AntiPolygraph.org Message Board

This week, "Dr. Phil" McGraw will serve up yet another polygraph episode. The matter at hand is whether Joe Genoese killed his fiancée, Sheena Morris, on new year's day, 2009. Morris's body was found hanging in a Bradenton Beach, Florida hotel. Investigators ruled the death a suicide.

However, Morris's parents suspect that Genoese killed their daughter, and their suspicions are the subject of a two-part series to be broadcast this week. On Thursday (25 Oct.), the parents' allegations against Genoese will be aired, and on Friday (26 Oct.), the results of a polygraph "test" administered by Jack Trimarco will be revealed. Not coincidentally, Friday is the first day of the Nielsen ratings sweeps (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nielsen_ratings#Sweeps) period.

We don't have to wait until Friday to find out the results. Genoese failed the polygraph and has discussed his experience with reporter Lee Williams of the Sarasota Herald-Tribune:

Quotehttp://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20121022/ARTICLE/121029909?p=all

Ex-fiance of Sheena Morris fails polygraph

By Lee Williams
Published: Monday, October 22, 2012 at 1:27 p.m.
Last Modified: Monday, October 22, 2012 at 3:13 p.m.

BRADENTON BEACH - Joe Genoese, the former fiance of Sheena Morris, failed a polygraph examination about his role in the 2009 death, according to the polygraphist who administered the test.

Genoese, along with Sheena's parents, Kelly Osborn and Dave Morris, appeared last week at a taping of the "Dr. Phil" show in Los Angeles. Their two episodes are scheduled to be broadcast locally Thursday and Friday.

Genoese was tested by Jack Trimarco, a nationally known expert and the former chief polygraphist for the FBI's Los Angeles Field Office, who has personally conducted more than 3,500 examinations.

"He was deceptive to the relative issue, which was: Did you kill Sheena?" Trimarco said. "He failed the test for that issue. It wasn't a good test for him."

The entire examination, Trimarco said, was "textbook."

"He was cooperative. I didn't see any sign of countermeasures. The rapport was there. He was not resisting," Trimarco said. "I expected him not to fail, only because I told him he'd be a fool to take this test if he had something to hide. Boy, was he deceptive."

Genoese, 48, told the Herald-Tribune that appearing on "Dr. Phil" and taking the polygraph test was "the worst mistake of my life."

"I didn't do well. I came up deceptive," Genoese said. "It said I was lying. I guess I should have investigated this thing before I went on there. They set me up. If I was guilty of anything, why the hell would I go out there?"

Genoese said the show's producers told him that if he disagreed with the results of their polygraphist he could arrange another test with an examiner of his own choosing.

"I have one scheduled next week," he said. "I've even contacted a civil attorney. I'm tired of trying to prove my innocence."

Morris, 22, was found hanging in a shower stall of a Bradenton Beach hotel on New Year's Day 2009.

Bradenton Beach Police Detective Lenard Diaz concluded Morris killed herself. Her family insists she was murdered.

Diaz, who waited 22 days before interviewing Genoese in person, cleared him of any wrongdoing.

Genoese, a construction worker from Tampa, has said he is "disheartened" by theories put forward by Sheena's family implying he was involved.

According to police records, Morris and Genoese had a domestic disturbance 13 hours before the woman's body was found hanging in the hotel room.

Bradenton Beach police officers who were dispatched to investigate the disturbance wrote in their reports that they passed Genoese on the stairway as they were walking to the room. They did not stop or question him.

Genoese told Diaz that he went straight home after leaving the hotel and never returned, although questions have risen about his alibi.

Asked for her reaction to Genoese's failed polygraph, Sheena's mother, Kelly Osborn, said Monday that she was unable to discuss the taping because she signed a nondisclosure agreement with the show. She cannot comment until after the two episodes are broadcast.

Osborn has arranged a public viewing starting at 4 p.m. Friday at The Golf Club, 12950 Racetrack Road in Tampa. A portion of the proceeds will be donated to a domestic violence shelter.

The test

In Florida, the results of a polygraph examination can be admissible in court under very limited circumstances, according to Tammy Wildy, a polygraphist with the Florida Highway Patrol, who is president of the Florida Polygraph Association.

"Usually the tests that are allowed are stipulated tests," she said. "Both sides have agreed to accept the findings."

Wildy claims a 93 percent accuracy rate.

"As far as accuracy, there's not anything else out there that has a better accuracy rate for detection of deception than the polygraph instrument," she said.

Trimarco, who was the chief polygraphist of the FBI's Los Angeles Field Office from 1991-1998, has performed more than 1,100 criminal polygraphs related to FBI investigations.

Some of the cases included: the Unabomber, the Whitewater investigation and the bombings of the World Trade Center and the federal building in Oklahoma City. Trimarco has performed numerous classified examinations involving foreign terrorists.

Genoese said Trimarco used "a lot of trick questions."

"He asked me if I ever hurt anyone before 2009, and if I ever hurt anyone in jealousy," Genoese said. "I think I was set up. Basically, I went out there to do a good thing and got hung up like a piece of meat."

While the polygraph may serve as a useful ratings gimmick for the Dr. Phil show, it has a poor track record at actually resolving issues. The results usually serve only to confirm audience expectations. Guests for whom the audience feels sympathy pass while those whom the audience holds in scorn and suspcion fail. And where it's ambiguous, the result is likely to be "inconclusive."

For commentary on previous Dr. Phil polygraph episodes, see:

Drew Peterson's Polygraph Results Discussed on the Dr. Phil Show (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=4176.msg31915#msg31915)

Dr. Phil "A Husband's Double Life" (26 Nov. 2008) - Polygrapher Jack Trimarco Divines Unfaithful Husband Is a Pedophile (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=4163.msg31817#msg31817)

Dr. Phil Lie Detector Episode with Joelle Ogletree, Chayce Wilson, and Matt Brooks (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=3742.msg26931#msg26931)

Dr. Phil Polygraph Episode with John Swartz, 5 September 2007 (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=3675.msg25569#msg25569)

Dr. Phil Lie Detector Episode, 4 April 2007 (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=3529.msg24543#msg24543)

Dr. Phil Lie Detector Series, 6-7 & 28 Nov (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=3376.msg23458#msg23458)

Yet Another Dr. Phil Polygraph Episode (17Nov06) (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=3397.msg23556#msg23556)

Dr. Phil Passes Off Polygraphy as Science (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=2581.msg18300#msg18300)

George, you're kidding me with this post right? The polygraph is for ratings and the results are in line with what the audience believes? Anyone with a brain in their head knows this guy is guilty. The guy was stumbling over half his answers and then fails the polygraph by a legitimate source. The guy takes this test and goes on this show to try and make people believe hes innocent rather than to show his innocence. His ego got a little too big and it should cost him his life, yet morons run this justice system.  Calling you a moron would be an understatement.

QuoteAnyone with a brain in their head knows this guy is guilty. 

This statement alone shows who the real moron is. Legitimate source? What makes Trimarco any more legitimate than the rest of the charlatans?

Quote from: Jason blaze on Oct 25, 2012, 10:36 PMGeorge, you're kidding me with this post right? The polygraph is for ratings and the results are in line with what the audience believes? Anyone with a brain in their head knows this guy is guilty. The guy was stumbling over half his answers and then fails the polygraph by a legitimate source. The guy takes this test and goes on this show to try and make people believe hes innocent rather than to show his innocence. His ego got a little too big and it should cost him his life, yet morons run this justice system.  Calling you a moron would be an understatement.

Jason, my point is that:

1. Polygraphy has no scientific basis (https://antipolygraph.org/article-018.shtml) and polygraph chart readings are of no evidentiary value;

2. Phil McGraw, who has a Ph.D. in clinical psychology and should be aware of the shortcomings of polygraphy, cynically uses the lie detector as a ratings gimmick. It's no coincidence that he usually trots out Jack Trimarco during Nielsen sweeps.

I'm not stating an opinion with regard to Joe Genoese's guilt or innocence. However, I saw no clear and convincing evidence in the Dr. Phil website's episode summaries (New Year's Mystery: Who Killed Sheena? (http://www.drphil.com/shows/show/1903) and New Year's Mystery: The Polygraph Test Results (http://www.drphil.com/shows/show/1903)) that Morris was murdered, let alone that Joe Genoese is guilty of her murder.

It's worth noting that if Genoese were indeed a killer intent on beating the polygraph to divert suspicion from himself, he could have easily done so (as did Paul Ceglia, the man who sued Mark Zuckerberg for 50 percent of Facebook and passed a polygraph "test" (https://antipolygraph.org/blog/?p=737) about the authenticity of an alleged contract that was the basis of his claim; the case was thrown out of court and Ceglia was arrested for fraud yesterday).

Information on how to fool the lie detector is readily available to anyone who seeks it. See, for example, AntiPolygraph.org's free book, The Lie Behind the Lie Detector (https://antipolygraph.org/lie-behind-the-lie-detector.pdf) (PDF), which explains in detail how to pass a polygraph "test" (whether or not one is telling the truth).

George,


1.      Polygraphy has no scientific value and polygraph chart readings are of no evidentiary value


Polygraph is admitted in court proceedings in the State of New Mexico under rule 707 of the New Mexico State Supreme Court.  They are of evidentiary value.  It has been admitted in numerous other states as evidence.  Polygraph is gaining admission in court cases.  It is commonly used in probation revocation hearings.



2.      Phil McGraw, who has a Ph.D. in clinical psychology and should be aware of the shortcomings of polygraphy, cynically uses the lie detector as a ratings gimmick. It's no coincidence that he usually trots out Jack Trimarco during Nielsen sweeps.

Your evidence of this is from what authoritative source?  (regarding using it for ratings)

3.  I'm not stating an opinion with regard to Joe Genoese's guilt or innocence. However, I saw no clear and convincing evidence in the Dr. Phil website's episode summaries that Morris was murdered, let alone that Joe Genoese is guilty of her murder.

No trial has occurred and evidence has not been presented to the General Public.  I don't believe any of us can form an opinion based on the current information available to the public. 

Bill,

When I say that polygraph chart readings are of no evidentiary value, I don't mean to say that they are never admitted as evidence in our courts. Indeed, as you point out, in some cases, judges have deemed polygraph results to be admissible in court proceedings. But even in such cases, polygraph results are of no true evidentiary value because polygraphy has no scientific basis (https://antipolygraph.org/articles/article-018.shtml). Judges who admit polygraph "evidence" make a mockery of justice, and New Mexico has made itself a legal laughing stock by allowing the pseudoscience of polygraphy to get its nose under the tent.

With regard to Phil McGraw using the polygraph as a ratings gimmick, do you really not recognize that? As the Arabic saying goes, it's more obvious than the sun. But if the use of the polygraph to build suspense beginning early in the week, ultimately leading up to the opening of the manila envelope and the pregnant pause before the reading of the results doesn't convince you, it is made clear by the frequency with which polygraph episodes appear during Nielsen sweeps.

I agree with you that none of us can form an informed opinion based on the publicly available information. But fans of the Dr. Phil show are forming very strong opinions (http://community.drphil.com/boards/?EntryID=33350) nonetheless, opinions that are often misinformed by belief in the myth of the lie detector.

George,

I understand your total opposition to polygraph.  I acknowledge you have had a bad experience which was life altering for you as a result of polygraph examinations.  I don't agree with your statement regarding there being no scientific bases regarding polygraph.  And Dr. Phil does care about ratings I'm sure, his show is designed to attract viewers. I also believe he actually believes in polygraph. 

The State of New Mexico has some stringent rules regarding admission of polygraph as evidence, and holds examiners to a higher standard than other jurisdictions.  Nationwide, polygraph is gaining respect as a science, rather than an art.  And yes it has more strides to take. 

Bill,

You make reference(s) to the general topic of whether polygraphy (lie detection) is a science-based practice or an art that is practiced at various levels of accomplishment.  I have made no secret over the last couple of decades, that I believe when the latter occurs, bad and very bad art are the only end results and that any connection/alleged association to the former (science) is some combination of fanciful fiction, wishful thinking, and/or deceptive advertising.  That having been said...

Because it has been the better part of a decade since I have devoted much time and effort in discussing/debating that subject on this forum and because your commentary on this forum over an extended period would suggest you to potentially be a rational and civil debate adversary, I'd be personally interested in revisiting the general topic if you are so inclined to join me.

If so, that we might be debating apples vs. apples and discussing the methodology/application most utilized in the U.S., why don't we limit our discussion to the probable-lie control question test (PLCQT).  If you'd care to debate the following, "Resolved: The PLCQT is a valid science-based application for discerning truth from falsehood" as the presumed proponent of such, feel free to begin our debate with an opening statement/argument.  If you care to do so, you might also start a new thread with title related to the proposed debate.

Although I realize there are a number of related topics (many of which I and others (perhaps you) have discussed on this forum), e.g., the deception involved in lie detection, the ethics involved in lie detection, the utility of lie detection, countermeasures and lie detection, concealed information testing, digitally-obtained and analyzed polygraph data, etc., why don't we limit our discussion to the aforementioned resolved statement for debate.

Regards, Drew Richardson

Dr. Richardson,

I'm not so bold as to engage you in a debate.  I don't have the time to pull up all of the research I have read.  I am sure you have researched the subject well and have the time and resources to effectively communicate your points.  This would be a debate between a PHD and a BS, this is not what I consider in my league.  I enjoy discussing polygraph and assisting persons on this board understand the "basics" of polygraph.  I also like to dispel myths regarding polygraph.  Perhaps another examiner with your credentials will engage you in this debate.  I do have respect for your work in the field of polygraph and other aspects of attempting to discover the truth, there are areas in which we agree and disagree. 

Thank you for honoring me with the invitation. 

Quote from: Bill_Brown on Oct 31, 2012, 02:21 PMThis would be a debate between a PHD and a BS, this is not what I consider in my league. 

Bill,

PhD degree holders are to be respected for their knowlege, however the knowledge is directional. Where they are surely experts in the field of their dissertation, it does not necessarily put one out of your league. I personally have met many PhD's who have never used a hammer in their entire life. Others are professional students who lack the prowess to survive the rigors of the industry.

You told George that you don't agree with his statement regarding there being no scientific basis to polygraphy. You should be able to present an argument in support of such a position.

Perhaps I could germinate this debate by referring to the position of Gershon Ben-Shakhar where he states that any scientific test has the requirement of being linked to a theory that can be tested and validated. The empirical data must be validated against a theory. It is not sufficient to simply correlate results with criterion validity. What is the theory that certain observed psychophysiological responses are a result of deception?

the debate Dr. Richardson seeks recently occurred in the Superior Court in Anchorage Alaska (3AN-09-11088CR) State vs Thomas Alexander and James Griffith...Polygraph was to be admitted in both trials

A 14-month Florida state investigation into the death of Sheena Morris has concluded that her death was a suicide. No evidence of a homicide was found. And Joe Genoese, Morris' fiancé whom Jack Trimarco all but accused of murdering her, has passed a polygraph examination administered by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement:

Quotehttp://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20131121/article/131129926

NEW: In reversal, Sheena Morris' family rejects finding of suicide
By Lee Williams
Published: Thursday, November 21, 2013 at 12:04 p.m.

For a few hours Wednesday, Kelly Osborn's faith in her daughter Sheena Morris ebbed.

Osborn and her family received a powerful, emotional presentation from the prosecutor in charge of the "Sheena case," Assistant State Attorney Arthur Brown III, and the state agents who spent 14 months investigating the 2009 death.

The presentation included charts and crime scene photos of Osborn's daughter, presented on an easel. Morris' family was not allowed to record the meeting.

Afterward, Osborn hugged and thanked the lawmen and then drove home to Tampa.

She told the Herald-Tribune she had accepted her daughter's suicide, and was thankful for the professional investigation she had wanted for nearly five years.

But a few hours later — after discussing the meeting with Sheena's father, Dave Morris, who flew to Tampa from his New York home to attend the briefing — and with her current husband, Osborn said she "came to her senses."

"Sheena didn't kill herself," Osborn said late Wednesday night. "She was murdered."

Osborn and her family started to question some of the very emotional arguments Brown had made, especially after reading the 21-page memorandum the prosecutor had written for the case. That document was not given to them during their meeting at the State Attorney's Office.

Brown's report, which was based on an investigation by special agents from the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, states that investigators found "no evidence of a homicide."

It includes interviews with other forensic experts, in addition to snippets of information that Brown gleaned from several homicide textbooks.

Osborn says that Brown's report reads more like an argument against others who concluded that Morris' death did not appear to be suicide.

"I do not agree. It's my assessment of the evidence," Brown said. "There was no evidence to support that she was unconscious before she was hung. There were no injuries, no drugs and low blood alcohol."

Brown said he has never included citations into any so-called "decline memo," and had to educate himself as best he could.

Witness criticisms

About the same time Morris' family was questioning the prosecutor's findings, calls started coming in.

Some of the people named in the report, including several of her daughter's friends, told Osborn that what FDLE wrote about conversations they had with agents was not right, was taken out of context, or both.

FDLE agents accused Justina Jones, a longtime friend who has known Morris since age 12, of providing "inconsistent information" about Morris' state of mind.

Jones denied knowing how Morris met her former fiance or where she worked, the agents reported, even though Jones lived with Morris and dated Morris' manager.

Jones said Thursday the agents erred, twisting her statements from different periods of her life.

"They combined multiple time-frames into one statement, which makes it false" she said. "They did what they pleased with the information. They got it wrong. Sheena was murdered."

Another of Morris' friends said agents told her that her name would remain private.

"They never said it would be released to the media," the woman said.

The agents asked her about Morris' reaction to the 2008 suicide of a friend, Matt Kennedy.

"Sheena talked about it — why he would do it, but his death didn't affect her as they wrote," the woman said. "Sheena was curious about it, but I never told them it affected her. They pumped it up — the seriousness of it."

The woman requested that her name not be used in this story.

'Me against them'

During their meeting with Osborn, neither Brown nor the FDLE agents would comment about how Bradenton Beach police handled the initial investigation, participants said.

"At first I accepted what they said, that this was a suicide," Osborn said. "But it seems more like they just worked at disproving the facts — my facts — each point I had. I think they're covering for Bradenton Beach police. It's always been me against them. Now, I don't have anywhere to go."

There are other concerns.

In his memo, Brown attacks the medical experts retained by Osborn.

But one of the medical experts that Brown cited, Canadian Dr. Anny Sauvageau, Alberta's chief medical examiner, is not even trained as a forensic pathologist, although she has written a book about autoeroticism.

Brown wrote that Sauvageau is considered "the leading expert in North America on hangings, and has studied the topic extensively since 2004."

According to a 2012 story in the Calgary Sun, Andrew Baker, a forensic pathologist and president of the National Association of Medical Examiners, questioned Sauvageau's appointment as Alberta's chief medical examiner, asking why "anyone in a top post — be it in the U.S. or Canada — would not have the highest level of training available."

In a letter to the Sun, published Dec. 8, 2012, Donavon Young, assistant deputy minister of justice services for Alberta's justice and solicitor general, defended Sauvageau's 2011 appointment: "It is important to note that when she completed her residency in anatomical pathology in the early 2000s, forensic pathology was not a specialty in Canada. The forensic pathology program in Canada began in 2009."

He noted that Sauvageau helped create the exam administered by the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons to all doctors in Canada seeking certification in this area. "She is not eligible to take this exam because of her role in authoring it."

Brown said he was not aware of any concerns about Sauvageau's credentials.

The prosecutor said he did not send Sauvageau a case file to examine, just quotes from the report of one of the forensic experts that Osborn hired to examine Sheena's death.

Brown's report also indicates that Morris' former fiance, Joe Genoese, passed a recent polygraph examination conducted by Sharon Feola, a trained polygraphist and FDLE agent.

Genoese failed an earlier polygraph conducted by Jack Trimarco, which aired on the nationally televised "Dr. Phil" show.

Feola, according to Brown, criticized the questions Trimarco asked, stating they were "not appropriate nor generally relevant test questions," and that they were "designed to evoke emotional responses based on their very wording."

Brown said he never obtained copies of the questions that Trimarco asked Genoese, relying instead on Genoese's recollections of questions that were asked of him during the exam.

Trimarco, who was the chief polygraphist of the FBI's Los Angeles Field Office from 1991 to 1998, has performed more than 1,100 criminal polygraphs related to FBI investigations.

Those cases included the Unabomber, the Whitewater investigation and the bombings of the World Trade Center and the federal building in Oklahoma City. Trimarco has also performed numerous classified examinations involving foreign terrorists.

Feola has been a polygraphist for seven years.

According to his website, Trimarco has attended more than 50 polygraph training seminars conducted by the FBI or professional polygraph organizations and taught at federal, state and local agencies; national and state polygraph associations and private and professional groups.

Feola received her polygraph certification through a program held at the Northeast Counterdrug Training Center, operated by the Pennsylvania National Guard. The program was developed by the Harrisburg (Pennsylvania) Area Community College.

Asked whether Feola was qualified to criticize Trimarco's process for delivering the polygraphy test to Genoese, Brown said, "I simply reported what she said."

Feola did not return calls or emails seeking comment for this story.

Genoese did not return calls seeking comment.

Check back for updates to this developing story.

Copyright © 2013 HeraldTribune.com — All rights reserved. Restricted use only.

The Florida State Attorney's report of investigation may be downloaded here:

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/837736-20131120130340579.html

Jack Trimarco also accused (http://www.drphil.com/shows/show/2114/) two recent guests on the Dr. Phil show, Brittany Bowers and Will Lewis, of deception with regard to their claim that their friend, Jacob Limberios, shot himself. However, since the show aired, the Ohio Attorney General has reported his conclusion that Limberios accidentally shot and killed himself (http://www.thenews-messenger.com/article/20131120/NEWS01/311200007/Ohio-AG-Limberios-accidentally-killed-himself), and that a defect in his gun may have caused it to fire without the trigger being pulled. Brittany Bowers and Will Lewis had both passed polygraphs administered by the Ohio Attorney General's Office Bureau of Criminal Investigation. Trimarco reviewed the Bureau of Criminal Investigation's polygraph charts and scored them as "inconclusive." That episode of the Dr. Phil show, which aired on 15 November 2013, may be viewed here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0HRP4C5nyUs

You people need to buy a clue or two!! Seriously!! Genoese is guiltier than a witch on bonfire night. This man has gotten away with murder and I truly feel for Sheena's parents and family. Maybe it's a lesson to ALL young girls out there NOT to get involved with creepy men, much older than you. She has paid the ultimate price, let that be a very harsh reality lesson.

Although I think Dr. Phil is more often than not, a LOT more bias than he chooses or likes to admit, I feel the polygraph's are usually done with a high-degree of professionalism. I mean, let's face it, when you fail by a lot, you're lying!! Had the results been non-deceptive, I have NO doubt, Genoese, would be singing the tests praises all the way home. That's always the way with losers, isn't it?!

As for the two young people tested recently with regard to their friend supposedly shooting himself in the head, I just happened to see that show also. Yes, they failed the polygraph. However, it was their demeanor, body language and recollection of the day/nights events, that told me they were not being 100% honest. They were lying for one another and it wasn't hard to see.

I have great admiration for Cyril Wecht. His experience and honesty have helped solve many, many crimes that may otherwise have been ignored. Common sense tells you the trajectory of that bullet was not befitting the story they were trying to convince us with.

So, when you look at the autopsy, along with their general demeanor, their body language, their version of events (especially when they're separated), and then the polygraph results, it's extremely difficult, in my opinion (which counts for nothing), to see them innocent.

As for ratings, I don't doubt certain shows ARE aired at specific times, however, I don't believe the results are. Yes, audiences do love a 'he said, she said' scenario, who doesn't? That said, I don't believe they really care which way the polygraph goes. I think you feel excited for guests when they're shown to be deceptive, but I think people also genuinely feel excited for people who pass it. I don't envy anyone who finds themselves in that position. If they're deceptive, the right people need to act, and if they're non-deceptive, the right people still need to act.

Well, that's my 2-bobs worth, now you guys can pick it to pieces, quote parts here and there and tear what I said apart.  :-X

Let the deconstructing begin!  :-/

Thanks guys.
Cheers.

QuoteI mean, let's face it, when you fail by a lot, you're lying!!

This statement reflects a profound ignorance about polygraphy. It is akin to saying that if a suspected witch, dunked in a body of water, floats very well, then she must certainly be a witch.

See Chapter 1 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector (https://antipolygraph.org/lie-behind-the-lie-detector.pdf) for an explanation of polygraphy's lack of scientific underpinnings.

QuoteMaybe it's a lesson to ALL young girls out there NOT to get involved with creepy men, much older than you.

Curious, just how does the age disparity apply? Are ALL young girls safer with creepy guys closer to their age?

Quote
I mean, let's face it, when you fail by a lot, you're lying!! Had the results been non-deceptive, I have NO doubt, Genoese, would be singing the tests praises all the way home. That's always the way with losers, isn't it?!

Your statement here implies that you believe that a polygraph "works!" That is, it can tell you conclusively if someone is lying or telling the truth.... That is totally false.  It has always been false and it will always BE false... 

It's 2014 not 1964... wake up man.!

There is no "systemic" way to map wiggles on a polygraph to ANY human physiology...There never has been and never will be.... .

So how can a polygraph have "results" that say you're lying?  IT CAN'T...

How do you draw these conclusions ("He's as guilty as....")  from a box that you can't draw conclusions from?  Your statement is  ridiculous on multiple levels... but reflects the general public's complete ignorance about polygraphs.....

   

 

[/quote]

Your statement here implies that you believe that a polygraph "works!" That is, it can tell you conclusively if someone is lying or telling the truth.... That is totally false.  It has always been false and it will always BE false... 

  [/quote]

If you will settle for nothing less than perfection, polygraph is clearly a non-starter. But in the real world, where compromise is often a way of life, polygraph testing does a halfway decent job of identifying deceptive subjects in incident-specific tests.

It seems to be less effective when it comes to identifying truth tellers, however.

Still, polygraph can serve as a good investigative guide -- when it's not abused.

For information on polygraph accuracy, I suggest you take a look at the NAS report, or at least the Executive Summary therein, available here:

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309084369

Also, polygraph "works" remarkably well by its sheer utility. I concede that the level of collateral damage is high.

Here a fun fact for you, 1st4th5thand6th... In spite of the steady drumbeat of antipolygraph forces, polygraph usage has grown steadily in that past dozen or so years -- not just in the USA, but world wide.

Polygraph testing isn't going anywhere soon, so people calling for its abolition will have a very long wait indeed.

The best available protection against victimization by polygraph -- and there is a great deal of that -- would appear to be consumer education.

As a polygraph practitioner who recognizes the injustice that befalls many a truthful polygraph test taker, I will continue to push for a "bill of rights" for all polygraph test subjects.

Ideally, such a bill of rights -- similar to what has long existed in the health care field -- would be supported by the American Polygraph Association.

It's an uphill climb: In the opinion of this lowly polygraph operator, the APA has run from the bill-of-rights concept like a scalded dog.

Quote
Here a fun fact for you, 1st4th5thand6th... In spite of the steady drumbeat of antipolygraph forces, polygraph usage has grown steadily in that past dozen or so years -- not just in the USA, but world wide.

Well Dan, I guess for you and polygraphers everywhere, spreading ignorance and fear all over the world is fun isn't it?...Since polygraphers  will profit from this...more use = more money!.  Good for you!

And after all,  the more others do it the more you can justify your own existence.... Its kind of like all the marijuana users in Georgia, rejoicing over legalization in colorado isn't it?... Since it's legal there it's really not all that bad anywhere else is it?... just needs to be regulated ....

Quote
The best available protection against victimization by polygraph -- and there is a great deal of that -- would appear to be consumer education.

Who is the real victim Dan?... the people that are subjected to this non-sense or the companies/governments that "believe" your shuck and jive  and continue pay you for this "expert" analysis?      

Do you think American tax payers are really getting their money's worth?    ...never mind who gives a damn about them...

P.S.  Since you keep mentioning this Bill of Rights... Why don't you show us a draft?  Exactly what do you have in mind?   

1st4th5thand6th,

1. Go to my web site, www.polygraphman.com, and look at the page called "Recommended Reading." Then, please explain to all of us how I myself am spreading "ignorance and fear."

2. I concede there are polygraph victims on both sides of the aisle -- that is, not just polygraph test takers, but secondary polygraph consumers such as sexual offender treatment providers who blindly buy into the mystique of "polygraph science."

3. Are American taxpayers getting their money's worth? It depends on whose ox is being gored. For example, when an LE or government applicant confesses to disqualifying and often felonious behavior -- even if such admissions stem from the sheer utility of a polygraph "test" -- I would say yes, it's money well spent. But when a highly qualified truthful applicant is DQ'd because of a false-positive result, that's a loss.

4. As to my proposed "bill of rights," here's what I've suggested on several polygraph forums over the past year or so...

To be clear, the following is a verbatim cut-and-paste from what I have posted on several private polygraph forums:

-------start of original bill of rights post -----

"No test is perfect."

And some -- like polygraph -- are far from it.

What of the victims of polygraph tests? I speak of those individuals who suffer false positive results.

Clearly, many such victims would be better off had they never taken the polygraph.

Perhaps prevention -- and fully informed consent -- is the key.

Although much is made of polygraph ethics, its scientific robustness, very favorable accuracy (which is often compared to that of medical tests) and purported court-qualified reliability, there seems to be one thing that is conspicuously absent: a bill of rights for test takers.

It seems to me that if polygraph is to ever gain the respect that has been eluding the field for some 90 years, then a bill of rights would go a long way toward achieving that goal.

I have taken a stab at drafting a list of items to be incorporated into "bill of rights." Here it is:


1. Considerate and respectful treatment from the polygraph examiner throughout all phases of the polygraph process.

2. Knowledge of the name of the examiner who has primary responsibility for conducting the examination, and the names and professional relationships of other examines who may review the test for quality-assurance purposes.

3. Receive, if requested, a statement of qualifications of the examiner, including the number of exams they have run and their own success rate with those exams.

4. Receive, prior to the test, information on the technique to be used and citations (or abstracts) for peer-reviewed research that supports such technique.

5. Receive information, prior to the test, about polygraph theory and the testing process, accuracy estimates as determined by peer-reviewed research, and the prospects for error -- all in terms the subject can understand.

6. Receive, prior to the test, a complete (as possible) list of potential reasons for a false or inconclusive result, including instrument-related (hardware and software) variances that could skew results.

7. Receive, prior to the exam, as much information about the risks, realities and limitations of polygraph testing -- including opposing views from respected academic and legal sources -- the subject may need in order to better give informed consent.

8. The right to refuse the exam, or halt the exam at any stage of the process.

9. The right to be advised as to the reason for the presence of any individual besides the examiner during any portion of the exam process.

10. Receive, if requested, a complete copy of the entire exam, including full-length continuous video, charts, work sheets, score sheets (manual), computerized scoring output, notes, and any background information supplied to the examiner.

11. Confidential treatment of all communications and records pertaining to the examination. Written permission shall be obtained before the polygraph records can be made available to anyone not directly concerned with the immediate case.

12. Mandatory video recording of the entire examination process.


Why a "bill of rights"? There are bills of rights for all types of situations...medical patients, mental health clients, even for consumers of commercial credit.

A bill of rights for examinees would go a long way to demonstrating that polygraph is not the witchcraft that it's often made out to be.

Beyond that, it would help prevent polygraph abuses, and provide victims of false-positive results with a solid platform from which to launch remedial measures.

Again, this list is just a rough draft.


-------end of original bill-of-rights post -----


To whom it may concern, I will again be running for president-elect of the American Polygraph Association in 2015. The bill of rights will be the centerpiece of my platform.

So, 1st46th5thand6th, in light of my open-book approach to polygraph "testing" -- clearly documented on my web site -- and my proposed bill of rights for polygraph test subjects, please tell me where I'm going wrong.

Quote from: danmangan on Oct 30, 2014, 11:30 PM1. Considerate and respectful treatment from the polygraph examiner throughout all phases of the polygraph process.

Interesting post Dan. But I think the polygraph community will give you to the kiss your mother-in-law award for this. "Considerate" and "respectful" are in-congruent with post test interrogations and other methods to elicit admissions, which is the underlying goal in most areas of polygraph practice.

Dan,  you mention that you are upfront, open and honest about your polygraph service and this is what separates you from other polygraph services...

Yet I fail to see several key facts about the polygraph disclosed
anywhere on the site.... 

1) There is no scientifically accepted (systemic) way of mapping  physiological responses to lying (nor truth, deception, happy, glad etc)... This means that the wiggles on the polygraph are meaningless...interesting maybe...but meaningless without this scientifically proven "connection"..

2) Given number 1, the polygraph machine is just a prop
    
3) The real goal of the polygraph is to con test subjects into believing that it works so they will confess....

4) Knowledge of the all of the above renders the test useless...

I'm of the opinion, that people who sell goods and services to the public for profit should have a fiduciary duty to disclose all information relevant to that good or service so that the buyer can make an educated informed decision....

YOUR SITE DOESN'T DO THAT!
YOUR PROFESSION DOES NOT DO THAT!

I'm further of the opinion that this type of omission that polygraphers make is very similar to the information that is omitted in used car sales and real estate...

For example, When a car salesman sells a used car with full knowledge that the car was rescued from a flood but deliberately (knowingly, willfully) omits this fact to buyers and sells the car anyway...
Pretty slick huh?   but pure rattlesnake... 

Likewise a person selling his or her home with a newly refinished basement  failing to disclose that the property was flooded prior to the sale and that there is deadly mold growing behind all of those pretty walls etc...  Again... key pieces of information...deliberately omitted to make a sale...  another case of buyer beware...   
          
In my opinion,  as long as all of this is disclosed, clearly upfront...
then there is no reason for anyone to have a problem with it...
But when it's deliberately omitted -paying customer have a right to be PISSED....      



IMHO, polygraphers crave validity, preach credibility and claim "success" while  omitting MASSIVE pieces of vital information from it's customers
and balking at anyone who just happen to know this inconvenient truth and
have the gall to remind them of it...

1st4th5thand6th,

I disagree with you that I am misleading anyone.

Here is the featured introduction, verbatim, from the Recommended Reading page of my web site (www.polygraphman.com):

"Polygraph testing is a very serious matter.

I strongly recomend that you educate yourself on the risks, realities and limitations of polygraph testing -- as well as the differing opinions on polygraph efficacy -- by visiting the web sites linked on this page."

Below that most concise caveat is a link to www.antipolygraph.org.

Further, underneath the link to that site -- which follows a link to the American Polygraph Association's home page -- appears the following notice:

"A diametrically opposing view on polygraph validity and legitimacy, this site also contains the largest compendium of polygraph information publicly available, as well as an active user forum."  [Again, a reference to www.antipolygraph.org.]

If that isn't fair warning, I don't know what is.

Quote
I disagree with you that I am misleading anyone.

Here is the featured introduction, verbatim, from the Recommended Reading page of my web site (www.polygraphman.com):

"Polygraph testing is a very serious matter.

I strongly recomend that you educate yourself on the risks, realities and limitations of polygraph testing -- as well as the differing opinions on polygraph efficacy -- by visiting the web sites linked on this page."

Below that most concise caveat is a link to www.antipolygraph.org.

Further, underneath the link to that site -- which follows a link to the American Polygraph Association's home page -- appears the following notice:

"A diametrically opposing view on polygraph validity and legitimacy, this site also contains the largest compendium of polygraph information publicly available, as well as an active user forum."  [Again, a reference to www.antipolygraph.org.]

If that isn't fair warning, I don't know what is.

Dan, 

IF a used car dealer ad clearly says "refurbished from flood zone" ...that is an entirely different ad than "used - low miles".... 

The former tells the actual truth  (i.e. he's selling shit) the latter deliberately hides it....
IMHO, the latter is horribly misleading...the former is not at all...

Now, can a used car dealership can have a website that has links to the better business bureau, state lemon laws, and even links to websites that tell consumers what to look for in a used car?...Sure!..

All of that is a wonderful gesture..

But, when they know full well a car has been recovered from a flood, and deliberately don't disclose that fact to buyers.... and sell that car ....
That is totally unscrupulous!  (IMHO)

If your process is so good  why do you deliberately refuse to disclose these truths...?     (i.e 1-4 outlined in the previous post)

Is it because you know (just like the car dealer) full well
that you can't sell the product for anything CLOSE to what you are selling it for (if at all)  if you do fully disclose?

Or, is it because you are afraid that it will adversely affect your chance to become president of the APA? 

Dan, if I my speak metaphorically sir...I think you know full well your cars are all flooded, why do you keep selling them as "used'????






   

1st4th5thand6th,

So, you think I'm holding back critical information from prospective clients about the "test"?

Think again.

Oh wait, I have an idea... Let's find out.

Have a proxy phone me, email me, knock on my office door (call for an appointment, please), whatever...

I will tell the complete truth about the "test" -- informing them all about the risks, realities and limitations of polygraph testing as I know it. (NOTE: Office visits usually require a pre-paid fee.)

To the best of my knowledge, I'm the only examiner, at least in my area (New England), who explains the risks, realities and limitations of polygraph "testing" in real-life, understandable terms.

You game to prove me wrong?

I didn't think so.

BTW, I suspect -- but I'm not sure -- that this very thread is being monitored by almost everybody who's anybody in the APA politics.

Question... Why don't they chime in?

My theory: Polygraph is an indu$try. It's mainly about money, it seems.

Call me for details, if you'd like. Contact info is on my web site.

Meanwhile, polygraph victimization goes on unabated.

The usual disclaimer applies: This is just the opinion of one lowly polygraph operator.

Quote1st4th5thand6th,

So, you think I'm holding back critical information from prospective clients about the "test"?

Think again.

Dan,  I don't see any of this :

Quote
1) There is no scientifically accepted (systemic) way of mapping  physiological responses to lying (nor truth, deception, happy, glad etc)... This means that the wiggles on the polygraph are meaningless...interesting maybe...but meaningless without this scientifically proven "connection"..

2) Given number 1, the polygraph machine is just a prop
   
3) The real goal of the polygraph is to con test subjects into believing that it works so they will confess....

4)Clients who have Knowledge of the all of the above renders the test useless...and usually disqualifies them

anywhere on your website....

BUT...(and I apologize for not thinking of this first)
if you're telling me that you verbally describe items 1-4 (or something similar/equivalent)  with your clients BEFORE testing them, then I would certainly concede that you are making a concerted effort to properly and truthfully inform your clients.

So.....Yes or No Dan...Do you explain Items 1-4 to your clients verbally?

If you do...kudos sir...but why not put it on your website in big plain letters?

If you don't ...then  I would be of the opinion that you ARE omitting very relevant pieces of information...

FWIW,  IF you had placed this information clearly on your website then neither I nor anyone else would have any cause to question it... would we? 

I mean...after all,  If the used car ad says "Flooded" - the condition of the car is clearly stated.... right? 

Maybe as a suggestion you can add the above to your website....
under the caption  CAUTION - Buyer beware...
THAT would definitely separate you from EVERY other polygrapher on the face of the earth....
At the very least,  you'd really stand out!

P.S.   thank you for your offer to meet and greet.   
         
But, via items 1-4 above, websites like this one and the hard work of some very good people like Drew, George and Doug,  I know everything I need to know about polygraphy...    
  emails, phone calls, text messages with polygraphers...won't add anything relevant

P.S.S      Call it a hunch...hell even label me psychic....  but I don't think
              you're going to get very far with the APA and that's a shame.
              I am predicting that your opposition will bitch and whine
              that you spend to much time fraternizing with the enemy 
              and elect somebody else....  8-)

Quote from: danmangan on Nov 01, 2014, 10:44 PM"A diametrically opposing view on polygraph validity and legitimacy, this site also contains the largest compendium of polygraph information publicly available, as well as an active user forum."[Again, a reference to www.antipolygraph.org.]

If that isn't fair warning, I don't know what is. 

I'll give you that one Dan; you are probably the only one.

It's interesting that whenever anyone disagrees with you lot, you immediately pull the 'ignorant' card. It really is childish, don't you think? No need to answer (though I imagine you will anyway), it was a rhetorical question.

You know, I do believe it's possible for polygraph testing to be fallible, however, that is why it must be given by highly trained professionals in the right environment. I believe, when it's not even a 'close call,' then one has to take that seriously.

I may be ignorant, and no, I don't know a whole lot about polygraph testing, but that doesn't make me ignorant and it doesn't make me any less entitled to my opinion.

Speaking to people like you, will never be a productive, intellectual conversation because you dismiss anyone who has a different opinion to yours.

So when it comes to accusing people of being profoundly ignorant, I don't think you're one to judge me.

QuoteBe aware that polygraph operators also read the discussions on this message board. If you wish to remain anonymous, be careful not to post enough personal detail that you could be identified (for example, the exact date of your polygraph examination).

Wow, someone does have a flair for dramatics, don't they?! Seriously, if you believe in something so strongly and are proud enough to stand up for it, why would you want to hide behind?? Everything is a cloak and dagger conspiracy with you people. I could probably say with some certainty that no-one gives a rats ass who you are, and have way more important things to deal with than validating your attention seeking.

Obviously a bad experience has tainted your view of the world, but don't you think there comes a time to move on? ;) If you truly believe posting here will have any change or impact, I think you, your friends and your one-sided diatribes, are vexing and wholly nescient.

Well, this is 5 unproductive minutes of my life I'll never get back and it'll be falling on deaf and dumb ears here. Seriously people, get a life!!  :P

Arrivederci a tutti... the Proudly Ignorant Absurd Rabbit Habit[/font][/size].  :o  ;D
[/color]

:) ;) :D ;D >:( :( :o 8-) :-? ::) :P :-[ :-X :-/ :-* :'(

Quote from: danmangan on Oct 30, 2014, 11:30 PM1st4th5thand6th,

1. Go to my web site, www.polygraphman.com, and look at the page called "Recommended Reading." Then, please explain to all of us how I myself am spreading "ignorance and fear."

2. I concede there are polygraph victims on both sides of the aisle -- that is, not just polygraph test takers, but secondary polygraph consumers such as sexual offender treatment providers who blindly buy into the mystique of "polygraph science."

3. Are American taxpayers getting their money's worth? It depends on whose ox is being gored. For example, when an LE or government applicant confesses to disqualifying and often felonious behavior -- even if such admissions stem from the sheer utility of a polygraph "test" -- I would say yes, it's money well spent. But when a highly qualified truthful applicant is DQ'd because of a false-positive result, that's a loss.

4. As to my proposed "bill of rights," here's what I've suggested on several polygraph forums over the past year or so...

To be clear, the following is a verbatim cut-and-paste from what I have posted on several private polygraph forums:

-------start of original bill of rights post -----

"No test is perfect."

And some -- like polygraph -- are far from it.

What of the victims of polygraph tests? I speak of those individuals who suffer false positive results.

Clearly, many such victims would be better off had they never taken the polygraph.

Perhaps prevention -- and fully informed consent -- is the key.

Although much is made of polygraph ethics, its scientific robustness, very favorable accuracy (which is often compared to that of medical tests) and purported court-qualified reliability, there seems to be one thing that is conspicuously absent: a bill of rights for test takers.

It seems to me that if polygraph is to ever gain the respect that has been eluding the field for some 90 years, then a bill of rights would go a long way toward achieving that goal.

I have taken a stab at drafting a list of items to be incorporated into "bill of rights." Here it is:


1. Considerate and respectful treatment from the polygraph examiner throughout all phases of the polygraph process.

2. Knowledge of the name of the examiner who has primary responsibility for conducting the examination, and the names and professional relationships of other examines who may review the test for quality-assurance purposes.

3. Receive, if requested, a statement of qualifications of the examiner, including the number of exams they have run and their own success rate with those exams.

4. Receive, prior to the test, information on the technique to be used and citations (or abstracts) for peer-reviewed research that supports such technique.

5. Receive information, prior to the test, about polygraph theory and the testing process, accuracy estimates as determined by peer-reviewed research, and the prospects for error -- all in terms the subject can understand.

6. Receive, prior to the test, a complete (as possible) list of potential reasons for a false or inconclusive result, including instrument-related (hardware and software) variances that could skew results.

7. Receive, prior to the exam, as much information about the risks, realities and limitations of polygraph testing -- including opposing views from respected academic and legal sources -- the subject may need in order to better give informed consent.

8. The right to refuse the exam, or halt the exam at any stage of the process.

9. The right to be advised as to the reason for the presence of any individual besides the examiner during any portion of the exam process.

10. Receive, if requested, a complete copy of the entire exam, including full-length continuous video, charts, work sheets, score sheets (manual), computerized scoring output, notes, and any background information supplied to the examiner.

11. Confidential treatment of all communications and records pertaining to the examination. Written permission shall be obtained before the polygraph records can be made available to anyone not directly concerned with the immediate case.

12. Mandatory video recording of the entire examination process.


Why a "bill of rights"? There are bills of rights for all types of situations...medical patients, mental health clients, even for consumers of commercial credit.

A bill of rights for examinees would go a long way to demonstrating that polygraph is not the witchcraft that it's often made out to be.

Beyond that, it would help prevent polygraph abuses, and provide victims of false-positive results with a solid platform from which to launch remedial measures.

Again, this list is just a rough draft.


-------end of original bill-of-rights post -----


To whom it may concern, I will again be running for president-elect of the American Polygraph Association in 2015. The bill of rights will be the centerpiece of my platform.

So, 1st46th5thand6th, in light of my open-book approach to polygraph "testing" -- clearly documented on my web site -- and my proposed bill of rights for polygraph test subjects, please tell me where I'm going wrong.

AWESOME!! Wonderful to meet a fellow ignorant!!
[/size][/font]

QuoteWell, this is 5 unproductive minutes of my life

No arguments from me on this one.

Yes, you are entitled to your opinion. But we are also entitled to our opinion on your opinion. When you make statements like this:

"I mean, let's face it, when you fail by a lot, you're lying!!"

It does indeed reflect a profound ignorance of what polygraphy is. I recommend you read TLBTLD instead of composing sophomoric posts peppered with emoticons.

Oh, did my post ruffle one's feathers?

Given I'm dealing with an imbecilic twats (you), I thought emoticons would be right up your childish alley!!

You're not on this site looking to educate anyone or even hold a mature debate. It's your way or no way! If you actually extracted your head from your ass occasionally, you'd get that a lot of people are for the most part, agreeing with a lot of what the posters are stating (not you). Unlike them, you only amuse yourself by jumping in with your two cents worth to amuse nobody but yourself. There's no depth, logic or maturity to any of your replies.

Get off the computer, your mom's calling you for dinner you profoundly ignorant hick!!

:P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D  ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) :-/ :-/ :-/ :-/ :-/ :-/ :-/ :-/ :-/ :-/ :-/ :-/ :-/ :-/ :-/ :-/

QuoteIt's interesting that whenever anyone disagrees with you lot, you immediately pull the 'ignorant' card.

When I characterized your comment that one's failing by a lot in a polygraph means one is lying as reflecting profound ignorance about polygraphy, it was not intended as an insult.

The problem with polygraphy is that it has no scientific basis (https://antipolygraph.org/articles/article-018.shtml) to begin with, so there's little distinction to be made between failing by a lot or a little. As I mentioned earlier, you'll find more about why this is true in Chapter 1 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector (https://antipolygraph.org/lie-behind-the-lie-detector.pdf).

And for a real-world example, Jack Trimarco, the polygrapher who accused Joe Genoese of deception, also accused me of deception despite my having answered all questions truthfully. It seems I "failed by a lot," as he reported me as deceptive with respect to each and every relevant question. See my public statement, Too Hot of a Potato: A Citizen-Soldier's Encounter with the Polygraph (https://antipolygraph.org/statements/statement-003.shtml).

Very interesting reading George, this is the first time I've seen this statement. Curious, did you ever attempt to get your polygraph charts?

Quote from: Arkhangelsk on Nov 10, 2014, 10:01 PMCurious, did you ever attempt to get your polygraph charts?

In May of 2013, I filed a new Privacy Act with the FBI for any records, including any held by the polygraph division, mentioning me or AntiPolygraph.org. The FBI sent me just a few pages of documents associated with the time in the early 1990s I was seconded to them by the U.S. army reserve and my employment application. My polygraph charts were not included. And if the FBI is presumed to have responded to my Privacy Act request in good faith, it, including its polygraph division, maintains no records at all mentioning AntiPolygraph.org.

Interesting.  When I got rejected from the CIA a few years back, I mentioned Antipolygraph.org during my polygraph! Stupid me.  But I made no confessions, though I still got rejected right afterwards. When I filed my FOIA and received it, all of the polygraph info was censored out...except for one statement that read: "Applicant admitted to visiting Antipolygraph.org".

spiderman,

Thanks for mentioning this. I'm afraid that some agencies consider a person's candid admission to having visited this website as tantamount to an admission of intent to employ, or actual employment of, polygraph countermeasures. In a recent case documented on the blog (https://antipolygraph.org/blog/2014/10/18/confirmed-polygraph-countermeasure-case-documentation/), a U.S. army polygraph operator seemed keen to have the examinee, whom he suspected of having employed countermeasures, say that he had visited AntiPolygraph.org, despite the fact that the suspected countermeasure was something that AntiPolygraph.org specifically advises against.

Speaking as a lowly polygraph operator with only ten years of experience, the polygraph industry seems to suffer from an abject fear of the Countermeasure Bogeyman.

That fear is wholly justifiable, in my opinion.

From what I've seen, a test subject who admits to visiting this site -- or even studying polygraph theory in academic journals -- is at risk for suffering irrecoverably prejudicial handling by a suspicious (or fearful) examiner.

Backster repeatedly cautioned his pupils against "hallucinating" (his word) a subject's reactions on the polygraph charts, which seem to have a strange way of appearing when an examiner is biased.

Again, these comments are just the reflections of my personal views and observations.

Quote from: danmangan on Nov 11, 2014, 08:40 AMSpeaking as a lowly polygraph operator with only ten years of experience, the polygraph industry seems to suffer from an abject fear of the Countermeasure Bogeyman.

That fear is wholly justifiable, in my opinion.

From what I've seen, a test subject who admits to visiting this site -- or even studying polygraph theory in academic journals -- is at risk for suffering irrecoverably prejudicial handling by a suspicious (or fearful) examiner.

Backster repeatedly cautioned his pupils against "hallucinating" (his word) a subject's reactions on the polygraph charts, which seem to have a strange way of appearing when an examiner is biased.

Again, these comments are just the reflections of my personal views and observations.

Dan, If I'm reading your previous post correctly...., you as a polygraph examiner are basically admitting that polygraphers as a whole reward those individuals who are ignorant of the polygraph (or at least appear to be) and punish those individuals who are knowledgeable of it. 

Even when they have the decency and the "honesty" to admit it...

My question is this.... As the NSA/letter agencies continue to polygraph
and re-polygraph sensitive positions  2-4 times a year.etc... How can it be sure after a few tries that those people haven't figured out it's all an act?

Does the government, letter agencies etc... assume that the thousands of cleared employees are still ignorant of the process even after taking it several times?   

Do they (letter agencies) assume that if their selected candidates are ignorant once, they will remain ignorant????   That seems preposterous doesn't it????????         

1st4th5thand6th, I do not wish to imply that examiners "reward" those subjects who deny researching polygraph. The examiner will automatically assume they have. It's just that those who admit to researching the "test" will be facing even more scrutiny, in my view. Think of it as a double whammy.

As to polygraph being "all an act," I must disagree. Polygraph testing – in single-issue or incident-specific applications – works to a fairly significant degree, although that exact figure is unknowable. I doubt it's nearly as high as the polygraph industry would have one believe. The error rate may in fact be huge, but when used as a gross (i.e., heavy handed) culling tool, polygraph indeed gets the job done – but it comes at a cost: Collateral damage is high.

Uncle Sugar is more worried about catching bad guys than he is victimizing good guys. That's just the way the cookie crumbles. It's not going to change.

To be clear, I have no firsthand knowledge of the federal government's internal polygraph machinations. Many federal examiners monitor this site, so maybe someone will chime in and address your questions.


Meanwhile, something that should be of concern to anyone pondering taking a polygraph test is the inherent religiosity rampant in the industry. For example, polygraph seminars routinely begin with an appeal to supernatural powers for guidance.

I am not making this up.

Invocations to a deity are actual line items on the programs of scheduled events. At the conclusion of such seminars, benedictions are not uncommon.

When I started in polygraph some ten years ago, I thought all those little giveaways I saw at seminars, such as mouse pads and coffee mugs, that were emblazoned with "IN GOD WE TRUST, ALL OTHERS WE POLYGRAPH" were just feel-good freebies sporting a cute punchline. But there seems to be more to it, from what I've seen.

How this squares with the alleged science, I don't know.

Imagine a huge hall filled with hundreds of polygraph examiners, their heads bowed in reverence as a designated cleric – usually a minister, chaplain, pastor, etc. –  makes an impassioned plea to The Almighty for the members to be heavenly endowed with apt judgment as they go about their polygraph work.

In other words, the polygraph profession, at their events,  routinely appeals to God and asks for help.

OK...  I got to wondering... What happens, then, in a case where God apparently gives some sought-after help to a polygrapher?

Say an examiner runs a so-called maintenance polygraph on a convicted sex offender, and the charts are picture perfect NDI with no signs of countermeasures. But the examiner "has a feeling" something isn't right, and decides to pray on it overnight. Say the examiner has a vision (in a dream) and the perceived message from on high is that the test subject is indeed deceptive... What then? Is the polygrapher obligated – at least ethically – to make mention of it in his report?

Here's a larger question...  Can religion – as evidenced by the polygraph professions' formal appeals to supernatural forces for assistance – coexist with "polygraph science"?

By the way, whose religion should the polygraph industry be talking about? The invocations I've heard were decidedly Christian in nature. What about other religions? Maybe they could have a rotation...  Oh wait, then the Satanists would want to get in on the act, and that would probably irk the polygraph establishment at large. Better come back to that later.  How should the atheists be dealt with?  And what about the courts? Polygraph-science proponents are eager to share the APA's meta-analysis. Can the same folks explain the industry's affinity for Divine Intervention?

Let me be clear: I'm not knocking religion, anyone's beliefs, or any organization's religious leanings. I'm simply asking if religion should have such a formal place in an entity that espouses and promotes polygraph science.

Hey, if polygraph were all about utility, no one would care about the religion angle.

I've raised a few rhetorical and sensitive questions, to be sure, but they should be addressed.

Let's hear some comments – especially from the polygraph industry lurkers who frequent this site.

Quote from: danmangan on Nov 12, 2014, 01:26 PMPolygraph testing – in single-issue or incident-specific applications – works to a fairly significant degree, although that exact figure is unknowable. I doubt it's nearly as high as the polygraph industry would have one believe. The error rate may in fact be huge, but when used as a gross (i.e., heavy handed) culling tool, polygraph indeed gets the job done – but it comes at a cost: Collateral damage is high.

Uncle Sugar is more worried about catching bad guys than he is victimizing good guys. That's just the way the cookie crumbles. It's not going to change.

I don't know about everyone else, but as an anti-polygraph individual myself, I agree with this.  Polygraphers don't care that innocent people will be rejected for no reason, as long as they catch some liars...while other liars squeeze through.  I'll say the only reason that the polygraph is still working on people is because those people have yet to be informed about how the polygraph process works.  Hence, they haven't been to this site and studied the material.  After visiting this site, I was able to breeze through my federal polygraph with ease, much to the disappointment of the polygrapher, despite having a shameful past that I will never tell anyone about.

Quote from: danmangan on Nov 12, 2014, 01:26 PM  For example, polygraph seminars routinely begin with an appeal to supernatural powers for guidance. In other words, the polygraph profession, at their events,  routinely appeals to God and asks for help.

Wow, this is the first I've heard of this.  Most of the country, and world, is Christian anyway, so prayer to God is very common, though the Political Police try to block it in public settings.  I find it ironic that polygraphers are praying for their sham to work.  You can't read someone's mind, it is impossible.

QuoteAfter visiting this site, I was able to breeze through my federal polygraph with ease, much to the disappointment of the polygrapher, despite having a shameful past that I will never tell anyone about.

Well congratulations to you for beating the system and gloating about it. You say the polygrapher was disappointed, was that what he/she said, or simply your over-inflated assumption?? Usually when people have shameful pasts that they don't wish to share with everyone, the first thing they don't do, is go online stating as much. I'd send you a medal if I thought you had a chest to pin one on!

QuoteWow, this is the first I've heard of this.  Most of the country, and world, is Christian anyway, so prayer to God is very common, though the Political Police try to block it in public settings.  I find it ironic that polygraphers are praying for their sham to work.  You can't read someone's mind, it is impossible.

Given Religion is the LARGEST SHAM in history!! The world will only be a better, safer, happier place to be in, when we all agree to disagree and completely do away with religion. I'm a realist, so I know it'll never happen. What the hell would all the God loving/fearing people do?? People who believe in faith are people who can't deal with reality and need a patsy.

How is it ironic?? How many exams have you sat in on where the Polygrapher has said, 'Okay, before we start Mr. Moses, I'd just like you to hold my hand while I say a little prayer so my machine gets it right today??!! Sorry, but you're an idiot... amusing, but an idiot none-the-less.


Who the hell are the Political Police, pray tell??!! No really, I need to know now!! Please part with your gifted knowledge so I can throw my laptop down and enlist immediately!!

My heart goes out to you as it seems you've suffered some harsh and unjustly treatment whilst attempting to pray in a public place. That's just not on, is it?  Okay, so I'm being a tad sarcastic. But do you blame me? Your comment is on my top 5 most outrageous comments of the week. Maybe it's got nothing to do with praying or public places, it's just you they have a problem with. Food for thought.

As for polygraph results go... I believe they should be determined and thus discussed, on a case-by-case basis. So George had a negative experience, does that make all polygraph tests wrong?! I strongly believe it does not.

Not every person on death row, waiting to be executed is guilty but has the death penalty been abolished everywhere? No! Reason being because the majority are in-fact guilty. Do I condone killing innocent people? Hell no, who would?!

I happened to drive through a speed trap last week whilst on my way to work. Now, how many people are unduly fined because the machine got it wrong or malfunctioned on the day? Quite possibly a few. So do they remove them all together?

At the end of the day, a polygraph is not the one and only defining factor of guilt or innocence. In some States it is inadmissible and others it's admissible. I don't pretend to be an expert but I do know it's not as cut and dry as a lot of people lead us to believe. I personally believe, at the end of the day, provided the test is carried out by a qualified technician (as opposed to an online certificate), is taken within the correct environment, then the results are one of the many steps in making a case for or against a person. You don't convict some-one purely on a polygraph result.

This is my first visit to this site and I've read quite a number of posts before posting my own. I have noticed a trend wherein if some-one like myself disagrees with you, you tend to call us ignorant and other like-minded comments. So, let the quote/comment bashing/insult slinging begin. I'm a big man, I'll always be pro-poly and not much ever sticks to me, so fire away and let the games begin.

Time Out. . .

Oh, one other quick comment. George, you stated to another poster that Jack Trimarco found you to be deceptive, despite you having answered all questions truthfully, yes? So, are we supposed to take your word for that, are we? This entire site is based around the belief polygraph testing is inaccurate and therefore unjustly performed. That and the fact you say 'they' got it wrong. I don't know you from a bar of soap so why the hell would I take your word for it?? IF you ARE innocent, I'd have to say sorry for your bad experience and repercussions it must have had on your life. However, it really is your word against theirs, correct?

Ding Ding - Time In. . .  continue mud-slinging!!

QuoteAs for polygraph results go... I believe they should be determined and thus discussed, on a case-by-case basis. So George had a negative experience, does that make all polygraph tests wrong?! I strongly believe it does not.

I agree. My polygraph experience doesn't prove that polygraphy lacks scientific underpinnings. I've never made any such claim. But it's an example of the kind of harm that is to be expected from misplaced reliance on an invalid test.

QuoteThis is my first visit to this site...

I find that hard to believe, considering that someone with the same IP address as yours posted in this thread (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=5017.msg38729#msg38729) as "Absurd Rabbit Habit" three weeks ago.

QuoteOh, one other quick comment. George, you stated to another poster that Jack Trimarco found you to be deceptive, despite you having answered all questions truthfully, yes? So, are we supposed to take your word for that, are we? This entire site is based around the belief polygraph testing is inaccurate and therefore unjustly performed. That and the fact you say 'they' got it wrong. I don't know you from a bar of soap so why the hell would I take your word for it?? IF you ARE innocent, I'd have to say sorry for your bad experience and repercussions it must have had on your life. However, it really is your word against theirs, correct?

Correct. But how does one prove that one is not a spy?

I'd like to hear George's answer to that one, too, since I have personally seen his polygraph charts, and there is no doubt CMs were employed.

Quote from: quickfix on Nov 13, 2014, 02:53 PMI'd like to hear George's answer to that one, too, since I have personally seen his polygraph charts, and there is no doubt CMs were employed.

In whose possession were these polygraph charts? Could you send me a copy? When I requested them under the Privacy Act, the FBI said it could not locate them. And please tell me more about these countermeasures you say were employed.

George, I said I saw your charts, not that I have them.   And you don't honestly think I would I would send to you if I did, or point out the exact CMs identified?  Besides, even if I could, it would be a violation of the Privacy Act to post such information on a public site.

Quote from: quickfix on Nov 13, 2014, 03:14 PMGeorge, I said I saw your charts, not that I have them.

Okay. So who does have them?

Good question.  Polygraph charts are maintained per the internal policy of the conducting agency.  The hard copy "paper charts" might be saved in some repository, or the computerized charts might be saved in the agency's server in some common file.  The length of time an agency keeps the charts/chart data depends on the agency.  Charts may also be used for training purposes, with personal identifying data redacted. 

It seems to me that you've dodged my question.

Quote from: George_Maschke on Nov 13, 2014, 03:56 PMIt seems to me that you've dodged my question.

Perhaps, from your point of view.  From my point of view, I have answered your question as best I can.

Quote from: quickfix on Nov 13, 2014, 02:53 PMI'd like to hear George's answer to that one, too, since I have personally seen his polygraph charts, and there is no doubt CMs were employed.

That's bullshit!  I invented what you and your fellow paranoid scam artists incorrectly refer to as "countermeasures".  And I can assure you that George did not "employ CM's" - in truth and in fact, George had no idea what "CMs" were until I gave him a copy of my manual. 

George emailed me after he had failed his polygraph test - he was very distraught that he had been falsely branded as a liar.  He had an exemplary record as a military officer and was shocked and dismayed that his life could be ruined by one polygraph operator falsely accusing him of deception. 

George was trying to appeal the test results and was going to take another polygraph test so I sent him a copy of my manual and told him that he had already proved that just telling the truth did not work - and that if he was going to have any chance of proving his truthfulness by passing another polygraph test, then he must LEARN HOW TO PASS IT. 

George would not even consider learning about how to control the polygraph chart tracings so as to produce a "truthful" chart.  I remember I felt sorry for him because he was so honest and naive - he told me he didn't think it would be "ethical" to use my technique.

And now, you come along and say that he was using "CMs".  Again, I say that's BULLSHIT!

Quickfix,

So George can use your comments as testimony that the FBI broke the law by not providing the charts in his FOIA request? Why not give us a description of his countermeasure usage and how you detected them? I assure you I know as much as you do about polygraphy and would be able to follow your reasoning quite well--let's hear it.

Quote
In other words, the polygraph profession, at their events,  routinely appeals to God and asks for help.

What? You have a "process" that you sell for money that has no scientific basis... Has no scientifically accepted mapping between physiological response and lying etc...  Has a complete absence of any real scientific credibility... and they pray to god for help huh?   

Who else can they do?  The box really doesn't work does it?   

A better question is: what exactly are they praying for???

Do they pray for a box that will work?    

Do they pray for strength? - to help them in their sovereign mission to guard the gates of freedom?   (you know with a box that...doesn't work) .

Or is it kind of like a used car salesman prays for another sucker to walk through the door so they can make a sale????? 

Or are they not praying at all...just giving thanks...
Giving thanks for all that American ignorance,  apathy,  and fear of you and your phony box... Those wonderful elements of our society that keep enabling you to have a job.   

Do you think any of them pray for forgiveness for what they do?

Quote
Here's a larger question...  Can religion – as evidenced by the polygraph professions' formal appeals to supernatural forces for assistance – coexist with "polygraph science"?

polygraph science?   That's kind of an oxymoron isn't it Dan?

There is no scientific basis for polygraphy... and no reputable
scientific body (sans other polygraphers) gives any creedance to you or your profession...

Why do you (and polygraphers) keep trying to interwine yourselves with the word "Science"...  when you all know that's bunk....

Quote from: Doug_Williams on Nov 13, 2014, 05:42 PM

Quote from: quickfix on Nov 13, 2014, 02:53 PMI'd like to hear George's answer to that one, too, since I have personally seen his polygraph charts, and there is no doubt CMs were employed.

That's bullshit!  I invented what you and your fellow paranoid scam artists incorrectly refer to as "countermeasures".  And I can assure you that George did not "employ CM's" - in truth and in fact, George had no idea what "CMs" were until I gave him a copy of my manual. 

George emailed me after he had failed his polygraph test - he was very distraught that he had been falsely branded as a liar.  He had an exemplary record as a military officer and was shocked and dismayed that his life could be ruined by one polygraph operator falsely accusing him of deception. 

George was trying to appeal the test results and was going to take another polygraph test so I sent him a copy of my manual and told him that he had already proved that just telling the truth did not work - and that if he was going to have any chance of proving his truthfulness by passing another polygraph test, then he must LEARN HOW TO PASS IT. 

George would not even consider learning about how to control the polygraph chart tracings so as to produce a "truthful" chart.  I remember I felt sorry for him because he was so honest and naive - he told me he didn't think it would be "ethical" to use my technique.

And now, you come along and say that he was using "CMs".  Again, I say that's BULLSHIT!

Actually, Doug, I did know about polygraph countermeasures before we first communicated some 15 years ago. After a 1995 LAPD polygraph during which I was falsely accused of having used countermeasures, I researched the topic in UCLA's research library, where I found David Lykken's book, A Tremor in the Blood: Uses and Abuses of the Lie Detector, which addresses the topic, as well as research by Charles Honts that explained countermeasure techniques such as toe pressing, tongue biting, and mental activity.

Around the time we first communicated, and you kindly provided a copy of your manual, "How to Sting the Polygraph" as well as a video tape of your media appearances, I did face the possibility of a polygraph examination in connection with my army security clearance. I was prepared to use the "complete honesty" approach mentioned in Chapter 4 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector, but as it turns out, no polygraph examination was conducted because the 902nd Military Intelligence Group's polygraph unit considered it "too hot of a potato."

I've taken polygraph examinations in connection with two (ultimately unsuccessful) applications for CIA graduate internships in the early 1990s, in 1995 for FBI employment and in connection with my volunteer work for the LAPD's anti-terrorist division. In each instance I answered all relevant questions truthfully, and in no instance did I employ polygraph countermeasures.

QuoteI find that hard to believe, considering that someone with the same IP address as yours posted in this thread as "Absurd Rabbit Habit" three weeks ago.

Well, you're entitled to find anythingI hard to believe but I know who I am and I'm not that person, though to be honest, I'm now checking everyone out at work trying to catch them reading/posting here. And honestly, I would never use emoticons, let alone in that fashion, as I'm a mature person who has been guilty of taking life a little too seriously, or so my ex's keep telling me.

I've no doubt what-so-ever that any number of people I work with have visited this site; a) given what we do for a living and b) the very in-depth debates/discussions we have on a regular basis.

I do find it odd that your comments seem a little deflective. I wrote more than I'd generally write on any site and this was all you had in return?

Quote
Correct. But how does one prove that one is not a spy?

Are you being serious or condescending? It's a little hard to tell at times. I am not a spy, nor have I ever been a spy. However, in my profession I am expected to be extremely diplomatic to the powers that be and all that comes with them. It's just my opinion, which counts for nothing, but I believe there are ways people and agencies etc, can safe-guard themselves with regard to that specific area.

Regardless of whether one proves or disproves they are or are not a spy, was not my point. My point is, you are here sledging a system that is in use on a regular basis, taken seriously in many parts of the country and globally, and I'm simply not to say, yes, you've been wronged. For all any of us know, you're as guilty as sin. Just because you have a website defaming polygraph's and their technician's, does not give you some quasi instant absolution from guilt.

So please, find it hard to believe whatever you want, it's a free world, isn't it??

I get you're standing up for what you believe in and I respect that, I just don't agree with you on it and that's cool too. Agree to disagree.

QuoteGeorge, I said I saw your charts, not that I have them.   And you don't honestly think I would I would send to you if I did, or point out the exact CMs identified?  Besides, even if I could, it would be a violation of the Privacy Act to post such information on a public site.

Okay, that's pretty interesting don't y'all think? George, maybe 'quickfix' would be a little more forthcoming (or not), with regard to the the file if you answered the questions put to you. Instead of pulling a Billy Elliot, side-stepping questions when it suits you, man up.

You had a bad experience but I'm sensing that this site and all the 'baggage' that comes with, has consumed every ounce of your being. You've become a slave to your cause and what comes across is you want to save the world from this. It's not going to happen. Jesus, you've posted nearly 5,500 posts!! Don't you think it's time to move on to greener pastures? I sense you've already become jaded and are without-a-doubt, an extremely cynical person. Time to put all your cards on the table, tally up and tell yourself it's  okay to move on.

It's time you set yourself free and you're the only one who standing in your way of a better, happier life. Hell, it's at least food for thought, yes?

Good luck mate, I fear you'll be needing it. I'm off to snoop on my fellow co-workers!! Ssshhh

Dean's Poly-Pro,

Thank you for your psychoanalysis and counseling. I'll give it all the consideration it's due.

1st4th5thand6th, I think it would be instructive for you to read the 2003 NAS report "The Polygraph and Lie Detection."

That scientific body -- the National Academy of Sciences -- by stating that polygraph works at levels "well above chance but well below perfection," indeed gives credence to polygraph, albeit only in incident-specific applications.

Of course, NAS makes clear that all bets are off the table when countermeasure are present. Also, NAS hammered home the point that the quality of the field studies they selected for analysis was decidedly substandard -- a fact largely ignored by the polygraph community.

Still, I agree with you to a large extent that the term "polygraph science" is indeed an oxymoron. Why? Because it's the examiner's expertise -- not the alleged science behind the "test" -- that really drives favorable accuracy.

In spite of that inconvenient truth, the polygraph industry is quick to hang its hat on the NAS report, and intertwine the word polygraph with the word science, because it lends an imprimatur of legitimacy to the "test," thereby making pro-polygraph lobbying efforts easier. In other words, it makes for an easier $ell.

As for what the polygraph-linked clerics ask for when they make their supplications to God, I suggest you contact the polygraph organizations (APA, NPA, AAPP, etc.) that rely on such invocations and ask them directly. Many seminars are video recorded in their entirety. The aforementioned associations may, or may not, choose to divulge the content of those prayers.

As always, these are just the personal opinions of a lowly polygraph operator.

Hey Dean, I like you better as Mr. Wabbit.

Quote from: Doug_Williams on Nov 13, 2014, 05:42 PMAnd now, you come along and say that he was using "CMs".Again, I say that's BULLSHIT!

The only bullshit is that which spews from your little brain and big mouth.

Dean/Arkhangelsk:  I was as forthcoming with George as I would be with anyone else.  If he seriously thinks that I would send his charts showing the CMs, he is as narcissistic as Doug Williams.  Eisenhower didn't send Hitler his invasion plans for Europe, the Packers don't send their playbook to the Bears, and I don't send CM charts to George or anyone else (whether I have them or not).

Quote from: quickfix on Nov 14, 2014, 01:19 PMIf he seriously thinks that I would send his charts showing the CMs, he is as narcissistic as Doug Williams.

I wasn't suggesting that you personally send me my charts. If you were to inform me what federal agency has a copy of them, I would file a Privacy Act request for them.

And Doug is correct. The claim that I employed polygraph countermeasures is bullshit.

Quote from: George_Maschke on Nov 14, 2014, 01:33 PMAnd Doug is correct. The claim that I employed polygraph countermeasures is bullshit.

It's your story, George, tell it any way you like.

Quotequickfix - It's your story, George, tell it any way you like.

Outstanding!! Best comment on this site thus far!! Well said 'quickfix.'

QuoteArkhangelsk - Hey Dean, I like you better as Mr. Wabbit.

Yeah, whatever Elmer, ya dick!!

QuoteYeah, whatever Elmer, ya dick!! 

""I'm a mature person who has been guilty of taking life a little too seriously"

Just having an off day Mr. Wabbit?

QuoteOutstanding!! Best comment on this site thus far!! Well said 'quickfix.'

Indeed, quickfix is known for his profound, articulate and thought provoking arguments. The two of you make quite a pair.

Quote from: danmangan on Nov 14, 2014, 10:15 AM1st4th5thand6th, I think it would be instructive for you to read the 2003 NAS report "The Polygraph and Lie Detection."

That scientific body -- the National Academy of Sciences -- by stating that polygraph works at levels "well above chance but well below perfection," indeed gives credence to polygraph, albeit only in incident-specific applications.

Of course, NAS makes clear that all bets are off the table when countermeasure are present. Also, NAS hammered home the point that the quality of the field studies they selected for analysis was decidedly substandard -- a fact largely ignored by the polygraph community.

Dan, you're telling me that the "Scientific credibility" of modern polygraphy can only be traced to an 11 year old report that used field studies that were "decidedly substandard" and doesn't even apply to pre-employment screening polys?   etc...????    

As this is your chosen trade don't you find that pretty weak?    





   

   

Yes, 1st4th5thand6th, that is exactly what I am saying.

To say that I find polygraph science "pretty weak" would be a colossal understatement, hence my primary role in the so-called trade, as it were, is that of polygraph consultant.

In case you haven't put it together quite yet, that's why I'm an advocate for a bill of rights for all polygraph test subjects.

You and I have been at this for a while now...  Are you finally starting to get the distinction?

Quote from: danmangan on Nov 15, 2014, 10:53 PMYes, 1st4th5thand6th, that is exactly what I am saying.

To say that I find polygraph science "pretty weak" would be a colossal understatement....

ok...so....you are a polygrapher, you admit that there is no scientific basis for your polygraphs.... my question is  Why do you do it?

Do you not have the moral courage to refuse the money? 

To me, and this is just my opinion... admitting this is tantamount to admitting to being a used car salesman that sells flooded cars as used
(deliberately withholding the flooded part) and not having a problem with it...c'mon....

Now, if you were a polygraph consultant...who's only job was to educate both employers and employees on the process WITHOUT giving them, I would be ok with that... Your are serving as a consumer advocate for both sides...(both sides of which obviously desperately need educating).. But this is admittedly not what you do..... It's like your almost saying to both sides Hey look this is all bullshit... $1000.00 please.... 

Quote
In case you haven't put it together quite yet, that's why I'm an advocate for a bill of rights for all polygraph test subjects.

ok...but how does a customer bill of rights make up for the lack of science?  Does a bill of rights magically make the scam no longer a scam? Like my previous analogy... Advertising a consumer bill of rights on a used (flooded) car website...doesn't make what the car salesman's deed any better... it doesn't give him a license to sell flooded cars as used... Nor does it excuse him from this type of "fraud"....

Quote
You and I have been at this for a while now...  Are you finally starting to get the distinction?

Sir, with apologies,  I'm afraid I'm not... help me....

What I think I keep hearing is:   a smart, intelligent, educated, adult, male, who is rationalizing  a way to participate  in a scam (called polygraphy) for personal profit...yet amazingly, conveniently sees nothing wrong with doing so....

I'm left shaking my head in disbelief....

1st4th5thand6th, I kindly ask that you pay closer attention to my posts. Meanwhile, I'll break it down for you...

I never said polygraph has no scientific basis. Rather, I agree with NAS in that there is the strong suggestion that polygraph works in incident-specific applications, but the exact scientific basis has yet to be confidently identified.

There are parallels in the drug industry. If you read the voluminous disclaimers that come with certain medicines, you will sometimes see the phrase "mechanism of action is unknown." In other words, the stuff works, but the drug makers don't know exactly why. The same applies to polygraph. Remember what the research eggheads say: Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. That said, I concede the error rate is likely huge, compared to pro-polygraph claims.

As to why I do polygraph exams and consulting, it's all supply and demand just like most other businesses. But my approach is different in that I EDUCATE THE CONSUMER FIRST, or at least I try to. Most potential clients, once they learn that polygraph is a very risky crapshoot, elect to avoid taking the "test" -- at least with me. (Sometimes, the polygraph-exam shopper ignores my advice only to be convinced by another examiner, often to ill effect.) The remainder of my clients are either required to take a polygraph, or are just hopelessly caught up in the allure.

In some cases, it's just like a car salesman telling a Corvette buyer who's on a budget that the bargain-priced model he's looking at was flooded and is being sold as-is. The guy hears the warning, but all he wants is that shiny 'vette for a bargain price. He signs the disclaimers. Consenting adults are allowed to do dumb things.

You mentioned "moral courage." Here's a true story: A couple of years ago I refused to polygraph an inmate at the state prison I worked at (as a state employee) because I felt it would be an abuse of both the prisoner and the polygraph function for which I was hired. My immediate boss was OK with my decision, but the fact that I privately queried the state AG on my obligations must have riled some brass at the DOC. Seems the higher-ups didn't like my end run, which I thought was simply due diligence. Anyway, I was doomed. My position was cut "for budgetary reasons" a couple of months later. Coincidence?

I see no conflict with being both a polygraph examiner and a consultant. Why must it be all or nothing? Such a dual role is common in many fields. As a consultant, I advise people on the pros and cons of the "test,", review exams conducted by other polygraphers, and occasionally give a talk.

Once more, with feeling... My approach is completely open-book. No one is being duped, unless by themselves via expectations or biases they can't shed. Those folks I caution quite sternly.

Finally, over the past ten years I've turned down hundreds of exams, most commonly because I caught a scent of potential domestic violence or other form of abuse that could be a by-product of the "test."

By the way, since I became somewhat of an activist in the past couple of years I've received several inquiries from people claiming to be seeking what I'll characterize as "special help." I find the timing of such inquiries to be most interesting.

Dan, yes we are going around in circles 

You claim that you are open and honest with your clients...
as I said previously: (see page 2 of this forum)

Quote

Dan,  I don't see any of this :


1) There is no scientifically accepted (systemic) way of mapping  physiological responses to lying (nor truth, deception, happy, glad etc)... This means that the wiggles on the polygraph are meaningless...interesting maybe...but meaningless without this scientifically proven "connection"..

2) Given number 1, the polygraph machine is just a prop
   
3) The real goal of the polygraph is to con test subjects into believing that it works so they will confess....

4)Clients who have Knowledge of the all of the above renders the test useless...and usually disqualifies them


anywhere on your website....

BUT...(and I apologize for not thinking of this first)
if you're telling me that you verbally describe items 1-4 (or something similar/equivalent)  with your clients BEFORE testing them, then I would certainly concede that you are making a concerted effort to properly and truthfully inform your clients.

So.....Yes or No Dan...Do you explain Items 1-4 to your clients verbally?

If you do...kudos sir...but why not put it on your website in big plain letters?

If you don't ...then  I would be of the opinion that you ARE omitting very relevant pieces of information...

FWIW,  IF you had placed this information clearly on your website then neither I nor anyone else would have any cause to question it... would we?

I mean...after all,  If the used car ad says "Flooded" - the condition of the car is clearly stated.... right?

If you are as open and honest and up front with your clients exactly what do you tell them?

"If you are as open and honest and up front with your clients exactly what do you tell them?"

Prior to prospective clients sending the requisite 50% deposit, I tell them the following:

• Polygraph's absolute accuracy is unknown and in fact unknowable
  >The alleged science behind the test is largely BS (Belief System) driven
  >Any polygraph test is a crapshoot, i.e., it's a gamble with an uncertain outcome
  >Polygraph "testing" seems to be biased against the innocent
  >Polygraph tests can be beaten
  >Any polygraph test result is far, far below a reasonable doubt
  >So-called fidelity "tests" are usually a waste of time and money
  >caveat emptor