Video and/or Sound Recording of Polygraphs

[sackett]

You also know nothing of the posters.  You assume, possibly incorrectly, because it fits your view of the world that ALL the people here complaining about the way they were treated are being, in fact, truthful.  Well, you assume that as long as their not pro-polygraph, anyway... awful fair of you!

Sackett

[notguilty1]

You also know nothing of the posters.  You assume, possibly incorrectly, because it fits your view of the world that ALL the people here complaining about the way they were treated are being, in fact, truthful.  Well, you assume that as long as their not pro-polygraph, anyway... awful fair of you!

Sackett

Well, Yes I guess your right and this board could be filled with people that come on here to just come up with untrue stories but then of course that would apply to you too Sackett we don't know that anything you say is true either.
So lets not get caught up in that. I think most readers can work through what they can or cannot believe and what is probably true.

[Twoblock]

Sackett

You are correct about me not knowing the posters either. Doesn't have anything to do with pro or anti. There have been some that posted about their trials and troubles at the hands of their polygrapher and how they were falsely failed that I immediately pegged as being untruthful because of the way they explained it. As it turned out, I was right. Others have been polygraphers posting as anti's that I immediately pegged as polygraphers and, yes, as it turned out, I was right. It's not fair to judge all false positives as liars when their experiences jibe.

I try to be fair in my discussions with polygraphers until they start with the smart-ass snippets, like the one who suggested that I re-apply (implying that I failed a test) and then I dramatically respond just like you people do in coming to the defence of all polygraphers thinking they are not capable of wrong decissions regardless.  As I have posted before, I took one long before EPPA, purposely lied (hell I knew CMs then) passed, got the job and raised the company's profits 16% the first year. Didn't get compensated for my hard work so I utilized my middle finger and left.

[sackett]

...and what about the "anti" posters, posting as multiple personalities here.  In other words, trying to make this board look active with many posters and victims, when in fact, there are VERY few...?

Sackett

[Twoblock]

Sackett

I don't condone falsehoods from EITHER side. If a post isn't blantant enough for me to decide (only a personal suspicion), I PM George for further info. If my suspicion is unfounded, I let it go. I don't automatically jump up and accuse them of being liars, turncoats, etc., like most polygraphers who visit this site because I can't confirm it and neither can you. All of you seem to feel that, by doing this, it is helping your cause. I personally feel that it is hurting your cause. I have learned from this site that, if I was to ever have to take a pre-employment polygraph, I would go in with the feeling that this guy/gal is going to treat me with unethical, rude, and maybe illegal behavior and I would be prepaired. I guarantee you I would beat you. This is the message that most of you leave in your posts. Given, a few of you are not like this, but how would I know what kind of personality I was going to meet?

"...and what about the "anti" posters, posting as multiple personalities here". Can you back up that statement with percentages of many against VERY few with true facts or are you guessing again?

[sackett]

Sackett

I don't condone falsehoods from EITHER side. If a post isn't blantant enough for me to decide (only a personal suspicion), I PM George for further info. If my suspicion is unfounded, I let it go. I don't automatically jump up and accuse them of being liars, turncoats, etc., like most polygraphers who visit this site because I can't confirm it and neither can you. All of you seem to feel that, by doing this, it is helping your cause. I personally feel that it is hurting your cause. I have learned from this site that, if I was to ever have to take a pre-employment polygraph, I would go in with the feeling that this guy/gal is going to treat me with unethical, rude, and maybe illegal behavior and I would be prepaired. I guarantee you I would beat you. This is the message that most of you leave in your posts. Given, a few of you are not like this, but how would I know what kind of personality I was going to meet?

"...and what about the "anti" posters, posting as multiple personalities here". Can you back up that statement with percentages of many against VERY few with true facts or are you guessing again?

You make an interesting statement.  Especially given that every examiner on this board has been attacked as liars, unethical charletons, rude and criminal in nature and actions.  Many of the anti posters here are caught up in a fanatical cause.  That's OK, you'll attack me as doing the same, when all I do is my job.  Difference is, you took a test, apparently failed and now crusade against it; while I perform them and make my living from them and successfully I might add.

If you don't "get" a statement, you PM George?  That's not seemingly unbias on your part; therefore, your intentions and purpose are obvious.

This site is not about any truth, but how to attack polygraph and make it less viable.  Call it a conspiracy, call it a crusade, call it freedom of information, call it a chat room, I don't care.  Problem is, as previously stated to Mr Cullen, it is NOT going to go away!  The minimal efforts here hardly have any effect on the use of polygraph as a whole, while examiners are in fact working hard to get standardized and more professional.  This site does in fact help in that effort.

As for pre-employment testing.  Examinees who come for pre-employments who "play" around in the test or display an attitude, will most likely not get the job they desparately want and probably worked hard for.  So who's really tricking and being dishonest to whom...?  

With only one recent claim that CM's worked (ie, sniper; and even he admitted he didn't really need them...)  where are the many examinees who I (and others like me) catch on a fairly frequent basis?

Let's agree to disagree!  

Sackett  

P.S.  As for "anti" poster imposters?  Yes, it is apparent, but no, I can't prove it to you.  Read the typos, misspellings and stories and they are clearly made by more than one, BUT, many are also as obviously repeated by the same, under a different name.  As for providing proof of anything.  Can you provide me proof that examiners can not identify CM's better than "chance"?  Or better, can you provide me proof that CM's actually work?   Empty challenges, by either side, mean nothing.

[Twoblock]

Sackett

Re: Your first paragraph. Do you skim read? You should read for detail. I said that I took ONE (1) pre-employment poly, purposely lied (because I didn't believe in them then but was too busy for a crusade then), passed and got the job. I really didn't want the job, but in any undertaking I do my very best. I have been successfully self employed since 1972. Never have and wouldn't apply for a government job. (Take that back. I volenteered for the Navy, spent 4 years and loved it). No need what so ever for an employment poly. Yet, you are the second polygrapher to accuse me of doing so and failing. Why do you do that?

I may have, but I don't remember ever personally attacking you i.e. calling names making wild accusations, etc. I  have probably over-dramatized a few of my responses to you even though you are one of the more decent polygraphers to use these boards. Also, I believe you do the best job that you can in what ever you do and would never accuse you of failing a poly that you didn't take. Ha.

At any rate, I agree with you that the polygraph will be around for awhile. Probably until we force poluted-crats and federal judges to take one and pass it to accept or retain their jobs. If that ever happens the poly will go away.

I really have fun here, but the time has come for fun to stop and work to begin. Therefore I will not be monitoring these board much for the next 5 months. Maybe for another few days. If that's case, all have a good summer. You too, Sackett. I have no hard feelings toward you personally.

[nopolycop]

...and what about the "anti" posters, posting as multiple personalities here.  In other words, trying to make this board look active with many posters and victims, when in fact, there are VERY few...?

Sackett

And who would these people be, praytell?

[Sergeant1107]

P.S.  As for "anti" poster imposters?  Yes, it is apparent, but no, I can't prove it to you.  Read the typos, misspellings and stories and they are clearly made by more than one, BUT, many are also as obviously repeated by the same, under a different name.  As for providing proof of anything.  Can you provide me proof that examiners can not identify CM's better than "chance"?  Or better, can you provide me proof that CM's actually work?   Empty challenges, by either side, mean nothing.

My experiences in failing three polygraphs despite being completely truthful in all of them have proven to my satisfaction that polygraphs are not reliable detectors of truth or deception.

[T.M. Cullen]

My experiences in failing three polygraphs despite being completely truthful in all of them have proven to my satisfaction that polygraphs are not reliable detectors of truth or deception.

Well, they have to make a living.

Besides, got anything better to replace it?

Blah! Blah! Blah!

P.S.  How do you KNOW you were telling the truth?   :-/

They claim a 95-98% accuracy rate.  What are the chances you were in that exceptional 3-5% on THREE SEPARATE TESTS.

I find that hard to believe!

[Fair Chance]

Kind of fell off of the thread here.

Polygraph users do not like the idea that someone could "cherry-pick" sound bites from an exam to take a question out of context and make the exam looked like it was rigged.

Polygraph examinees do not like the idea of having examiners "cherry-pick" reactions and treating them as "deception" bases solely on personel perception or prejudice.

I cannot find any economic reason to not record an exam with "edit proof" technology to ensure that questions or answers are not taken out of context.

Recordings should be available for all exams and make me question any examiner who refuses to do so.

All posting polygraph examiners state they would record all exams yet so many still do not citing weak excuses about "privacy."  Polygraph questions are very intrusive and no examiner ever respects any ones right to not answer on the basis of privacy.

All exams should be audio recorded at a minimum.  End of debate.

Regards.

[TheNoLieGuy4U]

       Fair Chance,

  I think you make some very good points in that no real professional should fear their test being video taped and/or audio taped as to show the event later to authorized concerned parties.  One does however give up certain privacy rights when applying for a job that pays via taxpayer money, but ofcourse those areas that an examiner may no go into are covered by labor law in both federal and your respective State statutes / or labor case law.  

[Twoblock]

The_Wolf

Sackett seems to have a problem answering my questions so I wonder, since you seem to be a fairly straight shooter, if you might give it a shot.

Earlier on this thread I ask him "How far off am I". To date no response.

Sackett

Only you can answer my direct question of "Why do you do that" in response to your apparent accusation that I took a pre-employment poly and failed. This after I had explained that I took one (only ONE), passed and got the job.

To asnwer you question "Does CMs really work)? Yes they really do work. I used them and passed with flying colors on my ONE test in the 1960s.

[sackett]

twoblock,

yes, I do skim read.  Reason is, much of the blustery garbage I read here is just that.  I'm interested in intelligent discussions not hearing about the whining and complaining about how bad my profession is.  
Opinions are like, well, you know the rest...

Having said that, I recognize you took one test, way, long time ago and that you reportedly used CM's.  OK.  Times change and so do (slowly) the ability of examiners.  When you took your test, grandfathering of training was still acceptable.  No longer.

What question are you saying I failed to answer?  I'll bet I answered it somewhere here and you might be just as guilty of skim reading...

Sackett

P.S.  I agree.  No anomosity.  Have a good summer and "see" you when you get back.

[T.M. Cullen]

 

I'm interested in intelligent discussions not hearing about the whining and complaining about how bad my profession is.  

Then the following might be of interest to you:

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309084369

TC