Polygraph analysis questions

[Wonder_Woman]

Wise up,  RU 2Block in disguise?

[Wiseup]

Lovely, another member of the villiage people ----sans the talent. Soooooooo....wiseup, what be your analysis? Care to comment on the topic of polygraph, or are you just stopping by for the food?

No food here just BS folks are serving up. Your plate sounds full... Are you the butler?

[Wonder_Woman]

Hello  2block.  I knew it was you.  So why the name change. ...deleted cheap shot at 2block...

[Paradiddle]

Deleted ad hom attack on wiseup's manhood. Sorry administrator!

[Administrator]

Further posts to this message thread should substantively address the topic(s) raised by the initial poster.

[tbld]

Sooo, now you're making it personal because your psychobabble BS isnt
getting you anywhere...

Whats with all the "Boss, Chief, Bucko, " BS.
Its seriously not even slightly funny. Just because
your colleagues are wetting their pants doesnt make you comic of the year.
You're still just a deluded clown spewing out BS syllables.

If you're an example of the best & brightest in the APA circus,
then there is hope for everyone.

Bi now Jerry. I'm done wit you. Dont forget yr reading homework.

Good point what is with all this chief bucko stuff i remember doin and saying things like that in 8th grade... you know polys rely solely on someone being naive about how they work...

[Paradiddle]

Sooo, now you're making it personal because your psychobabble BS isnt
getting you anywhere...

Whats with all the "Boss, Chief, Bucko, " BS.
Its seriously not even slightly funny. Just because
your colleagues are wetting their pants doesnt make you comic of the year.
You're still just a deluded clown spewing out BS syllables.

If you're an example of the best & brightest in the APA circus,
then there is hope for everyone.

Bi now Jerry. I'm done wit you. Dont forget yr reading homework.

Good point what is with all this chief bucko stuff i remember doin and saying things like that in 8th grade... you know polys rely solely on someone being naive about how they work...

If that were true, than why are hundreds if not several thousand polygraph examiners required to be polygraphed every year? Despite the mustard-covered horse shit you read around here, no one knows more about polygraph than polygraph examiners----yet we are tested, with knowledge of every aspect of construct. Could someone please answer my point without ad hom or kick-standing the point with distortion?

[Sergeant1107]

If that were true, than why are hundreds if not several thousand polygraph examiners required to be polygraphed every year? Despite the mustard-covered horse shit you read around here, no one knows more about polygraph than polygraph examiners----yet we are tested, with knowledge of every aspect of construct. Could someone please answer my point without ad hom or kick-standing the point with distortion?

You mentioned this in another thread and I thought I addressed it.

It is completely irrelevant how many polygraph examiners are required to take polygraph tests.  

What would be relevant is how accurate those polygraph tests were on the examiners.  

The only people who could possibly give an answer on that would be the examiners themselves, and only if they lied (successfully) on their polygraph exam and then were willing to admit to that in order to provide proof that the polygraph is inaccurate.

It seems doubtful that such a scenario would ever occur.

[Paradiddle]

If that were true, than why are hundreds if not several thousand polygraph examiners required to be polygraphed every year? Despite the mustard-covered horse shit you read around here, no one knows more about polygraph than polygraph examiners----yet we are tested, with knowledge of every aspect of construct. Could someone please answer my point without ad hom or kick-standing the point with distortion?

You mentioned this in another thread and I thought I addressed it.

It is completely irrelevant how many polygraph examiners are required to take polygraph tests.  

What would be relevant is how accurate those polygraph tests were on the examiners.  

The only people who could possibly give an answer on that would be the examiners themselves, and only if they lied (successfully) on their polygraph exam and then were willing to admit to that in order to provide proof that the polygraph is inaccurate.

It seems doubtful that such a scenario would ever occur.

Yes, I have mentioned it in an earlier thread and Unfortunately I will continue to mention it until someone answers the question without braking for kool aid. You have no more answered/addressed the point than you have merely asked a seperate question-----the kind of circular logic that I have come to master by this site's model. Soooooo, "Sarge", tell me-----why aren't polygraph examiners waived from being tested due to such "ease" of countermeasures and such "knowledge/awareness of construct detriment to accuracy(Lethe's dumb point)"? Can you even answer this one question, or are you going to private message George in a panic to ask for advice as the rest do.

[Sergeant1107]

Yes, I have mentioned it in an earlier thread and Unfortunately I will continue to mention it until someone answers the question without braking for kool aid. You have no more answered/addressed the point than you have merely asked a seperate question-----the kind of circular logic that I have come to master by this site's model. Soooooo, "Sarge", tell me-----why aren't polygraph examiners waived from being tested due to such "ease" of countermeasures? Can you even answer this one question, or are you going to private message George in a panic to ask for advice as the rest do.

I don't know that it is true that "thousands" of polygraph examiners are required to be polygraphed, but if it is I have no direct knowledge of why polygraph examiners are not waived from being tested.  If you have such knowledge feel free to share it.

I did not mention countermeasures, so I am curious as to why you brought them up.

I was working on the belief that knowledge of the polygraph and its procedures (something an examiner should certainly have) makes it virtually impossible to "scare" them into believing the polygraph will detect deception.  It is that knowledge, not the use of countermeasures, that makes them unsuitable test subjects.

I am certain you can see that the number of polygraph examiners that take the test is utterly irrelevant.  Without knowing the percentage of test-takers that lied and the percentage of liars that were detected by the polygraph the mere number of people taking the test is useless.

If I said five thousand people were polygraphed last week, what possible legitimate conclusion could you draw regarding the accuracy or lack of accuracy of the polygraph?  

[George W. Maschke]

...Soooooo, "Sarge", tell me-----why aren't polygraph examiners waived from being tested due to such "ease" of countermeasures and such "knowledge/awareness of construct detriment to accuracy(Lethe's dumb point)"?...

Polygraphers who work for agencies that require polygraph screening are themselves required to submit to polygraph screening for the sake of keeping up appearances. How would it look to the rank-and-file if the polygraphers were themselves exempted?

But it is unheard of for a polygrapher to flunk a fellow polygrapher. Please forgive the vulgar analogy, but it is one that I have made before, and it is apt: polygraphers polygraphing polygraphers is an exercise in mutual masturbation.

[1904]

Oh Migod,
That breaks me up.
4 musketeers. 1x IP address. Same room.
Wooo hooo, you go boys.

[Paradiddle]

...Soooooo, "Sarge", tell me-----why aren't polygraph examiners waived from being tested due to such "ease" of countermeasures and such "knowledge/awareness of construct detriment to accuracy(Lethe's dumb point)"?...

Polygraphers who work for agencies that require polygraph screening are themselves required to submit to polygraph screening for the sake of keeping up appearances. How would it look to the rank-and-file if the polygraphers were themselves exempted?

But it is unheard of for a polygrapher to flunk a fellow polygrapher. Please forgive the vulgar analogy, but it is one that I have made before, and it is apt: polygraphers polygraphing polygraphers is an exercise in mutual masturbation.

Please site your source for such an accusation. You are essentially accusing the US government polygraph programs and all of its polygraph examiners of high treason, and I suggest you back up such a statement with facts.

[George W. Maschke]

Please site your source for such an accusation. You are essentially accusing the US government polygraph programs and all of its polygraph examiners of high treason, and I suggest you back up such a statement with facts.

Paradiddle,

Perhaps you have a point. It is not entirely unheard of for a polygrapher to flunk a fellow polygrapher: in 2004, the CIA's polygraph division retaliated against retired CIA polygrapher John Sullivan by "flunking" him after he wrote a book that some in the unit found unflattering. But by this time, Sullivan was no longer "part of the team."

If you or anyone else can cite any instance of a polygrapher failing to pass a polygraph screening examination, please enlighten us.

[Paradiddle]

1st and foremost, you assume Mr. Sullivan was truthful on his test, despite the fact that you and all who've read the book know he revealed some things in that book that the agency disliked becoming revealed. I am not calling Mr. Sullivan a liar, but in classic anti-polygraph form, you assume the best of all "flunkee's" as it suits your needs. As an examiner, I do not make such assumptions truthful or deceptive. It would appear that you and minions are quit quick to coddle those that merely state that they were truthful and failed, based on your (and all human) ability to detect sincerety from a few paragraphs. You hear music in farts George.