saidme,

definatly. you will get an honest result. and if i fail ill be the first one to warn any one that thinks of using CM's to hide the "truth".
im confident that IF its possible to beat the "system" based on what is writen here then i can do it.

I would like an honest (no pun intended) reply on your polygraph results.  As an examiner, I always enjoy people like you.  It makes my job easier.

saidme,

time will tell. but like i sayed earlier, i have already spent hours and hours with shrinks and interrogators as part of my "process". passed them all. i perform well under pressure.

the more i read the more i become confident that it'll be a cake walk;)

Wombat

"He who has eyes to see and ears to hear may convince himself that no mortal can keep a secret.  If his lips are silent he chatters with his fingertips; betrayal oozes out of him at every pore"    S. Freud

I believe you'll be oozing during your upcoming polygraph exam.  You just better hope and pray your examiner's not observant.  I suspect he/she will be quite observant.   

Anal probe, hmmmm! 

anal probe? sh*t....now THAT would get any one to confess.
imagine, the first thing the poly guys asks you: "with or with out vaseline?"

Skeptic wrote on Jun 22^nd, 2003 at 12:13am:


I bet when that happens, Saidme will REALLY enjoy his work. 

PK

wombat wrote on Jun 22^nd, 2003 at 12:54am:


I went through three polygraphs at the NSA.  On two of them, I used the anal pucker with obvious effect and no evident detection.

Now, it should be noted that the chair in which I sat (a big, red, fluffy La-Z-Boy-type chair) did not have wires leading to it or anything like that.  However, it is reasonable to assume the NSA has the best-trained and equipped polygraphers anywhere; if they had felt activity sensors would have been helpful for detecting countermeasures, I'm have little doubt they would have been used, and likely embedded in the chair.

So, you have two bits of info here: first, no activity sensors were evident, implying the NSA doesn't find them useful.  Second, if they were using them surreptitiously, the sensors were evidently unable to detect my countermeasure use.

Skeptic

any one else done a test were they had sennsors and did a pucker??

wombat wrote on Jun 21^st, 2003 at 10:05pm:


Like so much in the polygraph world, the sensors are largely for bluffery.

They would presumably pick up attempts to press one's feet against the floor, etc.  But no, they won't pick up the anal pucker.

In fact, just about the only thing that would is an anal probe.  Haven't seen that proposed yet, but I suppose it's coming.

Skeptic

if the sennsors dont pick up a pucker, what are they there for? placebo? or is the pucker too weak?

wombat wrote on Jun 20^th, 2003 at 5:54pm:


That is exactly what I'm saying. In fact that is the sensor that my polygraph interrogator used, and I used sphincter contraction as part of my physical countermeasures.

Quote:


It spikes your BP. And yes, it looks 'natural'.

Beech trees,
i take what you say. you are right, considering all i have read i do give "them" too much credit.
but still i have a question:
the pneumatic "Activity Sensor" in the pic George posted looks like it pics up movment were you sit. and on there site it says its very very sensitive.
so are you saying that if by chance were i go they have one of these it wont pick up a pucker?

and could some one explain to me exactly what does an "anal pucker" do to the charts? it affects the cardio rate? does it look like a "natural" peak?

wombat wrote on Jun 20^th, 2003 at 1:11pm:


wombat,

As you and I have previously discussed, the reason they 'look scary' is intentional: They are placebos aimed at intimidating you. They can detect nothing. Strain gauges, or gauges that measure distortions on the legs of the chair, are another matter-- fortunately none of the countermeasures discussed in The Lie Behind The Lie Detector are quantifiable via any 'sensor' currently being used. 

Think about it: If there were in fact any sensor capable of detecting anal pucker, then surely the polygraph industry would not make it visible, so that they might catch any interrogation subject actually brash enough to employ the technique. 

A sphincter contraction is undetectable externally, period.

You give your tormentors exceedingly too much credit, and that fact will be made abundantly clear to you when you sit for your polygraph interrogation.

George,
so basicaly ill see whats straped on to the chair and then decide. some of those sennsors look a bit scary...

Saidme,
i have spent already 5 hours with a psychiatrist and 6 hours with a senior "interrogator". i passed both. the "interrogator" even commented on how open and honest i was, and that i shouldn't be stressd about the candy i stole in 3rd grade or the MP3 music i dowload....ha ha...it was fun.
so besides the fact that i have absolotly nothing to lose i feel confident. ill do my best and hope for the best.
the good lord has helped me out till now....i he wont let me down this time.
(btw, according to Ben Shakhar, Fruedy and several other reaserchers the odds of passing a CQT poly when lying and NOT using any CM's stands on 10-25%. thats not bad.)

and one else with info on the whole CM's detection issue? (its not that i dont trust george, id just like some more input).

Quote:


One cannot be completely certain, but I suspect that this is likely the case, especially when one considers that one can prevent any breathing reactions to the relevant questions from occuring.

Quote:


There are two basic kinds of polygraph attachments that some polygraphers use in an attempt to detect countermeasures. The first is a strain gauge that is typically placed under the front legs of the polygraph chair. Stoelting Co.'s "Portable Activity Sensor" looks like this:



Axciton produces a "motion sensor" that clips onto a leg of the polygraph chair:



And Lafayette markets this pneumatic "Activity Sensor":



No polygrapher has ever demonstrated any ability to detect the kinds of countermeasures described in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector using such "sensors" (or any other methodology).

Nor is there any evidence that the physiological responses associated with an anal pucker are somehow "abnormal" or that polygraphers have any way of distinguishing such responses from those associated with fear or anxiety in the context of a polygraph examination.

As for the website PolygraphPlace.com, you will notice that claims made by polygraphers there typically go unrebutted by polygraph critics. The reason for this is that the operators of that website censor their message board. Polygraph opponents are not allowed to post there. Why do you suppose this is so?

By contrast, this message board is uncensored. Anyone may post their views on polygraph matters, and polygraph supporters are welcome to counter any arguments put forth by polygraph opponents here. But for the most part, all you'll see from polygraph advocates is taunts, personal attacks, and obfuscation (as you have no doubt noticed).

You mention that it is your dream to be a "spook." If your past drug use would disqualify you, you might want to consider other career options. You may pass the polygraph, only to be disqualified when a background investigation is conducted if others know about your drug use.

That said, be aware that it's possible that the polygraph program of your country's intelligence service is modeled after that of the American CIA, where applicants are routinely told that they are "having trouble" after the first polygraph session and are brought back for one or more additional polygraph sessions.

Wombat

Your psychological ties to the relevant issues are going to eat you up during your upcoming polygraph examination.  If you're having trouble with them now, wait til that door opens up and you're strapped in!  Your psychological frame of mind won't allow you to properly use your CM's.  No matter how hard you try, every time that relevant question(s) pops up, it's going to spin that hard drive out of control.  Oh, by the way, good luck.

wombat,
I guess that would be right. I think if you were to desensitize yourself to the issue of past drug usage that you would not react very strongly to the questions about it. So if you force a slightly stronger reaction to the control, seems that it would be very close to the reaction on the relevant. But as I said, I'm being theoretical. Perhaps some of the others on the board can lend further insights to my theory.
As for my poly experience, that story is long and involved, and can be found elsewhere on this board. Briefly, I took one poly scored as "no deception indicated" even though I lied on it, and a second exam that I was never told how it scored. I was told that I no longer had to take them, though. I used no CM's, as I didn't know they existed until I found this site over 6 months after the second one.

orolan,
yes, i agree that on polygraphplace.com they have no insentive to "help me out".
i take what you say about a pre job poly vs. a crime last week poly. makes sence.
as to my "case". i have addmited to "them" that i used pot a few times (within "there" regulation). but fact is i used it much more. i was young and dumb. naver thought id want to be a spook. but now it is my dream. so ill do what it takes to be one. i know they wont be sorry if i get in.
what is your poly expirience? have you taken one? passed? failed?
so, what you are suggesting is that if i have addmited to some, but not all drug use, and all that really scares me is that i wont get the job...so my reaction on the relevants (have you used weed more than stated?) wont be too bad.
so ill only need mental CM's and to play with my breath?
not risk things like touge biting ect...?

wombat,
Ultimately, the degree of countermeasures used should be determined by the situation at hand. Just how "strongly" do you expect to react to the relevant questions?

It's my personal opinion that physical CM's would have more usefulness in an incident-specific criminal investigation rather than a screening-type poly. The theory is that you would react quite strongly to a question regarding a crime you may have committed last week that can send you to prison, but you would react far less to a question about past drug abuse on a pre-employment poly that at worst would mean you find a job elsewhere. Thus the reactions you want to force on the control questions only need to be as strong as the reactions on the relevant questions.

I wouldn't exactly trust any information on polygraphplace.com regarding CM's, as it is a pro-poly site. Naturally, they will want you to believe that they have all sorts of devices and training to detect countermeasures.

As I said, it's just my opinion. Any who disagree are welcome to post their thoughts (in a civil manner, please).

you wrote:
Quote:im afraid that for the CM's to be affective id need to use physical ones too. (other than breathing).   
 

Why do you believe this to be the case? 
 

so what you are saying is that mental CM's and cotrol of my breath will be enough?

you wrote:
Quote:1) anal pucker. it seems to me that there is too much info out on the net that suggests that a)if the examiner is looking for it he has a fair chance of seing you pucker. 
b) that the response it put out on the chat is "strange".   
 

To what information are you specifically referring?


on polygraphplace.com and in some of the posts here it is suggested that 1)many polygraphs have sensors in the seat that can detect anal pucker. 2) that the response it makes is abnormal.

Wombat,

You write, amongst other things:

Quote:


Why do you believe this to be the case?

Quote:


To what information are you specifically referring?

Quote:


In studies by Charles R. Honts and collaborators, even experienced examiners (who were looking for it) could not detect tongue-biting employed as a countermeasure.

Well George it looks like you have some competition.  Wombat has become an expert - just like you, he has read two books.  Now all he needs to do is go flunk his test like you did and he will have the same level of expertise.   

ok. ive spent the last few weeks reading obsessivly all the info i could find on the net regarding poly screening.
pro poly,anti poly and scientific work.
i am now totaly convinced that if i walk calmly into my poly ,"act" like a nice and cool guy for the examiner and then do CM's when hooked up the the poly that ill be fine.
im totaly convinced that its imposible to detect mental CM's.im also convinced that detecting breathing changes would be very very hard. (i dont think it will be too big a deal to keep a baseline breathing for 30 mins, with changes on the controls)
BUT! from what i have read im not convinced that using just these two CM's will be enough. or will it??
im afraid that for the CM's to be affective id need to use physical ones too. (other than breathing).
NOW, these are the problem ones.
1) anal pucker. it seems to me that there is too much info out on the net that suggests that a)if the examiner is looking for it he has a fair chance of seing you pucker.
b) that the response it put out on the chat is "strange".
id like as many coments on this as possible. (can any one provide me with a single scientific paper that says that anal pucker will produce a response that is "normal" ). 
2) biting ones tounge or cheek. its simply too obvious. especialy if there is a hidden cam in the room.

id like as much feedback on this as possible, i assume that this does not only worry me but many other people about to do the "test".
any publications that support/ refute this would be great.