On 19 October 2002, the
Albuquerque Journal featured an opinion article by Sandia National Laboratories senior scientist Alan P. Zelicoff titled, "A Polygraph Failure." (http://www.abqjournal.com/opinion/guest_columns/guest10-19-02.htm)
In this article, Dr. Zelicoff lambastes former Secretary of Energy Bill Richardson, who is now a candidate in New Mexico's gubernatorial elections. It was Bill Richardson who brought polygraph screening to the Department of Energy in 1999 following the FBI's seriously botched investigation of suspected espionage by the People's Republic of China, an investigation that was seriously misdirected based on an irrational institutional faith in polygraphy (regarding which, see Chapter 2 of
The Lie Behind the Lie Detector (http://antipolygraph.org/pubs.shtml) and the sources cited there).
The New Mexico gubernatorial race is a rare one in which a candidate's past advocacy of polygraphy may come back to haunt him. The state of New Mexico is home to both Sandia National Laboratories and Los Alamos National Laboratory. The scientists and engineers whom Bill Richardson treated with such disrespect only three years ago may constitute a significant voting bloc in a state with such a small population.
Dr. Zelicoff's article is reproduced below for discussion purposes:
Quote
A Lie Detector Failure
By Alan P. Zelicoff Physician and Scientist
After basking in the national spotlight -- first as a peripatetic congressman meeting with rogue dictators, then U.N. ambassador and finally as a cabinet secretary -- Bill Richardson hoped for a spot on the Democratic national ticket. But his "rising star" petered out, and he came to embody the Peter Principle instead.
Saddled with a disastrous security scandal not of his making, he rose to the level of his own incompetence by taking a bad problem at Department of Energy laboratories and making it even worse.
In this shameful and very sad story are lessons for New Mexicans who might still be thinking he'd make a good governor.
There is no question that Richardson's predecessor as secretary of energy, Hazel O'Leary, sowed the seeds that led to lost nuclear secrets and missing hard drives. O'Leary systematically deconstructed basic security measures at the labs by, among other things, removing guards and replacing them with turnstiles.
No longer would visitors (or even staff) be subject to search upon entering or leaving -- hence the loss of an otherwise visible deterrent to spying or even careless handling of classified data and electronic media.
Predictable disaster followed in 1999, and when it did, Secretary Richardson -- then running for the Democratic vice-presidential nomination and desperate to show how he could be "tough on national security" -- slapped a counter-productive, sweeping polygraph program on all of the employees at Sandia, Los Alamos and Lawrence Livermore labs.
Senior administrators advised against this in the strongest terms, citing the obvious adverse effects on morale at a time when the labs were competing with Silicon Valley for talented engineers and computer scientists.
Senior scientific staff prepared detailed surveys of the track record of polygraphs, pointing out that the most damaging spies in U.S. history -- double agents Aldrich Ames, Karl Koecher, Larry Wu-Tai Chin and Ana Belen Montes -- all passed their CIA polygraphs multiple times and that polygraphs never caught any spies.
The scientists suggested that guards be reinstated, and that security clearances be limited to those workers who really needed them. Richardson listened to none of it, and when confronted at Sandia in 1999 about his obvious disregard for the basic dignity of loyal lab employees, Richardson waved his hand dismissively in the air and with a pained expression on his face complained with an exasperated huff: "Oh, it's all just politics." This from a cabinet secretary entrusted with nuclear weapons?
Richardson twisted arms in Congress to get funds for his polygraph program and crowed on the PBS News Hour, "What we have done since I came on board is we've instituted polygraphs for anybody that has sensitive access."
That decision sentenced 15,000 people to degrading four-hour inquisitions. He reiterated precisely the same words on CBS and ABC News several days later, ruling out any doubt that he meant exactly what he said.
But this week, the National Academy of Sciences released a two-year study on the efficacy of polygraphs. The study concluded: "Its accuracy in distinguishing actual or potential security violators from innocent test takers is insufficient to justify reliance on its use in employee security screening in federal agencies" -- almost exactly what lab scientists told Richardson in 1999.
So, now Richardson is running away from his self-serving decision, claiming, "I only wanted a very narrow group of people to be polygraphed" -- an obvious fib even to political partisans.
But his lying doesn't stop there. Richardson also now claims that it was he who asked for the National Academy study. But it was fellow Democrat and senator Jeff Bingaman who bravely questioned the secretary's security plans at an open DOE hearing that Richardson sponsored, and organized the Senate resolution that funded the NAS study.
Richardson's blatant lying is demeaning not only to the 10,000 New Mexicans who work at Sandia and Los Alamos; he thinks the rest of the citizenry are dupes as well.
Bill Richardson has failed his test as an executive, electing instead to put his own career before those of some of New Mexico's most talented and productive workers. While it is true he freed a few hostages in foreign lands, he condemned thousands of Americans to a useless, low-tech electronic inquisition that squandered millions of dollars and damaged the reputations of lab employees and the labs themselves.
I don't know if either of his opponents would make good governors, but if honesty is important, it would be very hard to do worse than Bill Richardson.
You sure have alot of free time on your hands.
Do you have any type of real employment?
We all know that the FBI would not take you. ;D
George,
You, evidently, have enough time to read this site. What is your line of work? Are you a polygrapher for or otherwise employed by the FBI, CIA, local LE, etc.? What business is it of yours to inquire about the line of work of anyone on these boards?
My guess is that you are a polygrapher and can see the hand writing on the wall and knowing your retraining is in the near future.
I believe Mr. Maschke is working on his doctorate. What is your education, 8th. grade?
Post something of substance so it may be debated. That is if it is intelligent enough to be debated.
Seems the last time I checked ,about 3 years age, he was working on his PHD. I guess thats a good cover for people such as yourself that don't want feel the need to contribute to society.
Twoblock,
Do not waste your time talking to this one, he is far too smart for you.
Quote from: Fair Chance on Oct 27, 2002, 01:56 AM
Twoblock,
Do not waste your time talking to this one, he is far too smart for you.
Yep. Troll.
Unfortunately, that's about the level of discourse most pro-polygraph people have demonstrated here :(
Skeptic
george...
There are those who use their free time in productive and meaningful ways, and those who aimlessly surf the Internet, pausing for some cheap cyper sex or placed in which they can blindly confront people in attempts to make up for their lack of self-esteem.
What you choose to do with your time becomes evident in the verbiage you spew out of your keyboard.
^places For those uneducated in the language of Typoism
I think that George M. is brilliant, thorough, articulate, and he has a sexy voice, too. I admire his tenacity and this excellent web site. That other, lower case george is just jealous because George M. is indeed contributing to society, considering that anyone with any wits who is forced to undergo a screening polygraph would go to this site.
Lower case george, go set up your own web site for jealous people.
Sincerely,
An American Girl
ROTFLMAO
:D
My oh my...it does get interesting in here!
Mr. Maschke is indeed a most reputable, intelligent, and concerned individual. His efforts are widely appreciated, and if you consider the time alone that he puts into this site, you will conclude that his passion and perserverance are a great loss to our LE community. However, his loss has become the gain of many, and through his hard work, may this unjust nonsense of polygraphy be banished!
This is in fact, the very thing that our LE wants us to believe their life's work is all about - the fight for justice. Few ever reach the levels of accomplishment in the pursuit of justice as George Maschke.
There are those here that I have conversed with who mirror this high level of articulation, intelligence, and respect. May all others wander on two doors down to the lowercase rooms.
As for the comment on his voice, as with that of Dr. Drew C. Richardson, it conveys a highly authoratative and level-headed person. If that is sexy, then I suppose George and Drew should consider becoming the Calendar Boys for Antipolygraph.org (a potential fund-raiser....audio calendars where these learned men give a daily dose of their most impressive statements for the entire month...while the women swoon from the soothing sounds of their voices? ROTFLMAO Oh, and we could even hold auditions from the others who post in here..those with the best voices submit their statements...we only lack 10 more voices to have a full year calendar ready)
Quote from: An American Girl on Oct 27, 2002, 10:31 AM
I think that George M. is brilliant, thorough, articulate, and he has a sexy voice, too. I admire his tenacity and this excellent web site. That other, lower case george is just jealous because George M. is indeed contributing to society, considering that anyone with any wits who is forced to undergo a screening polygraph would go to this site.
Lower case george, go set up your own web site for jealous people.
Sincerely,
An American Girl
Well, George-the-larger,
Perhaps we need to open another message board dedicated to your female admirers :D
Skeptic
Thats pretty funny "ALL AMERICAN GIRL" that someone would even mention AMERICAN to a guy that dosn't even live in the greatest country in the world. Is there a reason for that??
Serpico, an honest police officer who uncovered one of the largest police corruption cases in New York City, does not live in America. Serpico sacrificed his career and was severely wounded in the line of service for what he believed in.
America has many soldiers and foreign diplomats which spend most of their lives and careers not on American soil, yet they serve America well.
Anyone, who is committed to serving the greater good, will scare self-centered people the most.
My My MY. It didnt take long for the cult to respond. Did it George
Dear george,
You are starting to remind of a child who has to get attention by misbehaving. I sense by your last comments you seem a little jealous about George M.'s "cult". Right or wrong, he has inspired many people to admire his efforts on this website.
Somehow I think you are very angry because you cannot inspire such feelings in others about yourself.
Users george and eastwood-- separated at birth, or one and the same? You be the judge.
Do we further give attention to this TROLL?
QuoteThats pretty funny "ALL AMERICAN GIRL" that someone would even mention AMERICAN to a guy that dosn't even live in the greatest country in the world. Is there a reason for that??
Lower case george:
If you would look again, it's "AN American Girl," not ALL American Girl. My choice of name was simply an allusion to the lyrics of the Tom Petty song (American Girl.) You should listen to the song some time, and stop making assumptions. If you are a pro-polygraph person, you are only hurting your cause by jumping to conclusions.
QuoteAs for the comment on his voice, as with that of Dr. Drew C. Richardson, it conveys a highly authoratative and level-headed person. If that is sexy, then I suppose George and Drew should consider becoming the Calendar Boys for Antipolygraph.org...
You are right, Seeking boy, Drew has a nice voice too. Bring on the calendar!
A.A.G.
Well, I am a woman, but the calendar would prove to illicit some great funding I am sure.
ROTFLMAO
Sorry Seeker, my mistake. The voice-calendar-as-a-fund-raiser would do well with articulate and reasonable women such as yourself speaking too. A month with the voice of the 34 year old feisty Beech Trees would also be of interest.
May you find what you seek,
A.A.G.
Quote from: george on Oct 27, 2002, 12:00 PM
Thats pretty funny "ALL AMERICAN GIRL" that someone would even mention AMERICAN to a guy that dosn't even live in the greatest country in the world. Is there a reason for that??
>YAWN<
Poor george. He's likely a polygraph screener who might have to make an honest living thanks to the efforts of Antipolygraph.org, the National Academy of Sciences and others. He's just frustrated and lashing out.
Perhaps someone can recommend a good career counsellor for him?
Skeptic
tsk..tsk...this has been given too much attention....distracting from more pressing matters....
Seeker,
I agree!
Seeker, aka Jasmine Ibrahim, or whomever you are,
Such pressing matters? Enough already. 27 posts since the 19th of October, and all you've managed to do is mimic every other failed polygraph sniveller on this web site. And what's with the cat you added on Sunday? Trying to emulate George's lion? In your posts you've admitted to being "an information slut" or a "snitch" (snitches are the lowest life form on this planet) a divorcee from the Middle East (odd thing) who has failed two polygraphs, therefore are squirming away from a "Bureau Boy" FBI polygraph although advised by your attorney to take it. You claim to be a 35 year old student passing out petitions for the antipolygraph cause and that you worked for the State department and wore a wire to your 2 previous polygraphs; done by "corrupt cops." Such a busy woman. So many pressing issues. If you really are in Roanoke Virginia, GO HOME. Quit refering to the LE system as "ours," the nation as "ours" and the citizens belonging to this nation "ours." Put a veil over your snitching slut face and get the hell out of America. Go join George in the Netherlands;(if that's where he really is) you seem to have quickly become his toady. Your zeal to disparage your host country is tiring. >:(
"Disgusted,"
I'm disgusted, too: by the hateful, bigoted diatribe you've posted here. Neither Seeker, I, nor anyone else here need you to tell us what it means to be an American.
Quote from: disgusted on Oct 28, 2002, 11:15 AM
Seeker, aka Jasmine Ibrahim, or whomever you are,
Such pressing matters? Enough already. 27 posts since the 19th of October, and all you've managed to do is mimic every other failed polygraph sniveller on this web site. And what's with the cat you added on Sunday? Trying to emulate George's lion? In your posts you've admitted to being "an information slut" or a "snitch" (snitches are the lowest life form on this planet) a divorcee from the Middle East (odd thing) who has failed two polygraphs, therefore are squirming away from a "Bureau Boy" FBI polygraph although advised by your attorney to take it. You claim to be a 35 year old student passing out petitions for the antipolygraph cause and that you worked for the State department and wore a wire to your 2 previous polygraphs; done by "corrupt cops." Such a busy woman. So many pressing issues. If you really are in Roanoke Virginia, GO HOME. Quit refering to the LE system as "ours," the nation as "ours" and the citizens belonging to this nation "ours." Put a veil over your snitching slut face and get the hell out of America. Go join George in the Netherlands;(if that's where he really is) you seem to have quickly become his toady. Your zeal to disparage your host country is tiring. >:(
To the casual reader:
Think about what it would mean to have to take a subjective polygraph with the above person as your polygrapher. Either disgusted or little george (assuming they're not the same person), with the demonstrated mental acuity of "Jackass" stars and emotional balance of the Beltway Sniper, could be a lynchpin in our nation's security apparatus.
And if that doesn't scare you into supporting the abolishment of polygraph screening, I don't know what will.
Skeptic
Disgusted,
Re: Your quote "snitches are the lowest life form on this planet".
I assume you are in LE. When you people use "snitches" to gather information/evidence on someone that you are after, do you believe you are putting yourself on their level of life form. I do. Most of your snitches are lying excons. You have no right to belittle anyone for the same practice that you employ.
Draw it in and go write a speeding ticket.
Seeker stated
QuoteI have take two polygraphs in the past, both of which I failed miserably allthough I told the truth. Or, at least that was what I was told.
My past experiences were with a State agency. I was given the thumbs up by my handlers with this poly from the FBI. I got the stories of how qualified the Bureau polygraphers were, and how easy this would all be.
I don't want to say much about the particulars, but I am an information slut...a snitch. The poly is "supposedly" being requested by the "Powers that Be" and not by my handlers. Either way, I am uncomfortable with the whole test idea. The two that I had taken earlier involved corrupt officers. I was told that I lied, and that I failed. Amazing that within a month after the polygraphs, the cops were fired. In an effort to prove my reliability, I recorded them with wires that had been previously provided to me by the State agency.
Let me get this straight. You recorded cops by misusing government property in order to prove your reliability???. Sounds like snitch mentality to me. And what happened to the recordings? Were they admissable in court?
lowercase george, disgusted, and question:
I used VA State Police provided equipment to do exactly what they asked me to do.
If you are cop, as opposed to criminal, or perhaps even both, then you know that informants sign an agreement to record THEIR conversations. The legality of it is that I consent to the recording, and you - the one being investigated - are subject to those recordings without your knowledge.
I was recruited for the very purpose to which I employed the wires and recording devices. What happened to the recordings? They were placed in the IAD files of the corrupt officers, who subsequently were fired. I was sent to record these officers by IAD, and when the reality of exactly who were the corrupt ones came to light, the polygraphs were requested. This is, as you should know as criminal, cop, or both, standard procedure to ensure (through a fraudulent guise for an interrogation without the benefit of legal counsel) that all information available is extracted from someone.
Snitch mentality? Well, perhaps, but it was the subject of the investigations that I was recruited for, and obviously I was deemed Highly Reliable since years later, the feds came to recruit me.
As cop, criminal, or both, you know that without good sources (the cop terminology for a snitch), the majority of crimes would go unsolved.
To return to the original topic of this thread (Bill Richardson's advocacy of polygraphy and it's potential effect on the New Mexico gubernatorial election), it's curious to note that the RichardsonforGovernor.com (http://www.richardsonforgovernor.com) website cites among his accompl
ishments (http://www.richardsonforgovernor.com/br_tier2_braccomplishments.htm) for labor the following:
"Voted to ban the use of polygraph exams by most private employers."
The reference is to the former congressman's support for the 1988 Employee Polygraph Protection Act. Bill Richardson's website fails to mention his cynical advocacy of polygraph screening at the national laboratories.
Hyocrite. A true politician.
LOL..this reminds me of one of the call in shows with Paul Stern, one of the scientists on the panel the NAS research board. A caller called in talking about the CVSA and stated that it was used as a comedy device in that several people he knew would set it up beside the television while politicians were on tv spewing out their rhetoric and nonsense.
I would be interested in Bill Richardson's success/failure with not only the CVSA but the polygraph as well. I am sure it would provide lots of comic relief..that and the backpeddling of his proponents.
Bill Richardson has won the New Mexico governor's race by a landslide. With 1,470 of 1,506 precincts reporting (98%), Richardson had captured 58% of the vote. His Republican challenger, John Sanchez, had 36% while Green party candidate David Bacon had 6%.
George M.,
It seems the dialogue on your site has gone downhill since you added your picture to your postings. It reminds me of those movies where a psychiatrist does the old "ink blotter" routine. People see your picture and just get all stupid.
How 'bout that American Girl saying your sexy? What do you think her problem is? Blind maybe? Actually, judging by the language in her posts, I would be willing to bet that she is really a he. Better watch out George, don't bend over in the shower!
Hey TwoBlock, how's the gold mining business you old fart?
BeechTrees, you're still a jerk!
God it's great to be back, it's great to be an American, it's great to be me, and it's great to be 8)
Batman ;D
Quote from: Batman on Nov 11, 2002, 07:16 PM
Hey TwoBlock, how's the gold mining business you old fart?
BeechTrees, you're still a jerk!
God it's great to be back, it's great to be an American, it's great to be me, and it's great to be 8)
Batman ;D
Dear Batman,
Get Batgirl, get into the Batmobile, and drive back to the Batcave. I love reruns but enough is enough!
Things were quite boring around here but I do not want to encourage you to come back!
Regards.
Quote from: Batman on Nov 11, 2002, 07:16 PM
George M.,
It seems the dialogue on your site has gone downhill since you added your picture to your postings. It reminds me of those movies where a psychiatrist does the old "ink blotter" routine. People see your picture and just get all stupid.
Oh, I don't know Batman. I can think of one bright spot in the recent dialogue. Now that you're back, all I can say is "it was fun while it lasted".
And BTW, the downhill dialogue started after the NAS report. It seems we're now exclusively getting the dregs of the polygraph world.
Skeptic
Quote from: Guano on Nov 11, 2002, 07:16 PM
George M.,
It seems the dialogue on your site has gone downhill since you added your picture to your postings. It reminds me of those movies where a psychiatrist does the old "ink blotter" routine. People see your picture and just get all stupid.
I note in passing you did not move to exclude yourself from that demographic.
QuoteHow 'bout that American Girl saying your sexy? What do you think her problem is? Blind maybe? Actually, judging by the language in her posts, I would be willing to bet that she is really a he. Better watch out George, don't bend over in the shower!
Reads as if you're quite the authority on Adventures in Showering.
QuoteBeechTrees, you're still a jerk!
And yet you keep coming back for more. 'Round these here parts, when a dawg gets spanked he has enough sense to stay on the porch. Are we to presume you have less sense than a cringing beat-down porch dog? Respond to this post and prove me right.
Dave
Never tell the truth to people who are not worthy of it.- Mark Twain
Dear Fair Chance, Skeptic, and B-Trees,
Gees guys, no sense of humor? What gives? Why so mean spirited? Your hurtful responses make me want to take my Bat toys and go home.....NOT!
Come on, lighten up just a bit. One would think you're actually losing the polygraph wars the way you immediately strike out at simple, good-hearted folks like me.
You guys must just love pissing in the wind. When are you going to finally realize that polygraph is here to stay, regardless of what the NAS report says, or all your crying, or the lack of scientific peer group review, balh, blah, blah. No one really cares about your little trials and tribulations with polygraph. You simply come across like a bunch of whiners. Put your little pea brains together and come up with a better plan of attack, because what you've been doing to date has had no impact what-so-ever.
By the way Beech, 'round these here parts we don't beat our dogs. I'm a guessin' that be sumpin youin's do in your neck of the woods. Your still a jerk! "Respond to this post and prove me right." Come on my little dudette, you can do better than that. Take a bite of that bitter polygraph pill, re-live your terrible polygraph experience, and lash out with some real venom.
Batman
Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha!
How I love to read these posts! Before you read further, I don't have any "peer reviewed research" to share and I don't have the time to take on Dr. Drew's challenge. Batman, you are my hero! Can't we all just get along? Actually, I love the interchange just the way it is. A good laugh is hard to come by. (No, I'm not laughing at a false postive examinee's expense, but it is the dialogue found here.)
George and the gang keep complaining. I (we) keep getting confessions...pre-test and post-test confessions. All of these fine examinees had been interviewed at least once and perhaps many times in the past before arriving for their polygraph examination. They all initially professed that they were telling the truth, but most later confessed that they had committed the offense AND that they had deliberately provided false statements during the course of the investigation. George and his disciples like to state that these were naive and gullible people. I like to think that they had seen the errors of their ways and wanted to confess. The time had come to lift the burden off their shoulders. I took the time to listen and for that moment, I cared. Maybe it was the polygraph instrument on the desk, maybe I simply had a lucky day, maybe it was because I was willing to listen, but at the end of the day - a confession was received in writing. (Before anyone goes on the attack, I am referring to examinees whose exam results were DI or who confessed during the pre-test interview. There are examinees whose test results are NDI. Regardless of what others might think, I don't manipulate the results and I don't coerce confessions from innocent people.)
Folks, I hate to say it, but I do believe that the polygraph's demise is not in the immediate future. Its utility is too convincing. Take on a real worthy cause. Perhaps the SPCA is looking for a few good men and women. Take the time to save a beaten dog. According to Beach Trees AKA Dave, it sounds as if they are getting beat far too often in his neck of the woods.
Folks, I hate to say it, but I do believe that the polygraph's demise is not in the immediate future. Its utility is too convincing.
[/quote]
Dear Sir, your utility has worked so far and long only because the profession has been able to lie and deceive the American public concerning its validity and reliablity of detecting deception.
Many people have been victimized by this fraudulent and deceptive practice. Some have turned to the courts for redress, others to the scientific community for answers and some as George M.have provide a place of reference and reseach for others.
You and your brotherhood hate this place for it exposes your profession for with it is "FRAUD".
So I beg to differ with your opinion that the demise of polygraph practice is not in the imminent future. As more people come to realize that your instrument is invalid and unable to detect lies, once the fear of detection has been removed, it will be less likely to induce a confession or admission. Than what will you do for a living? :o
Quote from: mriddle6 on Nov 13, 2002, 11:40 AM
...As more people come to realize that your instrument is invalid and unable to detect lies, once the fear of detection has been removed, it will be less likely to induce a confession or admission. Than what will you do for a living? :o
Wasn't it the NAS study that just reported specific issue polygraph examinations discriminated between truthful and untruthful at rates SIGNIFICANTLY above chance? So much for the claims of yourself and others on this site that polygraph is "invalid." Hmm, I suspect polygraph examiners will be gainfully employed for a long time to come...
Polycop...
Polycop, Deputy D.,
You guys are spot on. It works, and it works well, however folks like George M and his loyal following will simply ignore the parts of the NAS report that speak to the utility of polygraph in specific issue testing, and they will simply write off any success stories as taking advantage of the naive and stupid of society.
The pity of this site is the loss of effort put forth by George's flock. Just think of what they could accomplish if thay channeled all their energy into something more positive. Instead they have chosen to attack polygraph simply because they had a "bad experience". What they don't realize is that most likely 3/4's of American society wouldn't even know what polygraph is because it has absolutely no impact on them what-so-ever. It impact's only that select few who chose to undergo one whether it be for potential employment or to resolve a criminal allegation. Bottom line is, no one forces anyone to undergo the polygraph procedure. So if someone (insert George, Beech T, or any of the other whiners) decides to undergo the procedure, and it does not go as well as hoped then who really is to blame? Gee, I guess the system. Yeah that's it, the system made me do it. Well whiners (insert Gerorge M, etc), that simply does not hold water. You made the decision to do it, so live with the results, and quit your crying. It's not like some medical procedure that you had to undergo and then it went bad. If that were the case you would have a legitimate gripe, and society would agree with you.
So in the meantime, polygraph will continue to be utilized and administered to those that choose to take it. It will continue to assist in resolving serious allegations of criminal misconduct, and George and his boys will continue to wail and beat their heads against the wall about the injustice of it all.
Batman
Quote from: Polycop on Nov 13, 2002, 01:17 PM
Wasn't it the NAS study that just reported specific issue polygraph examinations discriminated between truthful and untruthful at rates SIGNIFICANTLY above chance? So much for the claims of yourself and others on this site that polygraph is "invalid." Hmm, I suspect polygraph examiners will be gainfully employed for a long time to come...
Polycop...
Polycop,
I think it's appropriate to repeat here a post I made earlier in the discussion thead, NAS Polygraph Report (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=792.msg4732#msg4732):
What the NAS Report Says About the Accuracy of Specific-Incident Polygraph TestingThe following is an excerpt from the conclusions of the NAS polygraph report (p. 168 (http://books.nap.edu/books/0309084369/html/168.html) of the HTML version):
QuoteEstimate of Accuracy Notwithstanding the limitations of the quality of the empirical research and the limited ability to generalize to real-world settings, we conclude that in populations of examinees such as those represented in the polygraph research literature, untrained in countermeasures, specific-incident polygraph tests for event-specific investigations can discriminate lying from truth telling at rates well above chance, though well below perfection. Accuracy may be highly variable across situations. The evidence does not allow any precise quantitative estimate of polygraph accuracy or provide confidence that accuracy is stable across personality types, sociodemographic groups, psychological and medical conditions, examiner and examinee expectancies, or ways of administering the test and selecting questions. In particular, the evidence does not provide confidence that polygraph accuracy is robust against potential countermeasures. There is essentially no evidence on the incremental validity of polygraph testing, that is, its ability to add predictive value to that which can be achieved by other methods.
Note that:
1) This estimate of accuracy does not specify what kind of polygraph tests, e.g., CQT vs. R/I vs. GKT "can discriminate lying from truth telling at rates well above chance."
2) The authors' conclusion that polygraph tests "can discriminate lying from truth telling at rates well above chance" is conditioned upon the subject population being similar to "those represented in the polygraph research literature," that is,
ignorant of polygraph procedure and countermeasures. Such ignorance cannot be safely assumed, especially with information on both polygraph procedure and countermeasures readily available via the Internet.3) If the authors' conclusion that "the evidence does not allow any precise quantitative estimate of polygraph accuracy..." is correct, then it (a fortiori) follows that
software algorithms peddled by polygraph manufacturers such as Axciton and Stoelting that purport to determine with mathematical precision the probability that a particular individual is lying or telling the truth are worthless.4) The authors conclude that "the evidence does not provide confidence that polygraph accuracy is robust against potential countermeasures." It is not safe to assume that anyone passing a polygraph "test" has told the truth.
5) The last sentence of the above-cited paragraph is the key one with regard to polygraph validity (as opposed to accuracy): "There is essentially no evidence on the incremental validity of polygraph testing, that is, its ability to add predictive value to that which can be achieved by other methods."
What this means is that there is no evidence that polygraph "testing" provides greater predictive value than, say, interrogating a subject without the use of a polygraph, or with a colandar-wired-to-a-photocopier that is represented to the subject as being a lie detector.The NAS's conlusion that "specific-incident polygraph tests for event-specific investigations can discriminate lying from truth telling at rates well above chance, though well below perfection" with naive subject populations is hardly a vindication for the validity of CQT polygraphy, and
those in the polygraph community are formally cautioned against publicly misrepresenting it as such, as you can expect to be publicly called out on it.
"The NAS's conclusion that "specific-incident polygraph tests for event-specific investigations can discriminate lying from truth telling at rates well above chance, though well below perfection" with naive subject populations is hardly a vindication for the validity of CQT polygraphy, and those in the polygraph community are formally cautioned against publicly misrepresenting it as such, as you can expect to be publicly called out on it."
OK George, exactly where did the NAS report discuss "naive subject populations"? You quote the damn report then turn it around by using your own words, then you have the balls to caution others about misrepresenting the report? Who are you trying to kid here, other then the likes of those that hang on every BS word you write?
No one says that polygraph is perfect, nor 100% accurate, but what is? What technique, used in any field or profession is perfect or 100% accurate. Your analogy of, "there is no evidence that polygraph "testing" provides greater predictive value than, say, interrogating a subject without the use of a polygraph, or with a colandar-wired-to-a-photocopier that is represented to the subject as being a lie detector" is simply unbelievable. Comments like this reveal your refusal to acknowledge, in any way, the many criminal investigations that have been resolved through the skillful use of the polygraph technique coupled with interviews and other investigative techniques.
You're so damn willing to throw the baby out with the bath water simply because you believe you were wronged when you took a polygraph examination. That's a pretty self centered, and arrogant view on life George. I'm surprised you're not totally against child birth since you got your ass slapped when you were born.
Batman
Quote from: Batman on Nov 13, 2002, 04:50 PM
No one says that polygraph is perfect, nor 100% accurate, but what is? What technique, used in any field or profession is perfect or 100% accurate.
No, but lying sacks of excrement like Florida Polygraph Association past president George Slattery gets damn close. In fact, most profesisonally-lying polygraphers boast anywhere from 100% to the mid 90%-- statistics that we (the informed) know are pure unadulterated crap.
Get back on the porch, whiner.
Batman,
You write in part:
Quote
...
OK George, exactly where did the NAS report discuss "naive subject populations"? ?You quote the damn report then turn it around by using your own words, then you have the balls to caution others about misrepresenting the report? ?Who are you trying to kid here, other then the likes of those that hang on every BS word you write?
The NAS report refers to "naive subject populations" where it mentions "populations of examinees
such as those represented in the polygraph research literature, untrained in countermeasures" (emphasis added). The polygraph research literature relied upon by the NAS polygraph review panel involved subject populations that were assumed to be naive with regard to polygraph procedure and countermeasures. Note that in this context, "naive" has a special, restricted meaning. As defined by
Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary, definition 2b, "naive" means, "not previously subjected to experimentation or a particular experimental situation <made the test with ~ rats>..." I have been using the term "naive" precisely as it is used in the polygraph research literature.
In addition, the NAS report notes at pp. 3-27 to 3-28, "The scientific base for polygraph testing is far from what one would like for a test that carries considerable weight in national security decision making. Basic scientific knowledge of psychophysiology offers support for expecting polygraph testing to have some diagnostic value,
at least among naive examinees. However, the science indicates that there is only limited correspondence between the physiological responses measured by the polygraph and psychological and the attendant brain states believed to be associated with deception-in particular, that responses typically taken as indicating deception can have other causes." (emphasis added)
QuoteNo one says that polygraph is perfect, nor 100% accurate, but what is? ?What technique, used in any field or profession is perfect or 100% accurate.
You are raising a straw man argument, Batman. (In case you're not familiar with the term,
Webster's defines it as, "a weak or imaginary opposition [as an argument or adversary] set up only to be easily confuted.") Our criticism of CQT polygraphy, and in particular polygraph screening, has never been that it is less than 100% accurate, but rather that it has no scientific basis, has an inherent bias against the truthful, and yet is easily beaten by the deceptive through the use of simple countermeasures.
QuoteYour analogy of, "there is no evidence that polygraph "testing" provides greater predictive value than, say, interrogating a subject without the use of a polygraph, or with a colandar-wired-to-a-photocopier that is represented to the subject as being a lie detector" is simply unbelievable.
Perhaps you would prefer the National Academy of Sciences' analogy comparing polygraphy with a shamanistic ritual? See the message thread "The Cult of Polygraph." (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=830.msg5256#msg5256)
QuoteComments like this reveal your refusal to acknowledge, in any way, the many criminal investigations that have been resolved through the skillful use of the polygraph technique coupled with interviews and other investigative techniques.
Another straw man argument, Batman. I have never refused to acknowledge the utility of polygraphy for obtaining admissions/confessions from naive subjects (i.e., those who don't understand that polygraphy is a fraud). I have no per se objection to deceptive law enforcement interrogation tactics such as CQT polygraphy. However, because of the demonstrated potential for abuse, I believe it is imperative that all interrogations (whether or not the polygraph is used) be videotaped, or, at a minimum, audiotaped.
QuoteYou're so damn willing to throw the baby out with the bath water simply because you believe you were wronged when you took a polygraph examination. That's a pretty self centered, and arrogant view on life George. I'm surprised you're not totally against child birth since you got your ass slapped when you were born.
In your opinion, what is the baby and what is the bath water? If you truly believe that my opposition to polygraphy (and, in particular, to polygraph screening) is based on nothing more than my personal experience, you are mistaken, Batman. If polygraphy were based on sound science, and I had unfortunately fallen within a small but unavoidable margin of error, I could accept that. But such is not the case.
Quote from: Batman on Nov 13, 2002, 03:14 PM
Polycop, Deputy D.,
You guys are spot on. It works, and it works well,
About myself. My name is Morris Henry Riddle Jr. I was born Oct 4th 1932 and never been charged with a mistermeanor let alone a felony. Never taken the TEST nor will I.
My intent is not to offend anyone. Pissing contests serve no one. Here are some of my beliefs:
If I apply for employment at the FBI, CIA, Secert Service or the DOE, i would expect nothing less from my Government than a microscope up my ass. A complete and thorough back round check that would discover my grandfathers favorite drink. Such a search would reveal whether i ran moonshine in the 50s or smoked dupe in the 60s. After the facts are known during my interview if I make a denial that you guys know to be fact, than I don't deserve the job. If I admit to a youthful indiscretion than its up to the agency to decide if they want my services or not. No hard feelings and I'll shake your hand on the way out. On the other hand if I were to be hooked up to a box and called a liar after being truthful the polygrapher would probably end up on the floor.
As for the coppers using the polygraph as a tool to induce an admission from a crook, who gives a shit. However, with fingerprints, DNA and other forensic evidence do you really need the polygraph? Or is it just a last resort?
Now if I'm wrong here please correct me but it seems to me that the polygraph depends on the respondents belief that the "box" will detect deception. This preception has been generated by a massive misinformation campaign sanction by our Government and the media.
The facts, as i understand them, is that " Science is unable to correlate physiology to a specfic emotion" meaning the results are equivocal.
My fingerprints found at the crime scene, my DNA found in the rape victim, the groves on a bullet that were produced by the barrel of my gun, this is unequivocal evidence.
Calling me deceptive merely by my physiological reactions to a so called relevant question is nothing less than an affront.
Just an old Dog expanding intellect.
::)
Then why even come to this site. You obviously have NO CLUE of what you are talking about. Leave the conversation to the adults here.
Quote from: polylawman on Nov 14, 2002, 12:56 PM
Then why even come to this site. You obviously have NO CLUE of what you are talking about. Leave the conversation to the adults here.
Have a nice day 8)
George,
You wear your arrogance like some kind of badge. Thanks for the definition of "straw man" as it pertains to putting forth a point of view. You do a great job of researching.
You know damn well that when you use the term "naive" when speaking about those who willing undergo a polygraph and later confess, you are not speaking about people who are "not previously subjected to experimentation or a particular experimental situation <made the test with ~ rats>..." as Mr. webster would define it. You mean people who are stupid enough, in your opinion, to fall for what you believe to be a vodoo science. If the individuals who authored the NAS report wanted to use the term "naive" to define individuals who undergo polygraph, then I'm sure they would have used it. You subsitiute their words with yours to simply put forth, what you believe to be a better, stronger arguement. That's a common tactic, everyone does it, to include you.
You state, "If you truly believe that my opposition to polygraphy (and, in particular, to polygraph screening) is based on nothing more than my personal experience, you are mistaken, Batman." Really? So your opposition is something more pure? You simply stumbled upon this unsound science, and took up the crusade? Was your willingness to undergo a polygraph for employment within the Federal Government simply some undercover ploy on your part to ferret out more information?
What would you have done George, had you "passed" your pre-employment polygraph? Would you have scoffed at the agency in which you were seeking employment and told them that there was no way you would work within a system that relied so heavily upon such a faulty, unscientific technique? Or would you have accepted employment and simply worked your way up the GS scale? Exactly when was it you became such an anti-polygraph advocate? Was it before you willingly stepped into the room to take your polygraph, or was it sometime after you were told you did not get the position you were seeking?
If nothing else George, be honest about your true motive for taking up the cause. You didn't get what you want so therefore something must be wrong with the system. You are extremely self centered, and very transparent, that is why the decision makers within the Federal Government simply humor you, but do not take you seriously. That is why when you lay down your silly challanges, no one replies. Your motives are centered around one thing, you didn't get what you want. Unfortunately people like you are a dime a dozen. Always filing greviences, always blaming the system for your failures. We see it every day. You are not unique, therefore you are not considered a threat. You, and your following are simply there to be toyed with. I guess that does give you a little bit of value.
Batman
PS: Beech-Trees, you're a jerk.
Batman,
You write in summation:
QuoteYou, and your following are simply there to be toyed with.
Under the circumstances, I won't waste my time responding to your foregoing ad hominem arguments.
George,
I would expect nothing more. Your reluctance to address the real issue of my post speaks volumes.
You like to offer challenges George, so how about a Batman challenge?
Lets see how long it takes for you to answer the questions I put to you. Here they are:
Was your willingness to undergo a polygraph for employment within the Federal Government simply some undercover ploy on your part to ferret out more information, or was it a sincere attempt to gain employment with a federal agency that used polygraph as a pre-employment screening tool?
What would you have done had you "passed" your pre-employment polygraph?
- Would you have accepted the position? or
- Would you have turned the position down due to your beliefs about the use of polygraph?
When was it you became an anti-polygraph advocate?
What one incident, or situation provided you with the inspiration to start this particular site, Anti-Polygraph.org?
There you go a few simple questions. If you decide not to meet the Batman challenge, I'm sure one of your followers will step forward for you. How about it Beech Trees? Do you want to offer any possible answers for George?
Day One of the Batman Challenge.
Batman
Batman,
QuoteWas your willingness to undergo a polygraph for employment within the Federal Government simply some undercover ploy on your part to ferret out more information, or was it a sincere attempt to gain employment with a federal agency that used polygraph as a pre-employment screening tool?
The latter.
QuoteWhat would you have done had you "passed" your pre-employment polygraph?
- Would you have accepted the position? or
- Would you have turned the position down due to your beliefs about the use of polygraph?
The former.
QuoteWhen was it you became an anti-polygraph advocate?
In 1999, some four years after my having been falsely accused of deception by an FBI polygrapher.
QuoteWhat one incident, or situation provided you with the inspiration to start this particular site, Anti-Polygraph.org?
Although a number of factors were involved, the key one is the discovery that many other innocent persons have shared my experience, and that such abuse is ongoing.
Batman
I will say at the beginning that, i believe, you made a feeble attempt to answer a couple of my questions. Not all. Breeze hasn't answered the questions of my last post.
I challange all of you propoly's to answer those questions about polygraphing elected and appointed officials.
Plus:
1. Are you polygraphers?
2. For what agency do you work? Don't give me the crap "it's
secret"
3. If you do work in LE, do you think the amount of time you
spend on this site, instead catching criminals and a SPY, is
screwing away our tax money?
4. Some of us have told you our line of work. Will you tell us
yours?
I think all of you are swallowing JackAsspirin. If you would read the label, it probably says suppository and used accordingly would alter your temperment. You might not even feel the need to trash people.
DAY ONE OF THE TWOBLOCK CHALLANGE
Quote from: Batman on Nov 14, 2002, 03:38 PM
George,
You wear your arrogance like some kind of badge. Thanks for the definition of "straw man" as it pertains to putting forth a point of view. You do a great job of researching.
They're so telling, these little tantrums by Herr Batrube. The arrogance of the citizen peons! "How DARE they question us!" he squeaks mightily. Herein lies the Big Picture Bruce Swain alludes to so often (yet never seems able to articulate): THEY have the power, they want to keep the power, we are taking that capricious power away from them for the good of all. That upsets them. That makes them think we want to wear their badge, when all we want is the abolishment of the pseudo-scientific fraud of polygraphy, a travesty of a sham that has never caught a spy, has enabled actual spies to permanently alter our intelligence gathering and distribution infrastructure, ruined the lives of countless citizens, sent and kept good men in jail, enabled sex offenders to roam free while castigating the innocent as predators... and the only thing they can come up with is a snippet of a sentence from the NAS report on which to hang their fortunes and future paychecks.
QuoteYou know damn well that when you use the term "naive" when speaking about those who willing undergo a polygraph and later confess, you are not speaking about people who are "not previously subjected to experimentation or a particular experimental situation <made the test with ~ rats>..." as Mr. webster would define it. You mean people who are stupid enough, in your opinion, to fall for what you believe to be a vodoo science.
It's funny, the only people these days who are stupid enough to believe polygraphy is anything BUT voodoo science seem to be the polygraphers themselves. Looks like we have a new demographic from which we may draw for jury pools, eh b.m.?
QuoteYou state, "If you truly believe that my opposition to polygraphy (and, in particular, to polygraph screening) is based on nothing more than my personal experience, you are mistaken, Batman." Really? So your opposition is something more pure? You simply stumbled upon this unsound science, and took up the crusade? Was your willingness to undergo a polygraph for employment within the Federal Government simply some undercover ploy on your part to ferret out more information?
Rosa Parks wanted to sit in the front of the bus. In refusing to be relegated to the back of the bus, she unwittingly triggered a civil rights movement that changed society. Who knows what was on her mind that day? I doubt she envisioned what would happen in the months and years to come-- she just knew she was tired of being treated like a second-class citizen, was fed up with it in fact, and wasn't going to take it anymore. Would you make the same crass insults to Ms. Parks as you do to George? For you to argue motivation for becoming involved rather than the substance of the debate is a specious tactic that reveals the hollow nature of the merits of your side of the argument.
Altruism is rarely if ever the sole motivating factor in progress. One group of people oppressing another group of people usually is. Do you know why the Holland Tunnel was built? Not for the free and open movement of peoples between states (altruistic), but because New Jersey farmers were sick and tired of the oppressive barge-tariffs their goods were getting slammed with by the NYC government (greed).
Edward Archbald fought back with a vengeance when a drunk British soldier-- clanging his sword against his Boston barracks wall to see the pretty sparks fly-- decided Mr. Archbald would be a more enjoyable target. In simply fighting for his life Mr. Archbald initiated a series of events that resulted in the first armed conflict of the American Revolution. I guess that makes the inhabitants of Boston a bunch of whiners. If Batman were there, he'd be exhorting them to turn in their rifles and quit stirring up trouble. "Hey what's the matter, Mr. Archbald? Were you turned down for enlistment in the British Army? You're such a jerk Eddie!"
Hey asswipe, the concept that the founding of our country was a direct result of colonists refusing to pay a stamp duty on 'every piece of vellum, or parchment, or sheet or piece of paper, on which shall be ingrossed, written or printed, any declaration, plea, replication, rejoinder, demurrer, or other pleading, or any copy thereof, in any court of law within the British colonies and plantations in America' is arguably legitimate. How about that? Some greedy printers got fed up with being taxed to death, and the end result is the greatest republic in history. I guess those Founder dudes suck because they were more interested in keeping what they had earned than with obeying what was the Colonial version of your precious 'Federal Policy'.
Do you get where I'm going with this, you petty tyrant? In this current debate and battle, you are the moral equivilant of the bus driver trying to shove a poor black woman to the rear. You are the moral equivalent of the drunken British soldier playing Pin The Tail on The Citizen. You are the despot. You are the Good German soldier. It's ok, Batman, we know you're just following orders.
If the end result of someone vindicating their integrity by forming a website that gets the word out that the tool that was used to arbitrarily deny him his own personal pursuit of happiness is no tool at all but rather a clumsy weapon that has done infinitely more harm than good....... then I for one am fine with that.
In conclusion, each time you post your little jibes, your admissions that the only reason you're here is to prevaricate and insult, you clarify that much more to the disinterested third parties who read these discussions that the polygraph is a dangerous thing when entrusted to creeps like yourself. Have a super great day, b.m.
Dave
People everywhere enjoy believing things that they know are not true. It spares them the ordeal of thinking for themselves and taking the responsibility for what they know. - Brooks Atkinson
Wow. :D
DAY TWO OF THE TWOBLOCK CHALLENGE
Geez TwoBlock, I just read the damn challenge, give me a break will ya?
I will answer your questions, but first, thanks George for answering mine.
Now for the BlockHead Challenge:
Ques #1: "Am I a polygraph examiner?" - Yes
Ques #2: "For what agency do you work?" - I work for a Federal Agency, however which one has no bearing on my posts on this site, so I will not disclose it.
Ques #3: "If you do work in LE, do you think the amount of time you spend on this site, instead catching criminals and a SPY, is screwing away our tax money?" - The time I spend on this site is my off time, I do get some. As for the tax payers money, I would venture to say that in your "profession" as a gold miner, you probably haven't paid any taxes in years so quit your bitchin'.
Ques #4: "Some of us have told you our line of work. Will you tell us yours?" - Read the answer to question #1 numb-nuts!
Now for the walking time bomb, Beech Trees. Bud, you need to get some serious anger management counseling. You sound like you're about ready to explode. Not healthy dude! By the way, given that you are such a staunch American patriot, in what branch did you serve, and for how long? Rosa Parks? The Holland Tunnel? Eddie Archbald? German soldier? I think your starting to lose it. Step back, take a deep breath, count to ten, then go take a flying leap. You continue to be a jerk, but you are good at it!
George,
Again thanks for the answers, but I do find one thing a bit puzzling. If you had passed your polygraph and accepted a position, with the FBI I believe, would there have ever been an Anti-polygraph.org, or would you have simply pressed on within the FBI?
Batman
Batman
You missed the most important question.
Do you believe our elected officials, legislators, AG's, DA's and appointed officials i.e. judges, should have to pass the polygraph in order to assume or hold their office? What percentage do you think would pass?
Hey Bud, I doubt if your tax bill would amount to 5% of mine. See, some of us don't have to lie in dealing with our subjects or OUR government. When I make a mistake, it costs ME. NOT DEDUCTABLE. Government corruption also costs ME!! The deal making in our State Houses and Washington D. C. is corrupt. As a Federal LE, go polygraph them and put their asses in jail. Maybe that would cure your "red ass" and you wouldn't feel it necessary to call people names.
SUPPOSITORY Bud SUPPOSITORY!!!!
Batman,
You write:
QuoteQues #1: "Am I a polygraph examiner?" - Yes
It seems, then, that you were dissembling when you previously let on that you are not a polygrapher...
On 25 July 2002 you wrote (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=665.msg3682#msg3682) to Beech Trees:
QuoteWhy do you assume I am a part of the pseudo-scientific fraud of polgraphy? ?Again, an erroneous assumption on your part.
And on 27 June 2002, you wrote (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=622.msg3236#msg3236) to Skeptic:
QuoteI have been in the law enforcement field since 1978, and in that time have had a tremendous amount of exposure to interviews, interrogations, and polygraph. ?Why assume that I am a polygraph examiner?
And on 17 May 2002, you wrote (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=571.msg2935#msg2935) to Former Officer:
QuoteI take almost as much offense at your assumption that I am a "tester" as you do to my assumption you have had "non-official" invovlement with illegal drugs. ?
I'm simply an individual who believes that web sites such as this do more harm than good because they promote an unhealthy approach toward life. ?Do you think I am a tester or pro-polygraph simply because I am willing to keep the door open to the potential usefulness of the polygraph as an aid to investigations. ?Maybe I have had some exposure to the technique wherein it was of tremendous assistance. ?Maybe I'm just willing to entertain both sides of the issue. ?Maybe I just like to get folks like you all fired up, kind of like kicking an ant hill. ?Or, God forbid, maybe I am a POLYGRAPH EXAMINER, run away, run away!!!!
Batman,
You write:
QuoteGeorge,
Again thanks for the answers, but I do find one thing a bit puzzling. ?If you had passed your polygraph and accepted a position, with the FBI I believe, would there have ever been an Anti- polygraph.org, or would you have simply pressed on within the FBI?
Batman
Had I passed my FBI polygraph examination, I suppose I would have have continued, as before, to have little interest in polygraphy. It was the Kafkaesque experience of being falsely accused of having disclosed classified information to unauthorized persons and having had contacts with a foreign intelligence service that first prompted me to research polygraphy and discover that it is a pseudoscientific fraud. And it was the realization, years later, that many others have been -- and continue to be -- falsely accused that prompted me take a public stance against it.
It should come as no surprise to anyone that those falsely accused by polygraphers are working to expose and end polygraph waste, fraud, and abuse. I make no apology for that.
Twoblock,
Could you please define the conditions of the following.
Quote
I challange all of you propoly's to answer those questions about polygraphing elected and appointed officials.
If it is for general screening, my answer will stand as it has always.
As for your other questions, I think I have answered all but one through my previous posts here.
George, George, George,
You, better than anyone, should know when words and answers are crafted for a self-serving advantage.
TwoGoofy was the first person. that I recall, to directly ask me if I was a Polygraph examiner. When he asked, I answered.
"Why do you assume I am a part of the pseudo-scientific fraud of polgraphy? ?Again, an erroneous assumption on your part." My words exactly. I do not believe polygraph to be a pseudo scientific fraud.
"I have been in the law enforcement field since 1978, and in that time have had a tremendous amount of exposure to interviews, interrogations, and polygraph. Why assume that I am a polygraph examiner?" My words, exacty. I have been in law enforcement since '78, and have the experience I speak of. I then asked the question.
"I take almost as much offense at your assumption that I am a "tester" as you do to my assumption you have had "non-official" invovlement with illegal drugs. I'm simply an individual who believes that web sites such as this do more harm than good because they promote an unhealthy approach toward life. ?Do you think I am a tester or pro-polygraph simply because I am willing to keep the door open to the potential usefulness of the polygraph as an aid to investigations. ?Maybe I have had some exposure to the technique wherein it was of tremendous assistance. ?Maybe I'm just willing to entertain both sides of the issue. ?Maybe I just like to get folks like you all fired up, kind of like kicking an ant hill. ?Or, God forbid, maybe I am a POLYGRAPH EXAMINER, run away, run away!!!!" Yup, I said it. I do take offense to being referred to as a "tester". Just a personal thing.
Anyway, gotta go. Didn't lie, wouldn't do it, wouldn't be prudent! Just answered questions and made statements much like many others who visit this site and claim to be so rightous.
Batman's gotta call (Bathroom call that is).
Batman
Looks like 'ol Batman studied well at the Bill Clinton School of Honesty.
We all know his definition of 'is' now.
Come on Peach Tree, you can do better than that.
A clown like you knows how the game is played. You do a good job of taking your own quotes and redefining them when the cheese gets a bit binding. It's kinda like when George uses the term "naive".
If you want to know the right answer, ask the right question dufuss. That's one of the first rules of a good polygraph examination. Oh yeah, I forgot, there is no such thing as a good polygraph examination according to you, BlockHead, and others.
One other thing, Bill Clinton doesn't have a school of honesty, you should know that! Actually, I'm more a Rush fan myself. You wouldn't be a Democrat would ya? Voted for Al Gore, cried like a baby while claiming he got robbed. It would fit your profile. Oh, did I say that, profile? Damn, another one of those BS Law Enforcement concepts. They just keep sneaking out.
Well Peachy, you just go and have yourself a fine polygraph day. By the way, you going to seek out that counseling I suggested? Also, what about that service to your country question, you red, white, and blue bleeder you? Does your patriotism really run deep, or do you just pull it out when accusing others of being despots, petty tyrants, and good German soldiers?
By the way jerk-off, don't formulate opinions on how one would does his or her job based on what they post on this site. God, if that were the case, some would assume that you carry a gun to your job at the post office every day. As for me, I would venture to say that you are very competent at what you do, and well thought of in the work place. It's just that when your fingers start dancing across that keyboard, the jerk in you pushes to the top. It happens, so don't worry about it.
TwoDumb, I answered your challenge, got any others Einstein?
Batman
(Or Asswipe to Peachy, I did laugh when I read that, thanks!)
J. B.
Good to see you back. As well as I remember your posts, you do debate the issues.
What I meant by polygraphing government officials is: That they should have to be subjected to the same rigorous background check, including polygraphy, as do the prospective hires for the FBI, CIA, etc. Polygraph questions should include those stated in the open letter in the reading room of this site.
The definition of a politician is "you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours". A lot of this back scratching is so deep (defense cantracts, medical, pharmaceutical, etc.) it causes bleeding. The blood is from us taxpayers. I don't believe LE is doing their jobs if they don't go after these highdollar crooks with the same vigor as they do the street crooks. If government corruption could be curtailed, the budget would have a surplus always.
Quote from: Batman on Nov 16, 2002, 12:13 PM
Come on Peach Tree, you can do better than that.
Mmmmmmmmmmmmmno, that one was pretty good. In fact I know it stung, as the length of your retorts is directly related to how deeply I affected you. Judging by this next verbose spewage, I got you good little man.
QuoteA clown like you knows how the game is played. You do a good job of taking your own quotes and redefining them when the cheese gets a bit binding. It's kinda like when George uses the term "naive".
No, not really. My illustration is much closer to the mark. There's no difference between your petty little word games that you used PRECISELY to give the impression that you are not a polygraher when the question was directly asked of you and the cited example of Bill Clinton giving perjurious testimony. I bet you even had the same smug little smile on your face as the Slickster had, didn't you?
QuoteIf you want to know the right answer, ask the right question dufuss.
"It depends on what your definition of 'is' is." -Bill Clinton
(http://www.yale.edu/yup/images/clinton115.jpg)
QuoteThat's one of the first rules of a good polygraph examination. Oh yeah, I forgot, there is no such thing as a good polygraph examination according to you, BlockHead, and others.
If by 'others', you actually mean The National Academy of Sciences, Congress, 99% of the US Court systems, the American Medical Association, etc..... then yes, you're correct.
QuoteOne other thing, Bill Clinton doesn't have a school of honesty, you should know that!
I see the concept of 'dramatic irony' is lost on you. Oh well, judging from my Instant Messages, many others thought it was a hoot.
QuoteActually, I'm more a Rush fan myself. You wouldn't be a Democrat would ya?
No, but you're not the first dim-witted polygrapher or polygrapher apologist who has sought to quickly dismiss what I have to say by blindly compartmentalizing me into a demographic they despise (on these boards, there sure seems to be a lot of Democrat hating going on). Such is the way of a small-minded man. When asked to defend their position, they are caught off-balance and seek to hate and villify the opposition rather than actually defend their profession. "Ooo, I don't like what he's saying, he must be one of them Democrats!"
Democrats and Republican alike in Congress refused to be polygraphed. I wonder why?
QuoteVoted for Al Gore, cried like a baby while claiming he got robbed. It would fit your profile. Oh, did I say that, profile? Damn, another one of those BS Law Enforcement concepts. They just keep sneaking out.
You might want to ask for a tuition refund from the Keystone Police Akademy. I bet you were one of the expert profilers running around looking for an angry white mid-30's Southerner carrying an M-16, weren't you?
QuoteAlso, what about that service to your country question, you red, white, and blue bleeder you? Does your patriotism really run deep, or do you just pull it out when accusing others of being despots, petty tyrants, and good German soldiers?
An interesting question. It's not the right question though, so try again dufus.
batman then pontificates:
QuoteBy the way jerk-off, don't formulate opinions on how one would does his or her job based on what they post on this site.
He then fails to take his own just-recently dispensed edict and writes:
QuoteAs for me, I would venture to say that you are very competent at what you do, and well thought of in the work place. It's just that when your fingers start dancing across that keyboard, the jerk in you pushes to the top. It happens, so don't worry about it.
If you can't hang when the questions start hurting, you always have a little hook-rug on the porch, parser.
Hey Pecker-Head, you wanna step outside?
Beech, do you hate me because I administer polygraph examinations, or because I don't agree with George, or simply because I don't take all this crap as serious as you?
That's your problem, or more accurately, one of your problems. You think that everyone who posts here takes this stuff as serious as you do, therefore you swing first, ask questions later.
You say you want to have an intellectual debate about polygraph, however it is evident that nothing will change your point of view, so what's the point in debating. All you want to do is charge at the fence, so I chose to stand outside the fence and poke you with a stick.
As for the recent murders in the DC area, well, until you get out on the streets, or sit down in a room with someone the likes of those two, maybe you should simply hold fire! Looking at things from the safety of your little computer room really does not qualify your to pass judgement.
On a lighter note, you're a jerk!
Batman
Quote from: Batman on Nov 16, 2002, 05:43 AM
George, George, George,
You, better than anyone, should know when words and answers are crafted for a self-serving advantage.
Batman,
You were knowingly misleading people with your answers. You know it and so do your readers.
It comes as no surprise to me, however, that a polygrapher would have such a casual relationship with the truth.
You know, Batman, I take it back. You haven't made the dialogue here go downhill. All you do is play games, and contribute nothing to the subject(s) at hand. Frankly, I find your posts largely irrelevant.
Skeptic
Who rattled your cage Septic?
Yeah, color me guilty, I knowingly and deliberately "misled" you all as to the fact that I administer polygraph examinations. Contrary to Beech's assertion that I "give the impression that you are not a polygraher when the question was directly asked of you", is also misleading. I was never asked. Everyone just jumped to that conclusion. I never denied it; I simply didn't volunteer or confirm it. However when I was asked directly by TwoBlock, I answered directly.
Exactly what do you guys want? In my past posts I have mentioned the weaknesses of polygraph, I have admitted it is not a perfect tool or technique. It may very well be that any scientific validity attached to it is questionable, but regardless of what you think or want to admit, it works. In my 18 years of administering polygraph examinations in support of criminal investigations, I have assisted in identifying countless individuals involved in criminal activity, and I have assisted in exonerating an equal if not greater number alleged to have committed criminal acts. In no instance has polygraph alone been the single factor that either led to a conviction or exonerated someone. It was simply a tool that assisted in the overall investigation.
That, George is what I mean when I talk about throwing the baby out with the bath water. Simply because polygraph is either misused or has serious flaws as a "screening tool", you want to chuck it all. You folks refuse to acknowledge, even in the slightest way, that it does have some merit, some utility. You label all polygraph examiners as evil doers, all confessions as coerced, and all polygraph successes as the result of "naive" individuals who were too stupid to know better than to confess.
So what is there to debate? What purpose would it serve to have "intelligent" discussions with you folks? You are zealots. You refuse to budge off your positions, even the slightest degree. You simply want to attack everything and everyone remotely associated with the use of polygraph. Well, have at it. As you sit back and scream and yell about the injustice of it all, I'll simply go back into the room, and administer a fair and impartial examination in an attempt to assist an investigation to the best of my ability. It doesn't make me any better or worse than anyone else. It doesn't make me a petty tyrant, or a good German soldier simply following orders. It makes me someone who is doing his job, in as professional a manner as possible. We are not all asswipes, or shitbags, or fascists.
Batman
PS: I may be a super hero member of the Justice League, but that alone won't keep me from taking my shots at all my new buddies on this site. Even good guys have a bit of the butt in them. Superman has Lex Luther; Batman has the Riddler (maybe George in disguise), and BeechTrees (possibly he's the Penguin). ;)
Batman,
And just as you claim not to have intentionally and knowingly misled anyone on this site regarding your profession, I suppose you claim not to have misled examinees about the nature and purpose of control questions for the last eighteen years too, yes?? Right...go tell it to Batboy, hero. Is there any wonder you and your colleagues have zero credibility?? ;D
Good God, this is exactly what I mean when talking about dealing with zealots.
Anonymous, are as blind as you are stupid? Read my last post again. Here, I'll make it easy for you. I said, "Yeah, color me guilty, I knowingly and deliberately "misled" you all as to the fact that I administer polygraph examinations. Contrary to Beech's assertion that I "give the impression that you are not a polygraher when the question was directly asked of you", is also misleading. I was never asked. Everyone just jumped to that conclusion. I never denied it; I simply didn't volunteer or confirm it. However when I was asked directly by TwoBlock, I answered directly."
How much clearer can I possibly be? I used the words knowingly and deliberately, what more do you want?
As for "control" questions, well, just how pissed off do you get at the dentist when he says this will only hurt a little bit? Even though it hurts like a bitch, he gets the job done! Am I supposed to feel guilty when I administer an exam with NDI results that helps to exonerate some young kid on a rape allegation, simply because of how I introduced the "control" questions? Gee, I'll take that one to the confessional with me so as to clear my path to heaven.
As for credibility, I guess that's in the eyes of the beholder. My credibility is in good stead with those that count most.
(Yeah, a bunch of low life polygraph examiners!) Beat you to it bud.
George, are these the folks you really want to align yourself with in your battle against, sorry, I mean for justice?
Batman
PS: Any way you can get that picture of Clinton off this thread? Every time I scroll through he passes by like a bad dream.
Wasn't you issue with drugs george?? Isn't that what kept you out of the Bureau?
Be honest.
Quote from: Batman on Nov 17, 2002, 08:46 AM
Who rattled your cage Septic?
Yeah, color me guilty, I knowingly and deliberately "misled"
PS: I may be a super hero member of the Justice League, but that alone won't keep me from taking my shots at all my new buddies on this site. Even good guys have a bit of the butt in them. Superman has Lex Luther; Batman has the Riddler (maybe George in disguise), ;)
I swear to God I'm not George. You want I should take a polygraph maybe? ::)
Quote from: polylawman on Nov 18, 2002, 01:08 AM
Wasn't your issue with drugs george?? Isn't that what kept you out of the Bureau?
Be honest.
The issue as I see it is George felt victimized. It also appears, being unable to discredit the message, that your going after the messenger.
Judging by the attacks, it suggests that the polygraph community is beginning to feel the effects of this site. And I believe it was DR, Richardson who has stated " You can't keep on telling people that they are lying when the polygraph has no validity and everybody knows that, you can't keep up a bluff like that for long." Why not attack this messenger? Better yet why not take up his challenge?
Quote from: Batman on Nov 17, 2002, 08:46 AM
PS: I may be a super hero member of the Justice League, but that alone won't keep me from taking my shots at all my new buddies on this site. Even good guys have a bit of the butt in them. Superman has Lex Luther; Batman has the Riddler (maybe George in disguise), and BeechTrees (possibly he's the Penguin). ;)
Dear Batman,
Thanks for bringing some humor to the discussion. While your posts and responses might be reruns of former discussions (and reruns are entertaining to a point), your humor is definitely getting better.
Regards.
Quote from: Batman on Nov 16, 2002, 08:08 PM
Hey Pecker-Head, you wanna step outside?
A fine example of defending your position. When your platform crumbles around you, resort to violence. Nicely done.
QuoteBeech, do you hate me because I administer polygraph examinations, or because I don't agree with George, or simply because I don't take all this crap as serious as you?
Hate you? I don't hate you. If I gave you any thought I might though.
Isn't it sad that a simple dilletante of the travesty of polygraphy takes it more seriously han a self-professed expert, one who actually makes his living in the career of lying to others?
QuoteThat's your problem, or more accurately, one of your problems. You think that everyone who posts here takes this stuff as serious as you do, therefore you swing first, ask questions later.
Psychoanalysis now? Was it in Week Seven or Week Eight of polygraph school that you earned your degree in psychoanalysis? Perchance you have some inkblots I can look at as well.
I take the debate seriously. In fact I lead a fulfilling life away from this debate, but that doesn't stop me from illustrating the very real harm men like you cause to our society.
QuoteYou say you want to have an intellectual debate about polygraph, however it is evident that nothing will change your point of view, so what's the point in debating.
In fact I have modified my position somewhat since I first started posting here. Both pro-polygraph and anti-polygraph types have convinced me that certain uses of the polygraph are useful for their 'utility', i.e., tricking confessions out of the guilty. It's clear however that said utility is NEVER enough for your type, and you are always seeking to use the charted results of the interrogation in a myriad of abusive ways. Did he pass the polygraph? Seek to exclude or trash the results. Seek to smear the polygrapher himself (remember Gary Condit? Like I've said before, it's so sad when you guys eat one of your own.) Did he fail the polygraph? Seek to include the results. Was the polygraph inconclusive? Seek to characterize it as a failure anyway. Didn't get the results you wanted? Polygraph 'em again. And again. And again. To conclude on this particular topic, I debate when a contrary position is raised by 'your side'-- I do this for the disinterested or vacillating third party who read these discussions. I already know how you or your type will answer. [See your next thought for proof]
QuoteAll you want to do is charge at the fence, so I chose to stand outside the fence and poke you with a stick.
Yes, you've made it abundantly clear the reasons why you've inserted yourself in these discussions is to ridicule, prevaricate, obfuscate, and generally be a nuisance. That's fine, I suppose that could be considered great fun by a small-minded man so I'll let you have your sport. But don't you find it just a little hypocritical to then take the moral highground and lament that I won't debate you? Perhaps not, as you've shown your relationship to the truth is somewhat tenous anyway. Do you lie to your employers with the same joyous abandon that you lie to your interrogation subjects? How does the 'Dentist Simile' fly with your bosses when they catch you stretching and torturing the truth with them? Or do you only feel comfortable lying to the citizens you're sworn to protect and serve?
B.M., I allow you to believe you're rattling the cage because to do so furthers my agenda-- namely by illustrating that nine times out of ten it's a creep like you sitting across from the test subject. You're the one peering out from between the bars, not I.
QuoteAs for the recent murders in the DC area, well, until you get out on the streets, or sit down in a room with someone the likes of those two, maybe you should simply hold fire! Looking at things from the safety of your little computer room really does not qualify your to pass judgement.
The old 'walk a mile in my shoes' lament. Isn't it funny that in all these exchanges, you just naturally assumed I have no relationship to law enforcement or the military? Why is that?
In fact I have modified my position somewhat since I first started posting here. Both pro-polygraph and anti-polygraph types have convinced me that certain uses of the polygraph are useful for their 'utility', i.e., tricking confessions out of the guilty.
Well said Batman.
Hey george. Do you think polygraph should be used in any way?? If not , what do you believe is better?????
Trees,
You must be the biggest sourpuss in your neighborhood.
Do you wanna step outside? That's a joke son! You know, like you and me are going at it, and I say, "Hey, you wanna step outside?" Get it?? I guess not. What do you do on Halloween, turn your porch light off, or do you sucker the little ones in and pour water on them from the second floor window? Man, you just need to laugh a little. You know that 75% of what I post to you is just sarcastic BS. What makes it so much fun is that you take it all so damn serious.
You asked, "Isn't it funny that in all these exchanges, you just naturally assumed I have no relationship to law enforcement or the military? Why is that?"
Maybe because you come across like a pansy?
As for the debate, pull the blinders off, you'll see more clearly. I didn't lament that you wouldn't debate, I asked what would be the point? There would be no chance of changing your stance, even a little bit. Unlike you, I see no reason to piss into the wind just for the sake of feeling the warm liquid come back at me. However, you seem to really enjoy the feeling so piss on brother, piss on.
One last little dig at your roots Tree. How come you always come to the defense of George, but he never comes to your defense? He just lets you kind of hang out there spinning. My money says he reads these posts and laughs his ample butt off!
As I cruise through the various threads that you so intently give your input too, I notice a common theme; everyone else thinks you're a JERK too!
Batman
Since I have to be away for a while, I thought I would answer my own question and make an observation or two. You see, my taxes have to pay Batdung's salary again next year so, I have to start maintaining old and building new equipment in preparation for spring mining start.
I think the reason the propoly's won't touch the political question is that they know if politicians are forced to take a polygraph they would abolish it in a heartbeat. Roughly 80% believe they couldn't pass one. Same goes for Judges, AG's and DA's.
Observation: The J. Edgar Hoover syndrome lives on. "Target and Smear" those who would oppose his programs. Get dirt on D. C. Politico's so he could control them. How many thousands of hours did his agents spend doing this? Did he ever have a budget turned down or even a major alteration? This from a man who's life style had such a stink it drew buzzards off a gut wagon.To me, this is government corruption. Lyndon Johnson did the same thing. Hell, I guess they all do to some extent. Who amoung you would lead a chagre to stop government waste? A claw hammer, labeled as an "inertia impact instrument", selling for $400. Give me a break. This is theft on a federal level. Why won't federal LE go after these defense contractors and the politicians who are into their pocket books? If you won't fight it, you're a part of it.
Batdung, you are so full of hot air you could put your mouth over a horse's ass and blow the bit out of his mouth.
Now I'm having fun.
See you in a couple of weeks. Won't even be here to read the responses. If there are any.
I think the reason the propoly's won't touch the political question is that they know if politicians are forced to take a polygraph they would abolish it in a heartbeat. Roughly 80% believe they couldn't pass one. Same goes for Judges, AG's and DA's.
We wont touch it because your argument here is not only laughable but contradicts your entire statement. You say that they would abolish it because they couldn't pass one. So by stating this you are admitting that the polygraph works.
Or haven't you thought of that?
DUMMY!!!!!
Quote from: polylawman on Nov 18, 2002, 07:58 PM
I think the reason the propoly's won't touch the political question is that they know if politicians are forced to take a polygraph they would abolish it in a heartbeat. Roughly 80% believe they couldn't pass one. Same goes for Judges, AG's and DA's.
We wont touch it because your argument here is not only laughable but contradicts your entire statement. You say that they would abolish it because they couldn't pass one. So by stating this you are admitting that the polygraph works.
Or haven't you thought of that?
DUMMY!!!!!
Ah, the brain surgeons that populate this profession...
polylawman, read what he wrote again. He said "roughly 80%
believe they couldn't pass one" (emphasis added). He didn't say they were justified in believing this.
Frankly, I'm sure many of them wouldn't "pass" one, either, and it has nothing to do with how truthful they'd be.
*sigh*
Skeptic
Quote from: polylawman on Nov 18, 2002, 04:08 PM
In fact I have modified my position somewhat since I first started posting here. Both pro-polygraph and anti-polygraph types have convinced me that certain uses of the polygraph are useful for their 'utility', i.e., tricking confessions out of the guilty.
Well said Batman.
Hey george. Do you think polygraph should be used in any way?? If not , what do you believe is better?????
Batman, would you please get out your Bat Pooperscooper? Your boy made another mess.
"polylawman', the above cited quote was written be ME, not your intellectual equal to whom you attributed it.
polylawman
Just returned and read your reply.
Skeptic explained my statement.
Why is my argument for the truth any more laughable than yours and your machine? We elect these people, and they appoint others, to do the right thing for us. NOT THEMSELVES. We vote out a crook and another takes his place. You advocate polygraphing street crooks. What is laughable about TRYING get the truth from politicains and appointed officials with the polygraph? (That is if the truth is in them). Don't you believe in yours and your machine's ability to do this? Are you afraid of them?
I will not resort to adjectives as you did.