Dear All,
I just PASSED THE POLY!!!!!!!
The polygrapher was so nice, and we talked for maybe 1 hr before the poly started. He noted some detail we had talked, and then guided me into the test.
It's a Stoelting model(just like George mentioned), and it was connected to a PC. He first wired me with 1 tubes around my chest and the other around my ab. Then he put 2 electric devices sticked to my index finger and ring finger. He also put something like a blood pressure gauge around my arm. And here it went.
Stim test of course. I used anal pucker and breath control to beat to the stim test. He said that I was a "good candidate for poly test". Then we started. He used the mixed model with CQT and POT. And I just followed George's advices. There were 2 question sets. And after the CQT and POT, he smiled at me and said "I think there is no problem about your test".
After leaving the room, he told me the room was video-taped, so he could not talk much. But he reassured that I had passed the polytest. And he was so nice to say that if the policemen tried to set me up, he will certainly investigate it. He said he was so happy that I passed the poly because he thought I was an honest man.
Thank you George, I would have not passed the polytest without you.
Thank you, xpmachina, for letting us know how things turned out. Could you explain what you mean by "mixed model with CQT and POT?"
So George, knowing that you're helping rapists pass the polygraph, how do you feel about it?
Who else are you helping pass the poly? Murderers? Drug users? Child pornography types?
We aren't talking about people trying to get a job in the pre-interview phase of testing here. We're talking about known criminals, using your book, to beat the system. I don't think I could sleep well if it was me.
If your goal is simply to rid the world of polygraphs, isn't there another way to do it?
Quote from: Duc748 on Mar 09, 2002, 12:51 PMSo George, knowing that you're helping rapists pass the polygraph, how do you feel about it?
Who else are you helping pass the poly? Murderers? Drug users? Child pornography types?
We aren't talking about people trying to get a job in the pre-interview phase of testing here. We're talking about known criminals, using your book, to beat the system. I don't think I could sleep well if it was me.
If your goal is simply to rid the world of polygraphs, isn't there another way to do it?
Mr. Duc,
Are you a polygrapher? If so, how many people have you falsely accused of being a rapist? How many people have you falsely accused of being a murderer? How many people have you falsely accused of being a drug user? How many people have you falsely accused of being a 'child pornography type'?
What sort of personal hell have these people undergone all because of your Messiah Complex, based on a travesty of a sham of a pseudo-science?
If people are accused of being rapists, murderers, drug users, or 'child pornography types', let The State-- on whose shoulders the burden of proof lies-- make its case in a court of law, whereupon a person who is
presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt by a jury of his peers may defend himself based on FACTS.
There is a reason why polygraph results are inadmissable in a court of law. One Circuit Court opinion out of many (USA V. CORDOBA):
The reliability of polygraph testing fundamentally
depends on the reliability of the protocol followed
during the examination. After considering the evi-
dence and briefing, the court concludes the proposed
polygraph evidence is not admissible under Fed. R.
Evid. 702. Although capable of testing and subject to
peer review, no reliable error rate conclusions are
available for real-life polygraph testing. Addition-
ally, there is no general acceptance in the scientific
community for the courtroom fact-determinative use
proposed here. Finally, there are no reliable and
accepted standards controlling polygraphy. Without
such standards, there is no way to ensure proper pro-
tocol, or measure the reliability of a polygraph
examination. Without such standards, the proposed
polygraph evidence is inadmissible because it is not
based on reliable `scientific knowledge.'"[emphasis mine]
With regard to post-conviction or probation testing, the same rules of evidentiary facts apply. If The State feels a probationee has reoffended, let The State-- on whose shoulders the burden of proof lies-- make its case in a court of law, whereupon a person who is
presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt by a jury of his peers may defend himself based on FACTS. Legally, polygraph results are NOT FACTS.
"But polygraph interrogations sometimes elicit confessions we might not have obtained otherwise..." you whine. A good stiff beating with a short truncheon or length of chain would probably elicit even more confessions. There was a time in this country when beatings were in fact administered by the police in hopes of gaining a confession. That's against the law now. Polygraphy is next. I urge you to hone job skills in other areas because YOUR CURRENT OCCUPATION IS TOAST.
Duc748,
You wrote:
Quote from: Duc748 on Mar 09, 2002, 12:51 PM
So George, knowing that you're helping rapists pass the polygraph, how do you feel about it?
Who else are you helping pass the poly? Murderers? Drug users? Child pornography types?
We aren't talking about people trying to get a job in the pre-interview phase of testing here. We're talking about known criminals, using your book, to beat the system. I don't think I could sleep well if it was me.
If your goal is simply to rid the world of polygraphs, isn't there another way to do it?
With regard to Verbatim's recent post (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=478.msg2273#msg2273), I see nothing in it that makes me uncomfortable with the use to which he put the information we've provided: that is, there is no indication that he lied with respect to any relevant question he was asked during his polygraph interrogation.
Note that AntiPolygraph.org's goal is not merely the abolishment of polygraphy, but also to help protect the truthful/innocent from polygraph abuse until that ultimate goal is achieved. This requires making detailed information about polygraphy and polygraph countermeasures readily available to all who seek it. We are unapologetically non-obscurantist in this regard.
The more important question you might ask yourself is, is polygraphy reliable? And if not, then why do we place any reliance on it?
To beech:
QuoteAre you a polygrapher? If so, how many people have you falsely accused of being a rapist? How many people have you falsely accused of being a murderer? How many people have you falsely accused of being a drug user? How many people have you falsely accused of being a 'child pornography type'?
1st question = no
2nd-4th question = none
QuoteWhat sort of personal hell have these people undergone all because of your Messiah Complex, based on a travesty of a sham of a pseudo-science?
The people I'm talking about have already been convicted by a judge or court of law.
QuoteIf people are rapists, murderers, drug users, or 'child pornography types', let The State-- on whose shoulders the burden of proof lies-- make its case in a court of law, whereupon a person who is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt by a jury of his peers may defend himself based on FACTS.
And as I just said, the state has already convicted these people. They are known rapists, murderers, drug users, or 'child pornography types'. I think you missed the point completely. But hey, if you condone rape, murder, incest, drug use, then good for you. I'm just glad you don't sit at my dinner table.
Quote"But polygraph interrogations sometimes elicit confessions we might not have obtained otherwise..." you whine. A good stiff beating with a short truncheon or length of chain would probably elicit even more confessions. There was a time in this country when beatings were in fact administered by the police in hopes of gaining a confession. That's against the law now. Polygraphy is next. I urge you to hone job skills in other areas because YOUR CURRENT OCCUPATION IS TOAST.
Again let me stress, polygraphy is not my job, and I'm personally neither for nor against polygraph use. I (and let me stress this)
SUPPORT its use, because the government deems it neccesary. If you want to get rid of them, then the
burden is on you to do so.
QuoteWith regard to Verbatim's recent post (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=478.msg2273#msg2273), I see nothing in it that makes me uncomfortable with the use to which he put the information we've provided: that is, there is no indication that he lied with respect to any relevant question he was asked during his polygraph interrogation.
No, I was talking about people like this guy xpmachina.
QuoteNote that AntiPolygraph.org's goal is not merely the abolishment of polygraphy, but also to help protect the truthful/innocent from polygraph abuse until that ultimate goal is achieved.
But here's my point George. That's not all that you're doing here. You are basically aiding criminals to defeat the poly. Let's say a rapist is convicted in a court of law and is then told to submit to poly's for the next 10 years, to help keep him in line. He reads your book and then come his first poly he passes. Now he thinks he's safe from the poly. He goes out and commits another rape. He passes the next poly. Had he not known about the book and ways to defeat the poly, would he still have passed? No one can no for sure, but at least there was a chance to stop this guy before he was able to do it again.
Granted this is a far fetched story, but do you see my point here? Knowing that the possibility exists, it would be hard for me to sleep at night, knowing that I have aided criminals to beat the system.
QuoteThe more important question you might ask yourself is, is polygraphy reliable? And if not, then why do we place any reliance on it?
I don't know if it is or isn't.
But, do you honestly believe that all the guys that come on here are innocent as they say? If so, I could take you down to the local prison and I'm sure 95% of those guys would say the same thing.
As far as poly's themselves, I think they are a tool and not the end all, be all of the investigative process.
Just my point of view.
Duc748,
You wrote:
QuoteNo, I was talking about people like this guy xpmachina.
I have no basis for concluding that xpmachina is guilty of any crime. My first advice to him (as it would be to anyone accused of a crime) is to refuse any polygraph "test." He responded that under his country's system of law, this was not an option.
QuoteBut here's my point George. That's not all that you're doing here. You are basically aiding criminals to defeat the poly. Let's say a rapist is convicted in a court of law and is then told to submit to poly's for the next 10 years, to help keep him in line. He reads your book and then come his first poly he passes. Now he thinks he's safe from the poly. He goes out and commits another rape. He passes the next poly. Had he not known about the book and ways to defeat the poly, would he still have passed? No one can no for sure, but at least there was a chance to stop this guy before he was able to do it again.
Granted this is a far fetched story, but do you see my point here? Knowing that the possibility exists, it would be hard for me to sleep at night, knowing that I have aided criminals to beat the system.
Although the information available on this website will doubtless be useful to criminals who seek to beat the polygraph, that is not AntiPolygraph.org's objective. What we find absolutely intolerable is that in America (and increasingly, elsewhere), truthful persons are being falsely accused on the basis of the pseudoscience of polygraphy and suffering irreparable harm as a result. We provide information on polygraphy and polygraph countermeasures to anyone who seeks it because there is no other way to make it available to those who legitimately need it.
You concede that you do not know whether polygraphy is reliable or not. It isn't. It's a fraud. I suggest that you educate yourself further before you upbraid others for exposing it for the fraud that it is.
QuoteAlthough the information available on this website will doubtless be useful to criminals who seek to beat the polygraph, that is not AntiPolygraph.org's objective.
And that is where the problem lies.
QuoteYou concede that you do not know whether polygraphy is reliable or not. It isn't. It's a fraud. I suggest that you educate yourself further before you upbraid others for exposing it for the fraud that it is.
My education of the process came while under its magnifying glass. I had a positive outcome. Others on this site, have had ONE polygraph and it came out bad. I would say that the majority of people have positive outcomes, but you fail to hear from them, because they have no need to try and "beat" the system.
You claim it is a fraud, because it is based upon interpretation. Doctors base medical diagnosis' based upon their interpretation of an EKG. The majority of the time the diagnosis is correct. True doctors and polygraphers may make mistakes, as nothing in this world can garauntee 100% reliability. So would you say that doctors are nothing more than frauds?
Quote from: Duc748 on Mar 09, 2002, 03:31 PM
To beech:
But hey, if you condone rape, murder, incest, drug use, then good for you. I'm just glad you don't sit at my dinner table.
Duc,
Would you please enlighten me as to when and where on this message board, or indeed anywhere on the Internet, I have asserted that I condone rape, murder, incest, and drug use?
Failure to expeditiously do so will be taken as an acknowledgement on your part that the above quoted passage is inflammatory, libelous, and wholley lacking truth.
It seems to me that even if one believes that the polygraph can have utility, the very act of complaining that websites like Antipolygraph.org are allowing criminals to pass the polygraph is a tacit admission that the polygraph has been compromised (and is compromisable). The success of the polygraph as an interrogation instrument depends inherently on the interrogation subject not being aware of the techniques involved. If this information is revealed, the polygraph is not effective. If this were not the case, there would be no reason to accuse antipolygraph websites of assisting criminals (or anybody else, for that matter).
Of course, blaming Antipolygraph.org for this spread of information is rather like trying to shoot the messenger. Information revealing the methodology and deception behind polygraph interrogation has in fact long been available. If you go to your local library you will surely find, at very least, a well-thumbed copy of the first edition of Lykken's book. And probably much else on the subject. The internet, and sites like Antipolygraph.org, simply makes access to this sort of information easier and encourages discussion and debate.
Now, it seems to me that at this juncture there are two possible courses of action. The first is the one that those who accuse Antipolygraph.org of assisting criminals would seem to prefer: preserved the utility of the polygraph by restricting access to information. This is sort of like putting the toothpaste back in the tube, but it is possible. Antipolygraph.org could cease operation or instead switch to disseminating propaganda on the effectiveness of the polygraph. The books in the library can be burned. The internet and other means of communication, such as faxes and copier machines, can be eliminated. Those who continue to try to propagate and discuss such information can be deported or interned in prison camps. All of these techniques have been done before in a number of countries on the basis of "national security."
The second option is to admit that the polygraph has lost its utility (or is rapidly in the process of losing its utility) as an instrument of interrogation and of law enforcement, and shift resourses to more effective means of investigation.
Of course a third option would be to develop counter-countermeasures that are actually effective, or at very least pretend to have done so. That seems to be the approach of several of the polygraphers and polygraph proponents who have posted recently to this board. Given the inability of such persons to date to convincingly argue that effective counter-countermeasures exist (or are even possible), I rather suspect that they have chosen instead to simply pretend that such measures exist. The fact that they are even making the attempt to convince people of this is further evidence that this is the case. In any case, the whole approach inherently depends on concealing information, the ultimate result of which is a return to my first option above.
In summation, it would seem that rather than accusing Antipolygraph.org of compromising the polygraph by disseminating information, it would be more effecting (and more logical) to berate the government and law enforcement agencies for putting any reliance in compromised technology.
Timofei
QuoteMy education of the process came while under its magnifying glass. I had a positive outcome. Others on this site, have had ONE polygraph and it came out bad. I would say that the majority of people have positive outcomes, but you fail to hear from them, because they have no need to try and "beat" the system.
You claim it is a fraud, because it is based upon interpretation. Doctors base medical diagnosis' based upon their interpretation of an EKG. The majority of the time the diagnosis is correct. True doctors and polygraphers may make mistakes, as nothing in this world can garauntee 100% reliability. So would you say that doctors are nothing more than frauds?
Our criticism of polygraphy is based on a rather extensive review of the polygraph literature. We assert that polygraphy is a fraud because it has no scientific basis but is instead fundamentally dependent on trickery. It is a fraud not because it is based upon interpretation per se, but because it is based on the interpretation of data on the basis of which no logical inference may be drawn regarding whether someone has spoken the truth.
You have conceded that you do not know whether polygraphy is reliable or not. You're clearly ignorant in this regard, and yet you seem to have little interest in educating yourself. Again, I suggest that you do so before passing moral judgment on others for working to expose and end polygraph waste, fraud, and abuse.
Quote from: Duc748 on Mar 09, 2002, 03:31 PM
I (and let me stress this) SUPPORT its use, because the government deems it neccesary. If you want to get rid of them, then the burden is on you to do so.
Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...I, as a member of the People, am doing just that.
Quote
Duc,
Would you please enlighten me as to when and where on this message board, or indeed anywhere on the Internet, I have asserted that I condone rape, murder, incest, and drug use?
Did I or did I not say, "
If you condone...."
Duc748,
In context, you wrote to beech trees:
Quote...But hey, if you condone rape, murder, incest, drug use, then good for you. I'm just glad you don't sit at my dinner table.
I think your remark while perhaps not libelous was certainly inflammatory and hardly conducive to rational discourse. Rather than attempting to justify your injudicious comment to beech trees, you might consider apologizing for it.
QuoteYou have conceded that you do not know whether polygraphy is reliable or not. You're clearly ignorant in this regard, and yet you seem to have little interest in educating yourself. Again, I suggest that you do so before passing moral judgment on others for working to expose and end polygraph waste, fraud, and abuse.
George, true I am ignorant of polygraphy in its entirety. I've said this in the past and I'll say it again. What I HAVE BEEN studying are the posts on this site, and with great interest. It is here that I am basing a lot of my information. THE PEOPLE that post to this board are the ones giving me information with which I am basing my views. I don't pass judgement on those who wish to end polygraphy because they feel it's not fair or scientific, for people have the right to change the system. What I am passing judgement on are the methods being employed.
You don't have to be an expert in polygraphy to see the negative impact this site can have. You can read about it through criminals posts.
Timofei,
You wrote, among other things:
QuoteThe success of the polygraph as an interrogation instrument depends inherently on the interrogation subject not being aware of the techniques involved. If this information is revealed, the polygraph is not effective.
This is a key point that you've raised, and one that the polygraph community (and the governmental agencies they serve) have long avoided confronting. For example, the president of the American Polygraph Association has declined to state (http://antipolygraph.org/read.shtml#informed-subjects) how APA members should should proceed if a subject were to reveal that he/she has read
The Lie Behind the Lie Detector and understands the psychological manipulations involved in both the "stim test" and the "control" questions.
With information about polygraphy now readily available to anyone who can read English and has Internet access, it's high time that the polygraph community mustered the courage to candidly address the question of how to deal with informed subjects.
Quote from: Duc748 on Mar 09, 2002, 06:15 PMDid I or did I not say, "If you condone...."
My father had a response for statements like this one. "You're too clever by half."
Weaseling out of harsh, blatant innuendo shows you to be rather gutless as well. My impression of the Federal Bureau of Investigation is rapidly declining commensurate with your ever-increasing number of posts.
Quote from: Duc748 on Mar 09, 2002, 06:35 PM
George, true I am ignorant of polygraphy in its entirety. I've said this in the past and I'll say it again. What I HAVE BEEN studying are the posts on this site, and with great interest. It is here that I am basing a lot of my information. THE PEOPLE that post to this board are the ones giving me information with which I am basing my views. I don't pass judgement on those who wish to end polygraphy because they feel it's not fair or scientific, for people have the right to change the system. What I am passing judgement on are the methods being employed.
You don't have to be an expert in polygraphy to see the negative impact this site can have. You can read about it through criminals posts.
Earlier today, you wrote, "So George, knowing that you're helping rapists pass the polygraph, how do you feel about it?" and you implied that beech trees condones "condone rape, murder, incest, drug use." Seems to me you're passing moral judgment on both persons and methods.
You also asked earlier, "If your goal is simply to rid the world of polygraphs, isn't there another way to do it?"
What other way do you have in mind?
QuoteWeaseling out of harsh, blatant innuendo shows you to be rather gutless as well.
And so now we've reached the, "My dad can beat you dad up" phase. Kind of what I expected from you. Of course, should I have expected differently from a self-admitted liar? You want to call it innuendo or gutless, so be it. Really means very little to me, coming from you. Cheers.
QuoteEarlier today, you wrote, "So George, knowing that you're helping rapists pass the polygraph, how do you feel about it?" and you implied that beech trees condones "condone rape, murder, incest, drug use." Seems to me you're passing moral judgment on both persons and methods.
George, you
ARE helping rapists pass the polygraph. That's not a moral judgement, it's a fact.
QuoteYou also asked earlier, "If your goal is simply to rid the world of polygraphs, isn't there another way to do it?" What other way do you have in mind?
Tell you the truth George, I don't know off the top of my head. But, there must be another way. Lobbying congress, getting your message of polygraphs not being valid through other media outlets. Getting your governor to hear what you have to say and showing the evidence to support your case. Anything other than telling convicts this is how you beat the polygraph, so that they may continue on their merry way of destroying other people's lives.
You say the polygraph ruins innocent people's lives. I'll argue that by helping these low-lifes, you're helping them to ruin innocent people's lives. So who sits on the high moral ground here?
Quote from: Duc748 on Mar 09, 2002, 09:25 PM
And so now we've reached the, "My dad can beat you dad up" phase. Kind of what I expected from you. Of course, should I have expected differently from a self-admitted liar? You want to call it innuendo or gutless, so be it. Really means very little to me, coming from you. Cheers.
What an odd, warped and totally pathetic misrepresentation of my previous post. How very typical of you, however.
And, just to clarify the facts for the benefit of other readers, never once have I asserted I lied on my polygraph exam.
Mr. Duc, you wield the epithet 'liar' on this board with such viscious ferocity and frequency I can only presume you must think yourself the second coming of Jesus Christ himself, and that you have never once in your entire life lied to anyone, including your recent polygraph interrogator. How pleasant it must be to sit so high above the rest of humanity, doling out your gratuitous assertions and lily-livered attempts at ad hominem attacks, snugly cozy in the comforting fact that you alone are without sin. You're a popinjay, Mr. Duc, nothing more.
Rarely have I been so thoroughly entertained by another's hubris. Please don't stop posting,
BT
Duc, in all due respect, I don't think Mr Maschke's purpose of this website was to promote convicted sex offenders' passing these polygraphs. Yes Duc, it does outrage me myself that certain types of people who have done horrible crimes are using these methods. One thing is though, you can't blame Mr Maschke. His goal was to prove the deception of the polygraph itself, and that he has done. Believe me I know where you're coming from internally, with certain criminals employing these methods, but in all due respect these people were going to find this method whether in this website, or somewhere else. This website is not the only place to learn about the polygraph, and it's failures. One other thing, is that some people do use countermeasures while telling the truth. It's just their insurance policy of not coming out a false positive, which you can see many people who have worked long, and hard towards achieving certain positions, and/or rank are labeled as crooks, spies, drug addicts, and so on. Duc I do know you're a person of high integrity and I can see that you will make a very good Federal Agent, and not to mention you have served our country as well for a long period of time. You have bigger and better things ahead of you. One thing though, you must be a bit more open-minded towards certain issues, I mean being an Law Enforcement Agent means you must have a high level of tolerance, and even though you may disagree with certain viewpoints, you will have to offer the same and equal level of public service to the inhabitants of this country. I just thought I had to post, because in all due respect, I know you're a man of honor, and I do have the outmost respect for people like you, but also I don't think Mr Maschke should be held liable for certain criminals looking for ways to beat the system. From a personal standpoint George is anything but a promoter of deviance, personally he's helped me out greatly in my personal endeavors which you probably know of. I'm not the best judge of character, but I do know when I see people encompassing honorable characters such as yourself and Mr Maschke and many other members of this site, while there will be those dirty deviant individuals on this site, I am a firm believer in the justice system, and I truly believe somehow, somewhere, these people who are commiting such shameful acts will get theirs in the end. Take care, and I truly hope I didn't upset many of the honorable and respected members of this site.
Dear all,
Sorry to arouse a chaos here. Though it's not polite so use four-letter word here, but still have to say
FUCK YOU DUC!
If you had ever read my posts before you would have not said "This guy xpmanchina"
I was in the stage of investigation for a criminal case, in which I am 100% totally innocent. The policemen tried to set me up, and I was asking for help in this website. I am not in a rape case, drug dealing, robbering nor anything very serious. I am a decent person, and have no record.
Just because the cops tried to set me up, that was why I said yes when the DA asked me to submit a poly test. But I am just an normal person, I have never been experienced in any charge before, then I found this site, people especially Geroge helped me a lot!!
Just like George said, and from my own experience.
POLYGRAPH TEST HAS NO SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE TO PROVE ITS VALIDITY.
You don't have to be trained like spy or FBI/CIA agents. I can be sure that anyone being trained himself for 2 hours shall surely pass the test.
We don't come to this website to be a coward, we come here to protect ourselves from being falsely accused. At least I came here for that reason.
Thank you George always. Polygraph test is a lie, I have already proved it by myself no matter how people think. It is certainly a lie.
100% innocent my ass! Everyone says they are being set up by the cops!
Quote from: Duc748 on Mar 09, 2002, 09:33 PM
George, you ARE helping rapists pass the polygraph. That's not a moral judgement, it's a fact.
Tell you the truth George, I don't know off the top of my head. But, there must be another way. Lobbying congress, getting your message of polygraphs not being valid through other media outlets. Getting your governor to hear what you have to say and showing the evidence to support your case. Anything other than telling convicts this is how you beat the polygraph, so that they may continue on their merry way of destroying other people's lives.
You say the polygraph ruins innocent people's lives. I'll argue that by helping these low-lifes, you're helping them to ruin innocent people's lives. So who sits on the high moral ground here?
Duc748,
We are indeed lobbying Congress and are happy to speak with anyone in the media who will listen. But these measures won't help to protect the innocent people who are being harmed by polygraphy, and we can't provided them with the information they need without also making it available to everyone.
The information about polygraph countermeasures provided here will help criminals "continue on their merry way of destroying other people's lives" only to the extent that government places any reliance on this pseudoscientific fraud. Is it responsible for government to rely on polygraphy, in view of the fact that it has no scientific basis and is easily defeated through the use of simple countermeasures (information regarding which is freely available to all who seek it)?
Duc 748,
The information we provide is also likely being used by sexual assault victims in the numerous jurisdictions where the alleged victim of a sex offense must "pass" a polygraph "test" before the police deem the allegation credible and begin a serious investigation.
There is a great deal of legitimate information in our society that is also exploited by criminals. The fact that something can be used by criminals is hardly a reason for suppressing it.
Take, for example, rights and protections present in our justice system. These are frequently taken advantage of by guilty individuals. Under your logic, perhaps we should eliminate the right to remain silent. After all, criminals who confess are much easier to convict. While were at it, let's toss the Miranda decision. Many criminals may be ignorant of their rights--let's keep them that way, right? I could go on ad nauseam.
The information we provide on this website has an indisputable legitimate purpose--to help those forced to submit to polygraph "tests" protect themselves against false allegations.
Instead of blaming those who provide support for victims of polygraph "tests," you should be directing your energy toward those in the polygraph profession who routinely mislead the press and elected officials about the infallibility of polygraph "tests." The fact is that these "tests" are easily beaten by the guilty. They also tend to falsely accuse many innocent people. If criminals are going unpunished because they are beating polygraph "tests," the blame rests with anyone foolish to rely on these "tests."
Lastly, your comparison of polygraphy to modern medicine is ludicrous. The medical diagnostic process is supported (and shaped by) the best universities in our nation. The faculty at these institutions represents the best and brightest in our society. Polygraphy, on the other hand, receives nearly no respect from top tier academics. I'll leave it up to you to flesh out the argument that the level of intelligence among the faculty at polygraph schools compares favorably to the level of intelligence of those who teach medical doctors their diagnostic skills.
Answer something for me, xpmachina? If you were confident that you didn't do anything, then why use counter measures? Were you afraid that you couldn't pass the polygraph examination by just telling the truth. Well there is one good thing about your admission(using counter measures that is), you knew that the polygraph instrument would detect your lies ;)
Quote from: Propoly on Mar 28, 2002, 03:48 PMWell there is one good thing about your admission(using counter measures that is), you knew that the polygraph instrument would detect your lies
But not, apparently, his use of countermeasures. ;)
QuotePropoly: If you were confident that you didn't do anything, then why use counter measures?
Perhaps xpmachina used countermeasures for the reason that he stated--that
[the]POLYGRAPH TEST HAS NO SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE TO PROVE ITS VALIDITY.QuoteWell there is one good thing about your admission(using counter measures that is), you knew that the polygraph instrument would detect your lies
To deduce that those who employ countermeasures believe that the polygraph instrument is an accurate lie detector is a non sequitur. The only reasonable conclusion that can be drawn is that these individuals do not wish to chance their futures on the outcome of a "test" shown to be no more accurate than chance.
George,
You still amaze me. You have virtually dropped out of a debate that was started on your assertions of polygraph validity. Too date you have never presented any credible peer-reviewed research to support any of your assertions. You haven't even said what the current accuracy rate.
Gino,
You say chance. What does the current peer-reviewed research say of polygraph accuracy?
J.B.,
You refer, of course, to the message thread, The Scientific Validity of Polygraph (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=408.msg1903#msg1903). My assertions regarding the validity of CQT polygraphy are that it has not been proven by peer-reviewed scientific research to differentiate between truth and deception at better than chance levels under field conditions, and that because it lacks both standardization and control, it can have no validity. I think enough has been said about this in that discussion thread that critically thinking readers can draw their own conclusions about these arguments. The reason I haven't stated the "current accuracy rate" is that an unscientific procedure like polygraphy can not have a meaningful accuracy rate. It would be rather like attempting to state the accuracy rate of the opinions rendered by police interrogators regarding the truthfulness of those they interrogate. Even if an accuracy rate could be determined for a sampling of interrogations, that rate would have no predictive validity for the opinion rendered in any particular interrogator's interrogation of any particular person on any particular day.
I'd also like to make a fine point about what Gino wrote above: it's not the case that CQT polygraphy has been proven by peer-reviewed research to be no more accurate than chance, but rather that CQT polygraphy has not been proven by peer-reviewed research to be more accurate than chance (under field conditions). There is an important difference between the two propositions.
George,
Quote
The reason I haven't stated the "current accuracy rate" is that an unscientific procedure like polygraphy can not have a meaningful accuracy rate. It would be rather like attempting to state the accuracy rate of the opinions rendered by police interrogators regarding the truthfulness of those they interrogate.
Again you skirt the issue. There are accepted peer-reviewed field research studies on CQT polygraph and there is a current accuracy rate established by those studies. The reason CQT polygraph has not been unanimously accepted as a scientific method has nothing to do with its current accuracy rate or its scientific basis. It has to do with the squabbling between ideological camps as to who's question format is better. Your reference to an interrogator's ability to render an opinion on truthfulness has nothing to do with CQT polygraph.
Gino, Beech
Since my replies to messages on this site, I have yet to get a negative reply from the readers who are actually posting comments, looking for answers. To be perfectly honest with you, I don't believe I will. Because if the truth be known, the majority of the individuals who are seeking information about the polygraph examination are hard working honest people, who are seeking unbiased information. It's obvious in your comments, Gino and Beech, no matter what information is provided about polygraphy on this site, you're not going to agree with. Therefore, as of this date and time, I will not respond to, or even waste my time replying to one of your comments as it pertains to what I wrote in an attempt to answer the questions of the curious and sincere individuals as it relates to polygraphy.
Quote from: Propoly on Mar 29, 2002, 05:37 PM
Gino, Beech
Since my replies to messages on this site, I have yet to get a negative reply from the readers who are actually posting comments, looking for answers.
I post comments. I look and have looked for answers. Now that I have become more educated on the subject, I post answers when I feel I have them.
QuoteTo be perfectly honest with you, I don't believe I will. Because if the truth be known, the majority of the individuals who are seeking information about the polygraph examination are hard working honest people, who are seeking unbiased information.
I guess the inference here is that neither Gino or myself are hard working nor are we honest, and that we have posted 'biased' information about the polygraph while you, Mr. 'Propoly', have not. Let's read on and see.
QuoteIt's obvious in your comments, Gino and Beech, no matter what information is provided about polygraphy on this site, you're not going to agree with.
To date, Propoly, I have seen nothing from you except gratuitous assertions and personal opinion. Precious little information. None in fact.
QuoteTherefore, as of this date and time, I will not respond to, or even waste my time replying to one of your comments as it pertains to what I wrote in an attempt to answer the questions of the curious and sincere individuals as it relates to polygraphy.
Well that's a shame. I guess when your polygraph interrogation victims actually have a chance to fight back and speak their minds, as well as bring to light the incredible pantload of BUNK the travesty of a sham of a pseudo-science polygraphy is, you fold like a cheap card table and crawl back to the heavily censored bulletin boards where your particular brand of magic snake oil can be peddled free from the scrutiny of others who know all about you. Take care,
bt
J.B.,
Among other things, you wrote:
QuoteThe reason CQT polygraph has not been unanimously accepted as a scientific method has nothing to do with its current accuracy rate or its scientific basis.
With regard to the scientific community's acceptance of CQT polygraphy, I would remind you of Iacono & Lykken's survey, which is discussed at p. 22 of the 2nd ed. of
The Lie Behind the Lie Detector (http://antipolygraph.org/pubs.shtml):QuoteIn 1994, William G. Iacono and David T. Lykken conducted a survey of opinion of members of the Society for Psychophysiological Research (SPR) (Iacono & Lykken, 1997). Members of this scholarly organization constitute the relevant scientific community for the evaluation of the validity of polygraphic lie detection. Members of the SPR were asked, "Would you say that the CQT is based on scientifically sound psychological principles or theory?" Of the 84% of the 183 respondents with an opinion, only 36% agreed.
Moreover, SPR members were asked whether they agreed with the statement, "The CQT can be beaten by augmenting one's response to the control questions." Of the 96% of survey respondents with an opinion, 99% agreed that polygraph "tests" can be beaten.
That CQT polygraphy is not unanimously supported has everything to do with its lack of an established (or establishable) accuracy rate and it's lack of grounding in the scientific method.
xpmachina. If itz true that you passed the poly test by resorting to CM, I'd say you just got lucky. Thatz about it. Hope you also have the same luck when you see your doc the next time and he failed to diagnose a cancerous tumor because you failed to co-operate with him. I understand why you need to make these postings. Those just don't realize that you'll have no chance to do so when the day comes for you to go behind bars.
Does your anti-polygraph/CVSA stance include other devices such as the 'P' wave monitor - Facial thermal imagine - Etc.?
I would be interested in any accurate statistical data indicating that any individual found to have failed the Polygraph and was indeed innocent suffered any specific consequences.
JM
Evidently you haven't read the numerous posts on this site. If you had you wouldn't have to ask the question.
All of the "truth" devices are bovine poop including "brain wave science". I would volunteer to be a research subject for the validity/invalidity of "all" of these divices if I could be assured that the true results would be plastered in every newspaper and on every TV station in this country. The brain wave science is just another money making scam. If there was anything to this "technology" they could do so much more good turning it toward the medical profession. And make so much more money.
Quote from: D Ngoo on Apr 17, 2002, 05:01 AM
xpmachina. If itz true that you passed the poly test by resorting to CM, I'd say you just got lucky. Thatz about it.
Add me to the 'just got lucky' list you're compiling.
QuoteHope you also have the same luck when you see your doc the next time and he failed to diagnose a cancerous tumor because you failed to co-operate with him.
I sat and reflected on this last passage for quite some time. After much thought, I've concluded this is
the most outrageous statement I've seen yet posted to these bulletin boards.
QuoteI understand why you need to make these postings. Those just don't realize that you'll have no chance to do so when the day comes for you to go behind bars.
To those who's voices would be stilled by your threats, I pray your chains rest lightly upon you as you lick the boots of Herr Ngoo.
As the ancient Spartans so magnificently phrased it:
Mo
lon labe (http://www.sierratimes.com/cgi-bin/ikonboard/topic.cgi?forum=4&topic=123)
Quote from: JM on Apr 17, 2002, 05:34 PM
Does your anti-polygraph/CVSA stance include other devices such as the 'P' wave monitor - Facial thermal imagine - Etc.?
I would be interested in any accurate statistical data indicating that any individual found to have failed the Polygraph and was indeed innocent suffered any specific consequences.
How about not being hired. I'd say that's a pretty specific consequence you sanctimonious [expletive deleted].