Indeed, Marston was more of a vaudevillian. In my book, Cesare Lombroso was more of a true visionary.

Ark,

When you compare the account that you quoted with the reality of Marston and Wonder Woman, you have a very good example of truth being stranger than an admittedly pretty strange fiction...

Quote:

Say what?

To the individual inquiring about the booklet " how to sting the polygraph " the individual that says they both suck has either got to be a polygraph operator or a cop or possibly even a Fed !

I can honestly tell you that this technique does work ! I have been using it for the past four years having to take a polygraph test every six months because of the federal control that I have on me ! I am an ex-federal con and if you think an ex-con would tell the truth to his PO or a therapist that he is forced to have to see and talk to you got another thing coming.! Get real after having been screwed by the federal system and still being screwed by the federal system you come to a new reality, a new way of thinking. Yes be very afraid of the polygraph for it is not a lie detector it can no more detect whether a person is lying or telling the truth then you have the ability to go to heaven until God that you are taking over ! How absolutely absurd is that !

Yes definitely get the book ! From someone who is been using these techniques for four years a total of eight now going on nine polygraph tests which I have passed with flying colors I can definitely tell you the polygraph is most emphatically a farce, a fraud, an absolute lie in and of itself ! The inventor Dr. William Nelson a NASA scientist who developed it said he was only creating a party gig to be used against his brother-in-law to be. The feds stole the patent and turned this device into what is now the biggest lying piece of hardware damages people's lives that the feds could have ever hoped for. Don't let the polygraph interrogator have the upper hand !

" [b]Get the book "

I have had to take the polygraph test every six months since 2011 I am an ex-felon and if you think that I would tell the truth on every single question that I'm asked you have got to have something wrong upstairs ! I can honestly tell you that Doug Williams how to sting the polygraph truly does work ! And I can honestly tell you that more than half of the questions I'm asked each time is definitely not the truth ! Why would you tell the truth to an individual who is going to relay absolutely everything you say to him to a fraudulent entity that murdered and killed over 188 people in order to become a placing agency yes I'm talking about the feds ! How utterly stupid what a person have to be to tell anything truthful to the feds !

Yes how to sting the polygraph truly works !

orolan wrote on Jul 5^th, 2003 at 10:32pm:


Let me provide a scenario to clarify this. Imagine the following two people who both smoked dope every other weekend in their senior year of HS but had been clean since. Imagine one had, together with a friend, stolen a neighbor's high end stereo and TV and pawned them but were never caught.

Typically, one of the "controls" is a broad question about stealing when you were young while a "relevant" might be a more specific instance of stealing > $200 from an employer. And of course the drug questions would also be "relevants."

It is highly likely that the person who stole and pawned the electronic equipment would be more reactive to the theft question than the drug question and would therefor be the one more likely to be hired by LE, other factors being equal. OTOH, a third person who had never been involved with drugs at all, perhaps as a result of knowing someone that OD'ed but had also never stolen even a candy bar would likley react more to the "relevant" drug question, even if completely innocent, just from being accused since he would be completely comfortable he had never stolen anything while the examiner is *assuming* otherwise.

It should be clear from this just how difficult it is to establish the validity of the polygraph when used in a CQT, and how, in some cases, a CQT may be biased against an innocent person.

-Marty

Marty,
So the rationale goes something like this: Since the examinee "lied" on the control but did not "know" he was lying, it was a "little lie" that would show a small response due to the examinee's lack of "fear". On a subsequent relevant question, a "lie" would show as a stronger response due to the fact that the examinee "knows" he is lying and "fears" the consequences of being caught in his lie?
And no, I'm not baiting the polygraphers. Just trying to understand. BTW, anybody heard from the Caped Crusader lately?

Breeze,

You write:

Quote:


No doubt, law enforcement properly uses investigatory techniques that are not science-based diagnostic tests, such as interviews and interrogations. But the polygraph community presents polygraphy to the public as a highly reliable, scientifically-sound diagnostic test for deception. (No such claims are typically made with regard to interviews or interrogations.) DoDPI and the American Polygraph Association have even taken to calling polygraphy the "psychophysiological detection of deception" or "forensic psychophysiology."

It is hardly "weak" of me to point out that claims that CQT polygraphy is a science-based diagnostic test are patently false.

I agree with you that the fact that a purported diagnostic technique cannot be proven to my satisfaction (or to the National Academy of Sciences,' or the the vast majority of scientists') does not mean that it is entirely without merit. CQT polygraphy does have some utility to the extent that it encourages some subjects to be more candid than they would be absent the polygraph. But I think you confuse utility with validity.

You note that, "[your] applicants almost without fail will admit disqualifying information after failing an exam, and it will be specific to the area in which they failed." It is hardly surprising that applicants who ultimately admit to disqualifying information would do so specifically with regard to the area in which they "failed," because it is precisely regarding that area that they will be interrogated in the "post-test" phase.

You asked me to "explain...how a follow up exam, done for the purpose of verifying use of CM is an admission that detection is unreliable?" First, as I pointed out in my post of 25 June, a GKT itself cannot "show conclusively" that a test subject actually used information that only someone who visited AntiPolygraph.org would know. It can only show that a person is likely to have knowledge of such information. If you could reliably detect countermeasures, there would be little point in running a follow-up GKT that cannot show that a subject used countermeasures.

Note that the polygrapher who suspects a subject of having employed countermeasures is the wrong person to administer a follow-up GKT in an attempt to determine whether a subject has knowledge that only someone who has visited AntiPolygraph.org would possess. The polygrapher will have a bias toward confirming his suspicions that could very well influence the outcome of the procedure.

Finally, you wrote to Marty, "Personally, I would like to see an applicant do all the research he has time for in order to make an informed choice." If that's the case, then why not refer all applicants to AntiPolygraph.org before their polygraph examinations?

orolan wrote on Jul 5^th, 2003 at 3:41am:


Orolan,

Assuming you aren't just baiting polygraphers, the main reason polygraphy migrated from the RI to CQT is that what is detected is not lies or truth, but fear of detection (or as Drew says somewhat more accurately, fear of consequences). The chatter about lies producing distinct responses per se is a conditioning technique designed to make the CQT more accurate and create more concern (and response) on the controls than the relevants*. The risk is that exceptionally honest individuals may not be swayed into lying on the controls.

*[edited] Assumes examinee is innocent. For a deceptive examinee, the intent is to create greater response on both Q's, the assumption being that the relevant Q will elicit a greater response even though the examinee is deceptive on both.

-Marty

Marty,
Your latest post causes me to wonder once again why polygraphers have to "know" what a lie looks like on the chart before they can find another one. 
If the premise were correct that a lie will cause a significantly "taller" spike than a truth, why not establish a baseline using a series of questions the examiner knows the true answers to, ie "Is today Friday?", "Is your name Marty?", etc. With this baseline established, responses that were significantly stronger would be scored as lies. 
What about it, polygraphers?

Breeze,

The_Breeze wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2003 at 5:43pm:

Fair enough but it doesn't address the basic issue. An accurately* informed examinee cannot be easily given a CQT. Perhaps compliance psychological techniques can be sufficiently powerful to create the required dissonance on the control Q's but it is pretty obvious that an accurately informed individual who makes the ethical choice not to use countermeasures will be more likely to render a false positive in a CQT.

Quote:


That is difficult to align with the secrecy of the CQT. Why not just use the DLT with everyone if you desired examinees to be accurately informed?

Quote:


False positives for metabolic byproducts are rare, but then these are more easily quantified. OTOH, drug users that can't abstain long enough to pass a piss test shouldn't be hired for dog catcher. LE should use hair samples taken at time of application and occasionally through the hiring process. A lot more reliable and can't be gotten around by short term abstention.

Quote:

There is no advice presented here that I've found that includes the examinee confessing.  That said, I do believe CM's can be done poorly. One of the thing's I've been ruminating over is CM detection methodologies. I am of the belief that some types of CM's can be detected - in particular, when an examinee claims to not know about CQT's and CM's, and then uses them they become susceptible to the specific incident polygraph techniques (such as the GKT), which has more scientific basis than CQT or other screening techniques.

Quote:

I believe you want examinees who are not deceptive on the R's  to pass. Why would anyone think otherwise?

Quote:

If that were only the case. If knowledgeable candidates were not problematic then polygraphers wouldn't be misleading examinees on the controls to start with. The theory is (as you well know) that selection and presentation of well chosen controls is crucial to minimizing false positives.

-Marty

The breeze,

you make some valid points.  thanks for the reply.  I suppose if I were in your shoes I would be taking the same stance as you regarding the poly.  I just fail to see the science in the poly and have very well been tainted to taking the anti poly stance due to a bad poly experience.

As for the gun registry we up here in Canada have to laugh too.  It is th precusor to gun confiscation.  The liberal thieves with their fearless leader Chretien have managed to spend approximately 1 billion dollars on a registry that was only supposed to cost around 2 million.  It has yet to prove it has decreased gun crime by 0.1%.  A complete and total waster of tax payers dollars.  If Alberta were to vote for separation I would do it in a second.  Next choice would be to join you guys down there!

North of the border friend and others:
How is that gun confiscation going? I hear its a bit over budget and suffers from non compliance-fix it so I can come up and slay a moose.

Why write here? thats actually your best point.  Its hard to explain.  Maybe a strange fascination with so much wasted talent giving such jaded advice, maybe to make an applicant think twice before doing something he will not do very well and wreck a career. I dunno.
Your premise is wrong of course but I understand you.  My livlihood in no way depends on polygraph, should they be banned tomorrow, Im still working. I would rather have one of our applicants stand on thier merits rather than attempting some sort of artificial augmentation as they hide part of their background.  We ask if an applicant has recieved advice or conducted research, not because its disqualifying, (its not) but because the advice may be very badly flawed.  It also shows an applicant that the examiner is "current" and understands the issue.  Personally, I would like to see an applicant do all the research he has time for in order to make an informed choice.  It would not be confined to polygraph, help is there for those wishing to confuse urinalysis and psychological testing as well.  Call it feeble if you want to, but I can promise you that the applicant who follows advice as presented here, fails, uses CM's, is called on it, and finally confesses feels the process was anything but.
You may not want to believe this, but we want our applicants to pass.  So I post on occasion to provide some type of balance, you do not have to believe anything I say.
Marty, I hope that answers your question about research.  You see, logging on to a site and becoming informed cannot impact an applicant.  Using techniques to attempt to mask an omission will.
And finally George.  LE work is filled with unscientific methods, as you know-you just focus on one of the tools that has offended you. To continue to throw up "lack of scientific method" at the end of all your arguements is weak.  Because something cannot be proved to your satisfaction in a lab does not mean it is without merit!
For something like polygraph that lacks a scientific basis it sure does get to the right answer an overwhelming percentage of times (in my experience)  You do not have to accept this, but then again, you have never seen the tool used, and your experience base is primarily from the testimony of others.  Our applicants almost without fail will admit disqualifying information after failing an exam, and it will be specific to the area in which they failed.  However this usually takes about 20 minutes of wading through denials.  Sorry, ive just seen it too much to believe its random chance.
And please explain to me how a follow up exam, done for the purpose of verifying use of CM is an admission that detection is unreliable?  Its simply additional evidence.  Follow up exams are standard practice as things come into focus.  The fact that very few people would be subjected to such a test I have already explained in a previous post.  And as I explained to marty, knowledge is not and never will be a problem, augmentation is.

Saidme,

You write:

Quote:


Actually all people who visit this site have reason to do so....those who have committed crimes, those who have not, and those who know both groups....the American and international public needs to know what a fraud polygraphy is as a diagnostic instrument and how it likely affects all these groups and society in general.

To our Candadian Guest

You mention:  "I read your two posts and have to wonder the following?  If this sites, and the "sting the poly" sites, mention or disclosing of CM's to beat the poly is actually helping you to detect and uncover applicants using them why would you open your mouth and state so."   

Everyone we polygraph is not guilty of a crime.  Those  who choose to come on to these sites and make a conscious descision to "help themselves" place themselves in jeopardy.  For those conducting pre-employment exams, if they see CM's they'll most likely address the issue.  If discovered; bye bye job.  At the very least the examiner will be suspicious causing the examinee undue hardship (further testing and interviews).  For the criminal specific examinee whose not involved in the matter at hand, they now jeopardize placing themselves in the cross-hairs as well as dragging out a criminal investigation that might be solved in a shorter period of time.   

Of course, most people undergoing a criminal specific issue polygraph test who visit this site have reasons to visit this site.

Lucky me, i dont live in the USA. there is ZERO awareness here to the polygraph issue. once in a blue moon you hear about its validity. and there are no sites on the net from my country regarding the issue. 
so hopefully when i get to my test i wont even get a lecture about CM's.

Breeze,

You write:

Quote:


No, it doesn't, because there is no known valid methodology for countermeasure detection. All that has happened in your example is that you have made an unscientific inference (a guess) that the subject has attempted countermeasures. This is so even if the polygraph operator "is reacting to specific [perceived] clues as contained in the charts."

Similarly, when a person "fails" a CQT polygraph examination, deception has not been "detected" because CQT polygraphy has no scientific basis. Unless confirmed by a corroborated confession, the polygrapher's conclusion (based on polygraph test data analysis) that a subject was deceptive is merely a guess.

Quote:


Although a subject might make admissions to such, a GKT itself cannot "show conclusively" that a test subject actually used information that only someone who visited AntiPolygraph.org would know. It can only show that a person is likely to have knowledge of such information.

Note that in constructing a GKT, it is important that the person stating the choices for each question be ignorant as to which ones are the "correct" ones. Otherwise, it is possible that the questioner's demeanor or tone of voice might provide unintended clues as to which items are the "correct" ones, resulting in reactions to them from those who in fact have no knowledge of them. David Lykken explains this in The Body on the Stairs: A Pedagogical Detective Story (Chapter 21 of the 1st edition of A Tremor in the Blood: Uses and Abuses of the Lie Detector).

For the GKT you have suggested, it would not be proper for you, or anyone else who is familiar with AntiPolygraph.org, to speak the items to be used in the test. Instead, you might make a tape recording as someone who is unfamiliar with AntiPolygraph.org -- and with polygraph matters in general -- reads the items in a monotone at appropriate intervals, and  then "test the test" by administering it to people known to have visited AntiPolygraph.org and on people unlikely to have ever done so.

Did you follow these procedures before you started administering your "countermeasures GKT?"

By the way, is not your resorting to a GKT a tacit admission that you know you don't actually have any reliable methodology of countermeasure detection?

Is mere knowledge of polygraph procedure, or having visited AntiPolygraph.org, to be made a ground for disqualifying an applicant for life? If not, then how is your agency going to deal with applicants who adopt the "complete honesty" approach and admit up front that they know "the lie behind the lie detector?"

Marty wrote on Jun 25^th, 2003 at 1:02am:

Dear Marty,

What a thought!  The government needs the best and brightest for the future survival of our country yet we expect those very competitive applicants to stick their heads in the sand and completely ignore the information which is easily obtained on the internet or library.  The government needs people who are capable of "thinking outside the box" for new and fresh innovations to existing problems.  The "cream of the crop", multiple degree candidates with many years of private sector experience (and survival techniques) are expected to leave all the traits which have helped them get to where they are and "just trust us" as they apply to the government.  I wonder if we in the civil service are just trying to deceive ourselves in this matter.

I have always advocated honesty of all applicants but the agencies involved must also display integrity as well.

Regards.

Breeze,

The_Breeze wrote on Jun 24^th, 2003 at 11:25pm:


Ah, yes.  The CIT (aka GKT and CKT). If this site accomplishes anything, getting the polygraph community more familar with these potentially  more reliable techniques would rank as an accomplishment. I am confused about one thing though. You are equating knowledge of polygraph technique and the secret of the control questions, the concealing of which the CIT can be applied, to an intended deception on the CQT itself. Do you intend that interpretation or am I missing something?  I would expect most people with a modicum of curiousity and an ISP to investigate (and be astonished at) the inner workings of the polygraph. Is knowledge a disqualifier? Are the affected agencies really willing to cull applicants showing even this minimal initiative?  Guess it depends on the job.

-Marty

To thebreeze:

I read your two posts and have to wonder the following?  If this sites, and the "sting the poly" sites, mention or disclosing of CM's to beat the poly is actually helping you to detect and uncover applicants using them why would you open your mouth and state so???   

Would it not be intelligent to keep quiet and possibly unanomously support these sites and their beliefs that countermeasures are undetectable?  According to your posts, the use of CM's has resulted in their infalliable detection by you and subsoquent admissions which is really all you can take to the bank anyways.

By coming on this forum and stating to all that George, et al are actually helping you do your job seems to raise red flags in my eyes.  Your feeble attempts to "scare" the readers here in to continuing to use CM's, because you think you can detect them, reeks of a grade three attempt at reverse psycology.

If my post rings true, why are you not supplying applicants with copies of Georges book with every application you hand out?  It would only seem to reason that doing so would bolster your chances of weeding out the deceptive applicants.  At the very least it might add to the scare tactics you require to stay in a job.  If you provide applicants with the book and then corner them before your test and "convince" them you can detect CM's you should better your stats. I think you are fishing here.  We all know the poly only really works on the uninformed to gain disqualifying admissions.  Once the word is out (it is coming slowly but surely) that your job and existence are nothing but snake oil sales you will need books like Georges to help regain the mystique the poly once had.  You will have to claim that you can indeed detect CM's just like you now claim that you can detect deception and hope that the majority of the appliacnts are indeed using them.  "Hmmm..  the charts are showing that you employed countermeasures... I'm sorry you failed unless you tell me the truth now before this gets blown out of proportion" and hope you get your admissions that way.

On a separate note.  Do you truley believe that altered human physiological responses when detected simultaneously with the asking of certain questions is proof of deception?  What is your background?  It can't be in science, human physiology, or psycology.  My guess is business with a major in sales.

what does CIT stand for?

Followers of CM lore:
George said on the 13th that:

"So then, the only countermeasures you have "detected" are those by subjects who were dumb enough to admit it... "

I love this kind of logic because its so simple and hard to argue....something like: If a subject does not admit it, you cant be 100% sure you are not seeing the real thing, therefore how can you really know?  When a applicant attempts countermeasures, and 2 have with my agency in the past 6 tests, are confronted with this accusation does'nt this mean detection has taken place?  Since a very small percentage of applicants would be questioned in this way, the polygrapher is reacting to specific clues as contained in the charts.  George, you seem to think that any CM detection is random luck, blind chance or the result of a botched attempt by a half witted numbskull that could not follow directions.  Not everyone with jogging shoes does a 4 minute mile, so you will have to accept that your readers will follow advice with varying levels of skill.
Our last two attempts were college educated, articulate and had passed thier backgrounds.  They also admitted to numerous omissions once they confessed to attempting to manipulating the test.  Somebody called Onesimus asked how many CM users have been caught in a way that would pass scientific muster.  I think I spoke of the GKT test administered previously, that showed conclusively that not only had the applicant used information that only someone who had logged on to this site would know, but such applicants had much to hide beyond the stated fear of a false positive.

The fact that Drew, George and the master of sophisticated CM's did not respond is because they cant.
You all know the statistical impossibility of failing a CIT using information that you have made available here.  We will continue to use it, your readers will keep failing, and you cannot stop it.  We will also write them out of future processes permanantly.

And enough about this silly CM challenge.  I have told you that polygraphers are answering the "challenge" daily and there is no need for spectacle.  Does a homicide investigator submit to some kind of mock crime scene creation, and under the watchful eye of an academic (who conducted a few tests Im told rather poorly) go about his investigation hoping to be graded and recieve affirmation from a group who wants only failure? I think polygraphers are less interested in your attention grabbing attempt than getting to the difficult issue of factfinding. 
Drew thinks that doing poorly on this challenge would mean the end of CQ polygraph.  Thats alot like saying that the next time a doctor leaves a sponge in a patient medicine will end as we know it.  Even if some polygrapher was bored enough to accept entry into your circus, then did poorly, it would prove that that polygrapher did poorly that day...thats it.
I liked Drew's baiting comment about the reasons including cowardice that an examiner would not participate. I've got a few more:
They recognize a media circus
They have lives, cases, and responsibilities
Contempt for the premise in light of thier experiences
Mild disinterest

You get the idea, keep it running if it amuses you.  Staple it to a pole next to your campus posters.
And finally Anonymous and Skeptic, you both had the same idea that GKT was not the problem etc. etc. Your take home message is that the subject had already failed (a CQ format), used CM's and the CIT was to prove the CM use beyond doubt, not serve as a substitute.  This has worked very well.

Saidme wrote on Jun 23^rd, 2003 at 12:51am:



Ahhhhh...Saidme must be a "trekkie"...that explains alot. But which of the characters would be his equivalent? Perhaps a klingon

PK

We'll just call you Spock from now on.

Saidme wrote on Jun 11^th, 2003 at 7:38pm:


Sorry, I'm only now seeing this post.

Saidme, the bottom line is that I consciously controlled my breathing, bp, and heart rate the entire time I was hooked up, including during the ridiculous stim test, and the polygrapher not only did not detect it, he did not detect my artificially augmented responses to the Control Questions. Your question is moot.