Reply to PolygraphPlace.com Moderator Paul Woolley

[beech trees]

Beechtrees,

First of all you ask about me about the activity sensor and that you could not find it on the manufacturers site (suggesting it does not exist),only after you are given the information do you identify yourself as someone who took a test with the use of the very c/measure device mentioned.

Mr. Woolley,

I knew to which sensor you made reference in your first post on the subject of countermeasure detection. I couldn't believe you were making the assertion that it could detect sphincter contraction because I had so expeditiously passed my polygraph interrogation using that selfsame technique whilst seated upon said sensor. Thus, I feigned ignorance as to which piece of equipment you were referring in the hopes you would clarify and confirm my suspicions.

Then you try to allude to the fact that the device is fake, a ploy used by examiners to intimidate examinees (not true).

While I have no empirical evidence that the pads are placebo, my anecdotal evidence confirms my statement above. I'm not a super-secret double agent, I'm merely Joe Sixpack who spent a few hours practicing countermeasures. My interrogator on the other hand is intimately familiar with Lafeyette computerized polygraphs and has had years of polygraph experience.

You would not of said this if you had been tested with the use of this device as you would know it was not a"fake" as you put it and you would also know it existed . You also mention you were having fun at my expense because you are intimately aware of these devices

I knew it existed, Mr. Woolley. My post was a ploy to absolutely confirm we were discussing the same piece of equipment. You may confirm my prior knowledge easily enough by reading this thread. You will note that message, posted on September 5th, 2001 initiated my search for information on the type of polygraph equipment on which I knew I was to be interrogated.

I have a lot of trouble with your approach and your commentry about your experience with aforementioned devices,A fabrication in my personal opinion.

Would you like to polygraph me on the topic? That way we could be certain.

I am not interested in responding to any further posts from you as I am not here to waste time or to be the object of someones "fun" .

I'm certain responding to posts by me has been less than pleasant. I leave it to my learned colleagues on this list to remain dispassionate and clinical in their posts. If it helps, you may think of me as the Thomas Paine of the antipolygraph community.

In an effort to support your hypothesis you embellish.
Clearly you were never tested with the use of this device.
Lx 4000 has replaced the Lx 3000 and 2000.

Nope. Not once Mr. Woolley. Unlike my pre-test polygraph interviewer, I haven't embellished once on this board.

As evidenced by my posted link above, my polygraph interrogation took place some time ago. This fact, combined with the fact that I felt it would be unwise during the test to crane my head around far enough to read the software version on my interrogator's computer screen may account for uncertainty as to which version was used. Suffice to say it would have been the latest version available as of my testing date.

[Paul Woolley]

Beechtrees,

Your response proves you have embellished on this site
You State:
I knew it existed, Mr. Woolley. My post was a ploy to absolutely confirm we were discussing the same piece of equipment. You may confirm my prior knowledge easily enough by reading this thread. You will note that message, posted on September 5th, 2001 initiated my search for information on the type of polygraph equipment on which I knew I was to be interrogated.

I had a look at your thread you offer as proof of your prior knowledge there is no mention of the activity sensor.
This is because Lafayette tell me the activity sensor in question was NOT listed on their site in September 2001.
You could not of known about it as it was not available at the time you state. Once again I say you embellish.

You claim:  

Nope. Not once Mr. Woolley. Unlike my pre-test polygraph interviewer, I haven't embellished once on this board.
As evidenced by my posted link above, my polygraph interrogation took place some time ago.

It appears that you even lie to the people on this board to accomplish your end, as well as your potential employer.  
You could not have had any prior knowledge about the activity sensor, as you state, as your evidence shows you are in fact making that part up.  What else is a misleading fabrication?  
  

[beech trees]

Beechtrees,

Your response proves you have embellished on this site

huh?

You State:
I knew it existed, Mr. Woolley. My post was a ploy to absolutely confirm we were discussing the same piece of equipment. You may confirm my prior knowledge easily enough by reading this thread. You will note that message, posted on September 5th, 2001 initiated my search for information on the type of polygraph equipment on which I knew I was to be interrogated.

I had a look at your thread you offer as proof of your prior knowledge there is no mention of the activity sensor.
This is because Lafayette tell me the activity sensor in question was NOT listed on their site in September 2001.
You could not of known about it as it was not available at the time you state. Once again I say you embellish.

The catalog I hold now in my hands was created  on 10/04/01, a scant 15 days or so after my polygraph interrogation. The activity sensors are listed there, as they were on the previous edition I downloaded. You're right, Mr. Woolley, I make no mention of possible countermeasure detection devices in my post asking for information on the Lafayette Instrument Co. That hardly proves anything, other than the fact that I knew as of that date that I would be polygraphed using Lafayette equipment. In numerous emails, Internet searches, and visits to the library I sought out all information I could on that company's equipment, including accessories like chairs, strain gauges, and 'sensor pads'.

I find your suspicious nature suspicious in and of itself-- to quote Hamlet, "The [lady] doth protest too much, methinks." Knowing that a good offense sometimes makes the best defense, you have repeatedly offended by calling my simple statements of facts 'embellishments'. Why would I embellish? What possible reason would I have to lie about such a thing?Unlike you, I have no monetary interest at stake in this whole affair. Unlike you, I have no compelling interest in the argument to save my livelihood.

If it should persuade you (and I doubt seriously it will), I swear on the life of my son that my ass sat upon your activity sensor pad during my entire polygraph interrogation.

And, lest we forget, Mr. Woolley, my polygraph interrogator lied to me. Repeatedly.

You have repeatedly called me a liar, Mr. Woolley. Isn't it true that my polygraph interrogator expected me to lie? Yes or no, please.

[paul woolley]

Beechtrees,

Of course examiners expect you to lie or at least be uncomfortable when answering controls,but this does not mean we have to lie to get you to. Your examiner would not of been expecting you to lie to relevants. If we use the directed lie control format there is little chance this will happen with any examiner.

You admit to lying on your polygraph to relevant questions and seem proud of it so my repeated reference to you fits.

You state:
The catalog I hold now in my hands was created  on 10/04/01, a scant 15 days or so after my polygraph interrogation. The activity sensors are listed there, as they were on the previous edition I downloaded.

The activity sensor in question was put on their site on the 10/1/01 so you would of had no idea about this device until you took your test. You claim you were intimately aware of this device prior to your polygraph, that cannot be true.
Seeing you made such a point about finding out if we were talking about the same piece of equipment and you have now shown you have embellished on this board.

The previous edition did not have the sensor in question particularly if you downloaded it in Sep.  

You ask:
Why would I embellish? What possible reason would I have to lie about such a thing?Unlike you, I have no monetary interest at stake in this whole affair. Unlike you, I have no compelling interest in the argument to save my livelihood.

First of all to prove me wrong .
If you have no monetary interest in polygraph was your test a pre-employment test ? If it was I think you have monetary interest if you like it or not. That is why most of the users of this board are here their job prospects were affected in some way and hence income that is why they hate anything to do with polygraph so much.

I am not here to save my livelihood it is not in question, and I am not being paid to come here. I only want to point out that not everything stated on this site is correct.

Particularly the statements that there is no peer-reviewed literature on single issue testing formats that support CQT polygraph applications. Also all examiners lie to subjects to get them to lie to controls another misleading statement, which you have bought into, not ALL examiners do.

I have no doubt you were tested, the thing I doubt is your claims about the activity sensor, as indicated above, if your examiner had the activity sensor he must not have been using it as you would of been asked to do certain things to calibrate it. So maybe you were right about that particular examiner if what you say is true.

When this device was released at an APA conference Lafayette had it setup so anyone could see how good it was at detecting the ever popular sphincter contraction or any other covert type countermeasure. It detected all of them  even the slightest (sphincter) movement showed up. That is why I am suspicious.  
  
I do not mean to offend I have only been reacting to the tone of your posts.