, even if for only a moment. For myself personally, I have nothing to hide. Thus my willingness to use my real name and post experiences which can easily identify me, at least to those who practice polygraphy. You are addressing a portion of the information available on this site as if it was chapter 12 of the Anarchist's Cookbook. This site does not provide information which diagrams bomb-building, etc. That clearly is not the case. Would you be hopeful for legal action against sites which publish information about ammunition re-loading. Surely that information could be viewed and implemented by persons of an unsavory nature. It would seem that the large argument is that information which places polygraphy under scrutiny is available and that is just fine. Until it is condensed so as to eliminate the vast research time necessary by individuals.
Such a lawsuit against this site would be quickly quashed. Seems I remember some little something about FREEDOM OF SPEECH. It is not as if we are in a crowded theatre yelling fire or an airplane yelling bomb. If you so much prefer totalitarian rule perhaps you would be better suited in a country such as North Korea. There are plenty of things I do not like that are protected by freedom of speech. But you cannot have it both ways.
I like the example Nonombre provided of the killed twelve year old girl. The scum bag got away because he employed counter measures learned on the internet, more specifically Antipolygraph.org (as I would assume was the meaning). Well, maybe if you looked into his past the trigger that brought out and awakened this behavior was pornography. But wait that is protected also. So by that the mother would also be entitled to sue anyone who has ever purchased smut because they are supporters.
So you see, while there is the possiblity of a lawsuit your point is leaning heavily toward ridiculous nonsense.
Quote from: uiop on Sep 05, 2005, 08:21 PMAhh, George. Degrading yourself to such a level rather than defend your position?
Uiop,
I do not see how I have in any way degraded myself. It should be abundantly clear that fear of lawsuits has not and will not deter AntiPolygraph.org from making the truth about polygraphs publicly known.
I note that you have not responded to the question that I put to you on 4 September 2005 (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=418.msg18068#msg18068):
QuoteTo what studies do you refer? The peer-reviewed literature (see studies by Honts and others, abstracts provided in the bibliography of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector) showed that even experienced examiners were unable to detect countermeasures at better-than-chance levels of accuracy.
As of today, 1,317 days have passed since Dr. Richardson issued his polygraph countermeasure challenge (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=418.msg1942#msg1942).
I think that a civil trial would cast far too much light on the polygraph for it to survive. If the essence of the lawsuit would be that this site is liable for providing information on how to "beat" a polygraph it would logically raise certain questions which would have to be answered before a verdict could be rendered:
1. How accurate is the polygraph to begin with?
2. How effective are the countermeasures listed on the web site? How effectively can their use be detected?
3. Do guilty people ever pass the polygraph without using countermeasures (false negatives)?
4. Do innocent people ever fail the polygraph (false positives)?
5. Is there any other source for the information listed on this site?
I believe that in any trial where the above questions are brought up, the house of cards that is the polygraph would have a difficult time surviving.
A trial would not permit polygraph examiners the kind of control they have over other public appearances, such as when Ed Gelb appears on various TV shows to utilize the polygraph in an atmosphere where it is presumed to be 100% accurate. There would be hard questions that would have to be answered.
I think one of the most convincing arguments this site could present, and one that the jury would absolutely love, would be people like me on the witness stand, telling about the three false positives I experienced while applying to be a police officer. Three polygraphs I failed despite telling the complete truth on each one and despite not even knowing what a countermeasure was at the time, much less attempt to use one. Three polygraph tests in which the examiner solemnly told me that they, and not the machine, were the true "lie detectors" and that there was no hope of getting away with telling a lie in their presence.
At the end of my testimony I'm sure I would be asked if, in my experience, the polygraph is accurate. I would be able to sit there as a experienced and decorated police sergeant and Army veteran and swear under oath that I was telling the complete truth in all four of my polygraphs, but the examiners apparently couldn't discern that so I failed my first three. Not only do I not believe the polygraph is accurate, I know from personal experience it is not. I am experienced in courtroom testimony. The jury would believe me.
I'm sure George could find many, many others much more qualified than I who would also be eager to give their side of the story to the jury.
Quote from: Sergeant1107 on Sep 06, 2005, 12:25 PMI3.
4. Do innocent people ever fail the polygraph (false positives)?
>:( Yes - use me as the living proof of a guinea pig
Yes,
I was falsely accused of using countermeasures. Even the "countermeasure" countermeasures are unreliable.
Im willing to fight against the usage of this damn machine.
Because of this "detector of LIES" my family has been torn apart, and my reputation ruined. >:(
Quote from: George W. Maschke on Sep 05, 2005, 06:03 AMDear All,
Uiop and Nonombre are hardly the first polygraph supporters to publicly fantasize about a lawsuit being filed against AntiPolygraph.org. But perhaps our pro-polygraph friends should be careful what they wish for. Because of the significant 1st Amendment issues involved, any such lawsuit could very well result in the spotlight of national media attention being focused on some very dark corners of polygraph practice.
I wish someone would shine the light Gorge. That would help the good examiners and weed out the bad ones.
I will defend your right to say what ever you want and hope you will do the same for me. A lot of valid points are made here. I should thank you.
you guys helped me through polygraph school, and are helping me aviod mistakes that other examiners make.
I find most on this forum have great ideas and should be listened to. You seem to be willing to listen, so am I. lets learn from eachother people and have some adult debate.
Anyone with me?
In the meantime, as of today, Dr. Richardson's challenge has gone 1,316 days without takers...
Quote from: El_Gringo_Pao on Nov 12, 2005, 12:04 PM Im willing to fight against the usage of this damn machine.
Because of this "detector of LIES" my family has been torn apart, and my reputation ruined. >:(
El_Gringo_Pao,
you can truly fight this machine by not voluntarily subjecting yourself to this pseudo science called polygraphy. there are other means of finding the truth, with factual evidence and thorough investigations. not reliance on a box with wires running out of it, especially when an examiner who puts his/her total faith in this box.
What kind of sedatives are helpful in producing a truthful chart?
What amounts of those sedatives should be taken?
How long prior to the exam should those be taken?
What affect will those sedatives have?
Will the polygrapher know that sedatives have been taken?
Last, is it true that a Florida examiner has to rule either "pass" or "fail". I was told that "inconclusives" don't exist there.
Thank you!
I wonder if Uiop and Nonombre could ever pass a polygraph? Would they use the same type of deception as they use on others? Would two deceptions cancel each other out? How does one truly become a polygraph examiner, or why would someone become one for that matter? I guess these questions are imponderables only to be guessed at. If we would get answers, we would have to question if there was deception indicated. :o
Quote from: Trooper on Dec 17, 2005, 01:21 PMWhat kind of sedatives are helpful in producing a truthful chart?
What amounts of those sedatives should be taken?
How long prior to the exam should those be taken?
What affect will those sedatives have?
Will the polygrapher know that sedatives have been taken?
Last, is it true that a Florida examiner has to rule either "pass" or "fail". I was told that "inconclusives" don't exist there.
Thank you!
Trooper,
Because the most commonly used polygraph technique, the so-called "Control Question Test," is scored by comparing the examinee's reactions to relevant questions to his/her reactions to "control" questions, and
not on the basis of the examinee's overall level of reactivity, it is doubtful that sedatives would do much to help one to pass it. See Chapter 3 of
The Lie Behind the Lie Detector (http://antipolygraph.org/lie-behind-the-lie-detector.pdf) for an explanation of polygraph procedure, and Chapter 4 for an explanation of how to pass.
For future reference, note that it would have been more appropriate to have started a new message thread to post your question, rather than posting it in an unrelated message thread. You can do so by clicking on the "Start new topic" link near the top of message lists.
Are we to understand that one must have "legal merits" to comprehend the Constitution? Or are you simply one of those people who think that our natural rights flow from the power of government? We don't need anyone's blessing to speak our minds, sir. I think you would benefit from a careful reading of Bernard Bailyn's _Ideological Origins of the American Revolution_. What a small man you must be.
Quote from: uiop on Sep 05, 2005, 01:03 PMGeorge, Your warning against a wish for a lawsuit was telling.
I would expect you would be encouraging such a lawsuit so your legal merits could shine through. I feel this is not the case. I think a lawsuit would bring this site and many of the true named supporters under some unwelcome scrutiny.
Thanks, George for your reply. ;D
Duly noted and my post was moved to a new thread.
Thank you, sir.
As of today, 28 January 2006, Dr. Richardson's polygraph countermeasure challenge has now gone four years without a single taker!
Its a great milestone George. Sure hope the APA or DODPI grows some nerve one of these days. In order for the APA to win the hearts and minds of the public they must first prove the polygraph is as good as they claim. Bet you get to year 5 and beyond without any takers.
Regards ....
George,
They are both furious and scared of this site. The polygraph, as performed by the DOD and API, needs its subject to be naive about the process for any chance of intimidation and confessions due to fear of the machine actually working.
They are furious because at the least, the test subject has no anxiety over the test because he is informed and knows the psychological techniques used. Guess what gentlemen, SO DO ALL OF THE SPIES!!!!
They are scared because they have invested so much of their personal prestige, money, time, and careers to have you display that such efforts are meaningless.
I just watched a National Geographic Episode recently where they were trying to save parrots from being captured in South America. The interrogator had one of the suspects hold his GPS navigational device and through a translator told him it was a "lie-detector". The subject "told the truth" not based on the results of the object but in his belief that the object was a lie detector.
I believe any scientific mind who accepts the polygraph machine as it is used today as being scientific is desperate for a job and desperate enough to "look the other way" to keep his job when confronted with ethical issues.
Regards
Quote from: Fair Chance on Jan 28, 2006, 11:27 PMThey are furious because at the least, the test subject has no anxiety over the test because he is informed and knows the psychological techniques used. Guess what gentlemen, SO DO ALL OF THE SPIES!!!!
This was clearly shown in the Aldrich Ames case, where he was advised by his handler to simply relax when taking his polygraph. He did so and passed.
Of course, according to the logic of many polygraph supporters who post here, anyone telling a polygraph subject to "relax" would be guilty of subverting national security and allowing pedophiles to roam the streets.
Sergeant,
What is truly interesting is the development of this thread from its beginning till now. All 13 pages of this thread have one common point. All the polygraphers who come on it use the same tactic and or vailed story about how wrong and useless countermeasures really are. And now here we are 4 years later, really causing pain, grief and anxiety to the polygraph community.
George:
I think Drew needs to send another challenge to the new president of the APA. Maybe he has the stomach for the truth.
Regards ...
Quote from: Drew Richardson on Jan 28, 2002, 02:46 PMSome time ago (11/27/01) as part of a post largely dealing with DoDPI-sanctioned criteria for determining the presence of respiratory-channel response(s), I reiterated a challenge to the polygraph community that I had first made in a public presentation (10/17/01) to the National Academy of Sciences panel investigating the validity of polygraph screening. That challenge (which has not yet been accepted or even really responded to) was made as follows:
Although I am happy for this basic format to be modified to a design having sufficient power to reasonably allow for reaching levels of statistical significance for any results obtained, I believe it is very important that this process and outcome(s) be publicly available and, if possible, covered by any interested media outlet. I believe this is an appropriate time to renew this challenge for the following reasons: (1) It has languished far too long without a meaningful reply, (2) As we begin a new year, it will be interesting to see how far in the year we progress with those who promote CQT polygraph testing continuing to cower from the truth about its weaknesses, and (3) the current thread dealing with the validity of polygraph screening should be viewed in the light of realizing that any (I believe substantial) lack of validity of CQT polygraph testing in the absence of countermeasures is only greatly exacerbated with the application of properly applied countermeasures.
Your challenge has been addressed in a different string on this web site.
I believe the person responding was another examiner that stated he would take on the challenge under the conditions that if the examiner succeeded in beating the person making the challenge, that antipolygraph.org and it's rights would be turned over to him.
if the examiner failed you guys get bragging rights and his licenses and he would never run another test again.
I thought this was a fair acceptance and wager. But I have yet to see you step up.
Seems there is a lot of talk. This guy was going to put up and all other posters ragged him down until I guess he left. I Guess that is how people are silenced here. Would you are the "spy" be willing to put the web domain on line to prove your points or not.
If not, doesn't that make you bigger cowards then the "evil people" you hate so very much.
I will find you answer both entertaining and amusing.
Two days with no reply, I'm not shocked :-/
Quote from: Boston on Mar 06, 2006, 01:35 AMYour challenge has been addressed in a different string on this web site.
I believe the person responding was another examiner that stated he would take on the challenge under the conditions that if the examiner succeeded in beating the person making the challenge, that antipolygraph.org and it's rights would be turned over to him.
if the examiner failed you guys get bragging rights and his licenses and he would never run another test again.
I thought this was a fair acceptance and wager. But I have yet to see you step up.
Seems there is a lot of talk. This guy was going to put up and all other posters ragged him down until I guess he left. I Guess that is how people are silenced here. Would you are the "spy" be willing to put the web domain on line to prove your points or not.
If not, doesn't that make you bigger cowards then the "evil people" you hate so very much.
I will find you answer both entertaining and amusing.
Boston's reference to "a different string on this website" seems to be to the following two passages, posted by ODIN with reference to Dr. Richardson's polygraph countermeasure challenge in the message thread "took the test" (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=2737.msg19350#msg19350) on 9 December 2005:
QuotePut something on the table. If your minions fail there should be a price and that price should be antipolygraph.org and it's rights to be given up to the winning examiner.
and
QuoteThe only begging I will hear some day is "Please don't take my web site". Because it is my mission now to not only make polygraph commonly admissable, but to take that chalenge and take this web site. If I don't I will give up my license and by then I will be bigger than Backster or Reid. That is my Goal.
Perhaps Boston's vivid recollection of these posts can be explained by the fact that both he and ODIN posted from the same IP address.
Dr. Richardson's polygraph challenge is not a wager. And in any event, Boston/ODIN seems unlikely to meet the preliminary qualification of being "from the ranks of federal polygraph instructors or operators, leading civilian polygraphers or any other group whose credentials and experience would be deemed impeccable in polygraph circles." (See the initial post (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=418.msg1942#msg1942) in this message thread.)
Moreover, even if Dr. Richardson's challenge
were a wager (which again, it is not), Boston/ODIN's polygraph license would be of little to no value to AntiPolygraph.org.
Quote from: Boston on Mar 07, 2006, 09:36 PMTwo days with no reply, I'm not shocked :-/
Can you say !!! BUSTED !!!!!!!
I thought those posts a familiar odor !!!
Guess you were deamed deceptive (DI) again ODIN.
;D
Quote from: EosJupiter on Mar 08, 2006, 12:52 PM
Can you say !!! BUSTED !!!!!!!
I thought those posts a familiar odor !!!
Guess you were deamed deceptive (DI) again ODIN.
;D
I believe that smell would be the smell of a cop out.
You copped out then, you cop out now.
Any reason you can I guess.
Nice!!!!!!!!
Well Guess you guys can or won't put your money where your mouth is.
Easy to talk big behind insults.
By the way, I wouldn't have posted at all if I didn't expect to be outed. I am not stupid.
You guys out Federal Agents by posting names.
You give care and comfort to the enemy by telling Muslim extremists how to beat the polygraph.
You guys are brave behind your little walls.
Well Mr. Spy I guess you showed what you are made of. It's now public, you guys won't back up your talk.
Threatened by little old me...
You guys had your chance to step up to the plate.
I doubt even it I was a leader in the private sector, that you would step up to the plate.
If I am wrong then put it on the table, maybe someone more worthy will pick up the sword.
Or is that what you want to avoid?
Clock is still ticking.
I won't be yelled down this time.
What has it been 3 maybe 4 days now.
Little poodles pretending to be bulldogs. If your are so very confident then come out and play. If no one takes it then you guys look bigger, but then if you do you risk being exposed.
By the way George Patriot act was renewed.... Worried? You should be, I
would think.
Boston,
You have little to complain about regarding Dr. Richardson's countermeasure challenge. First, you never accepted it (and you are in no position to change the terms). Second, it is evident that you lack the requisite credentials.
However, as it is a wager you seek, see my response to your suggestion that such a wager be mediated by Penn & Teller here (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=1908.msg20699#msg20699).
;D
QuoteSecond, it is evident that you lack the requisite credentials.
As a reminder to those viewing this thread, the credentials were specified by Dr. Richardson to preempt what would surely be the response from the polygraph cognoscenti subsequent to someone like Odin/Boston going down in flames.
They will simply and predictably hoist the "examiner inexperience" flag up the pole, tell us once again about how the test is only as good as the examiner, and that a true polygraph professional would have easily detected the countermeasures.
Without putting this anticipated shenanigan on the sideline beforehand, the whole point of the challenge would be worthless, no?
Quote from: George W. Maschke on Mar 09, 2006, 08:03 AMBoston,
You have little to complain about regarding Dr. Richardson's countermeasure challenge. First, you never accepted it (and you are in no position to change the terms). Second, it is evident that you lack the requisite credentials.
However, as it is a wager you seek, see my response to your suggestion that such a wager be mediated by Penn & Teller here (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=1908.msg20699#msg20699).
;D
My terms are clear.
Besides I thought I wasn't good enough for you, and is your wager open to ALL examiners to take?
Quote from: Boston on Mar 10, 2006, 10:17 PM
My terms are clear.
Besides I thought I wasn't good enough for you, and is your wager open to ALL examiners to take?
Yes, the wager (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=1908.msg20699#msg20699) I offered you is open to
all polygraph examiners.
And here i say the same thing
I'm against polygraph ; how many lives have been ruined by polygraph?? , many people become nerveous even if they say the truth.
And polygraph failed , MILITAR EXPERTS , SPIES , DETECTIVES...are trained to beat detector lie , Do you remember the case of FBI agent who beat detector lie during years??? Polygraph could not demonstrate nothing against him.
accustomed people to use many tiomes thepolygraph can beat it in the short run , ok , one time two times you can lose against polygraph but in the short run MANY PEOPLE CAN BEAT IT, No matter is there and profesional examinator.
But my question... how militar , spies are trained to beat polygraph?
I'm sure that autosugestion , e.g. if you have stolen in stores , u should think during one week before the polygraph test "i dont have stolen in stores"... i don't know if is effective . but professional know its because they change the question , so u should be prepared.
One thing its clear , people with cool head , can beat polygraph without a doubt .
Those pro-polygraph are capitalist people who only think in sell polygraph , and they are lying because say that polygraph its near to 100% effective , THIS IS REALLY A BIG LIE.
At the most 70% , no more .
cheers
Damn, is anyone gonna ever step up to the plate to accept Andy's polygraph challenge? I imagine coming to this site 3 years down the road, sifting through 50 pages of responses on this thread, and still seeing that no one has accepted the challenge. ;D
Alterego, the polyboys will never come to the plate. Never. Come back in three years, five, ten. They can't do what Dr. Richardson challenges them to do, and they damn sure won't admit that they can be had by one of their own who came clean on what the ploy, er, poly actually consists of. You might as well expect Castro or Kim to open up their political prisons for you.
If I had a new science to put out there, and someone challenged me to prove that x relevant factor of it were scientifically viable, I would jump at the chance... IF I knew I could prove it. If not, well... being an honest man, I would withdraw the product or concept from the marketplace and either improve it or discard it.
Not so the polyboys. They know that their machine is guesswork, pure guesswork, and that they are reading BFB that has -already- been proven to be alterable, controllable in some cases and not in others, and not standardizable as to how it should read. Basically, BFB can read back abc for one person lying, and abc for the next person telling the truth on the same question- with or without the same response. Never mind countermeasures, which throws in a new variable.
The polygraphers lost bigtime with EPPA. They can't lose again, and they will do anything to keep their business...
So Dr. Richardson, good man that he is, may never see his righteous challenge taken up...
Perhaps this is the place to go if I hope to get a reply from Dr. Richardson to a question I've already asked him twice on this forum, the first time a month ago, with no response. Because Dr. Richardson is touted on this website as the be-all, end-all of polygraph expertise, I assume that in addition to his FBI Lab work he's also conducted many polygraphs so that he actually knows what he's talking about, rather than being just another polygraph failure spouting off things he gets second-hand from other polygraph failures. The question is:
As a polygrapher, with all of your experience, did you ever catch an examinee using countermeasures, and if so, how did you know prior to any admission by the examinee?
Oh, and more kudos to me. I just made "Very Senior User." Hoo-rah! Now I can quit posting on this board at any time and feel that my life was a success.
Sunday, 28 January 2007 marks the fifth anniversary of Dr. Drew Richardson's challenge to the polygraph community to prove its claimed ability to detect polygraph countermeasures, and still not a single taker! Nor has a single journal article or book chapter been published in the polygraph literature that explains how a polygrapher may reliably detect polygraph countermeasures!
Ok, let me repeat . . .
Because Dr. Richardson is touted on this website as the be-all, end-all of polygraph expertise, I assume that in addition to his FBI Lab work he's also conducted many polygraphs so that he actually knows what he's talking about, rather than being just another polygraph failure spouting off things he gets second-hand from other polygraph failures. The question is:
As a polygrapher, with all of your experience, did you ever catch an examinee using countermeasures, and if so, how did you know prior to any admission by the examinee?
LieBabyCryBaby,
Countermeasures are of little interest to me personally. I knew about the time I graduated from DoDPI polygraph examiner training some fifteen years ago that lie detection had little to no diagnostic validity IN THE ABSENCE OF EXAMINEE COUNTERMEASURE APPLICATION. My interest in this challenge is simply to demonstrate to those of you who do believe that there is some diagnostic value in what you do for a living that you can be beat any day of the week by any number of people with minimal training. Again, what personally interests and saddens me is that this nonsense is used even if we existed (which we don't) in an environment in which there was an absence of viable and readily applied countermeasures.
Just as I expected, Dr. Richardson. A cop-out. You don't want to answer that question, and we both know why. So, who's the coward now? :o
You would think that Dr R. would know that "programming" individuals in a "mock" crime is 5 times the folly as the proponents of this challenge deem polygraph to be. It seems to me that a challenge that is deemed as "unworthy" of the poly field would encourage the challenger to modify the challenge. Programmed crime scenarios? Please. Not that you care, but any examiner (former) who would make such a challenge has no credibility in any discipline (IMO) :-/.
If you want to test an airplane, ya gotta take it up in the air (field studies), not a wind tunnel (mock/programmed scenarios).
I doubt that famous examiners are "scared" of your challenge---I'm sure that they view the merit of your challenge as silly. Amongst examiners, I don't hear much about your challenge other than one talented examiner who you once worked with called you a (professionally speaking) light-weight douche bag. I thought that that was cruel and crude. ;D
ad hominem(ly) yours, palerider
Quote from: palerider on Mar 04, 2007, 12:31 PM...Not that you care, but any examiner (former) who would make such a challenge has no credibility in any discipline (IMO) :-/.
Dr. Richardson's credibility is not at issue here. What is at issue is the credibility of a polygraph community that claims to be able to detect polygraph countermeasures, but which is unable to produce
any evidence whatsoever to support this claimed ability.
The reason that Dr. Richardson's polygraph countermeasure challenge has gone for more than five years without a single taker is that despite their public claims, polygraphers privately lack confidence in their ability to detect countermeasures and fear a public demonstration of their true abilities (or lack thereof) in this regard.
To state that polygraph examiners secretly have insecurities as to our collective (?) ability to detect countermeasures is like me stating here that you secretly feel like less of a whole man as a result of your desperatley attached failing hairline. It is pure speculation. The basis for his experiment is as developmentally flawed as what you folks claim polygraph practice is. Pursuing deception is like monitoring wild animals, and monitoring an animal who is bought at a pet store and tied to a tree isn't wild now, is it? Dr R has a very silly challenge. He is rather like the single man at the bar who is shouting that women have no sexuality since they ignore his advances. It's really quite embarrassing George.
Quote from: palerider on Mar 04, 2007, 03:58 PMTo state that polygraph examiners secretly have insecurities as to our collective (?) ability to detect countermeasures is like me stating here that you secretly feel like less of a whole man as a result of your desperatley attached failing hairline. It is pure speculation.
No, it's not pure speculation. It's based on information from well-placed, reliable sources. One of those sources is DoDPI instructor Paul Menges, who in an article published by the American Polygraph Association journal
Polygraph went so far as to suggest that providing information about polygraph countermeasures to the public should be criminalized. If polygraphers could reliably detect countermeasures, there would have been no reason for Menges to make such a radical proposal, or for the American Polygraph Association to publish it. (See my reply to Menges' article here (https://antipolygraph.org/articles/article-029.shtml).)
QuoteThe basis for his experiment is as developmentally flawed as what you folks claim polygraph practice is. Pursuing deception is like monitoring wild animals, and monitoring an animal who is bought at a pet store and tied to a tree isn't wild now, is it? Dr R has a very silly challenge. He is rather like the single man at the bar who is shouting that women have no sexuality since they ignore his advances. It's really quite embarrassing George.
There is nothing at all silly about Dr. Richardson's challenge. If polygraphers can reliably detect countermeasures in a field setting, there is no reason they should not be able to do so in a laboratory setting. As things now stand, no polygrapher has ever demonstrated any ability to reliably detect countermeasures in either setting.
Of course there is a differance between laboratory and field research!!!!!! Are you mad??????
Success! I no longer want to argue with you. Your begging the question is getting exhausting and your general argument is so repetitive---I've run out of motivation. I suppose that if the MMPI(?) had shown you to be obsessive compulsive with axisII elevation (or whatever) --thus losing out on a job-----than perhaps you would have a website devoted to the inherant imperfection and gross acceptance of that particular psychometric tool. And one of your points would be that you challenge the psychometric-administering community to detect countermeasures----which of course would be a meaningless challenge. If anything, the activism (against the test/nemisis) would appear to be an expansive version of the patriarch- destruction in psychanalysis. Polygraph was the less than perfect Daddy, who was bigger and better than yourself, but who eventually let you down. AIDS in Africa, Global Warming, Cancer Research-------but no, you chose anti-polygraph. I met a man who picketed a vending machine for shortchanging him. He could have been enjoying the comfort of hearth and family, but something in him cracked. Some people can't take a little incidental screwing.
Although in the big picture , there are no coincidences (IMO).
I haven't posted on here for a while, but I thought I'd ask the same question as I have before but in a slightly different way..
A person goes to a polygraph test not believing that it really works and says so to the examiner - the polygraph examiner smiles and shakes his head and gives a demonstration:
He hooks the guy up and asks a couple of simple questions; the guy tries to lie for each question and is horrified to see that each time he tells a lie, the needle swings wildly. :o
So, is this not proof that the test works?
Or would the needle swing like that whether he lied or not?
Or could could it be that the needle never responds like that at all?
This last possibility strikes me as unlikely since it must be extremely simple to put to the test. But perhaps I'm wrong; is the scenario I have described simply a myth? ???
Quote from: Lord_Darkclaw on Mar 05, 2007, 09:36 AMI haven't posted on here for a while, but I thought I'd ask the same question as I have before but in a slightly different way..
A person goes to a polygraph test not believing that it really works and says so to the examiner - the polygraph examiner smiles and shakes his head and gives a demonstration:
He hooks the guy up and asks a couple of simple questions; the guy tries to lie for each question and is horrified to see that each time he tells a lie, the needle swings wildly. :o
So, is this not proof that the test works?
Or would the needle swing like that whether he lied or not?
Or could could it be that the needle never responds like that at all?
This last possibility strikes me as unlikely since it must be extremely simple to put to the test. But perhaps I'm wrong; is the scenario I have described simply a myth? ???
There is no known telltale physiological response uniquely associated with human deception. Lying may or may not be accompanied by physiological changes measurable by the polygraph instrument. In this regard, see Professor William G. Iacono's article, "Forensic 'Lie Detection': Procedures Without Scientific Basis." (https://antipolygraph.org/articles/article-018.shtml)
Further posts to this message thread should substantially address the relevant topic.
Thanks George, the link is a bit difficult for me to understand but it seems (if I am reading it correctly) to indicate that polygraph tests are no more or less reliable than the old-fashioned method of looking someone in the eye and asking them.
Quote from: Lord_Darkclaw on Mar 10, 2007, 06:12 PMThanks George, the link is a bit difficult for me to understand but it seems (if I am reading it correctly) to indicate that polygraph tests are no more or less reliable than the old-fashioned method of looking someone in the eye and asking them.
That's about right. Polygraphic lie detection has not been demonstrated through peer-reviewed research to work better under field conditions than an interrogator using a dummy polygraph as a placebo.
Quote from: LieBabyCryBaby on Jan 28, 2007, 09:54 PMJust as I expected, Dr. Richardson. A cop-out. You don't want to answer that question, and we both know why. So, who's the coward now? :o
Dr. Richardson's silence with regard to my questions, to use an oft-used expression among posters on this forum, "speaks volumes."
Dr Drew Richardson obviously knows what he is talking about.
I can teach anyone to pass a polygraph test - in ten minutes flat.
Easy Peasy
Since December 13, 2006, Dr. Richardson has failed to respond to this simple question, and we both know why:
As a polygrapher, with all of your experience, did you ever catch an examinee using countermeasures, and if so, how did you know prior to any admission by the examinee?
There will be certain questions and circumstances for which countermeasures are not possible.
For example, if a polygraph examiner asks a distraught rape victim if she has raped herself distributing DNA she collected from some vile source upon herself, she will ALLWAYS be proved to be lying by the polygraph test.
I apologize for this observation. However, the use of polygraphy to accuse crime victims experiencing emotional trauma of harming themselves is orders of magnitude more vile.
I don't know of any agency, either Federal or State, that polygraphs rape victims. This is called "victimizing the victim." The victim can not be forced to take a polygraph, nor can the accused. So, what's the point?
Dr. Richardson and I both know why he can not answer my question. It is a no-win situation for him.
Quote from: LieBabyCryBaby on Aug 25, 2007, 09:31 AMI don't know of any agency, either Federal or State, that polygraphs rape victims. This is called "victimizing the victim." The victim can not be forced to take a polygraph, nor can the accused. So, what's the point?
Dr. Richardson and I both know why he can not answer my question. It is a no-win situation for him.
In cases of suspected false rape, 'victims' have been tested. Whether the victim was a genuine victim, or, a false victim; (and who would know) it follows that victims have been polygraphed.
Quote from: LieBabyCryBaby on Aug 04, 2007, 02:21 PMSince December 13, 2006, Dr. Richardson has failed to respond to this simple question, and we both know why:
As a polygrapher, with all of your experience, did you ever catch an examinee using countermeasures, and if so, how did you know prior to any admission by the examinee?
LBCB,
It should have dawned on you a long time ago already, that since 13 December 2006, Dr Richardson has been ignoring your 'challenge'.
Why dont you rise to his challenge?
Others have already satisfactorily explained why Dr. Richardson's "challenge" is an empty challenge. Maybe you don't know, but he and I both know why he can't answer my question.
Quote from: LieBabyCryBaby on Aug 25, 2007, 06:41 PMOthers have already satisfactorily explained why Dr. Richardson's "challenge" is an empty challenge. Maybe you don't know, but he and I both know why he can't answer my question.
LBCB,
As you profess to know what his answer would be / is, why dont you spare us the
ongoing agony of anticipation and simply state what you think / know his answer to be?
Please, spare us the agony.
Now, we await your answer AND we await you to take up Dr R's challenge.
Rgds,
Didn't you read what I said? He really can't answer that question. The truth would make him look like a fool, while anything else would be just another cop out.
Quote from: LieBabyCryBaby on Aug 27, 2007, 08:46 PMDidn't you read what I said? He really can't answer that question. The truth would make him look like a fool, while anything else would be just another cop out.
Don't you think it is just a bit presumptuous to come to an antipolygraph message board, ignore a long-standing challenge posted there, issue your own challenge, and then claim some sort of victory by omission when your challenge goes unanswered?
It seems reasonable to me that one would require some standing before one could peremptorily ignore a ongoing challenge in favor of issuing one of their own.
Perhaps if you were to meet Dr. Richardson's challenge, successfully or not, you would then have some credentials with which to issue a challenge of your own. Until then, I am at a loss to understand why you believe your challenge carries the same weight as his.
Sergeant,
A fool is one who uses the non de plume of LieBabyCryBaby for purposes of coming to an internet site named Antipolygraph.org –a site filled with those professing to be victims of the practice of polygraphy and its practitioner's poor behavior. You are right, Sergeant—I don't suffer fools. With regard to meeting my challenge, I doubt one who demonstrates such uncritical thinking would have the credentials (even within his own community) to meet my stated qualifications for accepting the challenge.
Off topic replies have been moved to This Thread (https://antipolygraph.org/cgi-bin/forums/YaBB.pl?num=1188319836)
Twisting my simple question into a "challenge" doesn't change anything. I asked a question that should be simple to answer for most people, yet I know that Dr. Richardson can not answer it. His appearance on this thread several times since I first asked the question, without answering it, proves my point. Dr. Richardson lacks the practical experience to really speak as an expert anyhow, and he said as much to George very early in this thread. As I and others have stated before, Dr. Richardson's "challenge" is an empty one and impossible to answer simply because there is no way to implement it in a real-world setting where outside factors wouldn't pollute the outcome, either positive or negative, with regard to the validity of the polygraph. He might as well "challenge" someone to light a candle in an airless vacuum as "challenge" the polygraph community to prove anything with regard to countermeasures under staged, artificial conditions. Those of us who have actual experience discovering and unmasking countermeasures while conducting hundreds or even thousands of polygraph exams know that anyone attempting countermeasures is rolling the dice. Can we always detect countermeasures? Of course not. But the fact that we don't answer an empty and ridiculous challenge by someone posing as an expert (despite what he says) doesn't change the fact that if you try your luck in a polygraph exam, don't be surprised when you are caught.
Quote from: LieBabyCryBaby on Aug 30, 2007, 09:20 AMTwisting my simple question into a "challenge" doesn't change anything. I asked a question that should be simple to answer for most people, yet I know that Dr. Richardson can not answer it. His appearance on this thread several times since I first asked the question, without answering it, proves my point. Dr. Richardson lacks the practical experience to really speak as an expert anyhow, and he said as much to George very early in this thread. As I and others have stated before, Dr. Richardson's "challenge" is an empty one and impossible to answer simply because there is no way to implement it in a real-world setting where outside factors wouldn't pollute the outcome, either positive or negative, with regard to the validity of the polygraph. He might as well "challenge" someone to light a candle in an airless vacuum as "challenge" the polygraph community to prove anything with regard to countermeasures under staged, artificial conditions. Those of us who have actual experience discovering and unmasking countermeasures while conducting hundreds or even thousands of polygraph exams know that anyone attempting countermeasures is rolling the dice. Can we always detect countermeasures? Of course not. But the fact that we don't answer an empty and ridiculous challenge by someone posing as an expert (despite what he says) doesn't change the fact that if you try your luck in a polygraph exam, don't be surprised when you are caught.
Unfortunately, you appear to have entirely missed the import of Dr R's challenge. It was not a simple
endeavour as you surreptitiously infer. It was a challenge to the industry. The results of which could
impact seriously and negatively on the p/g industry finally and forever.
It is precisely that hidden danger that the industry cannot afford to face. Thus it remains silent,
whilst you shout out hysterically at the danger.
LBCB, you are indeed a cry baby. Your lone, insignificant reverse challenge carries no threat and
and thus warrants no relevant response.
But hey, you're still special Sunshine. :-*
Quote from: 1904 on Aug 30, 2007, 10:37 AM
Unfortunately, you appear to have entirely missed the import of Dr R's challenge. It was not a simple
endeavour as you surreptitiously infer. It was a challenge to the industry. The results of which could
impact seriously and negatively on the p/g industry finally and forever.
It is precisely that hidden danger that the industry cannot afford to face. Thus it remains silent,
whilst you shout out hysterically at the danger.
LBCB, you are indeed a cry baby. Your lone, insignificant reverse challenge carries no threat and
and thus warrants no relevant response.
But hey, you're still special Sunshine. :-*
1904, one of the reasons that I grew tired of this forum is that inexperienced people like yourself post on here as if they actually know what they are talking about. I have always welcomed responses from open-minded people who have something more than other people's rehashed phrases to contribute. I didn't "miss the point" at all. I fully understand Dr. Richardson's "point." It is the impossibility of implementing a proper real-world examination under the conditions he proposes that makes his "challenge" an empty one. Lab studies and public displays simply can not replicate real-world conditions.
The polygraph community does not feel the need to "prove" itself. We know that the polygraph process is not perfect. I myself have admitted that on many occasions. But despite the fact that it is not perfect, it continues to be used, and it will continue to be used until something better comes along.
My question, which you call a "challenge," is a simple one. For Dr. Richardson it is obviously a
challenging question which he really can not answer because it is a no-win situation for him.
With regard to countermeasures, I guess you missed
my point. No polygrapher can always detect countermeasures. Those of us who have conducted hundreds or even thousands of polygraph exams know that at some point in our careers we have probably been "beaten." But we also know that on many, many occasions we have in fact detected and unmasked countermeasures, effectively ending the career prospects of those people dishonest or, admittedly, simply afraid enough to try them. In the end, it's simply a matter of trying to pass the polygraph cleanly, or rolling the dice with countermeasures. Feeling lucky?
LieBabyCryBaby,
Your question to Dr. Richardson was:
Quote from: LieBabyCryBaby on Dec 13, 2006, 06:33 PM...
As a polygrapher, with all of your experience, did you ever catch an examinee using countermeasures, and if so, how did you know prior to any admission by the examinee?
...
Dr. Richarson responded:
Quote from: Drew Richardson on Jan 28, 2007, 08:55 PMLieBabyCryBaby,
Countermeasures are of little interest to me personally. I knew about the time I graduated from DoDPI polygraph examiner training some fifteen years ago that lie detection had little to no diagnostic validity IN THE ABSENCE OF EXAMINEE COUNTERMEASURE APPLICATION. My interest in this challenge is simply to demonstrate to those of you who do believe that there is some diagnostic value in what you do for a living that you can be beat any day of the week by any number of people with minimal training. Again, what personally interests and saddens me is that this nonsense is used even if we existed (which we don't) in an environment in which there was an absence of viable and readily applied countermeasures.
Unsatisfied with that response, you've repeated, with much innuendo, that you and he "both know why" he "failed to respond" to your "simple question." 1904 invited
you to "spare us the ongoing agony of anticipation and simply state what you think / know his answer to be?" You responded:
Quote from: LieBabyCryBaby on Aug 27, 2007, 08:46 PMDidn't you read what I said? He really can't answer that question. The truth would make him look like a fool, while anything else would be just another cop out.
Now
that's an evasive answer! 1904 clearly read what you wrote. Did
you read what
he wrote?
As for the polygraph community's professed ability to detect polygraph countermeasures, the fact remains that no polygrapher has ever demonstrated any ability to detect countermeasures at better than chance levels of accuracy. To this day, there is not a single journal article or book chapter on how to reliably detect countermeasures. There is no evidence that actually using countermeasures increases the risk that one will be accused of using them, or that
not using them lessens that risk. (I myself was falsely accused of using polygraph countermeasures at a time when I didn't even know what they were.)
Earlier this year, in a videotaped polygraph examination (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=3662.msg25493#msg25493) conducted for evidentiary purposes, no less a polygraph expert than Dr. Louis I. Rovner, Ph.D. tried to discourage countermeasure use by falsely claiming that the information on AntiPolygraph.org is "bogus," even though he later testified under oath in court that it "is so thorough and complete it's just breathtaking how good and accurate the information is." Rovner further felt the need to slander me personally (among other things, he falsely suggested to his examinee that I am a fugitive from justice) and to falsely tell the examinee that the irrelevant questions were "control" questions (a simplistic ruse that would fool only the most simpleminded of examinees). Dr. Rovner's recent behavior does not bespeak one who is confident of his ability to detect polygraph countermeasures.
If using polygraph countermeasures (which the polygraph community has no demonstrated ability to detect) is a "roll of the dice," submitting to a pseudoscientific polygraph "test"
without the protection of countermeasures is a roll of the Russian roulette wheel.
Quote from: LieBabyCryBaby on Sep 02, 2007, 07:17 PMQuote from: 1904 on Aug 30, 2007, 10:37 AMSnip...
Lab studies and public displays simply can not replicate real-world conditions
Snip.
And this is precisely why the polygraph cannot be trusted. No technique, in any discipline, is more accurate than the laboratory setting and because of the unique nature of lab setting, field analytics are often much worse than their lab counterparts.
In the lab, researchers can (usually) control all of the potential confounders that can be encountered. This reduces variability and makes things more accurate.
Once you move into the field, you increase variability which always decreases accuracy. It is a scientific fact. Trust me on this, I spent the first part of my career with the EPA coming up with statistical methods for recalibrating soil contaminant field analytics with lab methods. Field analytics will always be worse than their lab counterparts as it is the nature of the beast.
With human subjects and psychometric testing, this becomes even more important. Since all of the formats for polygraph testing are developed in the lab under controlled conditions, it is statistical certainty that they will become less accurate once applied in the field under a variety of conditions, examiners, examinees, etc.
Hence, your characterization of polygraph lab studies being worthless demonstrates the folly of using them into the field because they will always be less accurate.
Quote from: digithead on Sep 03, 2007, 01:03 AM
And this is precisely why the polygraph cannot be trusted. No technique, in any discipline, is more accurate than the laboratory setting and because of the unique nature of lab setting, field analytics are often much worse than their lab counterparts.
In the lab, researchers can (usually) control all of the potential confounders that can be encountered. This reduces variability and makes things more accurate.
Once you move into the field, you increase variability which always decreases accuracy. It is a scientific fact. Trust me on this, I spent the first part of my career with the EPA coming up with statistical methods for recalibrating soil contaminant field analytics with lab methods. Field analytics will always be worse than their lab counterparts as it is the nature of the beast.
With human subjects and psychometric testing, this becomes even more important. Since all of the formats for polygraph testing are developed in the lab under controlled conditions, it is statistical certainty that they will become less accurate once applied in the field under a variety of conditions, examiners, examinees, etc.
Hence, your characterization of polygraph lab studies being worthless demonstrates the folly of using them into the field because they will always be less accurate.
I noticed this, too.
A test regarding the ability of examiners to detect countermeasures would be, in LBCB's opinion, worthless because real world stress cannot be duplicated in the lab.
So, do they base their belief that the polygraph is accurate on a lack of clinical evidence? Because their results are consistent with their "gut feelings"? I would assume it is easy to support any point of view if you disregard any clinical evidence that does not support your opinion, and tout that which does.
There seems to be a dichotomy here.
Quote from: LieBabyCryBaby on Sep 02, 2007, 07:17 PMQuote from: 1904 on Aug 30, 2007, 10:37 AM
Unfortunately, you appear to have entirely missed the import of Dr R's challenge. It was not a simple
endeavour as you surreptitiously infer. It was a challenge to the industry. The results of which could
impact seriously and negatively on the p/g industry finally and forever.
It is precisely that hidden danger that the industry cannot afford to face. Thus it remains silent,
whilst you shout out hysterically at the danger.
LBCB, you are indeed a cry baby. Your lone, insignificant reverse challenge carries no threat and
and thus warrants no relevant response.
But hey, you're still special Sunshine. :-*
1904, one of the reasons that I grew tired of this forum is that inexperienced people like yourself post on here as if they actually know what they are talking about. I have always welcomed responses from open-minded people who have something more than other people's rehashed phrases to contribute. I didn't "miss the point" at all. I fully understand Dr. Richardson's "point." It is the impossibility of implementing a proper real-world examination under the conditions he proposes that makes his "challenge" an empty one. Lab studies and public displays simply can not replicate real-world conditions.
The polygraph community does not feel the need to "prove" itself. We know that the polygraph process is not perfect. I myself have admitted that on many occasions. But despite the fact that it is not perfect, it continues to be used, and it will continue to be used until something better comes along.
My question, which you call a "challenge," is a simple one. For Dr. Richardson it is obviously a challenging question which he really can not answer because it is a no-win situation for him.
With regard to countermeasures, I guess you missed my point. No polygrapher can always detect countermeasures. Those of us who have conducted hundreds or even thousands of polygraph exams know that at some point in our careers we have probably been "beaten." But we also know that on many, many occasions we have in fact detected and unmasked countermeasures, effectively ending the career prospects of those people dishonest or, admittedly, simply afraid enough to try them. In the end, it's simply a matter of trying to pass the polygraph cleanly, or rolling the dice with countermeasures. Feeling lucky?
LBCB,
In the same vein as Dr R's old posts. I posted: "I can teach anyone to pass a p/g test"
And I can teach you too as you are either in doubt or denial.
You evidently are the one with a lack of experience, because you still haven't achieved the experience and maturity to admit that p/g = BS baffles brains.
You have contradicted yourself btw - in one breath you concede, ".. the p/g is not perfect...and we have been beaten.....but we'll keep on using it till something better comes along" - In that case, why not simply use your dice. Make it user-friendly for subjects.
And yes, I do feel lucky. You can test me anytime. $1000 says I beat you every time.
Quote from: 1904 on Sep 03, 2007, 06:18 AM[
LBCB,
In the same vein as Dr R's old posts. I posted: "I can teach anyone to pass a p/g test"
And I can teach you too as you are either in doubt or denial.
You evidently are the one with a lack of experience, because you still haven't achieved the experience and maturity to admit that p/g = BS baffles brains.
You have contradicted yourself btw - in one breath you concede, ".. the p/g is not perfect...and we have been beaten.....but we'll keep on using it till something better comes along" - In that case, why not simply use your dice. Make it user-friendly for subjects.
And yes, I do feel lucky. You can test me anytime. $1000 says I beat you every time.
1904, you and others like you will always have the last word on this forum. You bore me because you have nothing substantial to say. You can always make big claims--which are unfounded because you have no experience with conducting polygraph exams--and you will never have to back them up because no one is interested in your or Dr. Richardson's "challenge." The polygraph community has no interest in you personally, and we know that Dr. Richardson hasn't got a leg to stand on either. What we do have is that we are already comfortably entrenched in the system with no reason to leave and nothing to prove.
It is not a contradiction to admit that the polygraph process is not perfect, either. But admitting that is far from conceding that the polygraph should be abolished. Most polygraph examinees will continue to pass the polygraph without countermeasures, and the world is not very interested in this forum. When people post on any forum like this, they tend to develop the naive attitude that the rest of the world actually cares about what they have to say. It's like a child's egocentric view of the world--the juvenile view that whatever I think and do is the center of the universe, and everything else revolves around me. Nothing you or I say on this forum will change anything. That's why, as I've said before, it is kind of sad that George Maschke would waste so much of his time with managing this website. When he is on his deathbed and thinking about what he did with life, isn't it sad that he will have to accept that he spent so much of his life on this worthless forum? I think so.
I know that Dr. Richardson can not answer my question because he is simply a "poser" who a few misguided people on this forum have put on a pedestal and accepted as an expert. My question will remain unanswered because he can not answer it, and because he probably feels it is as worthless to attempt an answer as the polygraph community feels it is to respond to his empty "challenge."
Now, go ahead and have the last word, 1904. You have no experience or expertise to speak of, yet you will undoubtedly continue to pretend. You're nothing special at all, "sunshine."
Yes LieBabyCryBaby:
Polygraph testing is firmly entrenched in our system. A few years ago, slavery was firmly entrenched in the south. Recently, facism was firmly entrenched in a few nations. Fortunately, visionaries like George took a stand and rooted out these evils.
There was certainly no hue and cry in the south to eliminate slavery. Few Germans opposed facism at the time. Both of these practices were quite profitable for some.
Now, most people actually believe polygraph testing works and is justified. I conceed your point is a good one Sir.
Please don't insult George because he cannot understand this Sir.
I agree with 1904. You are still special sunshine. :D
Quote from: LieBabyCryBaby on Sep 03, 2007, 02:05 PM...What we do have is that we are already comfortably entrenched in the system with no reason to leave and nothing to prove.
Indeed, polygraphers are comfortably entrenched within federal, state, and local government agencies. But that doesn't mean they have nothing to prove when it comes to countermeasures. Polygraphers, including yourself, want the public to believe that you have the ability to reliably detect polygraph countermeasures. At least to that extent, you've got something to prove. Don't you agree?
QuoteIt is not a contradiction to admit that the polygraph process is not perfect, either. But admitting that is far from conceding that the polygraph should be abolished.
Agreed.
QuoteMost polygraph examinees will continue to pass the polygraph without countermeasures, and the world is not very interested in this forum. When people post on any forum like this, they tend to develop the naive attitude that the rest of the world actually cares about what they have to say. It's like a child's egocentric view of the world--the juvenile view that whatever I think and do is the center of the universe, and everything else revolves around me.
I don't think anyone posting here suffers from the delusion that this forum is somehow the center of the universe. Polygraphy is an arcane pseudoscience that is of exceedingly little interest whether to the scientific community or to the world community at large.
However, for those whose lives are or have been affected by the pseudoscience of polygraphy, this message board serves as an important forum for open discussion and debate of polygraph issues.
QuoteNothing you or I say on this forum will change anything.
Not true. The key thing that's being changed here is public awareness and understanding of polygraphy -- in particular the awareness and understanding of that portion of the population most likely to face polygraph "testing."
QuoteThat's why, as I've said before, it is kind of sad that George Maschke would waste so much of his time with managing this website. When he is on his deathbed and thinking about what he did with life, isn't it sad that he will have to accept that he spent so much of his life on this worthless forum? I think so.
I shall have considerably fewer regrets about having worked to expose and end a pseudoscientific fraud than I should had I spent my days as a practitioner of the same. Instead of fantasizing about my deathbed regrets, perhaps you should contemplate your own?
QuoteI know that Dr. Richardson can not answer my question because he is simply a "poser" who a few misguided people on this forum have put on a pedestal and accepted as an expert. My question will remain unanswered because he can not answer it, and because he probably feels it is as worthless to attempt an answer as the polygraph community feels it is to respond to his empty "challenge."
You purport to know the answer to your "unanswered" question, so why don't you, as 1904 suggested, "spare us the ongoing agony of anticipation and simply state what you think/know his answer to be?"
To George,
Thank you for responding to CB specifically. I could not have put it any better.
To LBCB,
You denigrate and scoff at this board and its regulars as being boring...
Why then have you been hanging around here for 18 mths ??
Just dipping your toes in the water, but not ready to take the plunge yet??
Finally, stop skirting your hollow claims - What Is Dr Richardson's Reply That You
Keep Secret -- ???
....... Thousands Of People That View This Thread Are Waiting For Your Prohesy.
Quote from: George W. Maschke on Sep 04, 2007, 01:14 AM
Indeed, polygraphers are comfortably entrenched within federal, state, and local government agencies. But that doesn't mean they have nothing to prove when it comes to countermeasures. Polygraphers, including yourself, want the public to believe that you have the ability to reliably detect polygraph countermeasures. At least to that extent, you've got something to prove. Don't you agree?
I don't think anyone posting here suffers from the delusion that this forum is somehow the center of the universe. Polygraphy is an arcane pseudoscience that is of exceedingly little interest whether to the scientific community or to the world community at large.
However, for those whose lives are or have been affected by the pseudoscience of polygraphy, this message board serves as an important forum for open discussion and debate of polygraph issues.
I shall have considerably fewer regrets about having worked to expose and end a pseudoscientific fraud than I should had I spent my days as a practitioner of the same. Instead of fantasizing about my deathbed regrets, perhaps you should contemplate your own?
You purport to know the answer to your "unanswered" question, so why don't you, as 1904 suggested, "spare us the ongoing agony of anticipation and simply state what you think/know his answer to be?"
No, George, we have nothing to prove to anyone. Because we are entrenched in the system, and because polygraph is so widely used and accepted by so many agencies, why would we feel the need to prove anything? We don't really care what you think, so why should we try to prove anything to you? You failed your FBI polygraph not by simply failing one relevant question on the test, but by failing all of them. That's pretty much unheard of in polygraph, and I've never experienced it myself in all the exams I've conducted. So, you are simply a polygraph failure with no practical experience other than failing a polygraph. Who needs to prove anything to you?
I have no regrets about being a polygraph "practitioner." It gets me a paycheck, and it keeps many of the wrong people from getting into law enforcement. I earn a living this way, which enables me to enjoy many things in life. Can you say that about your obsession with your forum?
Finally, I never puported to know Dr. Richardson's answer. He really doesn't have one, so I could only guess what kind of lame attempt he might make. His ridiculous challenge goes unanswered because it is not worth answering, and my question goes unanswered because he really has no good answer. It's a no-win situation for him.
Quote from: LieBabyCryBaby on Sep 06, 2007, 08:50 AMNo, George, we have nothing to prove to anyone. Because we are entrenched in the system, and because polygraph is so widely used and accepted by so many agencies, why would we feel the need to prove anything? We don't really care what you think, so why should we try to prove anything to you? You failed your FBI polygraph not by simply failing one relevant question on the test, but by failing all of them. That's pretty much unheard of in polygraph, and I've never experienced it myself in all the exams I've conducted. So, you are simply a polygraph failure with no practical experience other than failing a polygraph. Who needs to prove anything to you?
I wasn't suggesting that you and your fellow need to prove anything to
me. Rather, what I'm suggesting is that if polygraphers, yourself included, want
the public to believe that you have the ability to reliably detect polygraph countermeasures, then you
do have something to prove. Thus far, the polygraph community has not made a convincing public case for its ability to detect countermeasures.
QuoteI have no regrets about being a polygraph "practitioner." It gets me a paycheck, and it keeps many of the wrong people from getting into law enforcement. I earn a living this way, which enables me to enjoy many things in life. Can you say that about your obsession with your forum?
Polygraph screening also wrongly keeps many well-qualified, honest people from getting into law enforcement, but I suppose that's no skin off your nose, is it? I haven't made a penny from AntiPolygraph.org. This is a public interest website, not a profit-making concern.
QuoteFinally, I never puported to know Dr. Richardson's answer....
Can you see how someone reading these posts might have concluded otherwise?
Quote from: LieBabyCryBaby on Jan 28, 2007, 09:54 PMJust as I expected, Dr. Richardson. A cop-out. You don't want to answer that question, and we both know why. So, who's the coward now? :o
Quote from: LieBabyCryBaby on Aug 04, 2007, 02:21 PMSince December 13, 2006, Dr. Richardson has failed to respond to this simple question, and we both know why...
Quote from: LieBabyCryBaby on Aug 25, 2007, 09:31 AM...Dr. Richardson and I both know why he can not answer my question. It is a no-win situation for him.
Quote from: LieBabyCryBaby on Aug 25, 2007, 06:41 PM...Maybe you don't know, but he and I both know why he can't answer my question.
LBCB:
Telling the truth and failing all relevant questions is not unheard of in polygraph testing, particularly when the true answer is no. I'll not challenge your mind with the simple statistics and psychology behind this Sir. However, I must point out that when polygraph tests are used in employment screening, a fallacious machine often rejects the applicant outright and the real truth is never determined.
QuoteYou failed your FBI polygraph not by simply failing one relevant question on the test, but by failing all of them. That's pretty much unheard of in polygraph, and I've never experienced it myself in all the exams I've conducted.
This can only mean one of three things:
1. George is the most dishonest, criminally-inclined person ever to be polygraphed in the history of the world.
OR...
2. LBCB has not conducted very many exams and hasn't heard much about other exams.
OR...
3. There is a serious problem regarding the lack of accuracy in polygraph exams.
Quote from: 2525 on Sep 06, 2007, 12:49 PMLBCB:
Telling the truth and failing all relevant questions is not unheard of in polygraph testing, particularly when the true answer is no. I'll not challenge your mind with the simple statistics and psychology behind this Sir. However, I must point out that when polygraph tests are used in employment screening, a fallacious machine often rejects the applicant outright and the real truth is never determined.
Other than George's case, I've never EVER heard of anyone failing ALL of the relevant questions on a polygraph screening exam. On a single-issue exam, such as a criminal exam, yes, but not on a screening exam. The relevant questions are of too wide a variety on a screening exam.
In my experience, there are only two reasons why someone would fail ALL of the relevant questions on a polygraph screening exam. First, they are actually lying on all of those questions, which in George's case I don't actually believe occurred. Or second, and much more likely, they have made the RELEVANT questions more significant to themselves by knowing or realizing that those are the only questions of true importance in the exam. I believe that a person's knowledge of countermeasures, and their attempts to amplify the reactions on the comparison questions can actually backfire because they make the relevant questions even more significant to themselves during the exam.
I FOUND THIS INTERESTING !!! EVEN THE BRITS DON'T SEEM TO TAKE YOU SERIOUSLY !!!
Latest Study Indicates "Lie Behind the Lie Detector" Hurts Innocent, Doesn't Help Guilty - a brief
Information does not affect the validity of a comparison question test.
Authors: Honts, Charles R.1; Alloway, Wendy R.1
Source: Legal and Criminological Psychology, Volume 12, Number 2, September 2007, pp. 311-320(10)
Publisher: British Psychological Society
Abstract:
Purpose: Detailed information about the comparison question test (CQT) and possible countermeasures are now available on the Internet. This study examined whether the provision of such information would affect the validity of the Test for Espionage and Sabotage, a directed lie variant of the CQT.
Method:
Forty participants were divided into four equal groups: guilty, guilty informed, innocent, and innocent informed. During a first appointment, participants either did or did not commit a mock crime: then some were provided with a book containing detailed information on the CQT, including possible countermeasures. After 1 week with the book, all participants were administered a CQT during their second appointment. Following the polygraph, participants responded to a questionnaire that asked them about their behavior and perceptions during their examination.
Results:
There were no significant effects of providing information on the validity of the CQT. However, the reported use of countermeasures was associated with a lower probability of truthfulness. Results of the debriefing questionnaire were found to support predictions made by the theory of the CQT.
Conclusions:
Concerns that readily available information will enable guilty individuals to produce false-negative errors seem unfounded. Moreover, the results actually indicate that the use of countermeasures was associated with a lower probability of truthfulness, which was exactly the opposite outcome predicted by the CQT critics
TheNoLieGuy4U,
Posts to this (or any) discussion thread should ideally address the relevant topic. In this case, the relevant topic is Dr. Richardson's challenge to the polygraph community to prove their claimed ability to detect polygraph countermeasures. This challenge has now gone more than six years without a single taker.
The study you cited in your post above has been discussed at length elsewhere on this message board. Please see Latest Study Indicates "Lie Behind the Lie Detector" Hurts Innocent, Doesn't Help Guilty (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=3716.msg26486#msg26486).
Hello,
I have heard of the challenge in the past on this site. I looked at this from all the angles I could and thought to myself the following:
1. Why would the polygraph community consent to this AS IF you and they were two equal bodies out to prove something. They do there own such research already internally. I'm told that they may view you folks as in a weird way an asset as their funding has increased, and the demand for examiners never greater.
2. The fact that the challenge is from "Dr." Richardson would appear to lend credibility on the face of it, but I'm told that Dr. Richardson barely graduated from DodPI himself. If this is wrong could he please post his class standing among his peers and score / average.
3. If as you state such a test were to take place, WHO would eveluate the data as a perceived unbiased body ? I would eliminate anyone with bias for or against. I further wondered how you could have a control group in this.
4. Further, can a lab study in any tasking duplicate real world conditions ?
5. If this test data went against you it most certainly NOT put this issue or site to rest, so where is the gain for those who do this for a living ?
JUST A FEW THOUGHTS ?
Quote from: Sergeant1107 on Mar 12, 2008, 07:45 PM
2. The fact that the challenge is from "Dr." Richardson would appear to lend credibility on the face of it, but I'm told that Dr. Richardson barely graduated from DodPI himself. If this is wrong could he please post his class standing among his peers and score / average.
I can attest that Dr Richardson did indeed graduate from DODPI and he had no trouble with the academic portion of the training.
Quote from: Sergeant1107 on Mar 12, 2008, 07:45 PM
4. Further, can a lab study in any tasking duplicate real world conditions ?
I believe this exact question is posed when criticizing the lab experiements and studies which attempt to validate the accuracy of polygraphy, and the ability to detect countermeasures. Of course, lab studies are good enough for those purposes...
Hi YankeeDog,
Thank You for attesting to his graduation, but that was not in question. My source told me that it takes a 70% minimum to graduate, and that he did not get much at all above that. I was shocked if this were true, as the expectation of one with a PhD after their name might imply the ability to grasp the information at a much higher level.
My question dealth with his class standing and average in the class. 70%, 80%, 90% / 1st in the class, or 4th out of 36 etc.
Thanks,
Hi,
In reality, both sides criticize lab studies as missing inherant jeopardy to be regarded as an exact parallel to real world field data. Therefore, minus jeopardy in the equation, how can a countermeasure challenge or study be done from anything other than field recorded charts ? Such charts are on file with DoDPI / DACA, and are used in the evaluation. I have heard of a concept called "Drift" which is also being looked at and qualified / quantified as a variable in countermeasures.
From a retired deputy and polygraphist from Florida. You can beat the examiner but not the instrument! Its how you interview, the polygraph is just a tool. Criminal and pre employment testing are two different tests. If the examiner knows what he/she is doing, and they are good, they should see the countermeasures. Even when they decide to play with their sphincter, if its not at the right time you loose! As far as the GSR tricks, the GSR can be placed in other areas with good results.
As far as a book to beat the test, its a fishing expediation on a pre employment- see what you nibble at. Criminal tests are the best and easy.
I did quite a bit before law enforcement and college. If on the street, ya dump the dope whatever. Speeding, a warning. I was one that rembers his roots, and wont stroke you for something I did.
The examiner can go by their gut. I know if you arent upfront, I dont have to fail you on a drug question if I have good vibes on a person.
I will inform the applicant inbetween tests only, to quit the countermeasures. If by the third question or so I will stop the test and let them out.
You get a good examiner that is upfront and phrases the question best for the applicant, then they wont need the counter measures. Change the question to: when was the last time you ..... Puts the applicant at ease. No other problems, continue the person in the process, and note reactions to CYA. If you flatline from a drug or its overacting on GSR (depends) reschedule, or ya get a question from left field and see what happens. No reaction, process stops there! (there is more to this)
Best to be upfront from the start-BUT, to an extent!!!!!!!! Why people say the things they do beats me.
FYI: I stand while testing the person. Screw up on a counter measure, and the next weekly meeting of background examiners, that are from different departments, and one mentions your name, you are SOL!!
98 % validity on specific/crime test. PE-pre employment is a fishing expediation 2% goes to countermeasures, BUT, this is with a good qualified examiner and done properly.
If you arent sure, YOU/I let the person continue in the process. An examiner that takes the time to explain things to the applicant they wont have to use counter measures. Look, You made it to this step (or you are gathering information) dont screw it up.
A book? Its a joke, dont waste your money. Takes 2 areas to knock a person out of the process. Your a bad apple, you will most likely mess up on the poly, psych, or oral. Dont blame the examiner. Been doing this since 84
Its a great job, but when you resort to a counter measure, and I see it, you are done!! Find another career.
You people are so negative on polygraphs. I have gone out of my way to get somebody hired that was too honest, but the problem areas were in the past and the applicant was over standards. Exceptions can be made!!!!!!
If you cant get the first two questions right, you BETTER USE COUNTER MEASURES!! NO BOOK WILL HELP!!
Quote98 % validity on specific/crime test. PE-pre employment is a fishing expediation
There are a lot of polygraphers who claim such high rates of accuracy. But what do you base the 98% on? Or are you just giving us your opinion?
Well, at least you admit that the pre-employment poly is a "fishing expedition".
TC
TC
The 2% on a specific test if done correctly is from counter measuers.
The pre employment is about 12 questions repeated twice with a 2-3 minutes inbetween to rest the arm. Iy I suspect one is using countermeasuers say with breathing, I will let the charts run inbetween charts and see the change in the cardio for breathing. You dont see my paper going, and I might ask you something or instruct you to breath naturally. Your breathing changes on the second test to normal fine, if not I might rescheduld or plain end your process at that point. Subjective, up to the examiner and how I feel towards the applicant. Never stim an applicant!!! Never say inbetween tests you show reactions to say for example to the drug questions. If done, that question will be on the persons mind and show a larger reaction the second test. If that ever happens, tell the examiner!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I have seen it done by polygraphists. Tell the person in charge of your process, and they will set you for another test. Be advised, you fail the first examiner, 9 out of 10 times the second examiner will go with the firsts rec. I call it the way I see it! But on the other hand have passed people that have been failed as well. Same for the psychological, People can request or pay for it on their own if the dept says it is ok and must be one of the many psychs the dept uses. There are good examiners and bad ones. Same for doctors or lawyers.
AGAIN, the 98% is fact. The book is The Scientific Validity of the Polygraph. Takes 2 areas to be declined!!! You should be more worried on the psychological or oral board!!!!!!!!
Hope that helped some
Quote from: Sergeant1107 on May 28, 2008, 12:52 AMFrom a retired deputy and polygraphist from Florida. You can beat the examiner but not the instrument! Its how you interview, the polygraph is just a tool. Criminal and pre employment testing are two different tests. If the examiner knows what he/she is doing, and they are good, they should see the countermeasures. Even when they decide to play with their sphincter, if its not at the right time you loose! As far as the GSR tricks, the GSR can be placed in other areas with good results.
As far as a book to beat the test, its a fishing expediation on a pre employment- see what you nibble at. Criminal tests are the best and easy.
I did quite a bit before law enforcement and college. If on the street, ya dump the dope whatever. Speeding, a warning. I was one that rembers his roots, and wont stroke you for something I did.
The examiner can go by their gut. I know if you arent upfront, I dont have to fail you on a drug question if I have good vibes on a person.
I will inform the applicant inbetween tests only, to quit the countermeasures. If by the third question or so I will stop the test and let them out.
You get a good examiner that is upfront and phrases the question best for the applicant, then they wont need the counter measures. Change the question to: when was the last time you ..... Puts the applicant at ease. No other problems, continue the person in the process, and note reactions to CYA. If you flatline from a drug or its overacting on GSR (depends) reschedule, or ya get a question from left field and see what happens. No reaction, process stops there! (there is more to this)
Best to be upfront from the start-BUT, to an extent!!!!!!!! Why people say the things they do beats me.
FYI: I stand while testing the person. Screw up on a counter measure, and the next weekly meeting of background examiners, that are from different departments, and one mentions your name, you are SOL!!
98 % validity on specific/crime test. PE-pre employment is a fishing expediation 2% goes to countermeasures, BUT, this is with a good qualified examiner and done properly.
If you arent sure, YOU/I let the person continue in the process. An examiner that takes the time to explain things to the applicant they wont have to use counter measures. Look, You made it to this step (or you are gathering information) dont screw it up.
A book? Its a joke, dont waste your money. Takes 2 areas to knock a person out of the process. Your a bad apple, you will most likely mess up on the poly, psych, or oral. Dont blame the examiner. Been doing this since 84
Its a great job, but when you resort to a counter measure, and I see it, you are done!! Find another career.
You people are so negative on polygraphs. I have gone out of my way to get somebody hired that was too honest, but the problem areas were in the past and the applicant was over standards. Exceptions can be made!!!!!!
If you cant get the first two questions right, you BETTER USE COUNTER MEASURES!! NO BOOK WILL HELP!!
If your gut feel tells you that certain people are honest, then why proceed to test them ? Dont you trust your own intelligence against a 1935 model machine ?
I think that your examinees must have been simpletons if you caught them sooo easily iro CM's. The 'book' and indeed any examiner worth his salt, can teach a reasonably intelligent person how to beat the test.
(because telling the truth doesnt really get you where you deserve to be)
Since my recent challenge to George and Gino to establish their credentials, there has been a few renewed comments regarding Drew Richardson's polygraph countermeasure challenge. This thread begins with Drew relating the amusing and informative story about how he first laid this challenge before the NAS committee.
Since new interest has been generated, perhaps it is time for the readers to read, as Paul Harvey, R.I.P. used to say "The Rest of the Story" about his presentation to the NAS.
According to BFL incorporated, the prestigious Dr, Drew Richardson, former Chief of the FBI's Counter-Terrorism Unit, joined Brain Fingerprinting Laboratories in 2001 as Vice President of Forensic Operations just a few weeks before Sept. 11, 2001. They are a privately held commercial interest promoting and selling theory and technology for the use of the "P300/MERMER" (memory and encoding related multifaceted electroencephalographic response wave for the detection of deception and concealed information. This provides Richardson with a financial motive to try to convince folks that polygraph does not work.
Based on George's notes, which he has posted elsewhere on this website; at the time Richardson spoke to NAS on October 17 2001 he represented himself only with his FBI and Research credentials and failed to inform the committee of his possible conflict of interest based on profit. His BFL Inc. boss, Lawrence Farwell, immediately followed Richardson's presentation with a P300 sales pitch. YES, conveniently right behind Richardson's criticism of polygraph. The final NAS report does not indicate that they had any knowledge of Richardson's employment or financial interest in a technology attempting to compete with polygraph.
If George is telling the truth about Richardson's presentation to NAS and Richardson failed to disclose an obvious profit based ulterior motive that potentially colored his comments, I believe that he conducted himself in an unethical manner.
George's motives are arguably "Not for Profit". I don't think the same can be said for Dr. Drew Richardson. I think his motives are more about the money.
Now you know "The Rest of the Story" Good Day
P.S. Sergeant, how would you feel about having your brain scanned as part of the police applicant process?
P.S.S. Cullen, How would you feel about a periodic counterintelligence brain scan as a condition of continued employment?
Okay... Now we are aware of your opinion regarding what you believe were Dr. Richardson's motivations.
Do you have anything substansive to say in response to Dr. Richardson's testimony?
Interesting information, JPW. I have previously pointed out that Dr. Richardson is a phony with no practical experience in polygraphy, but this latest information does shed some light on his motivations.
JPW (A.K.A. Edward B. Van Arsdale (http://www.polygraphoklahoma.com/)),
Dr. Richardson's relationship with Brain Fingerprinting Laboratories was no secret to the National Academy of Sciences' Committee to Review the Scientific Evidence on the Polygraph, which invited both him and Dr. Farwell to speak at its fourth public meeting. Moreover, Dr. Richardson's association with Brain Fingerprinting Laboratories was prominently mentioned (http://www.nytimes.com/2001/10/09/health/09LIE.html?pagewanted=all) in the New York Times a week before he addressed (https://antipolygraph.org/nas/richardson-transcript.shtml) the NAS panel.
Dr. Richardson's criticism of polygraphy predates both his NAS presentation and his relationship with Brain Fingerprinting Laboratories by years. He notably testified against polygraph screening at a U.S. Senate hearing (https://antipolygraph.org/hearings/senate-judiciary-1997/richardson-statement.shtml) in 1997 and criticized CQT polygraphy in a 1993 article ("The CQT Polygrapher's Dilemma: Logico-Ethical Considerations for Psychophysiological Practitioners and Researchers," International Journal of Psychophysiology, Vol. 15 (1993), pp. 263-67) that he anonymously co-authored with Professor John J. Furedy because the FBI would not allow him to publish it in his own name. Dr. Richardson's public truth-telling about polygraphy at a time when it was certain to entail adverse career consequences from the FBI is testimony to his integrity.
Moreover, Dr. Farwell's brain fingerprinting technique is a concealed information test, not a lie detection test. As such, it cannot be used for screening and is not in competition with the polygraph as a screening device.
It should also be noted that the NAS panel's remit was to review the scientific evidence on polygraph screening. But they found that there is virtually none. So the panel necessarily expanded the scope of its review to include polygraphy in general.
It is clear, Mr. Van Arsdale, that you are not here to discuss substantive issues, but to impugn characters and motives. As you've done previously while posting under the noms de guerre Sancho Panza and Ed Earl (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=4297.msg32920#msg32920), among others. You are a cowardly troll. And now you have been banned a third time. Be gone!
George, you might as well ban me too, since it is apparent that JPW was getting the best of you and the other phonies on this website, and you don't want any serious opposition making you appear foolish. He correctly pointed out that you, Gino Scalabrini and Drew Richardson each lack any practical experience in the field of polygraphy, and that you are not the experts you portray yourselves to be. Call his accurate descriptions of you an attack on characters and motives if you will, but that's just a poor excuse for your own cowardice in facing someone with actual experience and credentials when you have none of your own.
Also, how do you know that JPW, Van Arsdale, and this "Sancho" character are the same guy? Is it your common practice to troll for IP addresses, or what? Does it really make any difference whether someone posts under different names, as long as the two names aren't simultaneously playing off each other for support? You've got Cullen using two names, and I'm sure there are other "anti-" posters who are also using multiple names on this website.
Mr. Cry Baby,
You know nothing of science, yet you question the conclusions of the National Academy of Sciences on polygraph validity because they don't conduct polygraphs. Do you really expect people to take you seriously here?
I hope GM keeps you around as an example of just how pompous old fart polygraphers like yourself are. A picture is worth a thousand posts.
T.Cullen, T.M. Cullen :P
P.S. Why do you lie to targets of your pseudo-science by telling them the chart is "indicating deception" when you know full well it doesn't? Are you being purposely deceitful?
George sure allows a lot of scum to float here on his little pond. Which makes it all the more cowardly and feeble-minded to ban those who actually have some experience in polygraphy. I guess the name of this website does say it all, just as Sergeant has pointed out: AntiPolygraph.org. Not a place for serious discussion unless you happen to share George's inexperienced, unqualified views.
Quote from: LieBabyCryBaby on May 13, 2009, 07:05 PMGeorge sure allows a lot of scum to float here on his little pond. Which makes it all the more cowardly and feeble-minded to ban those who actually have some experience in polygraphy. I guess the name of this website does say it all, just as Sergeant has pointed out: AntiPolygraph.org. Not a place for serious discussion unless you happen to share George's inexperienced, unqualified views.
I wonder if you would express the same moral outrage if I were to join the message board at PolygraphPlace.com and fill the boards with messages that repeatedly pointed out, ad nauseum, that various other posters are polygraph examiners and therefore they have a vested interest in the polygraph, so their opinion is not worthy of consideration?
Would it make any sense for me to do that? Would that be the course of action any civil, reasonable person would take? Of course not, since people who visit PolygraphPlace's message board are doing so to hear the opinions of people who are or were polygraph examiners. How much credibility would I be able to establish if I continually attacked numerous members with the same tired diatribe, that since they are professional polygraph operators their opinion doesn't count because they have a financial interest in the use of the polygraph?
Do you think any of the polygraph operators on that board would call me a troll and have me banned? Or accuse me of senseless ad hominem attacks and point out that I wasn't engaging in any discussion, only attacking other members? I am willing to bet I'd be banned in record time.
If, after I was banned, I came back using a different name and engaged in the same behavior, do you think anyone would have a problem with it? Do you think I'd be banned again?
George allows free discussion on this board at a level unheard of on most other boards on the Internet. He doesn't ban people who disagree with him, he bans trolls whose only reason for posting here is to spew flame-bait and try to sling mud around. I think most people here are pretty clear on that. I cannot think of anyone who has been banned simply for posting a pro-polygraph opinion on this board, or for disagreeing with George no matter how often it happened.
Your reasoning is faulty, Sergeant. If you were to go to a "pro-" polygraph site, you would still be unqualified to express any firm opinion other than something you got second-hand. I don't really have a problem with someone like you saying that they don't like the polygraph, that they don't think the process was fair to them, or that there are lab studies that support what they feel. What I do oppose is someone like you calling polygraph a "pseudoscience," a "sham" or a "fraud" when you have no experience or training in the subject. It's one thing to point out what recognized experts in the field have to say and to tell others that you agree with those experts. It's quite another thing to act as though George Maschke and other equally unqualified people are experts in the field simply because they have a website.
Were you to go to a "pro-" polygraph website and contually point out that polygraphers might have a vested interest in keeping the polygraph going, in ADDITION to their experience and belief in the process, which is a possible cause for bias, there's nothing wrong with that. If you kept at it, you'd sure be a boring non-expert, and you might get some polygraphers riled up, but nothing you claimed as fact about the polygraph itself could be taken seriously because you have no foundation to support your claims. Maybe you would be banned and maybe not. You might be banned simply because you couldn't come up with anything better than the factual statement that polygraphers might be biased in favor of the polygraph because its their job to conduct polygraph exams, and you might be viewed as just taking up space on a subject expressed ad nauseum in your hundreds of posts. Anything more than that would be viewed as an amateur among experts.
Here on this forum, things are quite different, though. Only the polygraphers who occasionally come here because it's an entertaining, well-designed website really have a leg to stand on in making solid claims about polygraphy. Everyone else is, like George, a non-expert due to no practical experience or training in the subject, a polygraph failure with a grudge, or simply a concerned future examinee who mistakenly stumbles on this website because it's the first one that comes up when he/she types the word polygraph in the web browser.
So, when George bans polygraph experts from this website, claiming that they are only here to attack characters and "troll," it is not really justified, but rather "chicken shit."
I note that it has now been a full ten years since Dr. Richardson issued his polygraph countermeasure challenge. And still, not a single polygraph operator has ever demonstrated any ability to detect the kinds of countermeasures outlined in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector.
Reading through these forums, it's people like George that restore my faith in humanity, and people like crybaby that loose my faith in it.
What a bunch of BS if I ever saw it... all these respected institutions, and many investigations showing just how false this practice is, and just how those sad little shits otherwise known as polygraph examiners employ every dirty trick there is to try to get false positives etc, it is truly sickening. All with greed in mind. As usual with corruption, FOLLOW THE MONEY!
Isn't it rather simple to get a polygraph license? How does someone automatically assume someone else can't be knowledgeable about polygraphs because they haven't gone through the obviously bias and brainwashing courses to get your poly license. Obviously anyone who does polygraphs is going to have a slanted obsurd opinion that polygraphs are faultless.
Sorry to double post, but It's just so absurd that Liebabycrybaby thinks you have to go pay to get a piece of paper stating you've been thoroughly brainwashed into believing the B.S. behind "lie detectors" in order to be knowledgeable. As if the knowledge isn't widely available and as if you can't study everything about them INCLUDING Scientific studies in order to form a pointed factual opinion about them. It goes to show how thoroughly brainwashed polygraph examiners are, they literally think it can't be wrong or something. its insane.