Hello everyone,
I'm a British academic writing an academic book which is critical of polygraphy. One chapter deals with how polygraph examinations are used in interrogations. I have a few transcripts of interrogations but would like to collect more to support my analysis. If anyone has a transcript they could share with me (it can be anonymised) that would be hugely appreciated.
Cheers! Andy Balmer
Quote from: andybalmer on Aug 16, 2017, 09:37 AMI'm a British academic writing an academic book which is critical of polygraphy. One chapter deals with how polygraph examinations are used in interrogations. I have a few transcripts of interrogations but would like to collect more to support my analysis. If anyone has a transcript they could share with me (it can be anonymised) that would be hugely appreciated.
Are you speaking of transcripts similar to those in a court proceeding or verbatim recording of the interrogation?
Quote from: andybalmer on Aug 16, 2017, 09:37 AMI'm a British academic writing an academic book which is critical of polygraphy.
Why?
Quote from: Arkhangelsk on Aug 20, 2017, 12:40 AMWhy?
Ummm, because people need to be educated on its limitations. Or, maybe to show how stupid our leaders are for relying on it. Or, how about to show how individual rights can be infringed on by judging someone based solely on the results of 'it'.
A better question is why not?
Quote from: sammorter on Aug 20, 2017, 07:28 PMA better question is why not?
Precisely.
Here is a yet a new wrinkle to the pseudoscience of polygraph "testing"...
The latest issue of the APA's house organ
Polygraph magazine features an article enthusiastically supporting the use of Bayes' Theorem in the analysis of polygraph "test" results.
Coincidentally, a newly published article --
Bayesian inference for interpretation of polygraph results in the courtroom -- appearing in
Law, Probability & Risk, which publisher Oxford University Press describes as "a fully refereed journal which publishes papers dealing with topics on the interface of law and probabilistic reasoning," by polygraph critic Alan Zelicoff, co-authored by Steven E. Rigdon, apparently
shoots holes in the argument espousing the use of Bayes' Theorem in connection with polygraph "testing."Here's an excerpt from the publisher's abstract of the Zelicoff/Rigdon article:
Despite more than 80 years of field use, there is very limited data that may be applied to assess the diagnostic utility of the polygraph for purposes of establishing the innocence of a defendant. In this article, we present a fully Bayesian analysis of what is probably the largest and most realistic existing data set and we obtain the posterior distribution for the PPV (the probability of guilt conditioned on 'failing' the polygraph) and the NPV (the probability of innocence conditioned on 'passing' the polygraph). We show that these quantities have a high degree of uncertainty that is often unexpressed when just point estimates are given.On its web site, the APA continues to make this claim:
"...APA examiners are able to attain accuracy rates exceeding 90 percent."Such boasting is misleading at best. Polygraph consumers worldwide should beware -- and look cautiously to any APA response to the Oxford article authored by Zelicoff and Rigdon.
Why do polygraph professionals continue to ignore the NAS report and characterize polygraph "test" accuracy in terms of a percentage? In my professional opinion -- and I'm a full member of the APA with 13 years of experience --polygraph "testing" is mainly about one thing: MONEY. Expressing polygraph accuracy in percentages is key to winning (and keeping) business.
When consumers grasp the reality of polygraph accuracy, they quickly lose interest in the "test."
As I see it, here's the bottom line: Even with the statistical contortions afforded by Bayes' Theorem, polygraph "testing" is still a SWAG -- a Scientific Wild-Ass Guess.
Thank you Dan.
Probability. That's what we're talking about here - plain and simple.
What is an acceptable ratio? CBP has less than 40% pass rate. A recent Homeland Security OIG report estimated that 875,000 people will need to apply to meet current hiring goals. That's a crap load of polygraphers polygraphing.
Bias and greed breed corruption. Those involved cover for each other and hide under the guise of 'Office of Security', where records are 'classified'.
With HR 2213 and S1560 coming up for debate next session, it would be a great time to petition our Congressmen and Senators.
Or, just sue the crap out of them. I had my individual rights violated by these corrupt officials and I know that I'm not the only one - because they told me so - in 'discovery'. And that's just DIA.
Making an unfavorable judgement against someone based solely on the results of the 'polygraph' should be illegal - everywhere.
Problem is.. the question was not directed to you. Andy, please answer if you will.
I guess I do. I just want to know his experience which motivated him to write the book but have to endure you answering on his behalf.
Quote from: Arkhangelsk on Aug 21, 2017, 05:03 PMProblem is.. the question was not directed to you. Andy, please answer if you will.
Andy is incredibly rude. He asks a question, generates all this discussion and never responds to people who take the time to respond to him. Maybe he is just someone with disingenuous intent. >:(
Quote from: Arkhangelsk on Aug 21, 2017, 10:14 PMhave to endure you answering on his behalf
I was under the impression that this was a public message board. If you feel that you have to endure answers on his behalf, perhaps you should use the private message function.
I have.
"The latest issue of the APA's house organ Polygraph magazine features an article enthusiastically supporting the use of Bayes' Theorem in the analysis of polygraph "test" results."
This "Bayes' Theorem" bullshit put forth by the polygraph industry is a perfect example of what W.C. Fields meant when he famously said, "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit."
And you are absolutely right, the polygraph "testing" serves no useful purpose. It is simply a means to unjustly enrich the thugs who administer these "tests".
Quote from: Doug_Williams on Aug 22, 2017, 03:21 PMThis "Bayes' Theorem" bullshit put forth by the polygraph industry is a perfect example of what W.C. Fields meant when he famously said, "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit."
Doug, that is so true!
As you have maintained for decades, the polygraph "test" is a ruse.
From what I've observed since becoming a *certified* examiner in 2004, the "evidenced based" polygraph indu$try leaders are bent on espousing a scientific foundation, while intellectually whistling past the graveyard.
But let that go. People will believe what they want to believe.
IMHO, the polygraph scene is mainly about money.
Fun fact: After working at a state prison for 5+ years doing polygraphs on sex offenders, I discovered the truth about the "test" -- and how easy it is to beat it.
The secret is simple, so simple.
I am continually amazed seeing the expressions on peoples' faces when I explain the so-called science behind polygraph "testing" to them.
But I digress...
Bayes theorem applied to polygraph "te$ting" is nothing but a marketing gimmick -- at least in my professional opinion.
No matter how it's packaged, polygraph is just a SWAG -- a Scientific Wild-Ass Guess.
Don't believe otherwise.
Anyone got questions?
I have answers.
603-801-5179
Hello everyone,
Thank you for the responses. Please accept an apology for the slow response. I have been deep in the writing of the book and I mistakenly thought I'd get an email if anyone responded. I will be sure to check more frequently, now.
To answer the question about what I am looking for:
I want the verbatim transcripts from the actual polygraph interrogations/interviews with police officers/examiners. I have a lot of court opinions and the odd trial transcript but the actual examination transcripts are much harder to find. I am happy to receive documents, or audio/video files which I can transcribe myself.
To answer the question as to why I am writing the book:
I wrote my PhD thesis on lie detection, critically engaging with the scientific account and with the social history of the polygraph's use. I also wrote about the emergence of sex offender lie detection in a journal article and have written a paper about the social history of the polygraph machine. I am now writing a monograph about it. It is a mix of social history, socio-legal studies and 'science and technology studies' (a field which examines how science works from a sociological perspective). In the book, I have a chapter about polygraph interrogations, explaining how examiners manipulating subjects into providing information, how the line is blurred between exam and interrogation, and how the techniques employed by examiners can produce false confessions. To improve my analysis I was hoping to get access to some more transcripts, to see how different examiners implement the same kinds of techniques.
I hope that explains a bit more about what I'm up to. Apologies for the delay once again.
Cheers,
Andy
Andy, have you been following the pro-polygraph writings of your fellow countryman Dr. Don Grubin? It seems he's had great success.
Perhaps Dr. Grubin would be willing to share videos of his polygraph exams with you.
In my professional opinion -- and I'm a full member of the APA with 13 years of experience, over five of them doing polygraph "tests" on convicted sex offenders in a prison setting -- the polygraph "test" is a sick joke.
Polygraph is mainly about money, at least from what I've experienced.
That's the key message you need to expose.
Contact me for more damning info.
Quote from: andybalmer on Aug 24, 2017, 06:50 AMThank you for the responses. Please accept an apology for the slow response.
Thank you Andy and please accept my apology for the curt response earlier. I asked you about more specific information about transcripts because I wanted to make certain I understood you. Speaking as a former law enforcement officer who was both a victim of the polygraph, and one who witnessed many other people become apparent victims of this witchcraft, I believe there are no transcripts. I can not speak as an absolute authority because I was never a polygraph examiner nor was I a security official affiliated with the polygraph.
Results of Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests which yielded polygraph examiner reports and findings in my case revealed that the polygraph report was inaccurate and contained lies and omissions. Based on the results of my FOIA information I believe that the polygraph examiner is unimpeded from writing a totally subjective, inaccurate summary to justify the conclusions in the chart interpretation. A polygraph examiner is sanctioned to write a false official statement with no oversight whatsoever. These people function with the same impunity as the repressive regimes of the Soviet Union.
Hello Dan,
Thanks for this. Yes, I have written about PCSOT and have followed Prof. Grubin's work on the subject. I have, on the few occasions I've had the chance, advised police and government officials not to put faith in the test, but it tends to fall on deaf ears. You're quite right about money. Once I have completed my current book, I will likely be in touch - perhaps you would be willing to be interviewed about your experiences?
Best wishes,
Andy
Hey Wandersmann,
I do have some transcripts already, but you're right that in most exams they are not produced, and in many audio/video is not recorded. I agree there is a deception inherent to the implementation of polygraph exams. In the book I explore how uncertainties in the science and in law are used by examiners to further manipulate subjects, with sometimes tragic consequences. The responses I've had from my post so far suggest a possible article to write after the book: I might conduct interviews with current and former examiners and with people who have taken a test. Would make for an interesting paper and help showcase some of the experiences people have had with the machine.
Cheers,
Andy
Andy
Should we expect a chapter exploring how examiners use the uncertainties of law and science to manipulate subjects into truthful confession with wonderful results?
Hey Andy
Can we expect a chapter exploring the individual rights violations when subjects "fail" the "test" and are unjustly judged to be untrustworthy based solely on those "results"?
Also, can we expect a chapter explaining that subjecting someone to the polygraph "test" five times in three years is abusive?
Quote from: pailryder on Aug 26, 2017, 03:18 PMAndy
Should we expect a chapter exploring how examiners use the uncertainties of law and science to manipulate subjects into truthful confession with wonderful results?
Yes Pail - I feel certain that Andy will agree with you that the polygraph is an excellent prop for an interrogator. In fact it is the best psychological billy club ever devised to coerce a person into giving a confession. But I'm also certain that he will come to know that the polygraph is absolutely worthless as a "lie detector"!
Quote from: pailryder on Aug 26, 2017, 03:18 PMShould we expect a chapter exploring how examiners use the uncertainties of law and science to manipulate subjects into truthful confession with wonderful results?
Sure Pailryder, let's do it. If you don't mind occasionally ruining innocent people's lives, let's go for it. If we can't solve a bank robbery but have 5 suspects, if we just put all 5 in prison without separating the innocent and the guilty we would undoubtedly punish the real culrpit. >:(
Wandersmann
You have stumbled onto the very reason EPPA testing is so valuable to private businesses and employees. First, keep in mind the very different nature of EPPA testing from the compelled governmental testing you find so offensive. Business testing is voluntary, even if the employee fails, protections are in place so that no adverse job action can result from the failure.
Change your bank robbery to an inside job. An unknown employee at your branch has stolen a large amount of cash. Now you and the other four employees are under suspicion and the chance of everyone being fired if the thief cannot be identified is very real. Truthful employees know it is the thief that has placed their job at risk and it is in their best interest that the thief be found out. Thousands of polygraphs have been conducted in compliance with this federal labor law since it passed in 1988, some thirty years ago.
With that in mind Wandersmann, answer me this, in all that time, how many posts have you read on this site where the poster complains about an EPPA compliant polygraph experience?
Quote from: Doug_Williams on Aug 26, 2017, 05:30 PMQuote from: pailryder on Aug 26, 2017, 03:18 PMAndy
In fact it is the best psychological billy club ever devised to coerce a person into giving a confession.
I was wondering, Doug, how your confession was obtained?
Quote from: pailryder on Aug 28, 2017, 01:00 PMQuote from: Doug_Williams on Aug 26, 2017, 05:30 PMQuote from: pailryder on Aug 26, 2017, 03:18 PMAndy
In fact it is the best psychological billy club ever devised to coerce a person into giving a confession.
I was wondering, Doug, how your confession was obtained?
Pail-O-Shit - it is very confusing when you put a question mark afer a declarative sentence, so I'm wondering what it is you are saying/asking. Are you asking how I obtained confessions when I was a professional polygraph interrogator?
Were you coerced?
Quote from: pailryder on Aug 28, 2017, 01:22 PMWere you coerced?
Coerced – entrapped – railroaded – betrayed... any or all of the above. But there is one thing about my conviction that is of immense value in my crusade against your evil industry. And that is that if I can teach a person how to control every tracing on the polygraph chart and "beat" the polygraph test at will - something you have always claimed was impossible for me to do – that is proof that the polygraph exam is absolutely worthless as a lie detector. And my conviction at the hands of the rogue polygraph examiners from the CBP/IA is proof that the polygraph industry knows this is true. Therefore, my conviction is proof that the whole polygraph industry is nothing but a fraud and that you are all very well aware of the fact that you are perpetrating a fraud by claiming to be able to detect deception with your little box.
Quote from: pailryder on Aug 28, 2017, 12:49 PMBusiness testing is voluntary, even if the employee fails, protections are in place so that no adverse job action can result from the failure.
So why even administer it?
To protect the truthful employee's jobs by removing them from the suspect pool.
Quote from: pailryder on Aug 28, 2017, 02:38 PMTo protect the truthful employees jobs by removing them from the suspect pool.
Pail-O-Shit - that is pure unadulterated bullshit and you know it. You thugs administer polygraph tests for one reason and one reason only – to unjustly enrich yourselves.
Quote from: Doug_Williams on Aug 28, 2017, 02:41 PMPail-O-Shit - that is pure unadulterated bullshit and you know it. You thugs administer polygraph tests for one reason and one reason only – to unjustly enrich yourselves.
Gee, just like YOU did-until you got caught. The only difference is we are not convicted felons like you.
Quote from: quickfix on Aug 28, 2017, 02:50 PMQuote from: Doug_Williams on Aug 28, 2017, 02:41 PMPail-O-Shit - that is pure unadulterated bullshit and you know it. You thugs administer polygraph tests for one reason and one reason only – to unjustly enrich yourselves.
Gee, just like YOU did-until you got caught. The only difference is we are not convicted felons like you.
No Pail-O-Shit - what you do is not at all like what I did, but at least you are admitting that the only reason you run polygraph tests is to unjustly enrich yourself. So, I think we're making some progress here. Try to keep being honest - at least as much as you can - and maybe we can help you see the light and turn from your evil ways.
Quote from: pailryder on Aug 28, 2017, 02:38 PMTo protect the truthful employee's jobs by removing them from the suspect pool.
And what about the false positives? Even worse, what about the false negatives? The Reality Winners, the Edward Snowdens, or the Aldrich Ames's?
I know, I know, you have to break a few eggs to make an omelette.
A false sense of security and abuse of the innocent.
John M
The individuals you named took compelled government polygraphs. My post concerns only private business polygraph testing under the Employee Polygraph Protection Act of 1988.
Quote from: sammorter on Aug 21, 2017, 11:29 PMI was under the impression that this was a public message board.
That doesn't mean that it's appropriate for someone to boorishly impose themselves on every post.
Quote from: andybalmer on Aug 24, 2017, 06:50 AMI wrote my PhD thesis on lie detection, critically engaging with the scientific account and with the social history of the polygraph's use.
Thanks for the details Andy. Did your research reveal the polygraph to have the ability to detect deception above chance? What other methods of lie detection did you research?
Quote from: danmangan on Aug 20, 2017, 10:30 PMAs I see it, here's the bottom line: Even with the statistical contortions afforded by Bayes' Theorem, polygraph "testing" is still a SWAG -- a Scientific Wild-Ass Guess.
There exist two interpretations on Bayesian probability.
Interpreting probability as extension of logic, probability quantifies the reasonable expectation that everyone sharing the same knowledge would share in accordance with the rules of Bayesian statistics, which is supported by Cox's theorem.
The probability corresponds to what someone believes to be true within certain constraints. These constraints are allowed according to decision theory.
These variations of Bayesian probability differ according to how they are interpreted as well as the determination of the prior probability.
How this prior probablity is established would be the key.
Quote from: Arkhangelsk on Aug 29, 2017, 04:24 PMThe probability corresponds to what someone believes to be true within certain constraints.
What someone
believes to be true?
Sounds like a scientific wild-ass guess on top of another scientific wild-ass guess.
Or, to put it another way, given that the Bayes Theorem component is largely belief driven, that makes the polygraph process all the more a "faith-based science".
Quote from: danmangan on Aug 29, 2017, 05:36 PMQuote from: Arkhangelsk on Aug 29, 2017, 04:24 PMThe probability corresponds to what someone believes to be true within certain constraints.
What someone believes to be true?
Sounds like a scientific wild-ass guess on top of another scientific wild-ass guess.
Or, to put it another way, given that the Bayes Theorem component is largely belief driven, that makes the polygraph process all the more a "faith-based science".
Ark and Dan – let's quit bandying words about and just tell it like it is. There is no such thing as a "lying reaction"! Therefore, there is no such thing as a "lie detector"! What the polygraph measures is nervousness or what's known as the fight or flight response. So all this talk about theories is nothing but bullshit. The polygraph is a joke – a sick joke. And we need to stop buying into the polygraph operators' propaganda because it is nothing but BULLSHIT!
You'd better watch it Dan, or he'll tell you to shut up too. He can't handle the truth - and he doesn't want anyone else to know the truth either.
Probability is inherently probabilistic.
Where I have the problem, is when senior officials decide to take unfavorable actions against someone based solely on the probability that they did, or are likely to do "something."
Were you aware that there are DOD regulations that explicitly prohibit that very sort of abuse from happening.
What's more, Doctors have determined that being exposed to five polygraph interrogations in three years, caused me to have three nervous breakdowns, an anxiety disorder and PTSD.
Get this - These very regulations also direct that individuals with emotional, psychological or mental disabilities be exempted from "testing".
Last Friday, I received indisputable material facts from a federal judge that shows the DIA Office of Security is violating a higher authority and violating my individual rights.
I have your next book Andy.
Quote from: sammorter on Aug 29, 2017, 05:57 PMYou'd better watch it Dan, or he'll tell you to shut up too. He can't handle the truth - and he doesn't want anyone else to know the truth either.
What the fuck are you talking about? I just told you to stop being Xenonman II.
Quote from: danmangan on Aug 29, 2017, 05:36 PMWhat someone believes to be true?
Exactly my point. If the a-priori is not valid, then nothing else is as well.
What the fuck are you talking about?
How intellectual.
Look jackass, if you think something I said is incorrect, then say something logical in response, or keep your snarky comments to the people you abuse in person.
John,
Again, what the fuck are you talking about? Who do I abuse?
Quote from: Doug_Williams on Aug 29, 2017, 05:47 PMSo all this talk about theories is nothing but bullshit.
Doug, I don't think anyone was defending these theories, just shaking them out to see if they pass the reasonableness test.
If you give polygraphs, then you are an abuser. It goes with the territory. Those asshole's faces are burned into my memory.
Can you handle the truth?
If you can't take unfavorable actions against someone based solely on the fucking thing, why give it at all?
I'll tell you why, so you can use that psychological billy club that Doug talks about.
It's a fucking sham and innocent Americans are having their individual rights violated.
Ahh, so that's it. You think I am a polygraph examiner. You are so full of rage that you are seeing polygraph examiners under your bed.
I've seen enough of your posts on here to realize that you are a polygraph proponent. If you're not, I apologize for associating you with those abusers. If you are, I hope you realize someday that what you are doing ruins innocent lives.
You are absolutely correct, rage is a component of PTSD, as are nightmares, insomnia and depression.
Okay John. I guess I should have set you straight before. I am not a proponent, nor a polygraph examiner. I am an engineer and find the discussion lively and stimulating. What you see in my posts is someone on the fence who probes both sides. I try to be a voice of moderation here as I see little to be gained in total polarization. Sorry for using the "F" word then as it was a misunderstanding.
Quote from: Arkhangelsk on Aug 29, 2017, 06:58 PMQuote from: Doug_Williams on Aug 29, 2017, 05:47 PMSo all this talk about theories is nothing but bullshit.
Doug, I don't think anyone was defending these theories, just shaking them out to see if they pass the reasonableness test.
OK – then let me ask you this. Do you think they pass the "reasonableness test"?
Quote from: sammorter on Aug 29, 2017, 07:08 PMYou are absolutely correct, rage is a component of PTSD, as are nightmares, insomnia and depression.
Now that you don't have to take another polygraph, you might want to consider a high CBD Indica Hybrid and try to chill out a bit. ;)
Quote from: Doug_Williams on Aug 29, 2017, 07:25 PMOK – then let me ask you this. Do you think they pass the "reasonableness test"?
Bayesian probability establishes a prior probability (a-priori), which is then updated to a posterior probability with the availment of new data. So it depends on how that a-priori is established. But, your perspective is more intuitive when you say that there is no physiological response indicative of deception - no Pinocchio's Nose response. Moreover, you are correct that the polygraph instrument measures mostly fear (sympathetic arousal). When people lie, there indeed are physiological reactions that can be measured with the polygraph instrument. But, other psycho-physiological mechanisms (guilt, anxiety, vivid memories or just plain mental work) can precipitate similar, if not identical, activity. The David exists in every slab of marble, the genius lies in removing the unwanted particles.
Quote from: Doug_Williams on Aug 29, 2017, 07:25 PMOK – then let me ask you this. Do you think they pass the "reasonableness test"?
In my professional opinion -- and I am a "certified" polygraph examiner -- the answer isn't simply "no," it's "HELL NO!"
That said, the polygraph is one helluva psychological billy club. Indeed, it gets results.
Aye, there's the rub.
Quote from: Arkhangelsk on Aug 29, 2017, 07:41 PMThe David exists in every slab of marble, the genius lies in removing the unwanted particles.
So one has to wonder, what percentage of polygraph operators are a Michelangelo?
Anyone wanna take a SWAG?
Regardless, that means the "test" is an art -- not a science.
Quote from: quickfix on Aug 28, 2017, 02:50 PMThe only difference is we are not convicted felons like you.
Quickfix - You are the criminal. You also lied on the oath you took to the Constitution (probably because you are too dumb to understand the Constitution) which still makes you a traitor. Doug Williams is a righteous man, a patriot, who was falsely condemned and made a political prisoner by an evil government. History does repeat itself. People very similar to today's polygraph examiners, Nazi concentration camp guards, once were the legal authorities and the people they abused in the camps were legally condemned. Hopefully justice will eventually reach today's polygraph examiners just as it did the concentration camp guards. You are entertaining though, I'll give you that. ;)
Arkhangelsk
I would be interested to hear your thoughts on the absence of complaints on this forum about EPPA polygraph examinations.
Quote from: Wandersmann on Aug 30, 2017, 08:21 AMQuickfix - You are the criminal. You also lied on the oath you took to the Constitution (probably because you are too dumb to understand the Constitution) which still makes you a traitor. Doug Williams is a righteous man, a patriot, who was falsely condemned and made a political prisoner by an evil government. History does repeat itself. People very similar to today's polygraph examiners, Nazi concentration camp guards, once were the legal authorities and the people they abused in the camps were legally condemned. Hopefully justice will eventually reach today's polygraph examiners just as it did the concentration camp guards. You are entertaining though, I'll give you that.
News Flash: Dougy the cockroach is a convicted felon, an ex-con, a criminal who PLED GUILTY. He knowingly committed crimes and arrogantly though he would never get caught. He got a better plea deal than he deserved. I hope his parole officer violates him back to the slammer. His next book should be called "From Cop to Convict".
Quickfix spewed forth this venomous post: [/quote]
News Flash: Dougy the cockroach is a convicted felon, an ex-con, a criminal who PLED GUILTY. He knowingly committed crimes and arrogantly though he would never get caught. He got a better plea deal than he deserved. I hope his parole officer violates him back to the slammer. His next book should be called "From Cop to Convict".[/quote
I'll respond as follows: Let's all remember what my prosecution was really all about – according to John R Swartz, one of the polygraph examiner's from the CBP/IA, they came after me for "protesting the loudest and longest against the polygraph". I think the hatred that I seem to engender in the polygraph community stems from the fact that I am telling the truth and they are lying - as the old saying goes – "Above all else the devil hates to be mocked". And I have spent 40 years mocking these polygraph thugs and exposing their evil deeds so it is no wonder they want to destroy me. But the fact of the matter is: I'm right and they are wrong. But as Voltaire once said "It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong". So these polygraph thugs can manufacture a crime and bring me up on bogus charges and throw me in prison, but that still does not make them right and it still does not make me wrong. Quickfix, you and your cohorts in the polygraph industry are evil, you are abusing hundreds of thousands of innocent people, and you will soon be exposed for what you are - traitors, frauds and charlatans. And I feel certain that history will treat me much kinder than it does you.
You pled guilty to committing criminal acts, not for protesting the loudest. In case you've forgotten, a guilty plea is the same as if you were tried and convicted. You sound just like the typical criminal, another "innocent" person who was railroaded. Simple fact is, you are just another scummy little pimp incarcerated for engaging in criminal conduct. With any luck we'll see you back in prison getting butt-fucked by Whitey, Lumpy and Bruiser.
Quote from: quickfix on Aug 30, 2017, 04:20 PMYou pled guilty to committing criminal acts, not for protesting the loudest. In case you've forgotten, a guilty plea is the same as if you were tried and convicted. You sound just like the typical criminal, another "innocent" person who was railroaded. Simple fact is, you are just another scummy little pimp incarcerated for engaging in criminal conduct. With any luck we'll see you back in prison getting butt-fucked by Whitey, Lumpy and Bruiser.
You can rant and rave all you like, but the fact remains I am right and you are wrong. I am telling the truth about the so-called "lie detector", and you are lying.
Quote from: Doug_Williams on Aug 30, 2017, 04:38 PMYou can rant and rave all you like, but the fact remains I am right and you are wrong. I am telling the truth about the so-called "lie detector", and you are lying.
Just like you were right during your trial, huh? :D
Quote from: Arkhangelsk on Aug 29, 2017, 07:11 PMWhat you see in my posts is someone on the fence who probes both sides. I try to be a voice of moderation here as I see little to be gained in total polarization.
There should be no fence to sit on. There is only one way to look at the use and abuse of the polygraph and it must be put to a stop immediately. I will not "chill out" until it is. As truth is my sword.
Any attempts to legitimize polygraph "testing" are helping to perpetuate the lie. People like quickfix, a known abuser, are getting away with ruining innocent people's lives and no one seems to give a shit. Hell, the NCAA told Mark Zaid on Twitter that sometimes you have to "break a few eggs to make an omelette". WTF?
People are stupid; given proper motivation, almost anyone will believe almost anything. Because people are stupid, they will believe a lie because they want to believe it's true, or because they're afraid it might be true. Peoples' heads are full of knowledge, facts and beliefs, and most of it is false, yet they think it all true. People are stupid; they can only rarely tell the difference between a lie and the truth, and yet they are confident they can, and so are all the easier to fool.
Quote from: quickfix on Aug 30, 2017, 04:20 PMIn case you've forgotten, a guilty plea is the same as if you were tried and convicted.
No it isn't. When you have limited means and the State is out to get you, it is often the only way to survive. Convicted FBI Agent John Connolly received a 40 year sentence instead of a much lesser sentence because he allegedly knew of a murder that was going to be convicted and did nothing to stop it. Even though he was miles away from the murder when it occurred, they added all of those years to his sentence because he
committed a crime with a firearm. Even though he was required to be armed as an FBI Agent, he did not use the gun in the crime. His gun had absolutely nothing to do with the alleged crime. They added that bogus, nonsensical charge because they knew they could get away with it. How can anyone win in a legal system like this one ? Our failed legal system is so messed up that the innocent are getting convicted and the guilty aren't even being charged. >:(
Quote from: quickfix on Aug 30, 2017, 04:20 PMWith any luck we'll see you back in prison getting butt-fucked by Whitey, Lumpy and Bruiser.
OK, now I have to throw down the bull shit card. ;D Quickfix, you have previously identified yourself as an employee of the Federal Government and you have offered information regarding Federal policy. This means everything you post on this site is on behalf of the Federal government. You may not be able to comprehend this, but it doesn't matter whether you post from your computer at work or from your home computer. If your identity and the content of posts like the above ever came under public scrutiny you would be fired so fast they wouldn't let the door hit you in the ass.
Now I really have to question if you are who you say you are. I'm beginning to think you might be a 40 year old
Walter Mitty loser who lives in his mother's basement and plays on the computer all day. Is this what is really going on ? Can you tell us about your days as a Navy SEAL and Green Beret? ;) :D ;D
Quote from: Doug_Williams on Aug 30, 2017, 04:10 PMLet's all remember what my prosecution was really all about – according to John R Swartz, one of the polygraph examiner's from the CBP/IA, they came after me for "protesting the loudest and longest against the polygraph". I think the hatred that I seem to engender in the polygraph community stems from the fact that I am telling the truth and they are lying - as the old saying goes – "Above all else the devil hates to be mocked". And I have spent 40 years mocking these polygraph thugs and exposing their evil deeds so it is no wonder they want to destroy me. But the fact of the matter is: I'm right and they are wrong. But as Voltaire once said "It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong". So these polygraph thugs can manufacture a crime and bring me up on bogus charges and throw me in prison, but that still does not make them right and it still does not make me wrong. Quickfix, you and your cohorts in the polygraph industry are evil, you are abusing hundreds of thousands of innocent people, and you will soon be exposed for what you are - traitors, frauds and charlatans. And I feel certain that history will treat me much kinder than it does you.
Oh man, that is so true.
Speaking as a certified graduate of the Backster School of Lie Detection, a member of the American Polygraph Association since 2004, and an APA-credentialed PCSOT examiner, I agree in large part with Doug Williams.
The "test" is a farce.
Sure, it "works" -- as a psychological billy club. But as a lie (or, more importantly, a
truth, detector), the "test" is bogus.
If anyone out there has questions about the "test" -- or the powerhou$e indu$try behind it -- please call me at 603-801-5179.
Meanwhile, I am fully confident that Doug Williams will end up on the right side of history.
I predict that rabid polygraph apologists such as quickfix and pailryder will soon go the way of U.S. Confederate "heroes".
Quote from: danmangan on Aug 30, 2017, 08:46 PMQuote from: Doug_Williams on Aug 30, 2017, 04:10 PMLet's all remember what my prosecution was really all about – according to John R Swartz, one of the polygraph examiner's from the CBP/IA, they came after me for "protesting the loudest and longest against the polygraph". I think the hatred that I seem to engender in the polygraph community stems from the fact that I am telling the truth and they are lying - as the old saying goes – "Above all else the devil hates to be mocked". And I have spent 40 years mocking these polygraph thugs and exposing their evil deeds so it is no wonder they want to destroy me. But the fact of the matter is: I'm right and they are wrong. But as Voltaire once said "It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong". So these polygraph thugs can manufacture a crime and bring me up on bogus charges and throw me in prison, but that still does not make them right and it still does not make me wrong. Quickfix, you and your cohorts in the polygraph industry are evil, you are abusing hundreds of thousands of innocent people, and you will soon be exposed for what you are - traitors, frauds and charlatans. And I feel certain that history will treat me much kinder than it does you.
Oh man, that is so true.
Speaking as a certified graduate of the Backster School of Lie Detection, a member of the American Polygraph Association since 2004, and an APA-credentialed PCSOT examiner, I agree in large part with Doug Williams.
The "test" is a farce.
Sure, it "works" -- as a psychological billy club. But as a lie (or, more importantly, a truth, detector), the "test" is bogus.
If anyone out there has questions about the "test" -- or the powerhou$e indu$try behind it -- please all me at 603-801-5179.
Meanwhile, I am fully confident that Doug Williams will end up on the right side of history.
I predict that rabid polygraph apologists such as quickfix and pailryder will soon go the way of U.S. Confederate "heroes".
Well said Dan – thank you very much.
No, Doug. Thank YOU for so vehemently exposing the truth about the "test" -- and the polygraph cult.
Quote from: danmangan on Aug 30, 2017, 09:53 PMNo, Doug. Thank YOU for so vehemently exposing the truth about the "test" -- and the polygraph cult.
8-)
Quote from: Wandersmann on Aug 30, 2017, 08:36 PMOK, now I have to throw down the bull shit card. (https://antipolygraph.org/yabbfiles/Templates/Forum/default/grin.gif) Quickfix, you have previously identified yourself as an employee of the Federal Government and you have offered information regarding Federal policy. This means everything you post on this site is on behalf of the Federal government. You may not be able to comprehend this, but it doesn't matter whether you post from your computer at work or from your home computer. If your identity and the content of posts like the above ever came under public scrutiny you would be fired so fast they wouldn't let the door hit you in the ass.
Now I really have to question if you are who you say you are. I'm beginning to think you might be a 40 year old Walter Mitty loser who lives in his mother's basement and plays on the computer all day. Is this what is really going on ? Can you tell us about your days as a Navy SEAL and Green Beret?
Please put the bullshit card away as I am allergic to bullshit. Rest assured I am a federal employee, and rest assured my boss knows what I post, his boss knows what I post, and his boss' boss knows what I post. As long as I speak for myself, and it doesn't interfere with my work, they encourage me to post as I like, from work or from the comfort of my home. And I was never a Navy Seal, Green Beret, or Delta Force, nor have I ever professed to be. Anything I post regarding federal policy is quoted from the federal policy, regulation, or directive. I will continue to mock antipolygraph fools like you, John M., and the mentally ill Xenonman as well as the ex-con, ex-inmate, convicted felon, convicted criminal Dougy cockroach Williams. And quite frankly, I couldn't give 2 shits what the public thinks.
Oh, and BTW, my general counsel also knows what I post, and has advised me that I have the same First Amendment rights as you.
Quote from: quickfix on Aug 31, 2017, 03:12 PMQuote from: Wandersmann on Aug 30, 2017, 08:36 PMOK, now I have to throw down the bull shit card. (https://antipolygraph.org/yabbfiles/Templates/Forum/default/grin.gif) Quickfix, you have previously identified yourself as an employee of the Federal Government and you have offered information regarding Federal policy. This means everything you post on this site is on behalf of the Federal government. You may not be able to comprehend this, but it doesn't matter whether you post from your computer at work or from your home computer. If your identity and the content of posts like the above ever came under public scrutiny you would be fired so fast they wouldn't let the door hit you in the ass.
Now I really have to question if you are who you say you are. I'm beginning to think you might be a 40 year old Walter Mitty loser who lives in his mother's basement and plays on the computer all day. Is this what is really going on ? Can you tell us about your days as a Navy SEAL and Green Beret?
Please put the bullshit card away as I am allergic to bullshit. Rest assured I am a federal employee, and rest assured my boss knows what I post, his boss knows what I post, and his boss' boss knows what I post. As long as I speak for myself, and it doesn't interfere with my work, they encourage me to post as I like, from work or from the comfort of my home. And I was never a Navy Seal, Green Beret, or Delta Force, nor have I ever professed to be. Anything I post regarding federal policy is quoted from the federal policy, regulation, or directive. I will continue to mock antipolygraph fools like you, John M., and the mentally ill Xenonman as well as the ex-con, ex-inmate, convicted felon, convicted criminal Dougy cockroach Williams. And quite frankly, I couldn't give 2 shits what the public thinks.
Oh, and BTW, my general counsel also knows what I post, and has advised me that I have the same First Amendment rights as you.
I welcome Quickfix to continue his ranting and raving . He is the perfect example of the caliber of people the government employs as polygraph operators. And he is a great spokesman for the dysfunctional polygraph industry because he is one of those people who is so stupid he doesn't even know he's stupid.
In all fairness though, may be that he actually believes the polygraph is a lie detector. But try as he might, he cannot present a cogent argument that will convince anyone that the polygraph is accurate and reliable as a lie detector. Because of his ignorance and his inability to present a rational argument in support of his belief that the polygraph is actually a lie detector, he resorts to ad hominem attacks which is the last refuge of a scoundrel who has no facts upon which to base his misguided belief and support his argument.
Now, I realize I'm giving Quickfix a break by excusing his actions as being a result of ignorance on his part. And I might be wrong, he may actually be an evil person who knows damn well the polygraph doesn't work but he continues to use it because it enriches him and gives him power.
Care to enlighten us Quickfix? Are you evil or just plain stupid?
Quote from: Doug_Williams on Aug 31, 2017, 03:41 PMCare to enlighten us Quickfix? Are you evil or just plain stupid?
Let's see: I never committed a felony; you did. I was never incarcerated, you were. I never peddled garbage on Amazon.com for 99 cents; you did.
Sounds to me like you're the stupid one.
Quote from: quickfix on Aug 31, 2017, 04:18 PMQuote from: Doug_Williams on Aug 31, 2017, 03:41 PMCare to enlighten us Quickfix? Are you evil or just plain stupid?
Let's see: I never committed a felony; you did. I was never incarcerated, you were. I never peddled garbage on Amazon.com for 99 cents; you did.
Sounds to me like you're the stupid one.
OK, as Forrest Gump once said, "Stupid is as stupid does". So let me ask you again Quickfix, do you really honestly believe the polygraph is accurate and reliable as a lie detector? If so, you are stupid! If, on the other hand, you know damn well the polygraph is not accurate or reliable as a lie detector and you continue to claim that it is - then you are evil. So which is it? Are you stupid or are you evil?
Quote from: quickfix on Aug 31, 2017, 03:12 PMRest assured I am a federal employee, and rest assured my boss knows what I post, his boss knows what I post, and his boss' boss knows what I post. ...they encourage me to post as I like, from work or from the comfort of my home
...my general counsel also knows what I post, and has advised me that I have the same First Amendment rights as you.
This post constitutes testimony that your bosses and your department encourage you to speak for the federal government.
Your general counsel is wrong, or your interpretation of his advice is wrong: your speech as a government representative is severely restricted, as opposed to your speech in the expression of your personal convictions. The First Amendment protects American citizens from their government; it does not protect the government in any apotheosis.
If you had simply indicated that your boss, and his boss, and his boss' boss neither know nor care what you post, and if you had reported that your general counsel knows that you never claim the weight of the federal government behind your opinions, you would be in the clear.
As it is, your revelation that you post from your workplace, with the full knowledge and encouragement of your superiors and the support of your general counsel, has incriminated you and your entire chain of command.
All the abuse and profanity that you have spewed here, your glee at the conviction of Doug Williams, and your rabid ad hominem attacks on the other posters are now, thanks to the above-quoted testimony, the official position of the federal government.
Quote from: AuntyAgony on Aug 31, 2017, 05:41 PMQuote from: quickfix on Aug 31, 2017, 03:12 PMRest assured I am a federal employee, and rest assured my boss knows what I post, his boss knows what I post, and his boss' boss knows what I post. ...they encourage me to post as I like, from work or from the comfort of my home
...my general counsel also knows what I post, and has advised me that I have the same First Amendment rights as you.
This post constitutes testimony that your bosses and your department encourage you to speak for the federal government.
Your general counsel is wrong, or your interpretation of his advice is wrong: your speech as a government representative is severely restricted, as opposed to the your speech in the expression of your personal convictions. The First Amendment protects American citizens from their government; it does not protect the government in any apotheosis.
If you had simply indicated that your boss, and his boss, and his boss' boss neither know nor care what you post, and if you had reported that your general counsel knows that you never claim the weight of the federal government behind your opinions, you would be in the clear.
As it is, your revelation that you post from your workplace, with the full knowledge and encouragement of your superiors and the support of your general counsel, has incriminated you and your entire chain of command.
All the abuse and profanity that you have spewed here, your glee at the conviction of Doug Williams, and your rabid ad hominem attacks on the other posters are now, thanks to the above-quoted testimony, the official position of the federal government.
Way to go Aunty agony – call this thug out and make him accountable for his actions and his words.
Quote from: AuntyAgony on Aug 31, 2017, 05:41 PMAll the abuse and profanity that you have spewed here, your glee at the conviction of Doug Williams, and your rabid ad hominem attacks on the other posters are now, thanks to the above-quoted testimony, the official position of the federal government.
Aunty, you are the best ! And thank you Quickfix for making it clear that you act as a U.S. Government spokesperson. I think you might want to check with the DOJ, however. They might take umbrage with your sentiment that Federal prisoners should be "
butt fucked" in their facilities. I doubt you'll find that in their mission statement. Although you may have an idiot General Counsel who barely made it through law school and isn't good enough to work in the private sector, I highly doubt that he or she would approve of your inappropriate language. I do believe, however, if such language were to be tolerated anywhere in the U.S. Government, polygraph units would definitely be the first choice. Maybe someday your boss will have an opportunity to attempt to justify such language before Congressman Trey Gowdy and his committee. You won't be there because you'd be fired long before and working in a car wash. Oh well. I'll still buy you that Heineken if I ever get the chance. ;D :D ;)
Quote from: pailryder on Aug 30, 2017, 02:40 PMArkhangelsk
I would be interested to hear your thoughts on the absence of complaints on this forum about EPPA polygraph examinations.
I have given this some thought but a cogent response evades me.
Quote from: sammorter on Aug 30, 2017, 05:16 PMThere should be no fence to sit on. There is only one way to look at the use and abuse of the polygraph and it must be put to a stop immediately. I will not "chill out" until it is. As truth is my sword.
Well, one has to admire your grit. I do wonder if your passion is a healthy response that provides both vindication for your perceived wrongs as well as helping others avoid the same turmoil, or if it is an all consuming obsession that will leave you even more tormented in the long run.
There is a fence to sit on and observe from. Complete polarization yields no ground. The abolition of polygraph screening in the hiring process, while a noble goal, is never going to happened IMHO. Most in the government are aware of its controversy, but until some other method of credibility assessment emerges on the horizon, none are going to advocate the abolition of the current process. The casualties of this process are perhaps lamented, but individuals are expendable.
Pragmatically, your only hope is to apply enough diplomatic pressure to foster some changes to the process. But, even that would be hard won.
But who am I to discourage you? More power to you.
Thank you for your reply Archangelsk. Anyone else care to venture an opinion?
Quote from: pailryder on Sep 01, 2017, 06:56 AMThank you for your reply Archangelsk. Anyone else care to venture an opinion?
There's no mystery here.
1. EPPA exams are, by law,
inconsequential. Thus, there's nothing to bitch about.
2. "Test" subjects under EPPA get the questions in writing well in advance. Question formulation in polygraph "testing" is notoriously shoddy. I suspect this causes a significant number of EPPA candidates -- be they guilty or innocent -- to opt out of the "test."
3. EPPA "test" subjects are highly likely to research and/or get opinions about polygraph "testing," thereby learning the "test" is pseudoscience run amok. Such enlightenment dispels concern about the outcome.
4. EPPA exams probably account for less than one tenth of one percent (0.001) of all polygraph "tests" administered nationwide.
The lack of EPPA related complaints on this board has nothing to do with purported accuracy of polygraph "testing." The relative silence here is a function of sample size and absence of consequence, coupled with a lack of concern (worry) about the outcome.
Finally, those EPPA test takers who do have a grievance may not even know about this board.
Quote from: Doug_Williams on Aug 31, 2017, 05:16 PMQuote from: quickfix on Aug 31, 2017, 04:18 PMQuote from: Doug_Williams on Aug 31, 2017, 03:41 PMCare to enlighten us Quickfix? Are you evil or just plain stupid?
Let's see: I never committed a felony; you did. I was never incarcerated, you were. I never peddled garbage on Amazon.com for 99 cents; you did.
Sounds to me like you're the stupid one.
OK, as Forrest Gump once said, "Stupid is as stupid does". So let me ask you again Quickfix, do you really honestly believe the polygraph is accurate and reliable as a lie detector? If so, you are stupid! If, on the other hand, you know damn well the polygraph is not accurate or reliable as a lie detector and you continue to claim that it is - then you are evil. So which is it? Are you stupid or are you evil?
Well Quickfix, we're all still waiting on your response. Which is it? Are you stupid or are you evil - it's one or the other so please enlighten us as to which one it is.
Pailryder,
Also, it appears that posts from those in sex offender treatment have dried up. Perhaps the authorities and treatment providers have made accessing this website taboo and a possible violation of the rules.
Quote from: danmangan on Sep 01, 2017, 08:33 AMSuch enlightenment dispels concern about the outcome.
In my case, such enlightenment
brought on an uncontrollable concern for the outcome.
I'd read, I understood, and I believed that the "test" was indeed flawed, and that there was a thing called a FALSE POSITIVE. I was a cracked egg in the omelet and I couldn't do anything about it.
The most important thing I learned is that the fear of failure causes a reaction that mimics the one that is interpreted as a lie.
Once the interrogator said that I was lying, there was no going back. The bombardment of horrible accusations brought on my fight, or flight reaction - every time. I was scared shitless that I wouldn't
not react when they asked the goddamn question. I knew his sensors were registering my fear to failing the question - but what could I do? I would even ask myself the question while driving to work - to practice trying to remain calm - and couldn't do it. It wasn't the meaning of the question that bothered me, it was the question itself. I must have "failed" (reacted) to the question over 1000 times.
It starts like little butterflies, the kind like you get when you see flashing red and blue lights in your rear view mirror. You haven't done anything wrong, but you still get the butterflies. When you are abused like this five times in three years, those butterflies turn to bats and you suffer a nervous breakdown. The last time I was polygraphed, in August 2015, at DIA Headquarters, I was seen immediately afterwards by two DIA psychologists - Drs. Jill Tucillo and Richard Ault (tele # 703-735-1735/1736).
I was granted a disability retirement by DIA in September, 2015, for psychological reasons. I'm in the appeals process for workers' compensation and I have also filed an appeal to EEO for disparate treatment and failure to provide reasonable accommodations.
So far, the Agency has been able to sidestep everyone, even the DOD OIG, by lying. Ironic, isn't it? They have also testified to federal judges that they are following all applicable rules and regulations. I have it on record.
I still get those intense butterflies, but thanks to therapy and anxiolytic medication I can now properly function (my wife will probably tell you otherwise).
John, you reacted that way because your mandated polygraph "tests" had consequences.
EPPA polygraphs do not have consequences.
They are a feel-good farce.
Thanks Dan. You are always spot on with your comments. I was mandated to five polygraphs in three years. I keyed in on your comment about the "test" subject's enlightenment and applied it to all polygraph tests.
It shouldn't matter what kind of polygraph it is, it should not, by itself, result in adverse consequences.
The "feel good farce" is what we need to expose. HR 2213 and S1560 are due to debated soon. I dream of testifying before congress.
Quote from: quickfix on Aug 31, 2017, 03:12 PMAnd I was never a Navy Seal, Green Beret, or Delta Force
You're exactly right. I seriously doubt very much that you would have ever served in any capacity in which your personal physical well-being wasn't assured. ::)
Quote from: Doug_Williams on Sep 01, 2017, 12:15 PMDoug Williams wrote yesterday at 9:16pm:
quickfix wrote yesterday at 8:18pm:
Doug Williams wrote yesterday at 7:41pm:
Care to enlighten us Quickfix? Are you evil or just plain stupid?
Let's see: I never committed a felony; you did. I was never incarcerated, you were. I never peddled garbage on Amazon.com for 99 cents; you did.
Sounds to me like you're the stupid one.
OK, as Forrest Gump once said, "Stupid is as stupid does". So let me ask you again Quickfix, do you really honestly believe the polygraph is accurate and reliable as a lie detector? If so, you are stupid! If, on the other hand, you know damn well the polygraph is not accurate or reliable as a lie detector and you continue to claim that it is - then you are evil. So which is it? Are you stupid or are you evil?
Very likely a combination of the two, plus a bully and coward as well.
Quote from: skingalvanics on Sep 01, 2017, 05:17 PMQuote from: Doug_Williams on Sep 01, 2017, 12:15 PMDoug Williams wrote yesterday at 9:16pm:
quickfix wrote yesterday at 8:18pm:
Doug Williams wrote yesterday at 7:41pm:
OK, as Forrest Gump once said, "Stupid is as stupid does". So let me ask you again Quickfix, do you really honestly believe the polygraph is accurate and reliable as a lie detector? If so, you are stupid! If, on the other hand, you know damn well the polygraph is not accurate or reliable as a lie detector and you continue to claim that it is - then you are evil. So which is it? Are you stupid or are you evil?
Very likely a combination of the two, plus a bully and coward as well.
Skingalvanics - you have nailed it. Quickfix is exactly that - a stupid, evil, cowardly bully.
Quote from: Doug_Williams on Sep 01, 2017, 05:39 PMQuote from: skingalvanics on Sep 01, 2017, 05:17 PMQuote from: Doug_Williams on Sep 01, 2017, 12:15 PMDoug Williams wrote yesterday at 9:16pm:
quickfix wrote yesterday at 8:18pm:
Doug Williams wrote yesterday at 7:41pm:
OK, as Forrest Gump once said, "Stupid is as stupid does". So let me ask you again Quickfix, do you really honestly believe the polygraph is accurate and reliable as a lie detector? If so, you are stupid! If, on the other hand, you know damn well the polygraph is not accurate or reliable as a lie detector and you continue to claim that it is - then you are evil. So which is it? Are you stupid or are you evil?
Very likely a combination of the two, plus a bully and coward as well.
Skingalvanics - you have nailed it. Quickfix is exactly that - a stupid, evil, cowardly bully.
Aunty cannot help feeling that all this piling on seems a little unfair, as quickfix may not be in a position to defend himself. He probably doesn't want to risk posting here until he reads up on the case law surrounding adverse actions taken against federal employees for promulgating government policies in excess of their authority to do so.
Get your own lawyer, quickfix. At this point you cannot rely on advice from your bureau's general counsel; he's there to protect the government's interests, not yours.
Quote from: AuntyAgony on Sep 02, 2017, 01:11 AMAunty cannot help feeling that all this piling on seems a little unfair, as quickfix may not be in a position to defend himself. He probably doesn't want to risk posting here until he reads up on the case law surrounding adverse actions taken against federal employees for promulgating government policies in excess of their authority to do so.
Get your own lawyer, quickfix. At this point you cannot rely on advice from your bureau's general counsel; he's there to protect the government's interests, not yours.
Don't you worry about me. I have the same freedom to post whenever I like and will continue to do so. You are here for my amusement, so continue to entertain me.
Aunty is not only intelligent, she has a good heart.
Quote from: Arkhangelsk on Sep 02, 2017, 12:27 PMAunty is not only intelligent, she has a good heart.
Very obviously she does indeed.
Quickfix, on the other hand, more closely resembles Anatolii Golitsyn or James J. Angleton. Those two men, one a KGB defector and the other the CIA Deputy Director of "Plans" respectively, caused severe harm to the CIA due to their incessant and paranoid obsession with the presence of "Soviet moles" inside Langley. ::)
Quote from: skingalvanics on Sep 02, 2017, 04:12 PMQuote from: Arkhangelsk on Sep 02, 2017, 12:27 PMAunty is not only intelligent, she has a good heart.
Very obviously she does indeed.
Quickfix, on the other hand, more closely resembles Anatolii Golitsyn or James J. Angleton. Those two men, one a KGB defector and the other the CIA Deputy Director of "Plans" respectively, caused severe harm to the CIA due to their incessant and paranoid obsession with the presence of "Soviet moles" inside Langley. ::)
Skingalvanics – You make a great point here about the con men like Quickfix and his fellow polygraph operators. They present a major threat to our national security. With their fraudulent claims concerning the accuracy and validity of the polygraph as a lie detector, these treasonous charlatans have convinced those in positions of power in our government to trust them and their polygraph as the best option for security screening and internal investigations. The trust placed in them and their insidious Orwellian instrument of torture is sadly misplaced. The polygraph cartel has never caught even one spy – though many spies have passed the test easily while actively working for foreign governments and/or leaking classified information. And to add insult to injury, they have called hundreds of thousands of truthful people liars and ruined their lives. Most, if not all of these thugs involved in this multi-billion scam know they are perpetrating a massive fraud, but they don't give a damn as long as they can line their pockets with ill gotten gain.
Quote from: Arkhangelsk on Sep 01, 2017, 12:56 AMMost in the government are aware of its controversy, but until some other method of credibility assessment emerges on the horizon, none are going to advocate the abolition of the current process. The casualties of this process are perhaps lamented, but individuals are expendable.
Ark - Quickfix is a clown who amuses me. You, however, really make me angry. If the world were only filled with people like you, we would still have slavery and the Berlin Wall. Your self-righteous fence riding is despicable. It's millions of jack-asses like you who unfortunately live here and enjoy US Citizenship you don't deserve that enables these polygraph clowns to thrive. The anti-government East Germans that brought down that evil regime called people like you
anpasser (those who go along with the system for self-gain)
There is a more efficient method of credibility assessment - a good, old-fashioned background investigation. It's worked for thousands of years.
Here's another revelation ...... no matter what we do, we will always have traitors. We have more traitors now than we did before the polygraph. It's because our society is going down as our population soars with ignoramuses like you . The polygraph hasn't caught one spy but has falsely condemned and ruined countless innocent people.
When you say individuals are expendable, I don't know if you are serious or just being glib, but that concept is totally against everything our Constitution stands for and our founding fathers believed. No country in history has ever held the value and rights of the individual more sacred than the United States.
I pray to God and hope with all my heart that either you or someone very dear to you has your entire life ripped to pieces and ruined by this God damned polygraph, you self-righteous, self-serving POS. >:(
Sorry, but I don't think being asked to take a polygraph to obtain a job is some kind of sin against mankind. I am not a proponent, but I do not share your passion. Also, your ad hominem threats and insults are in violation of AP posting policy.
Quote from: Arkhangelsk on Sep 03, 2017, 12:26 AMI don't think being asked to take a polygraph to obtain a job is some kind of sin against mankind
Being asked to take a polygraph and having unfavorable actions/decisions taken against you based solely on the "results" of the polygraph is most certainly a sin against mankind. As God is my witness.
Wishing bad things on someone is also very different than a threat.
Quote from: Arkhangelsk on Sep 03, 2017, 12:26 AMSorry, but I don't think being asked to take a polygraph to obtain a job is some kind of sin against mankind. I am not a proponent, but I do not share your passion. Also, your ad hominem threats and insults are in violation of AP posting policy.
Arkhangelsk – I think if you were in John M's place and you had to take a polygraph test in order to get or keep a job you would have a much different attitude towards polygraph testing. And if, like John M, you took that polygraph test and told the complete truth but you were called a liar and were fired from your job, your passion would be on par with his.
Quote from: Arkhangelsk on Sep 03, 2017, 12:26 AMAlso, your ad hominem threats and insults are in violation of AP posting policy.
You are a piece of work. I merely wished you a taste of your own medicine. If you can twist my words into a threat you should be a polygraph examiner yourself. Funny how you never complained about posting policy when Quickfix wished that Doug Williams suffer sodomy in prison. Again, you are self-righteous, self serving individual. Maybe the POS was a bit ad hominem, but I have no doubt it fits you to a tee.
I think the issues the government has with you and John M have more to do with mental health than polygraphs.
Doug, I have had many kinds of job tragedies. I picked up and moved on. I did not recoil into some vicious victim posture attacking those whose viewpoints are diverse from my own.
I admire your staying power and wish you all the best in your crusade.
This forum has gone down hill since Doc's tragic accident. It is now the domain of a few with acute personality disorders.
So I will say goodbye to you all.
Quote from: Arkhangelsk on Sep 03, 2017, 07:40 PMSo I will say goodbye to you all.
Thank you ... good-bye. My comments and tone haven't changed since I joined. The polygraph represents one of the worst abuses of U.S. Government authority in our nation's history and I am passionate that it must come to an end. So anyone who argues with you must have mental health issues. Talk about a victim. :'(
Might I remind you -
AntiPolygraph.org seeks the complete abolishment of polygraph "testing" from the American workplace. Now that the National Academy of Sciences has conducted an exhaustive study and found polygraph screening to be invalid, and even dangerous to national security, Congress should extend the protections of the 1988 Employee Polygraph Protection Act to all Americans.
You think this site has gone downhill? Ha! I'd say it's about to become a relic. There will be no need for it once we put an end to government sponsored use of the "truth machine".
Thousands and thousands of innocent people like myself have been unfairly judged by the polygraph and it's way past time for it to stop.
If you can't see that, get the fuck out and take palyrider, quickfix and all the the other abusers with you.
I won't rest until congress passes the COMPREHENSIVE EMPLOYEE POLYGRAPH PROTECTION ACT.
For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places. Therefore take up the whole armor of God, that you may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand firm. Stand therefore, having fastened on the belt of truth, and having put on the breastplate of righteousness. Ephesians 6:12-1
Well said John M. Keep fighting the good fight.
Ex Members can't handle the truth.
All are reminded of AntiPolygraph.org's posting policy (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=1791.msg13605#msg13605):
QuoteAntiPolygraph.org prides itself on its commitment to free speech. All points of view are welcome here, including those of polygraph supporters. However, we ask that in posting, all involved remain civil. You agree, through your use of this message board, that you will not post any material which is false, defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, or threatening. Any such posts may be removed to the Discarded Posts forum, and those making such posts may be banned. Such posts by repeat offenders may be deleted. Spam, flooding, advertisements, chain letters, pyramid schemes, and solicitations are also inappropriate. Such posts will be promptly deleted and those making them banned.
Name-calling and personal insults are inappropriate and do nothing to advance understanding. It's fine to attack arguments (with facts and reason), but not the character of the person making the argument.
Further posts to this message thread should address the original poster's inquiry.
Quote from: 23262F2B2C420 on Sep 04, 2017, 04:35 AMName-calling and personal insults are inappropriate and do nothing to advance understanding. It's fine to attack arguments (with facts and reason), but not the character of the person making the argument.
Agreed, and my apologies for my occasional excesses in this regard. I would like to remind the Administrator, however, that this site is the only refuge for polygraph victims who have suffered incredibly due to this polygraph hoax. Polygraph victims, mostly American patriots who have sacrificed only to be betrayed by their government, have suffered suicide, depression, divorce, bankruptcy, etc, etc, solely due to this polygraph fraud. To be further berated and insulted by the pro-polygraph crowd is often very hard to take. I do take solace, however, knowing that the pro-polygraph crowd must know they are involved in a massive fraud and have some concern for the possible consequences. Why else would they continue to follow this site?
I realize that the administrator values the opinions of everyone who contributes to this site and this site belongs to the administrator. I appreciate that I am able to post as a guest and do not take this privilege for granted. I must admit, however, that I would love to see increasing postings from polygraph victims with details of abuse.
I believe the end of polygraph abuse will only arrive when the number of victims and negative financial impact of polygraph abuse approaches the number of profiteers and profit derived from this fraud. Those who have studied government should be familiar with the terms iron triangles and issue networks. Our pluralist society is at its best when powerful lobbies exist on both sides of every issue to protect minority interests. In this American tragedy the only powerful lobby is the pro-polygraph lobby. Antipolygraph.org is the only voice that I am aware of that fights for the victims of the polygraph. This site and it's allies needs to grow into a lobby capable of taking on the behemoth polygraph lobby. We will never end this fraud but hopefully can improve the horrible suffering of the polygraph victims. :)
Quote from: pailryder on Aug 26, 2017, 03:18 PMAndy
Should we expect a chapter exploring how examiners use the uncertainties of law and science to manipulate subjects into truthful confession with wonderful results?
You certainly can! Quite literally in 'Ontological Uncertainty' and 'Polygraph Interrogation' chapters.
:)
Quote from: sammorter on Aug 26, 2017, 03:56 PMHey Andy
Can we expect a chapter exploring the individual rights violations when subjects "fail" the "test" and are unjustly judged to be untrustworthy based solely on those "results"?
Also, can we expect a chapter explaining that subjecting someone to the polygraph "test" five times in three years is abusive?
Hey - I do cover these kinds of things as regards false confessions and miscarriages of justice. But I don't look at security agency or government repeat tests in much detail as these are - at least partially - covered in Ken Alder's work.
Andy
Quote from: Arkhangelsk on Aug 29, 2017, 03:33 PMQuote from: andybalmer on Aug 24, 2017, 06:50 AMI wrote my PhD thesis on lie detection, critically engaging with the scientific account and with the social history of the polygraph's use.
Thanks for the details Andy. Did your research reveal the polygraph to have the ability to detect deception above chance? What other methods of lie detection did you research?
- Hey,
I didn't perform any experiments in my PhD. It was more a case of reading the scientific literature to understand how they conduct experiments on reliability and validity and to see if these were philosophically and sociologically sound. They are not, in the most part, for there is still too little evidence for any consistent connection between intention to lie and bodily responses. To my mind, you have to sort validity before you worry about reliability, but most polygraph science emphasises reliability.
Quote from: sammorter on Aug 29, 2017, 05:57 PM
I have your next book Andy.
Sounds like an important study!
Quote from: andybalmer on Sep 05, 2017, 10:08 AMBut I don't look at security agency or government repeat tests in much detail as these are - at least partially - covered in Ken Alder's work.
How extensive is the use of the polygraph by the British security agencies for vetting purposes? Was their use thereof something imposed by the US? ::)
Quote from: andybalmer on Sep 05, 2017, 10:16 AMSounds like an important study!
And a fascinating story. Good to hear from you Andy.
In the haste to catch the next Edward Snowden, the Obama administration created an "Insider Threat Task Force" to find and stop the next leakers – at all cost. Have you ever not been able to succeed at a job? What do you do when you can't find any Edward Snowdens? I imagine it must get frustrating.
Well, the honorable James R. Clapper and his sycophants ordered everyone under his "command" to undergo polygraphs. As of yet, this abusive program hasn't done anything to catch an insider threat, but the policy of condemning someone based solely on those "results" has ruined the lives of countless innocent people.
I was polygraphed five times in three years with results alternating between "No Opinion", and "Significant Response". After reading about ontological uncertainty and applying it to my anxiety disorder, it's rather obvious that my performance under the threat of losing my career, would generate an extremely biased "Significant Response". Ultimately, they took my clearances, called me a "vulnerability" and involuntarily reassigned me to a position 1,000 miles away.
By using the "results" of the polygraph as the sole basis for punishing me, the Agency has committed defamation of my character and violated my civil rights for not affording me due process.
Here's where the story gets interesting – The Department of Defense has approved and extremely relevant regulations that specifically prohibit taking unfavorable administrative actions against someone based solely on the results of the polygraph. Yet they still do it. No one in charge is capable, or willing to stop them.
Furthermore, there is a concerted effort to hide their abuse, as senior officials from the DIA Office of Security are falsifying records and flat out lying to federal officials and judges. I now possess the indisputable material evidence.
It is not hyperbole to say that at DIA, the Insider Threat Program and the Credibility Assessments Program operate like a modern day Gestapo, Stassi, or KGB. There are 13 indicators of a potential insider threat, and all employees are encouraged to be vigilant and report anything suspicious about their co-workers.
The worst part? The polygraph test is not one of those indicators.
By the way, it is rumored that Edward Snowden "passed" his polygraph.
Andy,
This recent article on the Scientific American website and the Netflix series "The Confession Tapes" that it references may be useful for your research:
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/what-netflixs-the-confession-tapes-teach-us-about-the-psychology-of-interrogations/
Quote from: George_Maschke on Sep 09, 2017, 05:40 AMAndy,
This recent article on the Scientific American website and the Netflix series "The Confession Tapes" that it references may be useful for your research:
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/what-netflixs-the-confession-tapes-teach-us-about-the-psychology-of-interrogations/
Thank you, George!