Polygraph Countermeasure Challenge

[Anonymous]

Torpedo,

We'd love to see the cowards come out of their closed/secret/censored chat forum on polygraphplace.com and debate us.  Please extend the invitation.  Cheers...

[Batman]

Hey Chicken Shit (aka Anonymous),

Come on "pal", meet the challenge.  What do you do for a living other than posting bullshit on this site?  Why won't you answer?  How can it hurt?  

Also, just what exactly is your experience with polygraph?  

For the record, I have been a polygraph examiner since 1984.  I have administered polygraph examinations in support of just about every type of investigation.  I have held positions at both the field level and at the Quality Control level.  I have been on the receiving end of no less than four polygraph examinations.  

So, what is your polygraph related experience?  What exposure have you had?  How many polygraph examinations have you either administered or recieved?  Lets make it easy, how many have you even observed?  

In most debates one has to establish some level of bonifides to be considered knowledgable on a particular subject.  On the subject of polygraph it's time for you to establish yours, then maybe we can debate.

I'm not asking you to stoop to any level lower than what you have already reached.  Simply lay out a few of your credentials as it pertains to the topic of polygraph.  It's a fair request given the fact you want to engage in a debate on the topic.

From what I can see here, the only person who has had any real exposure to polygraph is Mr. Richardson, and I would venture to say, most of his was spent in the area of research for the FBI, not on the streets running charts.  As far as I know, George has never placed the pneumo tubes on anyone, at least for the purposes of administering a polygraph examination.  Simply taking one and failing it does not an expert make.  

You're all pretty quick to attack Ed Gelb's supposed credentials (and I am no fan of his), but your so damn reluctant to cite a few of your own.

Stop with the bullshit and get serious.  If you want to debate then establish your right (other than just having an opinion and an asshole to voice it) to do so.  Lay out your credentials by answering a few simple questions.  Once you do that then maybe we can talk.  Until then, get back to the barn yard and keep pecking!

Torpedo, I'm with ya brother!

Batman    

[Skeptic]

In most debates one has to establish some level of bonifides to be considered knowledgable on a particular subject.  On the subject of polygraph it's time for you to establish yours, then maybe we can debate.

Ridiculous, unless one is claiming personal experience on a subject.  It is not necessary to have such to carry on a meaningful debate -- it is simply necessary to be able to back up assertions with authoritative sources.  This happens all the time in debate.

Batman, I honestly wouldn't care a whit whether you are a polygrapher or not, unless you either a) lied one way or another about it, calling into question your intentions or b) made claims that directly require personal knowledge.  Most of what we discuss here doesn't require personal knowledge.

Stop with the bullshit and get serious.  If you want to debate then establish your right (other than just having an opinion and an asshole to voice it) to do so.  Lay out your credentials by answering a few simple questions.  Once you do that then maybe we can talk.  Until then, get back to the barn yard and keep pecking!

So, in other words, until one is a terrorist, no one has the right to criticize terrorists or call them cowards?

For the record, no, I'm not saying polygraphers are the moral equivalent of terrorists -- far from it.  But the idea that one has to be a veteran polygrapher to see -- and criticize -- the polygraph's flaws, or have been or known a polygrapher to recognize the unwillingness of the profession to back up oft-stated claims, is ludicrous on its face.  This is, indeed, a form of cowardice.

Still not much in the way of logical debate from the "pro-polygraph" side.  An awful lot of "non-anger" about that countermeasure banner, though.

Skeptic

[Anonymous]

Batman,

You write:

...For the record, I have been a polygraph examiner since 1984.  I have administered polygraph examinations in support of just about every type of investigation.  I have held positions at both the field level and at the Quality Control level.  I have been on the receiving end of no less than four polygraph examinations....

But the question is, have you learned anything from this couple of decades of activity.  Your discourse here does not provide a great deal of evidence of such nor any reason to be encouraged with the prospect of future discourse...

You further write:

...In most debates one has to establish some level of bonifides to be considered knowledgable on a particular subject.  On the subject of polygraph it's time for you to establish yours, then maybe we can debate....

Perhaps you are better off not knowing...If it turned out that I had no "bonifides," how would your ego handle this finding in view of the continual drubbing you take in ongoing debates?  

[wuzafuzz]

Batman:  Don't let these losers get to you.  You are absolutely right about George.  He should be more clear about his qualifications to give all the advice he is so free with - but at least he knows what his advice is worth.  As you have correctly said all he has ever done is to fail his test and now he spends all his time telling people how to pass theirs. And as to Drew Richardson - it seems his real motivation is to discredit the polygraph so that he can sell people on his "brain wave" Rube Goldberg invention.  As to the other 7 dwarfs they simply parrot what they have heard from their master Masche. Talk about the blind leading the blind!  But you have to admit they are very entertaining - especially if you just sit back and watch them lead each other into the ditch.  Too bad we can't buy them all for what they are worth and sell them for what they think they are worth - we would be rich.

[Marty]

Batman:  Don't let these losers get to you.  You are absolutely right about George.  He should be more clear about his qualifications to give all the advice he is so free with .....  Too bad we can't buy them all for what they are worth and sell them for what they think they are worth - we would be rich.

You really are clueless, aren't you.  I suppose that's one of the attributes of being anonymous. Coward. "Batman" has the decency to register. You are just noise.

-Marty

[wuzafuzz]

Doesn't take much "noise" to get you going does it Marty? Please tell my how registering makes you any less anonymous or any more brave.  And why don't you speak to the points I made instead of making a personal attack?

[Skeptic]

Doesn't take much "noise" to get you going does it Marty? Please tell my how registering makes you any less anonymous or any more brave.  And why don't you speak to the points I made instead of making a personal attack?

Oh, the irony.

Sure looks like the banner has gotten some attention.  If any of our new arrivals are polygraphers, would you care to prove you can detect countermeasures, as so many of you have claimed?

Skeptic

[Wannabe]

Anonymous,

I guess your response says it all.  

I'd suggest you put up or shut up!  I've done called you out, and you done turned tail and run!


Batman

my goodness what part of the sticks do you come from??

scuse me while I done turn tail and run!!

[Marty]

Please tell my how registering makes you any less anonymous or any more brave.  And why don't you speak to the points I made instead of making a personal attack?

Registering makes it possible to relate your posts to prior posts. One then can lbetter judge your (and others) posts in a specific context and be reasonably certain their alias isn't being spoofed. As for the personal attacks, I was reacting to your similarly personal attacks on George et al.  I don't generally respond that way to personal attacks directed at me. They bother me less than those directed at others I have come to respect. While I think the "yellow" taunt of the challenge is somewhat gratuitous, the response of the polygraph community on the whole has been rather poor.

After reading Drew's challenge details, his offer is actually reasonably well thought out and provides some measure of scientific validity.  Too bad no one has seen fit to take him up.

-Marty

[Mark Mallah]

One of the things that comes through with most of the polygraph examiners and proponents posting on this site (Gordon, Public Servant and JB excepted, maybe a couple of more I'm missing),  is that in the debate on the validity or invalidity of the polygraph, it's almost always about us.  We're whiners, we're disgruntled, we're unpatriotic, we're losers, we're liars, we have no experience conducting a polygraph, we're unethical, we're blind followers of George, we're angry, we're resentful, and so on.

The more you talk about us, the more you reveal the bankruptcy of your arguments in support of the polygraph.

Now I know that some anti-poly people retort and make some personal attacks too, and some of those are probably unnecessary and a waste of time.  But they are, in comparison to posts about the polygraph itself, a small fraction.  Whereas the pro polygraph people seem to be obsessed with us, as though personal attacks on us might somehow make the polygraph technique valid.

So say what you want about us, but in the process, you should add: we're right.

[Torpedo]

Oh, Mark, Mark, Mark....you haven't bneen reading the same posts have you.  It seems to me that you of "that" ilk have been slandering "us" with a variety of monikers that sound and look an awful lot like your list.  I am sorry, but George gets targeted because he is the pseudo-leader of this crew.  When you are at the top, you take the good with the bad.  You say that at least one thing....you are right...I am glad that you feel that way...and you certainly have a right to your personal opinion.  My opnion?   I disagree that you are right...and vehemently.   The one thing I can say is thank God none of you have security clearances!

[Mark Mallah]

Oh, Mark, Mark, Mark....you haven't bneen reading the same posts have you.  It seems to me that you of "that" ilk have been slandering "us" with a variety of monikers that sound and look an awful lot like your list.  I am sorry, but George gets targeted because he is the pseudo-leader of this crew.  When you are at the top, you take the good with the bad.  You say that at least one thing....you are right...I am glad that you feel that way...and you certainly have a right to your personal opinion.  My opnion?   I disagree that you are right...and vehemently.   The one thing I can say is thank God none of you have security clearances!

Torpedo,

Let's just say you're right about everything in your post.  And let's just say that all the insults about us are true.  And let's just say that all our insults against the pro-poly people are wrong.  Then a couple of facts remain:

1) The NAS report still trashes polygraph screening.
2) The polygraph community's response to the NAS report has been feeble.  They have rebutted none of it.  They haven't even tried to.  Is it really their best rejoinder that nobody on the distinguished panel has ever conducted a polygraph, therefore they aren't qualified to issue an opinion?
3) Drew's countermeasures challenge is, as Marty has also stated, a good framework within which to assess the polygrapher's ability to detect countermeasures.  If they don't like Drew, and don't like anyone on this board, and don't want to be seen as knuckling under to anyone here, why not set up their own countermeasures testing, similar to the one Drew has outlined, and see what happens.  Or why don't they point to any research which shows that they can reliably detect countermeasures?

Incidentally, Drew Richardson and I both held top secret clearances, and I believe others on this board held or still hold top secret clearances, such as Fair Chance and others.  As far as I know, none of us on this site ever betrayed the trust placed in us.  Certainly, no proof of such has ever been forthcoming.  UNLIKE Aldrich Ames, Ana Belen Montes, Larry Wu Tai Chin, all of whom held top secret clearances and passed their polygraph.

It therefore seems your assurance is misplaced, and you should actually be concerned not about us holding clearances, but about who among those who "passed" their polygraphs is betraying this country.

[steincj]

The one thing I can say is thank God none of you have security clearances!

Torpedo,

I still hold a Secret Clearance, what do you have to say about that?

The FBI has labeled me deceptive regarding issues of national security, however, I still have my clearance.  Honestly, how do you explain that?

If the FBI thinks I am a spy, surely they would IMMEDIATELY inform the DoD that I am a security risk.  Why haven't they?  

I'll tell you why -- The FBI knows that the pre-employment screening ploygraph is a joke, and that no one else in the government would take them seriously if they ever tried to investigate or prosecute the heinous accusations produced by polygraphers.

As a matter of fact, if I chose to go back to Active Duty, I am positive (based on my specialty) that I would immediately have my Top Secret reinstated.  How could that happen, Torpedo?  The polygraph is certain I'm a spy!!!!

Maybe you ought to think before you type.  If you are going to blast someone, you ought to hit them personally, rather than the cowardly blanket statement you chose.  Your intention was to discredit Mark's trustworthiness (without any proof that he is not worthy to hold a security clearance).  But in turn you have blasted many others on this site, including myself, again with no proof.

I ask you as a former Security Manager, former TS/SCI holder, and current Secret Clearance holder, why should YOU have a clearance?
Polygraphers make life-changing decisions with little to no proof, yet credit their decisions to the mighty polygraph strip, which only they can read.  Self-decieving liars, in my book, are not trustworthy, and should not hold a security clearance.

Next time, think before you type.

Chris

[Torpedo]

Captain Chris....you are sooooooooooooooo right. I was mistaken......you may have your clearances as a former, former, former etc....but I will bet that just like George, your access have been stripped....Now isn't that correct?