fbi polygraph in one week - pls. help!

[spark]

Hmmm...seems like a rather petty retort.  Little screen name twist, then a "these are facts" and then you're on to your next UFO chase.  I am not a member of your "we say so cooperation."  I already told you why I am here...entertainment.  Fox news isn't cutting it tonight.  I only have one question for you to chew on...how do the guilty suppress guilty knowledge?  If that isn't possible, then the only person you are attempting to screw with is the innocent...and if you and your UFO chasing clones aren't "really" false positives (I don't think the average person buys your "I promise's" and "I say so's" , but instead, think to themselves...those are just persons with DQ'ing issues that ultimately caused them problems on their tests), which of course led you to form the sour grapes committee... then the only persons your hurting is others trying to get a job you couldn't get (because when they do get caught using CM's they get DQ'd...just look at your own forum)...because of course, past indiscretions you haven't accepted accountability for.  Sounds like a pretty asinine thing to do...why not just grab your marbles and go home.    

[spark]

The notion that a person can be "cleared" based on polygraph results is a dangerous delusion.

Not when it is shortly there after confirmed.  Just face it George, not all of your rants and raves perfectly fit into the square hole.

[George W. Maschke]

Not when it is shortly there after confirmed.  Just face it George, not all of your rants and raves perfectly fit into the square hole.

If there was evidence apart from polygraph results that cleared two people of wrongdoing, then it is that evidence, and not polygraph chart readings, that exculpated them. Polygraphy has no scientific basis, and "test" outcomes are evidence of nothing. The investigator who relies on polygraph results to exclude suspects is a fool.

[spark]

Lets say.... "I" say "YOU" did this and that..."you" say no I didn't.. and then you take a polygraph TEST that shows "your" not lying about not doing this and that.  Then subsequently, "I" am called back in and told I'm not being truthful about George and it is time to come clean...accept some...accountability (I love that word).  Shortly there after, "I" say your right, George didn't do this and that, I made that $hit up...sorry.  If George didn't trust in the exam and didn't come in and take the fricken test, and been cleared, there would have been NO reason to ever not believe "me" because George was fingered in this crime for a reason, he's a little shady, and everyone knows it, and it would have been/was assumed I am credible and if George didn't want to exonerate himself, well...that's on George.  Maybe he wouldn't have never been "convicted" of said allegation, but who cares, he still would have had to check "yes" to have you ever been charged for this and that, and NOW HE DOESN'T.  That scenario happened twice for me today...now I ask, what good have you done for mankind today?

[EosJupiter]

Hmmm...seems like a rather petty retort.  Little screen name twist, then a "these are facts" and then you're on to your next UFO chase.  I am not a member of your "we say so cooperation."  I already told you why I am here...entertainment.  Fox news isn't cutting it tonight.  I only have one question for you to chew on...how do the guilty suppress guilty knowledge?  If that isn't possible, then the only person you are attempting to screw with is the innocent...and if you and your UFO chasing clones aren't "really" false positives (I don't think the average person buys your "I promise's" and "I say so's" , but instead, think to themselves...those are just persons with DQ'ing issues that ultimately caused them problems on their tests), which of course led you to form the sour grapes committee... then the only persons your hurting is others trying to get a job you couldn't get (because when they do get caught using CM's they get DQ'd...just look at your own forum)...because of course, past indiscretions you haven't accepted accountability for.  Sounds like a pretty asinine thing to do...why not just grab your marbles and go home.    

Spark,

If you have folks that you have DQ'd using countermeasures, then have them come post and prove it with their rejection letters. Proof is what counts here, Prove your statements, otherwise like all the rest, your just a another no proof polygrapher. But I give you credit, you do have more to say then the run of the mill polygrapher who comes on to prove us wrong. Or take the challenge from George and go on Penn & Tellers Bullshit show and show us we are wrong. Not much of a UFO believer, but I bet this website is an unending source of irratation for you. Otherwise why are you here. And to the contrary its you polygraphers we find highly entertaining. But then again we anti types (UFO Chasers) aren't allowed on your pro website.

And what have we done for mankind today, put a stop to the false positives by the BS machine and gameshow host polygraphers. Bottom line only the weak break, and the secret to beating you is never give up anything. And no job is worth being polygraphed for. And again the more problems we cause for the polygraph community, eventually your deck of cards (stim test) will fall.

Regards

[George W. Maschke]

Lets say.... "I" say "YOU" did this and that..."you" say no I didn't.. and then you take a polygraph TEST that shows "your" not lying about not doing this and that.  Then subsequently, "I" am called back in and told I'm not being truthful about George and it is time to come clean...accept some...accountability (I love that word).  Shortly there after, "I" say your right, George didn't do this and that, I made that $hit up...sorry.  If George didn't trust in the exam and didn't come in and take the fricken test, and been cleared, there would have been NO reason to ever not believe "me" because George was fingered in this crime for a reason, he's a little shady, and everyone knows it, and it would have been/was assumed I am credible and if George didn't want to exonerate himself, well...that's on George.  Maybe he wouldn't have never been "convicted" of said allegation, but who cares, he still would have had to check "yes" to have you ever been charged for this and that, and NOW HE DOESN'T.  That scenario happened twice for me today...now I ask, what good have you done for mankind today?

Spark,

If you succeeded in convincing someone who had borne false witness to recant his accusation, that is wonderful, and I congratulate you. For a criminal interrogator, I think there could hardly be a more rewarding experience than to vindicate a person who has been wrongly accused. But it is wrong to suppose that such an experience imparts validity to polygraphy (which, again, has no scientific basis).

Because of polygraphy's unreliability, a person falsely accused who submits to a polygraph interrogation might very well become a false positive, wrongly reinforcing suspicions against him. Conversely, a liar might pass the polygraph, either through the random error associated with polygraphy (as did "Angel of Death" Charles Cullen and "Green River Killer" Gary Leon Ridgway) or through the use of countermeasures.

To the extent that investigators rely on the polygraph, they should understand that it is little more than an interrogational prop. While it may be useful for getting admissions/confessions from the naive and gullible, the chart readings themselves are evidence of nothing.

And, back to the original topic of this message thread, by no means should polygraph results be relied on to assess the honesty and integrity of applicants for employment.

[retcopper]

George

  You missed Sparks point or you are trying to distort the facts. He said that evidence later became available that CONFIRMED  his determination of the polygraph test.  The evidencee bolstered the poly results.  If the evidence didn't turn up the end result would still be the same.

Last week I tested a subject who denied a charge. Litlte did I know that two days before she took the test a letter that she wrote admiiting to the offense was found.  

I determined that she was deceptive adn I  found out the next day about the note. The  following day I interviewed her about it and she confessed to the allegation. Now that is also a confirmation of the polygraph exam, just like Sparks example.

[Wallerstein]

I think that even George would say that the polygraph has more validity when it comes to criminal investigations--i.e., in situations where the scope is inherently limited--e.g., were you in Dayton, Ohio on the night of...Did you murder .... Etc.  

When it comes to pre-employment screening though it is simply a scientific fact that the polygraph is flawed.  Polygraphers would prefer to think that there are no false positives and that George is lying...that there really is something in his past that caused him to fail his FBI polys.  What a crock.  Look at this resume and the efforts he took after "failing" to remedy the situation.  

Bottom line is many people are deemed deceptive by polygraphers in pre employment screenings when they are telling the polygrapher the bald truth.  That's what it boils down to.  Pure and simple.  The rest is horseshit.

[George W. Maschke]

Retcopper,

I'm certainly not trying to distort facts. But I don't think I misunderstood Spark's point, either. I agree that a polygraph outcome may later be confirmed (or disconfirmed) by other evidence (including a post-polygraph confession, as in the example Spark provided). My point is simply that because polygraphy has no scientific basis, a suspect should never be considered "cleared" based merely on a passed polygraph examination.

[George W. Maschke]

I think that even George would say that the polygraph has more validity when it comes to criminal investigations--i.e., in situations where the scope is inherently limited--e.g., were you in Dayton, Ohio on the night of...Did you murder .... Etc.

Actually, no, I wouldn't. CQT polygraphy is completely invalid as a diagnostic test for deception in both situations, as explained in Chapter 1 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector.

[Wallerstein]

Apologies for putting words in your mouth then.

[Collectivist]

>>Wouldn't the butt clench countermeasure be the most >>effective?

 
>>Why do you believe this would be the case?

Because if you walk in and see that there isn't a sensor on the chair, the butt clench is an undetectable physical countermeasure that seems guaranteed to produce a response. While mental countermeasures seem less guaranteed to me. I don't know about you but  thinking about getting beaten up or stabbed looses it menace after one or two run throughs, I just dont think I can make the image real enough in 5 seconds. Further, it just doesn't seem to be time enough to get fristrated by mental math.  I like the  the tounge bite but I don't see how you can do it without detectable jaw movement.

[George W. Maschke]

>>Wouldn't the butt clench countermeasure be the most >>effective?

>>Why do you believe this would be the case?

Because if you walk in and see that there isn't a sensor on the chair, the butt clench is an undetectable physical countermeasure that seems guaranteed to produce a response. While mental countermeasures seem less guaranteed to me. I don't know about you but  thinking about getting beaten up or stabbed looses it menace after one or two run throughs, I just dont think I can make the image real enough in 5 seconds. Further, it just doesn't seem to be time enough to get fristrated by mental math.  I like the  the tounge bite but I don't see how you can do it without detectable jaw movement.

The only two peer-reviewed countermeasure studies available (by Charles Honts and others, cited with abstracts in the bibliography of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector) considered, respectively, 1) pressing the toes to the floor and tongue-biting, and 2) pressing the toes to the floor or tongue-biting and mental countermeasures (counting backward rapidly by 7s). No one countermeasure seemed to outperform the others. Although the anal sphincter contraction was not considered, I see no reason to suppose that it is superior.

Tongue-biting can be accomplished with minimal movement by biting down slowly on the side of the tongue (not the middle).