Earlier this week I spoke with Brandy Zadrozny, a reporter for The Daily Beast who was working on an article about polygraphy on the occasion of the 80th anniversary of the first polygraph "test" to be admitted as evidence in a court of law:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/02/04/the-polygraph-has-been-lying-for-90-years.html
I think she did a good job, though I would not characterize AntiPolygraph.org as being dedicated to "cheating" the lie detector. We make information about polygraph countermeasures available to the public to provide truthful persons a means of protecting themselves against the error associated with an invalid procedure. That's not cheating.
Dr Maschke
Yes, it is cheating, called by another name. I defend every subjects right to chose to defect to protect himself or herself. If truthful have that right surely deceptive do as well. Still cheating.
pailryder,
In what sense is it "cheating" for a truthful person to do that which is possible to protect herself against the high error rate associated with polygraphy (a procedure that itself depends on the examiner lying to and otherwise deceiving the person being "tested")?
My thoughts:
The logic of the polygraph community is to question why an innocent person would research the polygraph, since in their mindset only a guilty person would research the polygraph. (I acknowledge polygrapher Dan Mangan is an exception to this observation.)
If the polygraph community questions the ethics of researching/studying for a polygraph test, then they should question the ethics of high-school seniors studying for the SAT (or ACT). I remember the ETS (owner of the SAT) claiming it's not possible to significantly increase one's score by studying, and yet self-help study books and SAT prep classes have flourished and so they must have some success in inflating SAT scores. Only a naive person would believe the ETS; smart students (and their parents) know better.
Is learning how to "game" the test (be it SAT, LSAT, MCAT or polygraph) so as to artificially inflate the score considered cheating? Why would George's online manual be any different from other self-help manuals and prep classes?
Regards, Evan S
In my most humble opinion -- and this is only the view of one lowly polygraph operator with a mere ten years of experience -- any potential subject who does not study for a polygraph "test" is not just a fool, but a damned fool.
Daniel Mangan, M.A.
Full Member, American Polygraph Association
Certified PCSOT Examiner
www.polygraphman.com
Dr Maschke
The directed lie techniques do not require any deception on the part of the examiner.
Using countermeasures is cheating, not learning about them. A person who has applied for a position of trust and responsibility has an obligation to cooperate with the employment process. Faking cooperation is cheating. When an otherwise truthful subject chooses noncooperation, rather than protecting themselves they create another way to lose the job. Not only do they lose if the examiner make an error, they also lose if the examiner detects their noncooperation.
Quote from: pailryder on Feb 08, 2015, 07:04 AMDr Maschke
The directed lie techniques do not require any deception on the part of the examiner.
Using countermeasures is cheating, not learning about them. A person who has applied for a position of trust and responsibility has an obligation to cooperate with the employment process. Faking cooperation is cheating. When an otherwise truthful subject chooses noncooperation, rather than protecting themselves they create another way to lose the job. Not only do they lose if the examiner make an error, they also lose if the examiner detects their noncooperation.
I disagree.
Daniel Mangan, M.A.
Full Member, American Polygraph Association
Certified PCSOT Examiner
www.polygraphman.com
Quote from: pailryder on Feb 08, 2015, 07:04 AMDr Maschke
The directed lie techniques do not require any deception on the part of the examiner.
Using countermeasures is cheating, not learning about them. A person who has applied for a position of trust and responsibility has an obligation to cooperate with the employment process. Faking cooperation is cheating. When an otherwise truthful subject chooses noncooperation, rather than protecting themselves they create another way to lose the job. Not only do they lose if the examiner make an error, they also lose if the examiner detects their noncooperation.
Even the directed-lie technique depends on the examiner deceiving the examinee. The most fundamental deception is the notion that the procedure has any validity as a test for deception. I've explained the deception associated with the directed-lie technique in greater detail in my 1999 article, The Lying Game: National Security and the Test for Espionage and Sabotage (https://antipolygraph.org/articles/article-002.shtml).
I disagree with your suggestion that when a person chooses to use countermeasures she "create(s) another way to lose the job." First, the polygraph community has no methodology for the detection of so-called "sophisticated" countermeasures (the type that persons who understand polygraph procedure would employ, such as those explained in
The Lie Behind the Lie Detector). Second, not using countermeasures affords the examinee no protection against the risk of being accused of using countermeasures.
Now, I see how, as someone who makes a living giving these "tests," you might consider it "cheating" for an otherwise honest person to practice
minor deception to protect herself against the high risk of error associated with an invalid procedure that itself depends on
major deception by the examiner. But I think you're doing a lot of rationalization about the deception inherent to polygraphy.
Quote from: pailryder on Feb 08, 2015, 07:04 AMA person who has applied for a position of trust and responsibility has an obligation to cooperate with the employment process.
An agency that has advertised employment in a position of trust and responsibility has an obligation to treat applicants with honesty and candor.
A contract implemented with trust and responsibility by one party and duplicity and deceit by the other is the very essense of injustice. If your goal is an eventual scandalous disaster you could not invent a better plan than to hire people under such circumstances.
-Aunty.
Quote from: AuntyAgony on Feb 09, 2015, 12:15 PMQuote from: pailryder on Feb 08, 2015, 07:04 AMA person who has applied for a position of trust and responsibility has an obligation to cooperate with the employment process.
An agency that has advertised employment in a position of trust and responsibility has an obligation to treat applicants with honesty and candor.
A contract implemented with trust and responsibility by one party and duplicity and deceit by the other is the very essense of injustice. If your goal is an eventual scandalous disaster you could not invent a better plan than to hire people under such circumstances.
-Aunty.
Well said!
Pailryder's last post in this thread would suggest that there is not only deception involved with the directed lie control question test (DLCQT), but also that there is purposeful deception in the public discussion of it.
The truth is that the DLCQT does involve reducing some aspects of the emotional abuse/browbeating that is part and parcel of the control question setting that occurs during the pre-test phase of the probable lie control question test (PLCQT), but that examiner deception is rampant in both types (PLCQT and DLCQT) of lie test.
Once the aforementioned truth is recognized, the basis for the simple objection of Mr. Mangan, and the elegant words of Dr. Maschke and Aunty Agony regarding the absolute and relative (examiner/examinee) deception, the right to defend oneself against injustice, and the consequences to agency and society of allowing such a flawed system to continue become manifest.
Quote from: pailryder on Feb 05, 2015, 10:19 AMYes, it is cheating, called by another name.I defend every subjects right to chose to defect to protect himself or herself.If truthful have that right surely deceptive do as well.Still cheating.
Pailryder,
I perceive you to be a pretty straight forward and honest guy and from our conversations, I don't see you as one who would use the polygraph as a rubber hose. In all fairness, using polygraph countermeasures does have a flip side; those with malfeasance on their minds could use them to put themselves into an advantageous situation so as to exploit. However, considering the fact that the only crimes Doug is charged with were situations that were fabricated by the authorities, leads me to believe that most of the job candidates are not rascals trying to deceive the agencies they are applying for. In the case of PCSOT, most individuals probably would not have the aptitude to study, practice and utilize countermeasures efficiently enough to slip through the cracks each and every time.
From the posts of others, the ethics seems to be that it's not cheating if you are just countering an already stacked deck. In other words, it's not wrong to cheat the cheater. Honestly, I personally have mixed feelings about it.
ARK.
Quote from: Arkhangelsk on Feb 15, 2015, 12:53 PMQuote from: pailryder on Feb 05, 2015, 10:19 AMYes, it is cheating, called by another name.I defend every subjects right to chose to defect to protect himself or herself.If truthful have that right surely deceptive do as well.Still cheating.
Pailryder,
I perceive you to be a pretty straight forward and honest guy and from our conversations, I don't see you as one who would use the polygraph as a rubber hose. In all fairness, using polygraph countermeasures does have a flip side; those with malfeasance on their minds could use them to put themselves into an advantageous situation so as to exploit. However, considering the fact that the only crimes Doug is charged with were situations that were fabricated by the authorities, leads me to believe that most of the job candidates are not rascals trying to deceive the agencies they are applying for. In the case of PCSOT, most individuals probably would not have the aptitude to study, practice and utilize countermeasures efficiently enough to slip through the cracks each and every time.
From the posts of others, the ethics seems to be that it's not cheating if you are just countering an already stacked deck. In other words, it's not wrong to cheat the cheater. Honestly, I personally have mixed feelings about it.
ARK.
The evolution of how polygraph operators, and the government, have dealt with me has changed drastically in the forty years I have been fighting the abuse caused by the dangerous myth of lie detection. It tells you more about them and the police state that our country has become than it does about me. At first they simply ignored my assertions that I could teach anyone how to pass a polygraph test in ten minutes or less. I think they were hoping that I would just shut up and go away. They didn't want to respond to me because they didn't want to do anything that would draw attention to the problems inherent in calling the polygraph a "lie detector". Polygraph operators are much like cockroaches in that they don't like the light of objective scrutiny to be shined on their shady operation. They all know the polygraph is not reliable and effective as a "lie detector", and they know they can't prove that it is a valid and reliable means to detect deception or to verify truthfulness. So, when I first came up with the idea of teaching people how to pass a polygraph test and published my little manual, HOW TO STING THE POLYGRAPH, they simply ignored it.
I have been putting on seminars, instructing people on the Sting Technique and giving television demonstrations of how easily a person to control every tracing on the chart for almost forty years. I even testified in the US Congress, and explained in detail how easily a person could be taught to "beat" a polygraph test. I hoped that by doing this so publicly I would be able to drive home the point that the polygraph was worthless as a lie detector. Polygraph operators have always said that the polygraph is accurate 85 to 95% of the time, but all the scientific evidence proves that simply is not true. Polygraph proponents also maintained steadfastly that it was impossible for a person to control the results of a polygraph test and always produce what the polygraph examiner would expect to see from a truthful subject. But I kept proving that both of those claims by polygraph operators were false. The polygraph is no more accurate than the toss of a coin, and the results can be easily manipulated by anyone with just a small amount of training. Polygraph operators then changed the way they responded to me by simply saying that all I was doing was teaching people how to make "distortions" to the polygraph chart. They still maintained that I could not teach a person how to duplicate a "truthful" polygraph chart.
Eventually they recognized that they had to take a different approach to "the problems caused by Doug Williams" because, by the early 80's, I had been on national television demonstrating how easily I could teach a person to control every tracing on the polygraph chart and produce a classic "truthful" polygraph chart tracing by simply following my simple instructions. So they changed their strategy and adopted the position that while it was possible for me to teach a person how to control every tracing on the polygraph chart, that these so called "countermeasures" were easily detected. It was then that the word "countermeasures" first began to be used by polygraph operators to describe my Sting Technique. As mentioned in my book, FROM COP TO CRUSADER: THE STORY OF MY FIGHT AGAINST THE DANGEROUS MYTH OF "LIE DETECTION", the government polygraph school, under the direction of Dr. Gordon Barland, actually started teaching courses on how polygraph operators could learn to detect the use of the use of these "countermeasures". And, as I have also mentioned in this book, Barland used my manual, HOW TO STING THE POLYGRAPH, as his textbook. After he retired, Barland told me that he was very concerned that polygraph operators were "overly confident in their ability to detect countermeasures". He as much as admitted in one of his e-mails to me that it was impossible for them to tell, with any degree of certainty, whether or not a person was using my techniques to pass their polygraph test.
I have two reasons for teaching people how to pass their polygraph tests: 1) just telling the truth only works about half the time, so if you are going to pass you must learn how to pass, and 2) if I could prove that I could teach a person how to control every tracing on the polygraph chart, and always produce a "truthful" polygraph test result regardless of whether they are lying or telling the truth, that would be prima facie evidence that the polygraph is absolutely worthless as a "lie detector". Polygraph operators know this is the best evidence that the polygraph is worthless as a "lie detector" and it would be all that was necessary to finally destroy the myth of "lie detection" – which is why they refused for many years to acknowledge that so called "countermeasures" actually work.
I knew polygraph operators especially those in the government were very upset with me, and were becoming more and more paranoid and frustrated by what I was doing to undermine the myth of "lie detection". In about 2001, aside from selling my manual and video/DVD on my website www.polygraph.com, I began offering practice tests and what I referred to as personal polygraph test preparation training. And this made polygraph operators even more paranoid and angry than ever!
This one-on-one training is simply a way to help truthful people prove their truthfulness because all the evidence, and, even the government's own statistics, proves that just telling the truth only works about 50% of the time. So I just offer people a chance to come see that they can produce a perfect truthful chart by simply following the instructions in my manual. The training consists of a little relaxation training I call the enhanced mental imagery training where I incorporate a form of hypnosis and train people to relax when they answer the relevant questions. This relaxation training simply involves reciting a hypnotic script I have created and linking it to the relevant questions. I tell the person being trained that in order to re-create the feeling of relaxation that this hypnotic script induces they simply have to label the relevant questions as relevant questions in their mind prior to answering them on the polygraph test. It is amazing how well this works. I have been doing it for a number of years now and everyone is able to overcome their nervousness when answering the relevant questions by simply labeling the questions as the relevant questions prior to answering them because that triggers the subconscious mind into thinking about the beach rather than thinking about the relevant questions. I then hook them up to the polygraph and run three practice tests tailored to their situation. I have the latest computerized polygraph instrument with the latest scoring software and we run three practice tests. At the conclusion of each test I show them their computer generated score and it is always NO DECEPTION INDICATED. I have always maintained, and have proved, that it makes no difference whether or not a person is telling the truth as long as they know how to utilize the "Sting Technique" properly; they will always pass their polygraph test – nervous or not – no matter what!
In 2013, the polygraph industry took a much more aggressive approach to dealing with me – and with the problems I caused them by continuing to teach so-called "countermeasures". They finally admitted that "countermeasures" were being used, and they spent millions of dollars trying to convince themselves and others that while countermeasures did indeed exist and that they could be used effectively, it was not a problem because polygraph operators could be taught to recognize them. But they were becoming more and more paranoid because they knew that countermeasures did indeed work and that they were in fact unable to determine whether or not anyone was using them to pass their polygraph test. Their paranoia had increased to the point that they began routinely accusing everyone of using countermeasures.
Finally in 2013 their hatred of me and their paranoia of my ability to destroy the myth of "lie detection" by proving that countermeasures were indeed effective and that their polygraph machine was worthless as a lie detector increased to the boiling point, and they began an unscrupulous and unconstitutional attempt to criminalize the teaching of so-called "countermeasures". They decided that the only way to shut me up was to try to put me in prison! This plan, devised by John R Schwartz, was a blatant assault on my rights under the 1st and 4th Amendments called "OPERATION LIE BUSTERS" - and this investigation resulted in the charges to which ARK has referred.
85 - 95%. Ok, Here is an interesting question to ask. Ask the examiner if he or she would put his future on the line using their own test. Ask is APA or any other organization if they use polygraph to settle internal disputes. If the answer is no, there should be a very important follow up question.
Why not?
And a follow-up to that.
Are you afraid of a false positive because you are not sure if polygraph really works? Or, are you afraid that polygraph does work, and maybe you're afraid of someone knowing the truth?
I think they are fair questions, and the answers should be interesting.
Quote85 - 95%.Ok, Here is an interesting question to ask. Ask the examiner if he or she would put his future on the line using their own test. Ask is APA or any other organization if they use polygraph to settle internal disputes. If the answer is no, there should be a very important follow up question.
I think the directors of the American Polygraph Association are smart enough not to eat their own dogfood.
I was totally shocked when Joe made the test challenge and they didn't jump at that. I also thought he was a moron for stepping up like that.
I guess he knew what he was doing.
I just don't get it. All these people and they all seem to claim they are the best. Yet they are all scared of the test and it seems scared of him.
All this effort they put into trying to discredit and get Joe drummed out, I just don't get it. He is just one guy. Why the big threat?
St. Paul,
Why is Joe such a big threat, you ask?
Watch the videos Joe has made available. He maps out the whole thing.
Joe's polygraph challenge was a gutsy move, but the refusal of his detractors to resolve things that way is what really speaks volumes.
Daniel Mangan, M.A.
Full Member, American Polygraph Association
Certified PCSOT Examiner
www.polygraphman.com
Joe has been directly ordered and petrified into silence. It makes me want to vomit when I see what these people have turned him into. He's not the same guy I grew up with that is for sure.
His life was threatened in 2008 and nothing was done after they found out who that was. His life was again threatened in a room filled with other lie detector people and the person that threatened him was not disciplined or reprimanded. In fact, it almost seems like they are protecting the person who threatened him.
Joe is scared to death to tell the truth now. Who can fault him for it, every time he puts the truth out there they discipline him for it and when they go through the discipline process he's either denied a voice totally or he's silenced when he asks that their own rules be followed in their own process. Hell the people in texas continue to cover up what they did and how they still deny and back up disgusting and racist emails that was sent to him by a member of the texas board of whatever they are. One of these guys who's covering it all up is some sort of state trooper or something like that. What shocks me the most is the current president of whatever board is down here is also a cop from what I understand. If this is what cops do with accusations of racism in texas by covering it up, I'd be very worried. Because who's to say they aren't doing it in other cases?
He's at the point where he feels decisions have already been made that he will be drummed out no matter what he does.
They turned a man of conviction into a man who is afraid of his own convictions.
He feels he has no voice and no protection under the rules these people have set down. That even if someone violates those rules, making a complaint will only end in Joe being disciplined and shamed into silence for asking that they be held to those rules. He's even afraid of giving me all the details even though he seems dying to talk about it.
They have totally isolated him and he has expressed that telling the truth or fighting in any way will give these people the chance to hold another kangaroo court where whats right or wrong means nothing. It is mob rule and the people on the top of the pyramid that will ignore or change the rules so they can justify making him guilty of telling the truth. He's totally lost all faith and expectation in the fair application of rule and law within.
They may have silenced him and stripped him of his free speech but these people have no power over me. Maybe in the process, Joe will find his balls and reattach them. Maybe then he'll stop letting these people walk all over him.
In the meantime, I will be looking over all the documents and recordings he sent me and will disseminate them at my will and discretion.
Joe always gave people a chance to come to a peace before he put anything out there..... They will get no such quarter from me.
Here's an interesting question.
Are these people more upset that Joe blew all this open, or are they more upset that it's the truth?
Yup, a lot of people were not happy about those videos and even Joe goes back and fourth about them. I think when he was making those it was the first time he felt like he was able to truly stand up for himself.
From what I understand, there was and is a great deal of angst about them. It almost seems like they expect him to be the nice guy and take them down like a good whipped dog and take advantage of the kindness by giving nothing in return for the favor. It's almost like he should be thankful for the privilege of taking down the truth and getting pissed on in return. The saddest part is if Joe though for a second it meant acceptance, he would drink that cup of hemlock like it was poured by Richie's Slush.
A lot of interesting facts have come to light from those videos that he's just sitting on because he's scared to death if he uses it to exonerate him he'll be punished for it. This may change soon the way he's being treated though. These people are bound to push the wrong button sooner or later. It's only a matter of time given. Eventually they will push the wrong button and he will be back on track. It's almost like they can't help themselves.
I was just looking over some of the discovery from his lawsuit. You should see a couple letters about hos many tests were done by each polygraph company in that county. The numbers were insane and extremely one sided. Then I did the math on the results and saw the "inconclusive" rates. How do they get away with that? The bigger question is, if the other guys knew that business was mainly going in one direction rather than being spread out fairly would they be pissed if they saw these numbers?
Honestly I had a hard time with it until I saw the documents on the opposing sides letterhead. I shit you not. Joe kept every shred of documentation. He made copies of everything for safe keeping. Just in case anything ever happened to him someone has the truth kinda thing.
You know what I mean. I am sure he sent some of this to you. He's mentioned you a few times.
The emails and texts between Maria and Joe really made me sick though. Watching her be a friend to him while all along she was a rat. You know how we feel about rats a tiny bit "south" of you. Knowing that she was a rat and Joe sat on this stuff for as long as he did, I am impressed and disappointed at the same time. Back in the day, he never would have tolerated that kind of betrayal. Like I said, I hardly recognize the person I once knew.
Back to the videos. I know he put some on unlisted or private so no one can see them unless he gives access. Others he just left up because he figured he was already in trouble for them so with some encouragement he kept them up. I do think I have the ones he took down on a thumb drive though. I need to look.
Wow, how Joe had this stuff and never used it against people is beyond me. He must be getting soft in his old age.
Anywho
I think I found the exact time this got very personal to Joe. Of course he can correct me if I am wrong. I don't know the players in this clip. Maybe when Joe is ready he'll clue us into some names.
What I am curious about is the guy that called him a baby, does he still have knee caps? There is no way he let that slide.
One thing is clear, the taunting started from the beginning. I also hear two times where Joe offered solutions to these people to stop their lawyers fees.
When going back to the posts of this time, you can see where Joe makes the first polygraph challenge. When he says this "whole thing can be solved in two hours" he is clearly restating the challenge to their faces. Funny how no one jumped at that chance. Room full of polygraph examiners and not a one brave enough to test him? Seriously?
The second time is when he said recognition of some list, and the whole thing would stop.
Two totally free options and one goat banging hick outright says, not going to happen.
At what point to these people start taking responsibility for their decisions?
And that guy putting him on the spot like that. I am honestly shocked that didn't end with Joe laying him out. He must really like that guy or someone was there holding his chain. WOW I can totally see why the whole family was told to stay out of it. Wow
Thinking someone needs a trip home to reconnect with his roots and send him back to TCB.
This video has just pissed me off. Watching him take their shit was uncomfortable. The way he was before he left Boston, these people should be counting their blessings. Wow
But this is just the tip of the iceberg. The guy in front appears in another video talking about something that even made me uncomfortable. Need to talk to Joe before I put that one up. Seriously, it's awkward. Then there was a birth day surprise for one of them. Need to talk to Joe about that one too. What I can say is she must have been from the noon shift and she had to have been seriously stoned and a face that would scatter a leper colony. Looks like a different place though so it must have been a different convention.
Anyway, if he gives the go ahead, you'll see those soon.
This is a trailer/teaser for a documentary film that is being produced about my book FROM COP TO CRUSADER: THE STORY OF MY FIGHT AGAINST THE DANGEROUS MYTH OF "LIE DETECTION"
https://vimeo.com/121756877
:-[ :-?
Quote from: St. Paul on Feb 19, 2015, 05:51 AMWow, how Joe had this stuff and never used it against people is beyond me.
I don't know this guy personally, but I don't understand his rhetoric. He never really says what he is upset about other than someone sent him a private message that was derogatory and potentially threatening. He's the one who publicly posted it. Obviously, it was from a hideous person (in my opinion) but why post it? What would it accomplish if the Association made a public statement about a private message that was sent to Joe even if the person who apparently sent it was on the Board of Directors of the Association? I also understand that this person fled the country when he was fired and an embezzlement investigation was started. Why would the Association want to have anything to do with that person as well? I don't believe he is even a member anymore. If Joe was so upset about it, why didn't he file a Grievance with the Association instead of just demand that they do something? He doesn't seem to understand how to follow procedures.
I am not a polygraph examiner and I was not a party in the lawsuit, but I've followed the lawsuit and I didn't understand why he brought all of the polygraph examiners into a lawsuit. And isn't that barratry for his wife, who was an owner of the polygraph company with Joe, to file a lawsuit (litigation for the purpose of harassment or profit). Since she is now disbarred due to the multiple grievances filed against her, I guess she wasn't really a very good lawyer (in my opinion). She also had a felony theft case filed against her. It is public record, you can look it up. To be fair, it was dismissed after she made restitution and served a deferred adjudication probation. Now if I was Joe, I would have left that last sentence off.
Obviously I haven't seen the paperwork that Joe sent to you, but you have only heard one side of the story. I know that the Association that he sued probably doesn't want him to be a part of their organization -- who could blame them? I know that the polygraph examiners and therapists that he sued don't want to have anything to do with him – who could blame them? He had "free legal" and they had to pay out the nose for attorneys to represent them. From what I understand many of the polygraph examiners he sued didn't even know who he was before the lawsuit was filed. Even though he would have you believe that everyone knew exactly who he was and they were afraid of his polygraph prowess (in my opinion).
Anyone who has a business understands that there are many hard hours put in and no one hands you work, you have to earn it. At the time he filed the lawsuit, he had been an examiner for just a few years. Many of the examiners he sued had ten times as much experience as he had, not to mention experience as police officers, etc. Ask him what he expected to get out of the lawsuit? He really never has said what he expected to gain by filing a lawsuit against a bunch of therapists and polygraph examiners. No doubt they were very angry at him and filed countersuits for harassment. I'd be a little bit angry too if someone filed a lawsuit on me out of the blue. I think most people would probably agree with me (in my opinion). I noted one place where he blamed his attorney for not filing timely paperwork and said she wasn't a very good lawyer. Of course, remember that this same attorney was his wife and a co-owner of the business.
As far as the numbers and percentages he likes to quote from 2008, that's old news, and who really cares? I'm not saying that sex offenders or anyone else required to take a polygraph doesn't deserve a fair shake. They most certainly do. But who appointed Joe as the spokesman for them? If they don't feel like they got a fair shake, then maybe they should file a lawsuit – Oh, yeah, they don't all have "free legal" do they?
What about his current attorney wife? Oh yeah, did he mention that he is divorced from the 2008 attorney and is married to another one? I'm sure someone will provide him with a link to this post and he will start spouting all sorts of nonsense, which I certainly won't respond to because what purpose would it serve for me to respond? I haven't said anything that isn't the truth, right? You can check my facts. I assure you that I have fact checked everything I've written.
IN MY OPINION, Joe probably doesn't really have what it takes to be a good polygraph examiner and that's why he doesn't have a lot of business. That's why he likes to get on this site and make all sorts of wild accusations that he claims to have evidence of, but never really lays out what his grievance is exactly, except one person sent him derogatory and threatening private messages and the association that he sued doesn't want him to come to any of their meetings or seminars – because sex offenders might just believe what he spouts and call him up for a polygraph. That is unless I have missed something ...
And this business about everyone taking polygraphs -- that's just ridiculous! Polygraph examiners taking polygraphs? Really, and what are they supposed to take polygraph about? He never really says, does he? You can correct me if I'm wrong, but if you believe what you are saying, then you would pass a polygraph right? What if I truly believed I was abducted by aliens, could I pass a polygraph on that? Well, I have no doubt that Joe believes what he is saying, even if I don't understand what it is he's trying to say. Does anyone not believe that a hideous person sent him a derogatory and threatening email? Nope, I believe that. Does anyone not believe that an association that he sued doesn't want him to be a part of the association or get any benefit from the association? Nope, I believe that too. Does anyone believe that the polygraph examiners and therapists he sued don't like him? Nope, I believe that too. So what exactly would he take a polygraph over that would cause him to give up his license if he failed? And what exactly would he expect the polygraph examiners that he has challenged to take a polygraph over that they might fail? I don't see how a polygraph examination would benefit anyone in this scenario, so why would anyone in their right mind take him seriously?
december, we're morbidly curious... Have you been hired -- in one fashion or another -- to help do a little damage control for the good ol' boy Texas PCSOT bidness?
Nope. Just an observer. I will not post on a string where Joe has posted. St Paul was kind enough to post on this string. I have no desire to debate someone who so clearly has no clue (in my opinion). I don't believe there was one word in my post defending the Texans.
december, one would not have to vocally defend the Texans to aid them.
Merely tossing a red herring here and there could be of significant aid to the embattled Lone Star crew.
That goes double if said herrings are designed to impugn one's character or proficiency.
Quote from: danmangan on Jul 15, 2015, 08:44 AMdecember, one would not have to vocally defend the Texans to aid them.
Merely tossing a red herring here and there could be of significant aid to the embattled Lone Star crew.
That goes double if said herrings are designed to impugn one's character or proficiency.
Mr. Mangan --
I am a researcher and writer. I researched each and every one of my statements. They were not written to impugn anyone's character -- unlike the numerous posts by Joe. So I can only assume that you were referring to his impugning rather than mine. If you (or anyone of you) have the knowledge and ability, you could easily find the corroboration for them.
I am "morbidly curious" as well as to what made you think that posting on an ANTIpolygraph website would aid in your election as an officer of an association whose purpose is "providing a valid and reliable means to verify the truth and establish the highest standards of moral, ethical, and professional conduct in the polygraph field" and which includes among its goals -- "Encouraging and supporting research, training and education to benefit members of the Association as well as those who support its purpose and by providing a forum for the presentation and exchange of information derived from such research, training and education."
I assure you that there were no red herrings in my post. It contained either verifiable fact or my opinion.
Quote from: december on Jul 15, 2015, 11:39 AM
I am "morbidly curious" as well as to what made you think that posting on an ANTIpolygraph website would aid in your election as an officer of [APA]
Because, december, in all of polygraph, www.antipolygraph.org is where the real action is.
Nothing else in cyberspace even comes close.
Ask any examiner who takes pride in his tradecraft.
In any event, my exposure on A-P paid off.
The numbers don't lie.
My 28% share of all ballots cast for president-elect of the American Polygraph Association is real -- and it's a real headache for the APA.
In just one full election cycle, I nearly doubled the percentage of my supporters.
Last year I received 15% of the votes for president-elect; this year my support jumped to 28%.
Next year, I predict the APA electorate's support for me will be around 40%, maybe higher.
In 2017, it's gonna be a real horse race -- if I'm permitted to run, that is.
Clearly, there's a widening schism within the APA.
Well good luck to you. I'm not a polygraph examiner nor obviously a member of APA. I've been watching this site since 2008 and I don't have the same perception of it as apparently you and 28% of voting APA members. I've said my piece and will probably go silent for another seven years or so unless something causes me to feel the need to comment further.
Before you go on another lengthy hiatus, december, I'd like your comments on something...
I ran for president-elect of the American Polygraph Association on this simple three-point platform:
1. A bill of rights for polygraph test subjects, designed to elevate informed consent to a higher level and help prevent victimization from false results
2. An ongoing countermeasure challenge series, integral to APA seminars, designed to better reveal polygraph's real-world accuracy and expose the troubling variations in examiner competence
3. Equality for all APA members regarding their participation in APA politics (as office seekers), and access to educational materials presented at APA events
What, if anything, do you find objectionable about my election platform?
Quote from: danmangan on Jul 15, 2015, 02:36 PMLast year I received 15% of the votes for president-elect; this year my support jumped to 28%.
Next year, I predict the APA electorate's support for me will be around 40%, maybe higher.
In 2017, it's gonna be a real horse race -- if I'm permitted to run, that is.
Clearly, there's a widening schism within the APA.
Any polygrapher who has ruined someone's life or career based solely on interpretation of polygraph results or some bogus interrogation summary like the one featured on Penn & Teller's show "Bullshit" must have absolutely no conscience. The APA needs to move towards emphasizing the polygraph as an investigative tool and stand against "witch-hunts" that ruin innocent people. This means that people of real integrity must emerge to put principle over profit. This 21st century McCarthyism must stop. The Nazi's claimed they were conservatives, the polygraph establishment claims they are people of integrity.
Wandersmann, in the final analysis, polygraph is primarily about one thing -- MONEY.
I'm doing my best to call attention to that inconvenient truth, which the polygraph indu$try seeks to hide, in my opinion.
If my theory is correct, that's why my election platform was rejected by the APA's indu$try apologist establishment and their loyal followers.
Hey, why kill the goose that lays the golden eggs?
Yes, it's sad. Very sad.
Collateral damage? That's simply a by-product of the "test" process.
But with 28% of the APA electorate supporting my realist views, hope springs eternal.
We'll know much more about that growing trend in a year or two.
I predict steadily increasing support from polygraph progressives within the APA.
Meanwhile, I invite the popular self-described polygraph "scientists" -- e.g., APA past president Barry Cushman, current APA president Raymond Nelson, John Palmatier, Ph.D, and others -- to chime in with their opinions, comments, and, most important, their evidence-based findings.
C'mon scientists, this is your chance to explain why polygraph works to the extent you claim.
Let's hear it.
[cue crickets]
Quote from: danmangan on Jul 15, 2015, 04:16 PMBefore you go on another lengthy hiatus, december, I'd like your comments on something...
I ran for president-elect of the American Polygraph Association on this simple three-point platform:
1. A bill of rights for polygraph test subjects, designed to elevate informed consent to a higher level and help prevent victimization from false results
2. An ongoing countermeasure challenge series, integral to APA seminars, designed to better reveal polygraph's real-world accuracy and expose the troubling variations in examiner competence
3. Equality for all APA members regarding their participation in APA politics (as office seekers), and access to educational materials presented at APA events
What, if anything, do you find objectionable about my election platform?
1. Bill of Rights for Polygraph Test Subjects
I do not know what the rules for polygraph examiners are in your State. In my State, and in several other states that I have looked at, there are Licensing Guidelines or Rules which apply to polygraph examiners. They must be licensed by the State. There are specific rules, one of which is actually called a Bill of Rights, paraphrased as follows:
* Must be voluntarily taken
* Has the right to know the nature of the examination
* May terminate the exam at any time
* Questions must be reviewed with the examinee and cannot be changed during the test
* The examinee must have a reasonable opportunity to explain reactions to pertinent questions
* The examinee is entitled to a thorough explanation of what to expect in the exam
* Minimum number of charts must be rendered
* No questions regarding the examinee's sexual orientation, religion, race, political beliefs or affiliations
* Right to know the results of the examination in a timely manner if requested
Therefore, I believe you mean that the APA should have such a policy. If there are states which do not include such things in their licensing rules or if they do not have licensing rules, I wholeheartedly agree that the APA should have a Bill of Rights for Polygraph Test Subjects.
2. Countermeasures – I understand what countermeasures are but as I said before, I am not a polygraph examiner. Therefore, I would certainly agree that training polygraph examiners to recognize countermeasures would be a necessity. As far as "real-world" accuracy goes, I have a strong belief that accuracy cannot be determined by comparing one examiner's testing outcome on a general level to another examiner's testing outcome unless they are testing the same person. How can you accurately compare examiners' outcomes outside of a control group? The examiner has no control over who he going to test and certainly not over whether they WILL or WILL NOT be telling the truth or whether they WILL or WILL NOT be using countermeasures. And then there is that "variation in examiner competence." In my research I have discovered that there are polygraph examiners who falsified their credentials in order to become licensed. They were not qualified but were allowed to attend polygraph school, go through the licensing process, and are now licensed polygraph examiners. And, there is no way to get their licenses revoked based on this information. So, therein lies the "variation in examiner competence."
3. Equality for all APA members. I am very much in favor of a balance between equality and liberty. But as far as that concerns the APA, I have no opinion.
Finally, what do I find objectionable about your election platform ... Well, it was not so much that I found it objectionable, I just questioned your choice of forums. However, I have considered your answer that "Nothing else in cyberspace even comes close." And I must agree that George Maschke certainly does have a large following.
december, your state's polygraph guidelines do not go far enough.
In my view, a test subject has the right to know that polygraph's absolute accuracy is unknown, and, in fact, is unknowable -- as is the demonstrated accuracy rate of the vast majority of examiners.
In other words, the test subject should be advised well in advance that the "test" is a crapshoot, a SWAG.
Polygraph victimization is a big problem, and much of it is preventable.
Here's my rough draft of a bill of rights for polygraph test subjects...
> 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 the examiner's own accuracy rate with those exams. [unknowable, in all likelihood]
>
> 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, well 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.
Many of the "rights" I've identified above are profoundly consistent in spirit with the Employee Polygraph Protection Act of 1988 -- i.e., they are designed to protect individuals.
As for a countermeasure challenge series, I predict that roughly half of the CM-trained ringers would beat randomly chosen polygraph operators. That scares the hell out of the polygraph indu$try.
Your comment about a "balance" between equality and liberty is most interesting.
I very much appreciate your taking the time to post. We need more such exchanges with other open-minded individuals who have an interest in polygraph "testing," and who do not fear participating in this forum. Thank you.
First, thank you for the compliment.
I have read EPPA and I agree that your guidelines are not without merit. I feel that items 4-7 may be a little over the head of a large number of people who are required to take polygraphs (and possibly even some polygraph examiners) -- not to disparage polygraph examiners or anyone who finds themselves in the position of being required to take a polygraph.
And the part you underlined on number 3 -- examiner's own accuracy rates -- I'm not sure how you would determine that or how you could be confident in that information being received from the polygraph examiner. Although, maybe you could require the polygraph examiner to take a polygraph on his accuracy rates. HAHAHAHA!! Still ridiculous!!!
Number 10 is problematic in my view because from what I understand charts could possibly be studied by the individual to help them "perfect" their countermeasure attempts and I believe the providing those items to the examinee might cause additional unforeseen problems -- not necessarily for the polygraph examiner, but for the entire probation/pre-employment system that relies on polygraph. However, I certainly believe that such items should be provided to competent legal counsel if requested.
You seem to be somewhat disillusioned in polygraph and seem concerned that it is just about the money. But isn't / shouldn't all business in this country be based on a free enterprise system -- which translates to money?
I realize, of course, that sex offenders and people wanting to be in certain types of employment do not have a choice when it comes to taking polygraphs. But it is frightening that many of the potential law enforcement applicants who post here seem to be grossly unqualified for such a job. One just needs to read or watch the news to know that we have a problem with the quality of law enforcement in this county. I don't believe that polygraph is the be-all and end-all for determining the fitness of a law enforcement applicant, but it is one tool that can be used. Further, PCSOT testing is also a necessary tool in the treatment of sex offenders. I very strongly believe that sex offenders should be treated with consideration and respect and I also believe that the vast majority don't have issues with polygraph in general. If they are being honest with themselves, their POs and therapists, they shouldn't be punished for treatment issues that might come up on a polygraph, but the polygraph also helps to keep them in check so that they don't re-offend. Obviously, there are some people who will re-offend regardless of considerate and respectful treatment by therapists, polygraph examiners, and probation officers. I'm sorry, I just don't have much sympathy for those who re-offend.
Quote from: december on Jul 16, 2015, 07:19 PMNumber 10 is problematic in my view because from what I understand charts could possibly be studied by the individual to help them "perfect" their countermeasure attempts and I believe the providing those items to the examinee might cause additional unforeseen problems -- not necessarily for the polygraph examiner, but for the entire probation/pre-employment system that relies on polygraph. However, I certainly believe that such items should be provided to competent legal counsel if requested.
Let's get real, shall we?
The polygraph apologists compare accuracy of the "test" to certain medically diagnostic procedures, such as film mammography.
Such a comparison is ludicrous, in my opinion.
What would it matter if a positively diagnosed breast cancer sufferer pored over her initially diagnostic films for hours on end prior to a follow-up confirmation x-ray?
So, please explain why a polygraph test-taker's complete examination file should be limited to "competent legal counsel."
If a polygraph file can be studied by the test-taker to beat a subsequent test, then the test itself is not scientifically valid.
Could you "beat" an x-ray by using countermeasures to hide a broken femur?
Of course not. That's just one example of why comparisons of polygraph exams to medical tests are bogus.
Hey, I'm all for free enterprise, but I'm also for an informed consumer.
The late great clothier Sy Syms -- a businessman of substantial renown -- said "An educated consumer is our best customer."
Oddly, that doesn't wash with the polygraph indu$try.
Why?
Because knowing the truth about the risks, realities and limitations of the polygraph "test" kills over 90% of retail polygraph sales.
As for sex offenders, the polygraph functions mainly as an electronic rubber hose -- the role of which is to extract admissions -- in a somewhat disguised interrogation.
There are no peer-reviewed non-"self-report" scientific studies that suggest otherwise.
By all means, correct me if I'm wrong.
A polygraph test is a SWAG -- a Scientific Wild-Ass Guess.
Consumers have the
right to know that.
Quote from: danmangan on Jul 16, 2015, 08:58 PMCould you "beat" an x-ray by using countermeasures to hide a broken femur?
Amen ! This is a vital statement because no one can B.S. their way around it. This statement speaks volumes for why this test should be used at most as a tool and never, ever a panacea of truth. To ruin someone's life strictly based on a chart is a
crime. To use the instrument to focus on an area of possible investigative interest makes sense. Right now the polygraph represents corruption and greed. The APA, polygraph manufacturers, most polygraph examiners, and corrupt bureaucrats and politicians are abusing their authority to make careers/money off of "the box" and their greed explains the abuse. They are people with absolutely no conscience. Just like our problem of having too many lawyers, we have too many polygraph examiners and they must have a daily body count in order to survive. Thank God for guys like Dan in the APA. Keep working it Dan, this system has to break sooner or later. The Salem Witch trials and McCarthyism were eventually ended.
Mr. Mangan, as my sweet grandma used to say -- Bless your heart!
I must have let my open-mindedness get the best of me and I forgot that I am on antipolygraph rather than anti-incompetent-attorney or anti-incompetent-polygraph-examiner. I would love to respond to your SWAG today, but unfortunately I have a project that I must finish and get sent out this afternoon. Also, I have plans to get out from behind my computer and go to the country this weekend to enjoy the hot summer sun. Therefore, my response will need to wait until Monday.
Another thing my grandma used to say was "Let's go to Dairy Queen" -- but I guess that doesn't really apply here ... or does it?
No sweat, december, it'll keep.
As for my SWAG (Scientific Wild-Ass Guess) comment, that comes from retired CIA polygrapher John Sullivan, author of Gatekeeper: Memoirs of a CIA Polygraph Examiner.
In that most telling book, Sullivan characterizes polygraph as being about 92 percent art and eight percent science. I agree.
I also agree with NAS in that incident-specific polygraphs can have accuracy roughly somewhere between chance and perfection. Where that exact point is remains unknown. Why? Because accuracy depends on a host of variables so complex that the claim itself means almost nothing.
Of course, all bets are off when countermeasures are in play.
Yet, polygraph indu$trialists hawk flattering accuracy rates like a high-tech commodity of sorts, aided by cheerleading "scientists" who have a knack for statistical alchemy.
In that heady mix I see obvious parallels between the polygraph purveyors and the climate-change cuckoos.
In either case, one should look at their data with extreme caution.
In spite of all that, I generally agree that specific-issue polygraph "works" -- with countermeasure-ignorant subjects -- but the error rate is huge.
False results -- be they by design or just normal [ahem] "variation" as the pro-polygraph propagandists like to say -- happen far more often than the industry wants consumers to believe.
Thus, the "test" is very much a crapshoot.
Of course, this is just my opinion as a lowly polygraph operator.
I have a very short list as to whom December may be, but it is what it is. Ok, let's do this
1, I will not debate someone hiding behind an anonymous screen name. If you are hiding who you are, then you are not worthy of being taken seriously.
2, I find it pretty convenient that the screenname was generated during my lawsuit.
3, I stand by my polygraph challenge and stand by my statement that their fear of stepping up to their own test is either they fear the being caught in the truth or they don't believe the test works. I wonder which is it
December scoffs at the idea of polygraph examiners taking polygraphs. What she leaves out or ignores is the AAPP have a clause in their bylaws that endorse the use of polygraphs on a polygraph examiner. Moreover, The Arizona Polygraph Association endorses the use of polygraph in situations just like what TAPE accused me of in 2009. I guess the idea of using polygraphs on examiners isn't such a silly idea after all. After all, most of the people I challenged are members of the AAPP.
Are you trying to tell me these examiners think the AAPP bylaws are laughable? hmmmmmmm interesting
Lastly, if my statements are lies, then it would be slander and libel. I have restated them here over the past couple months, with supporting documentation. All they have done is run for cover and send this little character assassin to get me.. LOL, how very pathetic. They can't even fight their own battles.
You speak of debating, here I am. If you want to debate, identify yourself. Or maybe, we will just have fun with IP addresses like before.
You put yourself out there so very bravely, or so you think; but you are not brave enough to identify yourself. How do you think you are credible here? You are already lying to the readers by omission.
LOL, I have seen this before. Someone trying to piss me off anonymously to get my gander up. Sadly this stunt of their worked in 2008.
TAPE and Holden sent their little minions and sycophants to make me lose my temper and draw me into hostile debate; and these people did their jobs well back then. Not this time.
I have laid out fact after fact on other strings. I have offered Documented Evidence in each fact I have laid out, some of which was their own emails, documents, certified court documents, and evidence gathered under subpoena.
I find it odd that this person didn't challenge any of those facts or that documentation laid out in those posts. Avoided them totally. All this person had was the crap that went down with my ex.
Ok, I will explain this to everyone, and it has never been a secret. My ex did some things that even shocked me when I found out about them. Some of these actions were criminal in nature and she faced the justice system for her actions. Those are issues that are not my place to discuss. Hollie can speak for herself if she wishes.
In regard to my ex, she has moved on with her life; leave her be.
As to my current wife, I wouldn't draw her into this. No good will come of that from their end. Keep her out of it.
ya see everyone, this is their MO.
Holden Hubbard and TAPE use character assassins with nothing more than finger pointing, smoke, and mirrors. Thsy also love doing this before they know I will be at a conference in an effort to defame me with hyperbole and irrelevant information.
What they are hoping to achieve here is to fabricate their only weapon as seen in the video poster earlier. That weapon is "mob mentality"
This is the only way they win. They simply distract like a cheap vegas street magician who just learned slight of hand. They use inflammatory statements they have no proof of and avoid addressing the clear evidence.
The only way they can fight is to do everything to avoid the documented evidence. If they can, they will do everything in their power to avoid the presentation of such evidence; just like Hubbard and her boyfriend Holden did in 2009.
The facts are out there, Hubbard and Holden's very own emails. Of course, that has to be a lie right? Even though Ms. Hubbard has all but admitted that those emails and text messages belonged to her. Funny how December avoids that totally.
Also funny how she avoids Maria's many lies from last year that I have clearly exposed with facts and documented evidence.
I think I have clearly established that avoidance is one of their most powerful weapons. This mixed with hyperbole, manipulation and intimidation is it for them. Next, if they follow their pattern will be threats of violence as they have done on no less than two occasions in the past.
Watch, the examiners will send December again because they want to avoid the issues. Just like Jon Rios did last year at TAPE...... "I had nothing do do with that" Meaning the TAPE ethics complaint. Only to find out he was on the Board of Directors to which the ethics complaint was presented
Avoid the subject, deny everything, or blame someone else.
Even more cowardly, not a one of them is willing to look me in the eye to refute what I am saying.
Instead they count of kangaroo courts that violate their own bylaws, or mob mentality by ambush.
Joe, your comments on polygraph's abusive "mob mentality" are well taken. Don't expect any of your anonymous detractors to identify themselves.
Similarly, observers should not be overly hopeful that the polygraph indu$try's leading self-described "scientists" -- including APA past president Barry Cushman, current APA president Raymond Nelson, and John Palmatier, PhD -- will appear here (the world's largest polygraph forum) to discuss their theories, research methods, and evidenced-based findings.
Clearly, polygraph has a credibility problem.
But, hope springs eternal. Maybe the evasive polygraph indu$try kingpins will step forward and prove me wrong.
[cue crickets]
Oh and about the anti incompetent polygraph examiner comment December; you can sling all the mud you want in that area, i never has a confirmed sexual harassment complaint that kicked me out of a school, i never has any racist and threatening anonymous emails come out of my office to intimidate a party in a lawsuit (aka witnesses intimidation), i was never restained from being away from children like father and son Holden, and i never has a 45% INCONCLUSIVE RATE like Holden's buddys in Tarrant County.
If you want to talk about incompetentcy, lets talk about wood'ss 45% inconclusive rate. Mine BTW, has never gone above 9%
Ill put my tests up against theirs any day of the week and never look back.
Oh and i hope everyone's charts are clear, you may notice more lawyers demanding charts and questioning some scores.
Hey, are we having any fun yet
P.S
Sorry for the guest name, i am on my cell.
Oxox to december and the rest of the chart rolling impostors
Travel light
Hey Dan, what do you bet December's IP address traces back to reagal row in Dallas just like lieguytoo?
Place your bets, place your bets
Joe, do you really think december's cheap shots are yet another Dallas-based salvo?
Say it ain't so, Joe. Say it ain't so!
If that turns out to be the case -- and I know you'll find out -- I, for one, will be shocked, appalled and dismayed.
Meanwhile, where are the industry's leading self-described polygraph scientists?
This venue is the largest -- and most authoritative -- polygraph forum in the entire world.
Strangely, the cutting-edge polygraph scientists are reluctant to participate.
Why is that?
My theory: They have nothing substantive to show, everything to fear, and too much to lose.
Here's another possibility... Polygraph is a "secret" science. That would explain why the industry's researchers choose to remain cloistered in their well-guarded comfort zone, where appreciative audiences swoon and nary a critic is found.
But what do I know... I'm just a lowly polygraph operator.
Maybe they'll step up to the plate and prove me wrong. But I doubt it.
In the meantime, polygraph appears to be much more of an insider cult than a legitimate forensic science.
Having a good night being an irishman: smiling, telling jokes, and singing "come out ye black and tans"
So I'll address this in the morn
Sláinte
Hope all is having a wonderful Saturday night
The APA, polygraph manufacturers, most polygraph examiners, and corrupt bureaucrats and politicians are abusing their authority to make careers/money off of "the box" and their greed explains the abuse. They are people with absolutely no conscience.
Wandersmann
I am, and have always been, a private polygraph examiner, and I agree that no ones employment should be determined by any single test, but I have known and worked with many on the government side of the profession, and I have never found this to be true. For the US companies that make and market polygraph products domestic sales are a very small fraction of their total profit picture.
Think about who they are. The government examiners were already well entrenched in their positions with a good federal retirement long before they were trained on polygraph. They have no financial incentive to create unnecessary work for themselves. Their check will always be the same, not based on or tied to their production numbers. If polygraphs vanished tomorrow, they would continue to be employed at the same agency at the same pay grade with the same retirement.
As a whole they may not be the most politically correct or sensitive bunch, but they are good people who strive to do the best they can within their agencies framework and do not get their jollies from reporting failing results.
pailryder:
Please investigate the case of the two (former) federal polygraphers from the IC. Their names are Mark Phillips and Chuck Hinshaw.
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/special-reports/article24732610.html
Quote:
"The office began pushing its polygraphers to extract as many confessions as possible. Every four months, supervisors showed them their confession rates. The agency also posted each polygrapher's numbers internally for everyone to see. It praised polygraphers who had high rates or coaxed out especially shocking confessions."
december, we are anxiously awaiting your promised response to my SWAG comment from last Friday.
I am eagerly waiting to see if she will be honorable and identify herself. Is she willing to stand by her words? Is the company she works for willing to stand by her words? Or are they still "adopting" a policy of handing out bags of crap?
From what I understand, there are lots of bags of crap.
What are they so afraid of if I am wrong and they are right? Why would someone hide if they are defending their honor; why not stand proudly and stand up to the bully you insist I am?
You see, they have a habit of doing this even in the lawsuit. I suspect that December may be the person from Behavioral Measures that engaged, or tried to engage in exparte communications with the judge from the lawsuit in 2008. She has a history of being willing to carry the Behavioral Measures big bag of Holden crap, and then fall on the sword.
This is the Behavioral Measures MO. They send out their employees to do their dirty work, bags of crap in hand to fling whatever poo they can. Then if they get caught like lieguytoo and Ms. Farra Flunky, they fall on the sword and say, "Holden and Parker knew nothing, we acted on our own." Here is the thing, they work for Behavioral Measures and therefor anything they do while working for BM ultimately makes the company responsible too. Do you not manage your employees Rick? How does Parker and Holden not know what is going on in their own office?
Well I know Parker had to have known about the exparte communications; because that same day, a letter was sent to the Bar with an identical package of information which contained his signature. Documentation also contained fax headers that identified BM. The information sent to Judge Evans had the fax readers removed by white out and copy, or so it appeared.
Oh what got BM and their flunky got caught? Ms. Farah Flunkie got caught because when she put postage of the package sent to the judge, she used the BM postal meter which attached identifying information that led right back to their office. Just lie lieguytoo's IP addresses traced back to the Offices of Behavioral Measures as well. Wow, these people are "wicked smaht"
See everyone, these people have no credibility or honor. They would rather let a woman go out and do their dirty work and then let a woman fall on the sword for them. In my opinion, they are no better than Al Qaeda when they filled locations with women and children to prevent a location from being bombed. That is what filthy people like BM and Al Qaeda do, they use women to do their bidding so when they get caught, they can blame it all on them and watch them fall on the sword. Chivalry is clearly dead in the offices of BM. They send Hubbard and Ms. Flunky to do their dirty work because neither are man enough to look me in the eye and take me on man to man.
Cowards
Another thing I don't understand; if I am such a horrible examiner, and I don't affect their bottom line, why I wonder are they trying so hard to push me out? If I was so horrible, would not the market have done this already?
Moreover, I give examples as to why a polygraph company sucks, and can back it up with pure hardcore numbers and facts. 45% of the time, Woods and Associates couldn't tell is someone was telling the truth or not. This lands to one of two conclusions.
1, They are incompetent polygraph examiners and need to go back to school or be removed from the market. I mean come on, would you go to a doctor that 45% of the time couldn't tell you what was wrong?
or
2, Their inconclusives were intentional because inconclusive means retest, and retest means another fee, and another fee means more money. During that period that figure added up to be over $50,000.00. Of course they said they retested everyone at no charge. Come on, who leaves 50K on the table? Maybe they are incompetent; either in business or polygraph.
If Wood was telling the truth on his discovery, there is no third option. Or did he somehow lie on his discovery and it backfired? Only he knows the truth, and he is too scared of me to tell the truth. So which is it Richard, are you incompetent or are you a thief. It's not an accusation, it is a reasonable question.
Because either you and your company can't tell if someone is telling the truth or a lie almost 50% of the time; or, you were double dipping tests for fees. Sorry, there is no way I believe that you did over 50K of free work; no reasonable person would.
Hey, I know how to get the answer, maybe the IRS should look into it.
One thing I do know, is Wood, Holden, et al got away with everything. So, who is to say I didn't go back to business as usual? Maybe the incompetence or test double dipping is still going on. I guess we will never know. While no one can deny that this happened, no one will ever release their numbers willingly or even have some sort of inside industry independent audit to make sure this kinda unethical behavior is still ongoing. people within the industry don't seem very disgusted that this was happening in Texas back in 2008 and took no measures to investigate or assure this never happened again. I say this because TAPE was aware of these numbers of Wood's as well; because they had the same attorney.
So TAPE knew that Wood and Associates had an incredibly high inconclusive rate that should have raised red flags. One can only conclude that the 45% inconclusive rate was because of incompetence or an intentional act of double dipping to increase profit margin.
TAPE did nothing after discovering these numbers and did nothing when I pointed out the implications of these numbers. One can only conclude that TAPE didn't care because maybe this might be common practice or because people in Wood and Associates are soooooooooo very important in the industry, it was simply overlooked. Because protection of the industry trumps protection of the polygraph consumer and the general welfare of the children of the State of Texas. Make me so proud that these are Texas' golden boys and "vigilant" protectors. Da da da daaaaaaaa!
Maybe that is what all this boils down to; all these big bad Texans are scared of one Masshole yankee trying to right the wrongs of the incompetent or charlatans that want to sell the people of the State of Texas snake oil disguised at a way to protect children from child predators. Bless their hearts.
LMAO
If I am so insignificant Deni......I mean "December," why not ignore me totally until the market has it's way with me? Because the truth always rises to the top.
It all comes down to credibility.
Everything I say, I can prove. Much of what they say they can't.
The Texas examiners will also play this game of making me give honest answers to their questions while avoiding giving me honest answers to mine or playing stupid.
Now it's time for them to start answering questions. My money is, they will pull what Rios and St. John pulled by avoiding any clear answer through ambiguity, double talk and outright lies
Also, given that Rick seems to have a problem with possible sexual impropriety;
https://antipolygraph.org/documents/holden-sexual-harassment.shtml
And then there is the fact that he is, last I checked, currently restrained form having intimate or dating relations with Maria Hubbard in the presence of her children, attached, COURT STAMPED documentation provided.
With these appearances of sexual impropriety, how does the APA reconcile that Mr. Holden is teaching a Sexual issue polygraph class of any kind when these issues are hanging out there? The man clearly has a history of being, at minimum, accused of sexual impropriety and issues that would normally raise red flags. In one case it is restrained from being around children.
Again, I am basing this off the court documentation attached
"Are we having fun yet"
Quote from: pailryder on Jul 19, 2015, 12:03 PMThink about who they are. The government examiners were already well entrenched in their positions with a good federal retirement long before they were trained on polygraph. They have no financial incentive to create unnecessary work for themselves. Their check will always be the same, not based on or tied to their production numbers. If polygraphs vanished tomorrow, they would continue to be employed at the same agency at the same pay grade with the same retirement.
As a whole they may not be the most politically correct or sensitive bunch, but they are good people who strive to do the best they can within their agencies framework and do not get their jollies from reporting failing results.
Pailryder - I disagree completely with your above statement. I was a Federal investigator for 26 years and most of the polygraphers I knew were screw ups who couldn't solve a case and were generally disliked by their colleagues. There were, of course, exceptions. With the polygraph these "screw-ups" found a niche where they could attain "success" without having to prove anything, unlike the good investigators I was privileged to work with. You insinuated that polygraph examiners work harder than real investigators. I think that even most of the polygraph examiners that follow this site are laughing at that statement. Also, I can tell you first hand that many retired investigators are having a hard time in this day and age with post-retirement employment, necessary for many to supplement their pensions, send kids to college, etc. I know of a highly successful special agent who retired and ended up driving a delivery truck to make ends meet. Polygraph examiners, on the other hand, can cash in after they retire with lucrative, I've heard of $140,000.00 a year, private polygraph jobs. When you say they are "good" people who strive to do their best and don't enjoy negative reports, I want to vomit. That's not what I saw or experienced. Most of those I've dealt with are whores who would stab their own mother in the back to keep their cash cow. How could anyone with a soul or a conscience take part in ruining a human being and that human's innocent family solely by the reading of a physiological chart and absent ANY other negative information ? It may be sanctioned today by our government, but Dachau was also sanctioned by a "civilized" government 70 years ago. Time for some common sense and common decency to kick in.
I post anonymously on this site because both I and my family have suffered enough already because of this
stupid machine. I know that there are more than a few thugs in the polygraph industry that would resort to less than honorable methods of retaliation against me if they could. That is another reason why I know the polygraph is a joke and a fraud. If someone accused fingerprint technology to be a joke and a fraud, fingerprint examiners would not be a bit concerned because they know the entire scientific community would laugh the accuser into obscurity. When someone attacks the polygraph industry, however, the scientific and medical community are in agreement with the accuser and the polygraph industry can only exist by attacking its enemies, spreading false propaganda and greasing the palms of politicians. I've read that this government is throwing $150,000,000.00 to the polygraph cartel every year. I can't confirm that but perhaps Dr. Maschke or someone more qualified on that topic could respond.
Wandersmann
Over paid screw ups, thugs, frauds, mother stabbing whores and cheats. You are not the first to name call and I normally I would not be baited into a reply to such posts. But the comparison to a Nazi death camp?
By the way, you forgot insidious Orwellian instrument of torture.
It is not the instrument as much as it is some people within the industry Wander.
Many of us are good men/women just trying to do the right thing. Sadly, there are assclowns in the industry just as there are in any.
I will agree with the statement that there are some overpaid thugs, screw up, and more than a few frauds in this business; most of whom seem to be concentrated in Texas. Fact is, there are a few within Texas and a lot outside of Texas I would have been happy to sit in their chair and trust my career to with a test.
Really it is just like any industry, you have people that love and believe in what they do; they are proud of their work; lastly they treat people in the level and part having treated people on the square. There are good people.
Then there are people who are charlatans. People like this are nothing more than snake oil salesmen. They are petrified of their own work and the product they sell. They lie and cheat to keep their market, not because they earn it every day, but because they feel entitled to it because they once earned it. These people believe that success is based on entitlement, not on earning continued success through fair play, honor, and honesty.
We all know the people I am talking about on this.
As far as people being anonymous here. I believe that it is ok to be anonymous here until any attack becomes specifically directed. I think people should be confronted for the things they say, including myself. But that confrontation must be fair, don't say something about someone unless you put your name on it.
For instance, a lot was said in PP that I can't attach to a name. I think these people are cowards and without honor. They talk big so long as they are hidden behind a keyboard. I feel the same for some individuals here.
So far as I am concerned, when someone makes personal attacks against individuals here or anywhere, without attaching their name to the attack, these people should not be taken seriously and should be treated like dog shit on the bottom of ones shoe. A person like this is only worthy of being scraped away with a stick and then discarded.
But if the attack is general and nonspecific, anonymity is perfectly appropriate.
Hey Dan, it seems like December is not willing to play fair and therefore not willing to play at all.
The more things change the more they stay the same. These people want me to answer questions and explain myself; but when the rubber meets the road, they run and hide when it comes to them answering a few on the record and identified.
Yea, these people are the ethical people who deserve to be in the polygraph industry.
You know what they are probably going to do, they will probably slither off and try to make complaints within the industry so they can get a kangaroo court and still remain anonymous and their actions not scrutinized by outsiders.
That seems to be their MO
Furthermore, they are upset I came back here. I can prove that I time after time did exactly why people on PP said I should have done in a private message board, just to be marginalized. So much for what people like pailryder said on PP.
I guess PP was all talk
Quote from: Wandersmann on Jul 23, 2015, 01:09 AMI think that even most of the polygraph examiners that follow this site are laughing at that statement.
The only one who is being laughed at by the polygraph community is YOU. What ridiculous blather from an ex-fed who is obviously jealous of the salaries earned by federal examiners, or previously failed his own polygraph with his agency. BTW, many of us already earn well into six-figures as federal employees. We don't need to "cash in". The federal government pays us a special salary rate beyond the normal GS schedule because of what we do. To suggest we enjoy "ruining" someone's career is utter nonsense. But since you are now retired, you are safe now. Maybe you can call your buddy and get hired on that delivery truck.
Quote from: pailryder on Jul 23, 2015, 08:45 AMBy the way, you forgot insidious Orwellian instrument of torture.
pailryder: no plagiarizing from Doug Williams!
Quote from: quickfix on Jul 23, 2015, 03:38 PMpailryder: no plagiarizing from Doug Williams!
ok that made me laugh
Quote from: quickfix on Jul 23, 2015, 03:38 PMBTW, many of us already earn well into six-figures as federal employees.
Not bad for 320 hours of barber school.
Quote from: quickfix on Jul 23, 2015, 03:38 PMTo suggest we enjoy "ruining" someone's career is utter nonsense
Lots of Ad Hominem attacks to my post, but no real comprehension or substantive refuting of anything I said. Whether you enjoy "ruining" a person's career or not is irrelevant. I might be mistaken, but haven't you joked about ruining people in the past on this forum Quickfix ? I had the impression you enjoyed it. Whether you enjoy it or not, I'm glad you tacitly admitted you are, in fact, ruining people. Thank you. I rest my case.
Pailryder, regarding your Ad Hominem response, I'm glad you think Orwellian torture is funny. Do you think that someone losing their livelihood and having a nervous breakdown due to the polygraph is not Orwellian torture ? Do you know what the term Orwellian torture means ? I'll tell you where I came up with the Dachau statement. It just popped into my head when you said polygraph examiners were "good" people. I recall reading a speech that Heinrich Himmler once gave when he said, and I paraphrase after translation , something to the effect of, "it is impressive that we can do such terrible things and still remain such good people."
I don't need to join my friend on the delivery truck and my 8 times on the polygraph over a 20 year period (obviously I must have passed) are behind me. I have several friends, however, who are going through hell and I feel for them. My motivation for continuing an interest in this topic involves following my oath of office and duty to my country. I am also proud of my service and my agency and believe that the current polygraph abuse is a stain on the honor of our sacred law enforcement and military institutions. I don't blame polygraph examiners as much as I blame our poor leadership for allowing the polygraph to be a panacea of truth. I know a Vietnam Silver Star recipient who became a polygraph examiner and then quit when he realized that he was hurting innocent people. He had honor. He would have continued as a polygraph examiner if he was allowed to just use it as a tool.
Lastly, to those of you in the polygraph community who are laughing at me, as Quickfix suggests, I would be happy to share notes about the difference between a complicated month/year long investigation conducted in accordance with due process and culminating in a trial versus a several hour interview followed by an "interpretation" of a biological reading with final innocence or guilt determined by a kangaroo court staffed by members of the same "private club".
Quote from: pailryder on Jul 23, 2015, 08:45 AMOver paid screw ups, thugs, frauds, mother stabbing whores and cheats. You are not the first to name call and I normally I would not be baited into a reply to such posts. But the comparison to a Nazi death camp?
Pailryder, I will apologize for my over-animated description of polygraphers. I know several polygraphers who easily fit the description I gave. In fact calling them screw ups, thugs, frauds, mother stabbing whores and cheats would be sugar-coating it, but I don't mean to paint everyone with the same brush. I reacted because you were painting polygraphers with the same brush in a different color and what you described is not even close to what I experienced.
Did December go and run away? Wow, they are resorting to the ole hit and run tactic. A tactic embraced by frauds, shysters, drunks, and carnies.
Typical of Holden and his crew, send in the clowns and then run when the going gets tough. It's their go to.
Quote from: Wandersmann on Jul 24, 2015, 12:34 AMI recall reading a speech that Heinrich Himmler once gave when he said, and I paraphrase after translation , something to the effect of, "it is impressive that we can do such terrible things and still remain such good people."
Wandersmann, in my personal opinion, this is a most profound observation that strikes at the dark underbelly of the polygraph indu$try.
But for many stalwart polygraph apologists, the end justifies the means.
It's no wonder that my proposed bill of rights for polygraph test-takers has been roundly condemned by indu$try beneficiaries.
At least the American Polygraph Association has a growing number of progressive realists within its rank-and-file membership who do not fear the concept of legitimate informed consent. Sadly, none of the APA's elected officers -- not a single one, as far as I know -- supports a bill of rights for test subjects.
If I'm wrong about that I'm sure someone will chime in very soon to correct me, given that this forum is by far the one most monitored by polygraph professionals.
[cue crickets]
It's one thing to claim to be a good person, it's another thing to BE a good person.
hey Rick
Are you having fun yet?
8-)
Loses some effect when you're not yelling it in person right?
Quote from: the_fighting_irish on Jul 24, 2015, 12:26 PMAre you having fun yet?
Joe -
Let's lighten it up a bit. Do you prefer Smithwicks or Guiness ?
sorry man, it's just that I am the kinda person that when I fight, either I am all in or I am not. I am so sick of clowns like December, and the only way to silence them is to beat them into the ground with their own shit.
You're right though, need to rest between rounds.
Frankly, I wish I didn't have to do this at all. Things were so quiet between 2009 and last year.
Ya know, if a few of them would do what you just did and talk to me, a lot of this fight would not be necessary
I firmly believe a lot of this can be worked out over a few beers and honest conversation. It almost worked once in October of last year. A couple people talked and the war was almost over forever.
Amazing what can happen when ALL sides sit down and be reasonable.
Of course they will deny it and I hope they do. I love catching them in lies
Joe, why don't you just get this gal that is giving you hard time and give her some of that old Irish charm? Get her into the polygraph suite, turn on the activity sensors and do her to a tender turn.. ;)
Ark, if I may interject...
I dare say that none -- and I repeat, NONE -- of Joe McCarthy's TAPE detractors would ever submit to the dreaded liebox -- the very same instrument they cling to so adamantly as being so highly accurate.
Why the resistance?
That's a good question.
Either the liebox is bogus, or Joe's detractors are....well, you get the drift.
Quote from: danmangan on Jul 24, 2015, 09:44 PMArk, if I may interject...
I dare say that none -- and I repeat, NONE -- of Joe McCarthy's TAPE detractors would ever submit to the dreaded liebox -- the very same instrument they cling to so adamantly as being so highly accurate.
Why the resistance?
That's a good question.
Either the liebox is bogus, or Joe's detractors are....well, you get the drift.
Personally, I think it is both possibilities.
All I can say ARK, before charm can work, we have to assume the people I am using the charm on is a lady. If it is one of the two people I suspect, while they may be female, a lady they are not.
Quote from: the_fighting_irish on Jul 24, 2015, 03:11 PMsorry man, it's just that I am the kinda person that when I fight, either I am all in or I am not.
Joe - I understand completely. But back to the question - Smithwicks or Guinness. I'd like an Irishman's opinion.
18 year old Jameson and Guinness
Anything less is uncivilized
Quote from: the_fighting_irish on Jul 25, 2015, 05:20 PM18 year old Jameson and Guinness
Thank you - Sounds good to me. I normally like single malt, but a good 18-year old blend distilled in cork sounds good. I've already got the Guinness, next time I'm at the liquor store I'll get the Jameson.
Shláinte
I'm not worried about it, as quickly as December showed up, she left once it came time for her to back up her crap.
Typical behavioral measures, all flash and talk and no substance.
It doesn't matter, if December is who I think it is, I came upon some information that will explain why this person who insists she has no vested interest has a lot of interest in reality.Also spending a lot of time looking in collage stations and the corroding arias to confirm other information.
We all know what happens when I start diving, I have this ability to find very interesting things. Next week I will be back in Conroe/Huntsville to pick up more info uncovered.
Stay tuned boys and girls.
Joe, as a fellow Irishman and certified Masshole (we grew up about 30 miles apart), I find your patience to be both humbling yet perplexing.
Were I in your shoes, I would have long ago employed a decidedly more severe approach: scorched earth, no prisoners. (I'm speaking figuratively, of course.)
Needless to say, I would start with the chief clown.
As our esteemed former Massachusetts state governor, and past presidential candidate, Stanley M. Dukakis said, "A fish rots from the head first."
Perhaps my approach is uncivilized.
But then, I prefer "Smiddicks" to Guiness, and Irish Mist to Jameson.
Yes, it's uncivilized, but...
QuoteJoe, as a fellow Irishman and certified Masshole (we grew up about 30 miles apart), I find your patience to be both humbling yet perplexing.
Were I in your shoes, I would have long ago employed a decidedly more severe approach: scorched earth, no prisoners. (I'm speaking figuratively, of course.)
Needless to say, I would start with the chief clown.
As our esteemed former Massachusetts state governor, and past presidential candidate, Stanley M. Dukakis said, "A fish rots from the head first."
Perhaps my approach is uncivilized.
But then, I prefer "Smiddicks" to Guiness, and Irish Mist to Jameson.
Yes, it's uncivilized, but...
I have to be careful down here as approaches that are....... average.... in my old stomping ground, are not approaches that will work down here. People down here don't listen to reason down here when utilizing such methods. It just makes them dig in more like ticks.
You are also assuming I am dealing with men who are brave enough to look me in the eye; one on one, and on the level. Fact is, they wouldn't stand a chance sitting at a table with me and having a fair debate if they HAD to answer questions honestly. Not a one of my, how did people on pp put it, "Texas Tormentors," would ever have the guts to do it. Why?
That answer is simple. They rely on mob mentality and bullying to win a debate. They also will not engage in an environment where the system is not rigged to their benefit. Even when I say Rios and St. John in October of last year, they avoided certain direct questions like the black plague. Well never mind listen to how Rios lies and avoids questions in this video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ddYN2jbH0Ds&index=6&list=PLfdmQbJ2BVYROwsBSdkO9eZDhyVvccFnc
First he says he knows nothing about any of it
LIE
he was on the board of directors
Then he says he follows the bylaws to the letter
LIE
the bylaws were violated on multiple occasions by all involved including the Board of Directors, Executive Committee, and the Ethics Committee.
he said he would look into it
LIE
he already knew everything
he said that the only person who is afraid of taking a polygraph is someone who will lie to it
THIS WAS THE TRUTH
Funny how TAPE's president says that, but not a one of them is willing to step up to the test under fair conditions. Interestingly, I was willing to step up to my own test to exonerate myself from TAPE and TAPE's sycophant's accusations against me. I guess if we go by Rios' mentality of only a liar would avoid a test, one can easily presume, that they are lying and I am telling the truth. hmmmmmmm
They can act like they are above taking a polygraph. Fact is they are afraid of failing their own tests and ending their career.
They only way I can fight them, is to expose their lies and unethical behaviors.
oh another lie he tells, is that only TAPE MEMBERS and invitees can attend CEU classes.
This also was a LIE
MEETINGS
1. The seminars of this Association shall be held semi-annually at a place selected at each semi-annual seminar.
2. The place of the seminar shall be determined by a majority vote of all members present and voting. If more than two places are nominated, the place receiving the smallest number of voted on the first ballot shall be dropped from consideration and the balloting continued until one place, of two remaining, has received a majority of all votes cast and the place of the next seminar be determined thereby.
3. In order to attend a semi-annual or any meeting of the Association a member of any class membership shall be in good standing.
4. Elected officials of other polygraph organizations may be invited to attend the business meeting of the Association at the discretion and invitation of the President.
Non-Examiners or other Polygraph Examiners may attend a seminar for all activities excluding the business meeting of the Association.that is from their own bylaws. So that day, the President of TAPE broke his own bylaws, ON VIDEO. either that or he is incompetent and didn't know his own bylaws. There really is no third option here.
Moreover, TAPE broke their bylaws with me and my wife Karen's membership applications. The procedures were not followed according to the bylaws at all. Even though both Rios and their lawyers assured me the bylaws would be followed.
Fact is, these people wouldn't know what the truth was down here in Texas if it pitched a tent in their asses. Nothing any of them say can be trusted, and if I were a lawyer out there, I would demand every chart of theirs and question their very decision or action. With as many times as Mr. Rios has been taught lying in his official capacity as an organization president, who is to say he doesn't lie in his official capacity as a New Branfules police detective? It's a fair question.
Same with the rest of the liars I have exposed over the past year. If they will lie and cover this crap up, who is to say they won't lie about test results, or confessions, or scores?
If they will cover up racist, sexist and terroristic threats made by their members and leadership, who is to say they don't practice racism, and sexism still. Funny how Andy Sheppard said TAPE would apologize if they knew all that crap cam from their organization; 7 years later and I am still awaiting that apology. Funny how I didn't get it from Rios the two times I saw him last year. He knew, come on; and all I wanted was simple words.
Lastly, with two instances of having my safety and well being threatened by Officers of TAPE, who is to say TAPE will not use violence or threat of violence again to silence me?
Just saying, and it is well known that I have had my safety threatened by two TAPE Officers. One threatened me in 2008, and Maria Hubbard did so in public earlier this year in an unprovoked incident. In the legal world, I believe this would be called a pattern of behavior.
Anyway, you get the idea. Though these people should be questioned, they never have been until I showed up and was provoked into taking action. So they only thing they have left is threats of violence, or punishing me through a rigged system where the right thing takes a back seat to the politically expedient and lies are more revered than the truth.
While I still strongly believe in polygraph and the good I try to do everyday in it's use, I have little faith in our system
What amazes me the most is the almost over the top effort that is made to cover up the lies and protect the piers and we are supposed to be the people why "detect lies" and or verify character. WTF
This is really a very easy issue to solve. Fact is, the refusal to want to stop this from their end just keeps lending credence to the corruption I am exposing.
Quote from: the_fighting_irish on Aug 03, 2015, 10:57 AM...or punishing me through a rigged system where the right thing takes a back seat to the politically expedient..
Joe, when I read those words of yours it reminded me of the American Polygraph Association Board of Directors' decision to move the goalposts with regard to my quest for the office of president-elect.
For the past fifty (50) years, a full member of the APA could run for the office of president-elect without having previously served as a director.
But now, after seeing my support spike from 15% of the vote in the 2014 election to 28% of the vote this year -- and perhaps fearing that my support would continue to grow in similarly large measure -- the APA Board of Directors has crafted a rule requiring that candidates for president-elect first serve as a director.
That rule is embedded into a much larger package of new bylaws and constitutional changes for the APA, which will be up for a vote at the general membership meeting on September 1st. Passage is all but assured.
I wonder what part of my three-point election platform the APA establishment fears most?
Could it be my bill of rights concept for polygraph test subjects? (Clearly, bringing informed consent to a much higher levels kills business.)
Maybe it's my idea a countermeasure challenge series that pits randomly chosen polygraph operators against a crew of CM-schooled ringers. (I predict polygraph accuracy would be shown to hover around 50% in that scenario.)
Of course, it could be my call for total equality among APA members. (Seems fair to me -- and many of my peers, evidently.)
In any case, the APA's decision to move the goalposts, election-wise, is a most telling development.
It appears that vocal critical thinkers, iconoclasts, and non-believers must be kept at bay.
But for an organization that claims to be dedicated to truth, the question is obvious: Why?
Quote from: danmangan on Aug 03, 2015, 11:52 AMQuote from: the_fighting_irish on Aug 03, 2015, 10:57 AM...or punishing me through a rigged system where the right thing takes a back seat to the politically expedient..
Joe, when I read those words of yours it reminded me of the American Polygraph Association Board of Directors' decision to move the goalposts with regard to my quest for the office of president-elect.
For the past fifty (50) years, a full member of the APA could run for the office of president-elect without having previously served as a director.
But now, after seeing my support spike from 15% of the vote in the 2014 election to 28% of the vote this year -- and perhaps fearing that my support would continue to grow in similarly large measure -- the APA Board of Directors has crafted a rule requiring that candidates for president-elect first serve as a director.
That rule is embedded into a much larger package of new bylaws and constitutional changes for the APA, which will be up for a vote at the general membership meeting on September 1st. Passage is all but assured.
I wonder what part of my three-point election platform the APA establishment fears most?
Could it be my bill of rights concept for polygraph test subjects? (Clearly, bringing informed consent to a much higher levels kills business.)
Maybe it's my idea a countermeasure challenge series that pits randomly chosen polygraph operators against a crew of CM-schooled ringers. (I predict polygraph accuracy would be shown to hover around 50% in that scenario.)
Of course, it could be my call for total equality among APA members. (Seems fair to me -- and many of my peers, evidently.)
In any case, the APA's decision to move the goalposts, election-wise, is a most telling development.
It appears that vocal critical thinkers, iconoclasts, and non-believers must be kept at bay.
But for an organization that claims to be dedicated to truth, the question is obvious: Why?
Dan, I will agree that changing the goalposts is like Montreal Habs diving for the net in a playoff game.
I can't agree with some of the other things you are pushing though. The best part of you and me, though we can't agree on key things, WE STILL GET ALONG.
Maybe some people can learn to play like adults as you and I have with one another.
Ya know dan, lieguytoo and I were talking yesterday on the phone. Every time him and I talk reminds me that we all can get along as long as we are honest with each other and ourselves.
I also find it amusing that people like december say I can't let stuff go, but fail to mention that I talk to lieguytoo all the time.
I feel I should also make it clear to everyone, I hold no ill will against lieguytoo, and haven't for some time. I do hold ill will against the people he worked for and represented who share responsibility for his actions. After all, he was a managing employee at behavioral measures and a Board Member of TAPE.
Funny how they accuse him of all sorts of unethical acts, when I see a history that he was the ONLY person in that whole group that acted with honor and maned up. Lieguytoo was the only one of that whole group to do the right thing. He made it right.
Says a lot about BM and TAPE doesn't it? BW measures and TAPE still deny that lie guy too was even attached to them. They also deny that what he did was wrong and fail to condemn the actions and apologize on behalf of their organizations.
The only man amongst them turned out being lieguytoo. Shame on them
As December goes, it is clear she ran for cover after I started asking real questions. Clearly when it comes to actually debating, they find themselves lacking in facts, answers, and substance.
My advice for December is this. Before you start attacking me again like a coward
1, use your name, otherwise you lack credibility. Nothing new there in regard to lack of credibility huh?
2, don't throw stone at a man that has a machine gun (figuratively speaking of course)
3, you don't need to change the questions when you have all the answers