Drew Richardson Never an Actual FBI Polygraph Examiner?

[Wonder_Woman]

Did I ever say I feared you. lol  

BTW if I was looking at 2 applicants - one showed truthful and the other showed inconclusive....the truthful candidate will win.  Screw up the charts, go a head, we all know you can do that.  Are they real responses - NO.  Will it get you a job - NO

peace

[EosJupiter]

Wonder_Women,

Fear is a relative term, in our case its the state you need for your machine to work. Inconclusives are the worst case scenario. Eliminating and removing the choice out of the polygraphers hands. You can not dismiss or deny employment with inconclusives, hiring rules state that you must pass to be hired, failing gets you eliminated, inconclusives mean someone of consequence has to make a decision. Your culling machine becomes ineffective.  You have to resolve inconclusives don't you. Multiple ones make you look bad. You won't do more than 4 tests on any one subject, as the more you do the less the adrenal reactions available. Its the Law Of Diminishing Return. And if the subject is properly conditioned to resist the F3 reactions, he can manipulate the machine to his advantage. Its thats simple. Again change the question formats, change the conditions, but again the process remains the same. And once you know an opponents game plan, defeating it is easy. I do like the avatar you picked, Marston would be proud !!  

And any organization the makes you take a polygraph as a requirement of employment is not worth working for anyways. The courage is to just say no !!!  

Regards ....

[Wonder_Woman]

Wonder_Women,

Fear is a relative term, in our case its the state you need for your machine to work. Inconclusives are the worst case scenario. Eliminating and removing the choice out of the polygraphers hands. You can not dismiss or deny employment with inconclusives, hiring rules state that you must pass to be hired, failing gets you eliminated, inconclusives mean someone of consequence has to make a decision. Your culling machine becomes ineffective.  You have to resolve inconclusives don't you. Multiple ones make you look bad. You won't do more than 4 tests on any one subject, as the more you do the less the adrenal reactions available. Its the Law Of Diminishing Return. And if the subject is properly conditioned to resist the F3 reactions, he can manipulate the machine to his advantage. Its thats simple. Again change the question formats, change the conditions, but again the process remains the same. And once you know an opponents game plan, defeating it is easy. I do like the avatar you picked, Marston would be proud !!

Regards ....

Let me correct myself.  I kind of had a knee jerk reaction.  It least I didn't call you a whore.

Real inconclusive readings differ from the manipulated ones you employ (don't look forward to me telling you how)   When hiring agencies are looking at candidates, they don't make all decisions based soley on the polygraph.  However, if I report the individuals charts did not have normal phsyiolgical data I would lay odds you would be lower on the totem pole.  Then again, the polygraph examiner DOES NOT make the hiring decision!  It would be better to fail an area on a polygraph and let the investigator investigate the issue further.   As for multiple inconclusives making me look bad - you really don't have a clue. lol

BTW I am surprised it took someone that long to make a marston comment.  I hope your proud of yourself.  My sister can fight better than that.  

peace

[EosJupiter]

BTW I am surprised it took someone that long to make a marston comment.  I hope your proud of yourself.  My sister can fight better than that.

That was a compliment, not an insult. I admire thinking that shows some color to a humorous but grey environment.

Well then only time will bear out who's right and who's wrong. I do keep score with those I help.  8-)

And if its proof you want, stay tuned .....  
I have been very busy as of late, and I wouldn't want to deprive my handiwork from this forum.  


Regards ....

[Paradiddle]

Wonder_Women,

Fear is a relative term, in our case its the state you need for your machine to work. Inconclusives are the worst case scenario. Eliminating and removing the choice out of the polygraphers hands. You can not dismiss or deny employment with inconclusives, hiring rules state that you must pass to be hired, failing gets you eliminated, inconclusives mean someone of consequence has to make a decision. Your culling machine becomes ineffective.  You have to resolve inconclusives don't you. Multiple ones make you look bad. You won't do more than 4 tests on any one subject, as the more you do the less the adrenal reactions available. Its the Law Of Diminishing Return. And if the subject is properly conditioned to resist the F3 reactions, he can manipulate the machine to his advantage. Its thats simple. Again change the question formats, change the conditions, but again the process remains the same. And once you know an opponents game plan, defeating it is easy. I do like the avatar you picked, Marston would be proud !!  

And any organization the makes you take a polygraph as a requirement of employment is not worth working for anyways. The courage is to just say no !!!  

Regards ....

oh Eos, the mind is a terrible thing to waste---and yours is a good mind---thoughtful----even considerate at times----but then you spin your beanie propeller on the subject of polygraph and ----frrrrt. sigh
"Fear"-----let's talk about fear. You can tell someone that if they just control their fear with breathing and yoga that they will become a fluid and fearless public speaker. Then they get up in front of that crowd---and they are extremely nervous---regardless of how they pretend externally. You can claim your Mt Everest skills all you want behind your shield, but 99% of us humans get pretty nervous when our ass is on the line. If Johnny Carson got stage fright, than most of us will also when we are "attached" and in the "light."

4 "tests" or did you mean 4 charts? I am not a geek about type-o's, but if you are going to be a critical theorist, than we need to have a bible class on the difference in terms.

The "Law of Diminishing Return?"----what are you a real estate appraiser? (actually I liked that analogy)


On most polygraph reports right before the "Final Call" section, there is a section titled "Countermeasure Activity:" ----The mere suspicion of countermeasure activity warrants comments and caveats in that section. Many but not all Inconclusives get such a label---especially when they present as "goofy." Now, when an examinee gets the stink of "suspected crude and/or sophisticated countermeasures" attached---it's like wearing a goose around their neck. So, your remarks about "Inconclusives", while interesting and revealing to the modality and/or industry for which you refer, in most agencies and municipalities, Inconclusives are sometimes even unfairly discriminated against. Also,if you can "flatten" your polygrams at will, in most areas (except your inexplicably tardy area) an examiner might write that he suspects pharmeceutical/pharmecological countermeasures due to flat affect. Although I doubt you have such james bond super stoicalness at your will, I suppose because I knew you in a different life that I will give you the superhuman benefit of the doubt----although I'd like to see your charts and your 95 year old examiner.

I need sleep

[nonombre]

The mere suspicion of countermeasure activity warrants comments [/b]and caveats in that section. Many but not all Inconclusives get such a label---especially when they present as "goofy." Now, when an examinee gets the stink of "suspected crude and/or sophisticated countermeasures" attached---it's like wearing a goose around their neck. So, your remarks about "Inconclusives", while interesting and revealing to the modality and/or industry for which you refer, in most agencies and municipalities,

and...

You all might want to know that in many federal and state agencies, a countermeasures call by the examiner is the ONLY personnel action/outcome that CANNOT be appealed...

So keep on "helping" Eos, I am sure your friends will appreciate you...

Nonombre

[EosJupiter]

NoNombre & Paradiddle, whoever .....

As you imply that I am merely all bluster. To this end we shall see !!
Lets agree to disagree, and see what the future brings. You do what you think is right, I will continue on my path. The best science and laws win ......  

And NoNombre after all this time ... you most of all should know I never post anything I can't prove.

The feds and states are already having a hard time getting qualified people to apply. A recent Federal times has a big story on the hiring problems. People are not going to do what they find unpleasant.  Smart people with courage will just say no.

Regards ......

[Sergeant1107]

I have mentioned this before, but I believe it bears repeating.

Among other professional interests, I am a traffic crash reconstructionist.  My work in this area deals largely with Newton's laws of motion and the fact that all objects involved in a collision will conform to those laws.  These physical laws are well established and firmly grounded in science and their validity can be easily proven.

If a web site existed to help people avoid responsibility in traffic accidents, and that web site purported that wearing a blue shirt while driving would make it difficult or impossible for the police to figure out how fast you were traveling when you got into an accident, it wouldn't bother me at all.  If the site suggested that drinking bottled water while driving, or listening to heavy metal would somehow prevent your car from leaving skid marks, side slipping scuff marks, or yaw marks on the roadway, I would likely be amused by such claims.

I cannot imagine taking the time to visit such a site and make multiple, lengthy posts trying to shoot holes in what I believe to be the completely bogus theories provided there.  I cannot imagine being so threatened by such an obviously incorrect site that I would go there and try my best to discredit the people posting the information.

Why do so many polygraph examiners feel the need to come to this site at all?  And, once here, what makes them so upset that they spend so much time posting attacks against the sites founders and supporters and then congratulating each other for doing so?

I can only conclude that the information here is not bogus and the free availability of such information is hurting, or at least inconveniencing, the polygraph profession.  I don't see how any other conclusion makes any sense.

[Paradiddle]

Perhaps you should reconstruct something other than fender benders chief. Reconstruct the fact that this site has tirelessly assailed persons of a profession that are, like your fellow lawman,  trying to catch the bad guys. BAD GUYS SERGE----Not nitwits trying to skate through red lights out of impulsive selfishness. I worked a serial killer case that had the suspect admit to causing an inconclusive on a previous poly due to his emboldened attempt at monkeychair with another Examiner. Did he beat the test? No more than spitting in a urine sample---crude at best. But you people embolden the worst of our fellow humans. You cherry pick your accepted research studies, call us all liars, thieves, and cons. You even have a message board dedicated for sex offenders to keep their mouth shut and play tongue biting games and behavioral charades so that they can be protected from the "evil box."  I have small children, and I take this site as a parent only---as an act of war. This isn't cute like the old controversial Anarchist Cookbook. This site is no better than an anti-abortion site that contains a bomb building blueprint chat thread. I am an actual activist. Antipolygraph.org is not activism, it is something far more sinister.

To Eos and the rest, things are going to be different. Your site will no longer be ignored and treated as a buzzing little stingerless bee. Be cocky, it makes it more fun.

[Sergeant1107]

Perhaps you should reconstruct something other than fender benders chief. Reconstruct the fact that this site has tirelessly assailed persons of a profession that are, like your fellow lawman,  trying to catch the bad guys. BAD GUYS SERGE----Not nitwits trying to skate through red lights out of impulsive selfishness. I worked a serial killer case that had the suspect admit to causing an inconclusive on a previous poly due to his emboldened attempt at monkeychair. Did he beat the test? No more than spitting in a urine sample---crude at best. But you people embolden the worst of our fellow humans. You cherry pick your accepted research studies, call us all liars, thieves, and cons. You even have a message board dedicated for sex offenders to keep their mouth shut and play tongue biting games and behavioral charades so that they can be protected from the "evil box."  I have small children, and I take this site as a parent only---as an act of war. This isn't cute like the old controversial Anarchist Cookbook. This site is no better than an anti-abortion site that contains a bomb building blueprint chat thread. I am an actual activist. Antipolygraph.org is not activism, it is something far more sinister.

I will let my team know that the multiple fatality MVA's we investigate are actually, in your opinion, merely "fender benders."  

You are a proponent of a "test" which, by your own admission, can be beaten or confounded by someone who spends a few minutes researching that test on the Internet.  Wouldn't that make any reasonable person question the validity of such a test?

I have children as well, and would feel no safer knowing the child molester down the block "passed" his most recent polygraph.  I can't imagine that you or any other examiner truly would either.

[EosJupiter]

To Eos and the rest, things are going to be different. Your site will no longer be ignored and treated as a buzzing little stingerless bee. Be cocky, it makes it more fun.

Paradiddle,

I hope you don't ignore us !!!

Remember nothing this website represents is illegal. Nothing anyone is doing is illegal. Its just  a different opinion and perspective from your own and other polygraphers. If you policed your own, and controlled the abuse, I and others on this site would never exist.  You polygraphers created us !!! Now you have to deal with us. A fire starts with a spark, and it started when Jack Trimarco, wrongly did in George.  People of conscience and courage never take abuse, something you polygraphers took for granted way too long.

Regards ...

[Paradiddle]

Again, you guys continue to avoid the original post regarding Drew Richardson's Alleged Phony FBI Examiner Expertise and Bloated Resume. :-/ The denial in this realm is staggering! i.e. Daddy drinks alcohol because he is happy.

Serge, I apoligize for minimizing your work----sincerely. I never stated that CM's work in the sense that they defeat the test consistantly ---let's not split hairs, I take great issue with the advocation here that examinees, some of whom are very dangerous to country and persons, engage in behavior that interferes with my work. A countermeasur during arrest is to kick the arresting officer in the balls---does it defeat the arrest, no----it does damage, risks lives, and at the least makes the job more difficult. It is not enough for you to hate polygraph and be an activist, but you must disrupt it by siding with child molestors? Focus Serge, focus.......yes, you advocate physical disruption. YOUR BUDDY GEORGE HAS A SEX OFFENDER SECTION AND RATHER THAN ENCOURAGING THE OFFENDERS TO WRITE CONGRESS OR PETITION THE USE OF POLYGRAPH, YOU ANTI-GUYS ADVOCATE WRIGGLING AND DISENGAGING FROM TREATMENT AND HEALTHY RESPITE FROM CRIMINAL ACTIVITY. Your comparison of how if a site were to inform speeders of a kind of fuzz buster insults my work.


Eos---a good point, but you still are distancing the subject away from DREW RICHARDSON'S ALLEGED BLOATED AND LACKADAISICAL APPROACH TO RESEARCH AND POLYGRAPH THEORY AND PRACTICE WHILE AT DODPI, AND HAVING NEVER BEEN AN FBI POLYGRAPH EXAMINER AND FURTHERMORE, DREW ALLEGEDLY COULD NOT EVEN SCORE CHARTS AT THE STUDENT LEVEL. On an aside, the states and feds are having trouble not with polygraph, but with the unrealistic cut offs regarding historic drug use. They are in the process of changing the regs/requirements----and it is about time. Too many good people have been DQ'd because they smoked marijuana more than 15 times while in college----a sanctimonious and arbitrary benchmark if there ever was one.
p.s., Eos, you still advocate that sex offenders disengage from treatment and criminal activity respite by virtue of your support. I am sorry, but you are not associating with Robin Hood in this realm.

[George W. Maschke]

Again, you guys continue to avoid the original post regarding Drew Richardson's Alleged Phony FBI Examiner Expertise and Bloated Resume. :-/ The denial in this realm is staggering! i.e. Daddy drinks alcohol because he is happy.

Your original post has not been avoided. You suggested that Dr. Richardson has misrepresented his credentials. I addressed this allegation head-on in the very first reply to your post, citing verbatim Dr. Richardson's testimony before a U.S. Senate subcommittee and the National Academy of Sciences. In neither case did Dr. Richardson misrepresent his credentials.

Dr.  Richardson has also responded to Mr. Johnson's declaration and politely answered your mockingly phrased follow-up questions.

Despite much hyperventilation, you have made no showing that Dr. Richardson has ever misrepresented his credentials.

[EosJupiter]

p.s., Eos, you still advocate that sex offenders disengage from treatment and criminal activity respite by virtue of your support. I am sorry, but you are not associating with Robin Hood in this realm.

Paradiddle,

So guilt by association is it. Find anywhere in my posts (444), where I advocate or support criminal activity. I have said that criminals have the right to a stout legal defense, no matter what the crime. I advocate that for positions of trust, 100% honesty is required. I believe we need the best Law Enforcement can get, at every level.  But no where will you find such comments or postings to that effect. I have been admonished on this website for my opinions about the use of polygraph on sex offenders. I just don't care if you use it. My fight remains in the employment / job arena. That is where I remain. And the Drew Richardson document, and the allegations. Drew addressed it all. FINI

And in defense of SARGE, he is the kind of LEO with a heart and conscience, doing what he believes is right. Just like you do. With the exception that his paycheck is not on the line if traffic violations go away.

Regards ....

[Mysterymeat]

Sargeant,

Wake up and smell the decade here buddy! It is not the pro-poly folks who are doing the slamming here! This web site was set up to do nothing more than to try to discredit polygraph and the people who work in the field. Just look at the players:

George Maschke:
His only REAL polygraph experience is failing two of them! Now he hides behind this site in the Netherlands.

Dr. Drew Richardson:
Less than 12 polygraph exams and he is an expert?? Last time I heard, the good doctor was still standing out on Front Street with his pants down around his ankles.

Gino who?

I think I have made my point. The pro poly people are not picking the fight-they are just fighting back.

Regards