I read the post on RealPolice.net and I am not surprised to hear a comment like that.  I don't think it is all that uncommon of an occurence.  Throughout 11 years of being a police officer, I have heard of many instances where fellow officers claim to "have a friend" who lied about serious matters on their polygraph exams and passed.  To any police officer in the know, this is not a surprise.  It would be nice if there were a tried and true means of lie detection, but unfortunately there really isn't.

As an interested bystander, I have come to some conclusions and still have some questions.

Apparently this website and Doug Williams' paper has caused great paranoia in the polygraph community. Especially federal job screening. Else, why would the question "have you researched polygraph" become part of the polygraph interrogation. If the poly is so infallible, what the hell difference does it make? If the defense (poly) is penetrated by the offense (anti-poly) for a touchdown, which has apparently happened, why does the poly maintain the same defense (personal attacks, etc.). Is it because they have no structure to plug the holes?

I could go on and on, but I know what "ad hominy" means, so I will stop the observations here.

Ray,

Quote:


So you would have us believe that the polygraph community's ability to detect countermeasures only began after the NAS study -- that you've suddenly come up with a reliable countermeasure detection method? But polygraphers have been claiming to be able to detect countermeasures long before then.

Quote:


Wishful thinking, Ray.

Quote:


With the above, you have tacitly conceded that any approach you may have for attempting to detect countermeasures depends on deceit. No technique that relies on such gamesmanship is going to remain viable for long.

You (and other polygraphers) discourage the use of countermeasures. You want the public to believe that you have the ability to detect them. But you offer no evidence whatsoever in support of this claimed ability.

Dr. Richardson's polygraph countermeasure challenge offers an excellent avenue for demonstrating such an ability without divulging your "game plan." Sorry, Ray, the claim that countermeasure detection cannot be demonstrated for fear of disclosing secrets of the trade will only be convincing to the most simpleminded of audiences.

Quote:


I cannot say with certainty that the public statements made by various self-described polygraph victims are 100% accurate. But I have no reason to doubt them.

You went beyond saying that the statements are "one-sided." You attacked the integrity of those making the statements when you earlier wrote, "I guarantee that some of those personal statements leave out info which isn't so flattering to the examinee."

Quote:


You made a general ad hominem attack against the authors of the personal statements posted on this site. You also attacked me, personally, when you wrote the following:

Quote:


You also personally attacked Mr. Truth, with the following:

Quote:


What you have not done is to provide anything resembling a rational argument in support of your claim that if bushido71 employs countermeasures, he has a "very good chance" of being detected.

Quote:


No, Mr. Truth's status as a convicted sex offender has no bearing whatsoever on the validity anything he says about polygraph matters. Why not address what he has to say with rational arguments, rather than ad hominem attacks? Perhaps because you can't?

Quote:


There you go again with yet another ad hominem attack instead of rational argument. It appears that you do not understand just what the term ad hominem means. You'll find it explained here:

http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/attack.htm

My motivation has no bearing on the truth or falsity of what I have to say about polygraph matters. But my motives in helping to create and maintain AntiPolygraph.org are simple: to expose and end polygraph waste, fraud, and abuse. Part of that involves educating the public about polygraphy and helping those who face polygraph "testing" to protect themselves against the very real risk of a false positive outcome. All information on AntiPolygraph.org is free, and no one involved with this website receives any payment either in cash or in kind for their time and effort. I don't know what purer motive you expect.

Quote:


For an illustration of Guest's point, see Friend Lied on Polygraph and Passed on the RealPolice.net. message board.

George,

Quote:


Prior to the NAS study, C/M's were really not focused on in the polygraph community.  All I will tell you is that this has changed.  I think the NAS study helped our cause more than it helped yours.  Let me use a sports analogy here for you George.  I'm on defense, you're on offense.  Am I going to tell you what I'm going to do to stop your play?  Would that be wise?   

Quote:


Not entirely.  I'm saying it's a one sided statement.  Are you saying that all of those personal statements are 100% accurate?  Is it possible some things were embellished or perhaps left out all together?  You seem to present them as fact.

Quote:


Who have I personally attacked?  Did I call anyone a bad name?  Point it out for me.  I'm just stating the facts.  Bushido71 has asked for feedback and I'm giving it to him.  I think Mr. Truth's status as a convicted sex offender would have some bearing on his credibility and the validity of his statements, especially for someone looking to get into the field of LE.    

Being that bushido71 is considering following your advice, I think your motivation for publishing this website should be considered.  If your motivation is so genuine, why do you feel as though I've personally attacked you?  Perhaps I've struck a cord?

By the way, my post was not intended for you George.  I was attempting to give Bushido 71 another opinion.   

Mr. Truth,
Quote:


Yes it does.  Walk up to a complete stranger and list all of your accomplishments...then explain to them that you're a convicted sex offender.  Sorry man, that's life.

Not to throw darts at Ray, but if he thinks for a second that cops are not getting hired every day that have beaten the polygraph, he is out of his mind.  I'll go one step futher and state that the numbers are growing every day.  On the flip side, did it ever occur to polygraphists that maybe they are routinely scoring false negatives as well.  I know for a fact this happens.  I'll leave it at that.

Ray, thanks for your well wishes. I always appreciate getting as complete a picture as possible, especially with this topic. 

I am still not sure of my strategy going into the exam. On the surface, my feelings are that CM's, when employed properly, are likely to be effective in preventing the "false positive" which is important to me. But the same time, I want to be able to take the test knowing I have nothing to hide and can pass without using any techniques other than honesty. I'm also a little wary of trying to keep all the techniques straight in my head and executing them well. Not having access to a polygraph machine, it's a little difficult to judge whether or not I am controlling my breathing and cario responses as necessary. What I may think is passable at home, may in fact raise all kinds of red flags in the test. And that bears some concerns as well.

I suppose the real issue here for me is whether or not I am willing to take the chance that I will not be nervous and the examiner will interpret the charts accurately. 

Again, any info or insight is appreciated.

Ray,

You write:

Quote:


The National Academy of Sciences didn't believe this claim of the polygraph community, concluding instead that "the evidence does not provide confidence that polygraph accuracy is robust against potential countermeasures."

And in peer-reviewed research by Dr. Charles R. Honts and collaborators, experienced polygraphers' determinations that a subject had employed countermeasures had no correlation with actual countermeasure use. That is, using or not using countermeasures had no effect on the likelihood that one would be accused of having used countermeasures.

Quote:


How about credibility? After all, your standby technique, the "Control Question Test," has no scientific basis whatsoever.

Dr. Drew C. Richardson has made a formal challenge to the polygraph community to demonstrate its professed ability to detect countermeasures. This challenge does not require that those accepting it divulge the methodology used to detect countermeasures: all that is required is to detect them. That no polygrapher has had the courage to accept this challenge (619 days and counting) is strong circumstantial evidence that the polygraph community lacks confidence in its ability to detect countermeasures.

Quote:


Are you insinuating that those who have shared their experiences of falsely being accused of deception are making it up? Because the polygraph is valid technique for lie detection and truth verification? Get real, Ray. Polygraph testing is a pseudoscientific fraud.

AntiPolygraph.org offers much more than "emotional personal statements" about polygraphy. Our free e-book, The Lie Behind the Lie Detector, includes compelling arguments based on facts. In writing it, we have relied on numerous pro-polygraph sources such as Department of Defense Polygraph Institute studies, articles published in the American Polygraph Association quarterly, Polygraph, and books written by polygraphers.

Moreover, on this uncensored message board, we have provided polygraphers ample opportunity to rebut any claims made here and to correct anything that you believe to be untrue.

Quote:


Ray, the applicants I have suggested refuse the polygraph are those seeking employment with the FBI ("Just Say 'No' to FBI Polygraphs," 9 May 2003). I base that recommendation on the Bureau's high polygraph failure rate (~50%) and the especially serious consequences of having a failed FBI polygraph on one's record.

I did not tell bushido71 to refuse the polygraph. But he wise to research it, and to seriously consider the option of using countermeasures to reduce the risk of a false positive outcome. The LAPD's pre-employment polygraph failure rate is also on the order of 50%.

Quote:


Mr. Truth did not tell bushido71 how to get a job with the LAPD. Moreover, his status as a convicted sex offender has no bearing on the validity of anything he may say about polygraph matters.

Ray, your post provides nothing but ad hominem arguments. Rather than personally attacking those who have shared their polygraph experiences, or questioning my motives, or Mr. Truth's character, why don't you provide us with rational arguments?

Quote:


The two greatest secrets in our society are this: who shot JFK, and what takes place at Groom Lake/Area 51. Polygraphers would claim there are three: the two I mentioned, and the secrets behind their ability to detect countermeasures. The JFK one is going strong. Area 51 we know quite a bit about, not everything, but enough has leaked out over the years to paint a fairly clear picture of what takes place behind closed doors. 

As far the ability to detect countermeasures - really, after all these years of polygraph use, and the thousands of current and former polygraphers, not a single one has spilled the beans about the secret behind countermeasure detection? Mafioso have spilled the beans, despite their code of omerta. CIA officers have written books, despite being sworn to secrecy. The "brotherhood" of polygraphers has an ethic that has yet to be breached by a "traitor?" Do we look that dumb? The only people that we-can-detect-countermeasures sells to is the naive and gullible and uninformed. Education, knowledge,and exposure of the fraud behind the polygraph will cure that in time.

Quote:


So that invalidates anything I have to say on the matter? And protect the world from what? Some threat I pose? To whom? The label everyone likes to use negates everything else in life I've accomplished? FYI, it includes being a service academy graduate, military officer, and a lot of other very positive things. And who are you? Is your major function in life that as a polygrapher?

What you say about less than flattering details being omitted is true.  Undergoing a sex history type of polygraph is humiliating, to say the least. That would be true for anyone. The monitoring ones are more straightforward, nothing embarassing about those, but they are just as flawed as any other polygraph "test." Aside from my humungous mistake, I am a scenario one type of examinee. I've eaten enough false positives to be bitter about the process. Was it me, or was it the polygraph? Guess what? It's the polygraph. 

There is no way you can differentiate between a reaction-producing thought countermeasure and any other thought or feeling that you would claim is associated with deception, control question or otherwise. What the polygraph can do, through software and "expert opinions of the examiner," is detect differences between a baseline reading and readings that are not on the baseline. The measurement of those differences is accurate. The interpretation of those differences is where the voodoo of polygraphy comes into play.

bushido71,

First of all, good luck in your pursuit of a career with the LAPD.  It's a top notch department. 

Let me throw in my two cents here...Do not use countermeasures!  Regardless of what you read on this site, if you do attempt C/M's, there is a very good chance you will be detected.  George has asked examiners to prove the ability to detect C/M's...why the hell would we do that?  So George can try to eliminate the dead giveaways his "techniques" display?   

This site tries to sway people with emotional "personal statements".  Keep in mind that in those statements you're only getting one side (anti-poly.org) of the story.   They don't ask the examiner for his/her side.  This site presents those statements as fact (I guarantee that some of those personal statements leave out info which isn't so flattering to the examinee).  If you can't tell, many of the individuals associated with this site have a major ax to grind.   

Look at who's trying to give you advice on this site.  Who are they and what are their motivations?  George isn't trying to help you...he wants you to further his crusade.  He tells applicants to refuse to take the poly.  Why?  Because he thinks it's a slap in the face to the polygraph field.  How is that going to help you?  You have no chance at your dream if you do that.  George wants you to "take one for the team." 

Mr. Truth, a convicted sex offender, is telling you how to get on the job wtih the LAPD.  Are you kidding me??  The type of person you are looking to protect this world from is trying to "help" you.  I'm sure he's a nice guy but it is what it is.

Again, good luck and I hope you do the right thing.

Mr. Truth,

You write in part:

Quote:


Note that in the context of pre-employment polygraph screening, a question about sex with animals is not relevant. Instead, it is used (notably by the U.S. Secret Service) as a kind of "shock control" question.

Here is another topic related to all of this: of the three types of question posters I've seen in here that have one thing in common, namely, the desire to be in law enforcement (local, federal, three-letter acronym, whatever), here are your basic test scenarios.

Scenario 1: candidate is an honest person, your regular stand-up take the lumps for his mistakes kind of guy, no dirty laundry in his past. What's likely to happen: false positive or inconclusive results because accusations (the relevant questions) about past misdeeds won't bother him, he's as pure as driven snow. However, depending on the nature of the relevant questions (have you had sex with animals?), candidate may show enough of a repsonse and be scored DI.  Control questions won't bother him. To pass: use CM's, you're not doing anything wrong, you're not lying or trying to deceive anyone about your past. If you're here reading this, you must have come across all the false positve horror stories. Do you feel lucky?

Scenario 2: candidate has been around the block, did some drugs in his younger days, but is a decent, otherwise honest person. Knows he has to go into the polygraph lying like a MF about his past drug use (or other disqualifying misdeeds). What's likely to happen: Response to control questions won't bother him, but response to relevant questions will be off the chart, so to speak, because of the pressure/guilt of lying. To pass: CM's all the way, baby, and don't look back once you're in. But do us all a favor and don't be a hypocrite and "force" a suspect to clear himself via use of the polygraph.

Scenario 3: candidate has no significant misdeeds in his past, but is of poor moral character. Lies at the drop of a dime to get out of trouble, places the blame on others more often than the Chargers' placekicker places the football on the tee, which is quite often.  What's likely to happen: Lack of compunction about lying results in indifference to the relevant questions, may feel a tinge of guilt about lying on the control questions, resulting in a passing score. To pass: Just be yourself. May want to use CM's to be on the safe side in case 1) the polygrapher pulls a Jimmy Swaggart on you and has you kneel down and pray with him, dear God, let the truth come out today (helps if you shed a little tear at the end of that drama scene), or 2) you develop a sense of guilt about your character because the polygrapher adopts the Father Confessor persona, and all of a sudden, you feel like coughing up what a bad person you are, not "bad" bad, but you know you could be treating others around you a lot better than you do.

Telling the truth isn't good enough. I know I reacted more to the relevant questions than to the control questions. The control questions were like character assessment type of questions (have you lied to avoid gettng into serious trouble, would you try to blame someone else for a mistake you made, etc.). I am and was a stand-up kind of guy - if I make a mistake, I admit it and don't blame others, so the CQ's didn't bother me enough. I was more sensitive to the relevant questions, not because I was lying on my answers to them, but because of the pressure of wanting to pass, the consequences of not passing, and the nature of the questions (sensitive about being asked if I've done something else bad; I readily admitted to what I did and did all I could to make the situation better and take responsibility for what I did; what I did is what I did, nothing more, nothing less, and to no one else, ever, period).

So, if you are ashamed about, say, having smoked a few joints in your younger days, and are basically an honest person, you are ripe for being a false positive (being scored deception indicated about your prior drug use). If you really want to be in law enforcement, can you afford NOT to use countermeasures?

I appreciate all of the insight and certainly did not intend to stir yet another debate about the validity (or lack thereof) of the polygraph. I am still not certain how I will approach the polygraph exam, and whether or not I will use CMs or not. But I appreciate the information nonetheless.

I will definitely be doing more research into the matter as the days go by.

Mr. Truth, I thank and commend you for posting your experiences on this board.  You are obviously a person who has first hand knowledge about the trash polygraphs are.  Please continue to share your knowledge with the rest of us.

Ray, 

I screwed up. There is no defense for that. As I've said before, gee golly, I sure wish I had chosen alcohol/alcoholism as my outlet. But with respect to the use of the polygraph, SO WHAT? What difference does it make why someone has to take a polygraph? The test in general, and the CQT in specific, is BS to begin with and there is no denying that. Can you name one scientific-based, independent study that claims the polygraph is reliable, that its results are replicable, and that the likelihood of false positives is measurably known? Ummm, no, you can't. But thank you for your narrow-minded input on this topic. And what is it that convicted sex offenders do? Live next door to you?

Quote:

Mr. Truth,

Thanks for answering. I assume at the time you first read TLBTLD that you were in part reacting to numerous polygraphs with a range of outcomes you knew to be false. Pretty hard for them to maintain that aura of all knowing infallibility when your own experience is otherwise. It's also pretty clear that inexperienced examinees are more easily fooled. I believe I have even seen references suggesting the polygraph is increasingly unreliable the more often it's given.

Sometimes I think the widespread use of polygraphy for screening and SO may actually have the effect of reducing it's value in specific incident criminal uses, ie: getting confessions.

-Marty

Polycop,
Do you find it ironic that a convicted sex offender (Mr. Truth) basically refers to polygraph examiners as scum of the earth?  That's the pot calling the kettle black...

I think we know why Mr. Truth would like to see the polygraph go the way of the wind.  Maybe I'm wrong though...he might fall within the small percentage of sex offenders who don't commit (or haven't already committed?) another sex offense.

Mr. Truth I applaude your optomism in regards to the abolishment of polygraph however, being that the use of polygraph is being EXPANDED (specifically in sex offender cases) you may want to hold the tears you promised to shed for the examiners of this world.  And let me clue you in on something, if polygraph were abolished, the majority of examiners would continue on in their law enforcement/investigative fields without missing a step.  You however, you will continue to do whatever it is that convicted sex offenders do.

I learned how to use CM's right here, using TLBTLD. I also downloaded the Williams book. The pattern of questioning, especially related to the control questions was exactly as described in the TLBTLD. The pattern of passing one or two, then failing several, then passing one or two in a row again, in addition to some other incidents, brought me here. Repeated exposure to the polygraph made it easier to use CM's, and allowed me to refine the technique (I'm on fire thought - that's all it takes, no extra breathing, no contractions, just the thought with the adrenaline rush).

Mr Truth,

After taking so many polygraphs with variable results what was it that triggered you into studying CMs? Were you first exposed to them on this site? William's site? or other source. After you became aware of the "trick", do you believe that your extensive exposure to polygraphs made CMs easier to deploy?

Your description of SO polygraph frequency is astonishing. Is anyone aware of any other area polygraphs are used that applies them as often?

-Marty

Shows how little you know. As a sex offender, I was required to take one at least every six months. Which is how it turned out towards the end of my time. The first several years, when know-it-all arrogant polygraphers, some like you, I'm sure, were scoring me deceptive on monitoring exams regarding activities I did not engage in, using logically-constructed and related questions like "have you had sexual contact with anyone other than your wife?" (NDI) and "have you had sexual contact with anyone under the age of 18?" (DI) [explain how that can happen, if you don't mind, given that my wife is well over 18]. 

So, without a passing test, the frequency drops to at most every three months. Being eager to achieve success in treatment, and wanting to gain more privileges as a result of passing, at times I'd do them two weeks apart. Of course, the test being so reliable, and the testing so replicable, one could wonder why results would bounce around from all deceptive, all inconclusive, to two NDI/two inconclusive over the course of several weeks, with the questions covering the same time period. Gee, I'm thinking the polygraph is more screwed up than what I knew about it beforehand.

So a boat load is in the neighborhood of 40 tests in seven years. When I say countermeasures work, for anyone else reading this, believe me, they work. It was especially satisfying spoofing the DODPI-trained, ex-government employee-turned-into-money-grubbing-SO-polygrapher. Ironically, the first one I passed, after about three years into probation was with this gentleman, and I did it "naturally." Since the time period in question stayed the same, was I really lying all those other times when I was scored deceptive? Only three people know for sure: the Shadow, the polygrapher (never wrong in the "expert" opinions), and me. "Me" says, "no I wasn't lying," so you or anyone else who may think otherwise, well, that's just too damn bad. You want to apply junk science against certain people, then expect to get junk results in return. Put your faith into people like PolyCop and other arbiters and fact-finders of truth just like him.

Quote:


"The first one, ""the last one," a "boatload of them?"  Ah,  Mr. "Truth", you finally give away your deception.  I have been in polygraph for years, and I have YET to meet ANYONE who has taken a "boatload" of polygraph exams.  How big a boat?  A dingy?, a cabin cruiser?, maybe an aircraft carrier.  Maybe you have been buying them wholesale?  I understand they are cheaper by the dozen, or the gross.  Ah yes, if I were getting ready to be administered a polygraph exam, I would surely be listening to someone who has found himself in the position to have taken a "boatload" of polygraph examinations...   

PolyCop

Quote:



Yes, it is immensely satisfying knowing I can completely fool polygraphers - newbies up to and including very experienced DODPI-trained ones - with the use of countermeasures. What is amazing about the process is that it is so simple to use. It worked the first time, the last time, and every time in between, and I've taken a boat load of them. But I would be remiss in not recognizing my inspiration that led me to success, namely, polygraphers like you, arrogant in your power and control over the future of others, scoring me as deception indicated when I was telling the truth.  You and your like got me on board with the countermeasure program, and all I can really say at this point is, "Thank you." You showed me the love, and I am returning it, many times over, when and where I can.

Quote:


Okay Drew, now that I have read the above, I am the one who is confused....     and I ADMINISTER polygraph examinations...!

Close your eyes, take a deep breath, and read the instructions above.  Haven't you figured it out yet?  All these convoluted, contradicting, complex orders that people like you, George, and others provide are WAY beyond the grasp of a whole lot of people out there...      ???  You are giving folks WAY to much to try to do and are trying to explain at nausium a concept they don't quite get (and most never will).      

As a result the polygraph community is seeing with increasing frequency larger and larger numbers of confused, self occupied, worried people who are half assed trying things they don't really understand, and contrary to the stuff put out on this site, are usually caught.

Truly, you people are not doing anybody any favors, but keep doing it.  The entertainment value alone makes it all worth while...

PolyCop