I am switching my allegiance…

[InnocentWithPTSD]

Sorry Guys and Gals:

The nameless one has convinced me to switch sides.  Even though I personally know for a fact that the polygraphic techniques are far from accurate, nonombre actually has or claims a M.S. in Forensic Science and a State License.  He has convinced me that even though up to 45% of completely innocent victims might 'fail' a polygraph exam, this is of little import to a nation where humans are considered innocent until proven guilty by a Court of Law.  Our modern technology permits us to circumvent this silly requirement succinctly.

Therefore, I respectfully suggest we all modify our stance and agree with our government completely. All persons on the public payroll must pass a quarterly polygraph exam with concurrent layered voice analysis (LVA).  To be equitable, this must encompass all Federal, State and Local government employees from the lowliest Custodial Technician to the President of the United States.  We can then become "The Land of Polygraphy and the Home of the Slave".  Will it take an act of Congress to change our currency to read "IN POLYGRAPHY WE TRUST"?

The first step in the rational deployment of polygraphy/LVA will be in our court system.  Just imagine how simple it will be to approve appointment and continuance of Supreme Court Justices by accusing them all of crimes and measuring their twitches.  Just imagine dear reader, no more tedious and costly appointment hearings!

Once our Judicial staff has been validated acceptable by polygraphy and LVA, we needs progress to members of the bar.  Here we might suggest attorneys cleared by polygraphy/LVA be referred to as having passed the "Limbo Bar".

The natural progression of our enlightenment would be then to certify the truthfulness of our politicians and lawmakers.  Our taxes pay their salaries and we really need to know if they are truly acting in our best interests and not theirs.

Since we have a sure means of determining deception, we will no longer need to provide material evidence to convict criminals.  All we have to do is accuse a human of a crime and monitor the entrails of said human with instrumentation to prove its guilt.  This means can realize a great cost savings to the taxpayer vis-à-vis elimination of police investigations.  

It really is wonderful that we have the polygraph.  I envision portable detectors one might carry which can analyze any human one might encounter for deception.  We can as a society then simply 'rubber stamp' a scarlet letter on its person to display for all to see its deception.

I believe this is a very "Modest Proposal" that must be Swift_ly implemented.

Lloyd Ploense
I am switching my allegiance...

[George W. Maschke]

Lloyd,

See our "modest proposal" at pp. 83-84 of the 4th edition of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector.

[Lethe]

I agree with the content of both of the preceding posts.  If we must polygraph people in these sensitive positions, I agree with George that it is even more necessary to polygraph the people to whom they report.  

But, Lloyd, do you really think that the average polygrapher is sufficiently educated to catch, let along comprehend, your allusion to Jonathan Swift?  Evidence indicates otherwise.  And, George, a fortiori?    There are more snowballs in hell than there are polygraphers who are familiar with that term.  These guys don't travel in very broad circles and the liberal arts almost totally escape them, if the sample that we see here is at all representative of the whole herd.

-- Jacob

[InnocentWithPTSD]

No, I do not believe the average polygraph operator is outside plus or minus 1 sigma with regard to the human intelligence distribution.  High intelligence would be a liability to polygraph operators because they must convince the victims their methods are reliable.  So, polygraph operators must be scientifically quite naïve and possessed of charismatic fervor or experienced con men.

Lloyd Ploense

[1904]

I agree with the content of both of the preceding posts.  If we must polygraph people in these sensitive positions, I agree with George that it is even more necessary to polygraph the people to whom they report.  

But, Lloyd, do you really think that the average polygrapher is sufficiently educated to catch, let along comprehend, your allusion to Jonathan Swift?  Evidence indicates otherwise.  And, George, a fortiori?    There are more snowballs in hell than there are polygraphers who are familiar with that term.  These guys don't travel in very broad circles and the liberal arts almost totally escape them, if the sample that we see here is at all representative of the whole herd.

-- Jacob

One thing is for sure, knowingly or unknowingly, they have adopted the Psalmanazar code of conduct.

[Stan_Smith]

It is my understanding that polygraph testimony is not admissable in court, but is simply used to guide law inforcement in the right direction.  If so, those with nothing to hide, should have no problem with taking a polygraph.  Please correct me if I'm wrong here.

[EosJupiter]

It is my understanding that polygraph testimony is not admissable in court, but is simply used to guide law inforcement in the right direction.  If so, those with nothing to hide, should have no problem with taking a polygraph.  Please correct me if I'm wrong here.

Stan_Smith,

As a first time poster, I will give you the benefit of the doubt to your simplistic comment.  So you are corrected and your wrong, and I give you this advise to make yourself smarter about the polygraph.  Download, "The Lie Behind The Lie Detector" (TLBLD) EBook, from this websites main page. Read it thoroughly, then spend some time in the blog area and read about how innocent people are wrongly accused of crimes, and other assorted nasty things. The polygraph is nothing more than an interrogation prop, used to intimidate and extract confessions, real or made up. With the exception of New Mexico, the polygraph is not valid in a court of law in the US, some states allow it if both parties agree to its use. With some time and knowlege you should be able to answer your own question.

Regards .....

[1904]

It is my understanding that polygraph testimony is not admissable in court, but is simply used to guide law inforcement in the right direction.  If so, those with nothing to hide, should have no problem with taking a polygraph.  Please correct me if I'm wrong here.

Yes, you are wrong and require correction.
A polygraph cannot be used to guide anyone or anything in the right direction.
If those who enforce the law are so lacking in talent and skills to the effect that they require guidance from a machine, then may God help us all.
It is akin to throwing 'the bones' and then asking the bones if it will rain tomorrow.

Do you also believe in witches and fairies???

[Stan_Smith]

ya'll are a little touchy on this subject, huh?  Are you saying a polygraph is completely useless?  I would think if it were, it would not still be in use.  Seems to me a useful tool, nothing more, nothing less.

[EosJupiter]

ya'll are a little touchy on this subject, huh?  Are you saying a polygraph is completely useless?  I would think if it were, it would not still be in use.  Seems to me a useful tool, nothing more, nothing less.

1.

Are you saying a polygraph is completely useless?

Yes, I am saying it is useless. It only works on the naive, the unread, and those foolish
enough to put any faith in its ability to decipher the so called truth. Once you understand how and why it works, the fear and anxiety levels never even come close to being there for that polygrapher. Effectively defeating it. Knowlege is power in this case, the more you know,the bigger bain to the polygrapher you become. And if you have the courage to tell him that his machine and his process are a load, The polygraph session will effectively end.  And watching a pissed off polygrapher in action is highly entertaining.

2.

Seems to me a useful tool, nothing more, nothing less.

Its an effective tool to budge admissions and confessions from those not smart enough to know its a crock, a fassad, it scares those not cognitively equipped into giving up  and confessing. Even to things they have never done.


So read learn and become polygraph literate. The next person in the chair could be you. And you will be mighty thankful that you have the knowlege.

Regards ....

[InnocentWithPTSD]

Hi Stan:

From your PM discourse with me it seems you are a New Jersey Law Enforcement Officer.  Perhaps I've met you before.  Howdy.

Please do not confuse yourself on this polygraph issue.  There actually are cold and hard scientific forensic tools.  Fingerprints, GC/MS, dental work, fiber analysis to mention a few.  Detection ot deception through polygraph testing is not one of these but a fraud our government cannot decry because of liability problems.  Search the records of my postings here Stan, read and learn dude.  Hey, I really am a scientist though the polygrapher who tested me (perhaps you?) could not believe that.

Have a nice day Stan.

Lloyd Ploense

[Stan_Smith]

Hey Lloyd,

No, I am not a police officer or polygrapher of any kind.  I have read what you have written and it all seems a bit of hysterical paranoia to tell you the truth.  I'll not bother you with pm's anymore, as you seem a bit unstable, to be honest.  I hope, that IF you are innocent of what you are being accused of, that a polygraph does not cause you any further difficulties.

Stan

[InnocentWithPTSD]

Hi Stan:

You seem to believe now that you are a psychologist or psychiatrist.  

In your response above you sound like one of my ex-wives: Without reason or logic, an emotional reaction is triggered and false accusations of mental instability are made.  False and bizarre accusations are also a hallmark of polygraph examiners.  I'm not falling for that con pal.

Please collect your wits and respond with intelligible answers to questions on this site.

I'm glad you are not (or at least claim not to be) the Union County New Jersey Police Lieutenant who interrogated me using the polygraph prop con.  He reminded me too much of the sadistic criminal Clarence McCormick who tormented a large number of innocent children and myself in a similar manner during my youth.  

Clarence modified and misapplied standard psychological tests such as the Bender-Gestalt to convince parents that their children had "motor development" problems and were at risk of developing learning disabilities.  Clarence collected a lot of fast money from the parents of the children he tormented.

I've attached a pdf file containing statements of other prop con victims.  I hope you can now grasp why I'm up in arms about the present government sanction of polygraphy.

Have a nice day Stan.

Lloyd Ploense
PS:  If you really are in LE, please check the attached information with the FEDs and get back to me.  I'd like to know if that creepy con man was ever brought to justice.

Attachment deleted at poster's request -- AntiPolygraph.org Administrator

[Stan_Smith]

"Please collect your wits and respond with intelligible answers to questions on this site"

You claim I am making false and bizzare accusations and then hit me with an ad hom attack.  

I have read your posts  and have come to the conclusion that you "doth protest too much".  Again, NO, I am not a police officer.  However, in purusing this sight, I have come to the conclusion (I'm sure you'll disagree) that most who post on this site blathering on about how polygraph's are a "prop con", etc., are probably guilty and using their posts here as a way to claim innocence.

Yes, I understand the polygraph is far from infailible, yet I can't help but think statistically, those truly innocent would rarely be convicted soley from a polygraph.  If I am wrong, please show me some statistics to back up your claims.

Thanks Lloyd, and as I've said before, if you are truly innocent of what you are being accused of, I honestly hope you beat the wrap.

Stan

[InnocentWithPTSD]

So Stan:

I encourage you to try obtaining a position that requires a polygraph exam.  Alternatively, I would like you to be the victim of a crime and accused of committing the crime yourself in a polygraph exam.  Either way, because polygraph testing is a con, there is at least a 45% chance you will be found to be deceptive.  I don't consider that favorable odds.  Do you?

So, before you judge me with camp homily, try walking a mile in my shoes.

BTW, I'm not your judge though I can and will dispute the content of your postings here.  Your belief system seems oddly skewed.  Sorry if I come off as a bit harsh.  There are good reasons for this.

Lloyd Ploense