I did read your post right after you posted it so I know you didn't see that addition. I just added that for jest and to lighten the situation; I'm nowhere near 6'7", and sure the hell aint 525lbs, lol.

nOmad

Should have waited for your edited post and I wouldn't have had to do another. 

Your size didn't cause me to say all's forgotten. I am only 6' and 210 # but, I have never let size deter me from my self-appointed rounds.

How-some-ever this kind of conversation is dump and I ain't gonna do it no more.

nOmad

Sorry here too. I have been accused of having a flash point that's way too low. I have often wondered why. When someone calls me names, face to face, there is not time for a threat.

Consider it forgotten.

Sorry, had to edit my last post, I'm at work and cannot concentrate like I need to when reading sometimes, but from your post, I couldn't ascertain in which direction you were coming from. And lets not stoop to idle threats; you don't know me, I'm 6'7" and 525 lbs. of lean rock hard muscle! 

nOmad

Your operation, crossing your optical and rectal nerves, has given you a shitty outlook on life. Your labeling me as a polygrapher and sucker proves it. If we were face to face, yours wouldn't be there long.

BTW, since when has our federal government had to be legal to do any damn thing they want.

Hacking a web server without permission from the owner is against the law. I have nothing incriminating on this server anyway so they CANNOT find out who I am.  Perhaps you didn't read my post, but all they could get is my ip from the webserver host. My IP does not contain personal info. They cannot get my personal info without a SUBPOENA to my ISP, which they can't get because I am not breaking the law. 

They would have to get a warrant, which requires probable cause that the law is being BROKEN, and since the poly doesn't even hold up in a court of law....

But who knows what will happen now with the US Patriot Act. blah!  ???

nOmad

Don't ever think the national, and probably state and local as well,  LE agencies can't hack in on a website or post and find out exactly who you are. These people are expert hackers. How do you think they catch hackers and keep track of BeenLayen? However, if they have the time to spend to do this because of our "threat"? to the poly,  the force needs to be drastically reduced and the guilty ones charged with theft of tax payer money. 

Big brother probably has a personal file on every mother's child in this country. J.E. Hoover started this way back yonder. I think Lyndon got him going on it pretty good.

Torpedo wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2003 at 9:51pm:

Torpedo, you are right - partially.  It was Backster. OTOH, he went way beyond proposing plants eminated bioelectric signals. Specifically, he claimed that plants reacted to a intent to damage them...such as torch their leaves. Lot's of things have electronic signals, suggesting that plants have a special "psychic" response to threats is even more credulous than that they are sentient.

I love the "woo woo" factor though. People are so interesting.

-Marty

Is that what "IP logged" in the corner means?! Of course my ip is logged, but I'm sure George and his host are kind enough not to reveal that information to the polygraphers; that would be dumb  , not only that, but my ISP is not going to reveal my personal information to anyone without a subpoena; and that's just not gonna happen here.

Was that another attempt by a polygrapher to deceive?!?!

Besides, there is nothing illegal about this site, and we have every right to be here, and they will never "catch" me, they'd just be wasting their time seeing how they can't detect CM's.

They come here to catch you and guys like Ryan.  Don't you know that every time you post a message your IP is logged?

I laugh at polygraphers who come to this site and think they have to "convert" us; obviously the truth lies somewhere here. If not, can some of you tell us why you visit here regularly along with countless others?

Marty..get your facts right...it wasn't Reid that experiemented with plants....it was Cleve Backster....and his purpose was to see if there was any bioelectric signals emanating from them.....as it turns out...while the source remains in question, there was in fact some signal in response to his activity...remember they laughed at Edison too!

George,

It appears prevarication is not limited to examinees. I especially like this quote from the Penn. Atty Gen's sitehttp://www.attorneygeneral.gov/cld/articles/poly.cfm:

"The polygraphist then proceeds with a thorough explanation of how and why the polygraph works."

Interestingly, it does repeat the tale of the Tail:

"In 1500 B.C. in India, a priest put lampblack on the tail of a donkey and led the donkey into a dark room. Suspects were told to go into the room and pull the "magic" donkey's tail, for the "magic" donkey could determine dishonesty. When the suspects returned from the room their hands were examined. Those with clean hands obviously did not pull the donkey's tail, indicating their fear of being exposed, and, consequently, their dishonesty."

As for early exponents, Larson and Reid, but not Marston were mentioned. Reid's excellent adventure into plant polygraphy wasn't discussed. I've sometimes wondered how to establish the control questions when it comes to plants.

-Marty

Quote:


Guest,

Some three years ago now, I asked American Polygraph Association president Milton O. "Skip" Webb to clarify how APA members should proceed with subjects who admit to knowing about polygraph procedure. Mr. Webb declined to do so. You'll find our correspondence here:

http://antipolygraph.org/read.shtml#informed-subjects

Why do you suppose Mr. Webb was unwilling to explain how APA members are to handle those who understand "the lie behind the lie detector?"

So long as the polygraph community refuses to set public standards for dealing with informed subjects, many will no doubt decide that it is in their best interest not to disclose their knowledge of the trickery on which this invalid "test" is based.

With regard to countermeasures, if you are truly confident in your ability to detect them, then why not be the first to accept Dr. Richardson's polygraph countermeasure challenge?

I agree completely with Kona.  When an examiner tells you not to listen to the advice on this website, it's because he/she knows damn well that if you decide to employ countermeasures, you stand a very good chance at beating their absurd machine.   That is why they are tuned in to this site in the first place.  If one is not concerned with his opponent,  he probably won't waste his time researching his moves.   I generally don't like to generalize people, but I'll make an exception.  Polygraphers, for the most part, are a bunch of people who have capitalized on a craft that is total nonsense.  If you talk to a cvsa examiner, you will hear that the cvsa is superior to the polygraph.   When you talk to a polygraph examiner, they will tell how they are superior to cvsa.  In reality they are both a bunch of garbage.  My neigbor was released from the FBI hiring process because he was found to be deceptive on questions regarding foreign intelligence.   Give me a goddamn break.  The man has a degree in forensic science and worked for the county for 6 years.  Not to mention he is fluent in Spanish and French.  The chances of the average Joe having contacts with foreign intelligence is slim to none, but the FBI has this egregious belief in the lie detector.  For this reason alone I think the people who make the rules there are morons.

Angry Jerry listen carefully to the supporters of this site.  They have a mission to disrupt a successful and valid law enforcement tool to ease a pain you or I have not experienced.

It has been my experience as an examiner that most persons who approach the pre-employment polygraphs openly and honestly do not have much difficulty getting through the process.  Those who do have problems either bring it with them to the exam (they are hiding an important issue to the process) or they are not listening carefully to their examiner and have trouble making a distinction between what is relevant to the process and what is not.

Unfortunately you have psychologically placed yourself in what you perceive as a difficult spot.  Truly it is not.  Take it to heart that the supporters of this site have a personal axe to grind, even the experts who post here as supporters.  Their advice to you is to their benefit, as they may perceive it.  Mine may be as well.

You have heard the relative two sides, buck up and do what you feel you need to.  I look forward to hearing about your experience.

Angry Jerry,

I'll tell you what they are going to say........

"Thank you Angry Jerry for being so forthcoming and honest in your admission that you researched the polygraph because you were curious.  Now that you have assured us that you have no intention of employing countermeasures, everything will be just fine.  Just tell the truth, and everything will be peachy."   

And then you would be found to be deceptive, or your charts would be inconclusive.  At any rate, your ass would be on the street.   

Care to make a wager?   

Let us know what you decide to do.

Good luck.  You're going to need it, because after admitting what you know to the examiner, it will be the only way you'll get past your poly exam.

Regards,
Kona

It has been my experience that when someone reveals their knowledge of countermeasures and/or polygraph techniques the test can still be conducted.  It was mentioned ealier that the possibility of a DLQT could be used as an alternative to the CQT, that depends on the matter being tested.

My advice to you is to ensure your examiner you will cooperate and inform him that you have done research in regard to polygraph.  I have run many exams with examinee's who have revealed to me they have conducted researchy on the net regarding general information about polygraph and countermeasures.  Those exams went well and the persons were cleared of the matter being tested or provided information as to why they could not clear an issue.

I only speak for myself as far as how an examiner might regard such a revelation.  Me personally, I am not threatened by the advice on this site, others examiners may differ in concern.  Once countermeasures are detected it usually causes the process to end and the examinee to be considered uncooperative.

Your choice seems simple to me, take the exam without the use of countermeasures.  George and his crew of supporters are less concerned if countermeasures actually work than they are with trying to disrupt a process that excluded them in some manner, regardless of its success and usefulness.

If any examiners would like to give me their opinions or some advice off list that would be appreciated too.

AngryJerry81@hotmail.com

Don't any of the polygraph examiners here have a comment regarding this? What would you guys think/do if I was being examined by you but before the examine told you that I have a bit of a familiarity with the psych manipulations used and have read TLBTLD? Given that I would also be claiming that I'll be 100% honest (isn't coming clean honest?), not employ counter measures and that my information was acquired out of curiousity about how the poly works.

tia

Angry Jerry,

I gotta go with nomad on this one.  DO NOT tell the examiner that you researched the polygraph.  IMHO, you are setting yourself up for failure.  The first thing that pops into his mind will be that you are going to employ countermeasures.  He isn't going to care what BS excuse you come up with (your curiousity) to research the polygraph, he is going to think you are trying to beat him and his machine.  Why would you give him this kind of an advantage?   

Be polite, tell the truth, play dumb about your knowledge of the polygraph, practice your CMs, then USE THEM.  Otherwise, use the complete honesty approach, spill your guts about everything, volunteer information that the examiner doesn't have a need to know, and roll the dice.   

Let us know how it goes.  Good luck.

Kona

What I meant by having a good chance of passing, is not because he doesn't tell the polygrapher he knows about the polygraph, but because people tell the truth and they pass all the time; in other words, a majority pass just being truthful.

I of course, advice using CM's as I will, to hide some indiscrepancies, but in the end, it all comes back to you. You have to do what you feel you should so that if you do fail, you don't have anyone else to blame but yourself.

Quote:

n0mad,

I am not so sure about having a good chance of passing after becoming informed and not revealing one is informed. It is unlikely you will respond to the controls the same and he makes a good argument that he is more likely to fail as a result.  OTOH, if the examiner can be persuaded to use a DLCQT (directed lie control question test, used in DoE which has a high degree of "informed" examinees) one might have a better chance. But you are likely right, if an examiner is told initially one has studied the polygraph they are more likely to think one has something to hide rather than just being an inquisitive applicant.  Too bad, I think inquisitiveness is a valuable trait.

As I posted elsewhere, this is an area of interest and I, as well as AngryJerry, would be interested in how these things are handled by both examinees and examiners.

-Marty

One thing I know, and that is NOT to tell the polygrapher what you know about the polygraph; it is likely he will hold and use it against you.  CM's should be practiced and seamless in their use.  If you decide not to use CM's, you still have a good chance of passing, but you also stand a chance at failing. The object is still to tell the truth, but use CM's to ensure your passing.

hi all

I'm applying to be a LEO and have a poly coming up in my near future. Like every other aspect of the recruitment process I've done research to better my chances of passing. What an eye-opener it has been for me now that I've done some research on the poly!

The problem is that I don't want to lie on the poly or use countermeasures. From what I've read though it would seem to me that an informed person taking a poly test stands a good chance of failing.

If I'm truthful during the test but don't reveal my poly knowledge then I'm setting myself up for failure. I know what control questions are and I know what the examiners tactics are and as a result I'm less likely to have a physiological response to control questions and his tactics that will allow me to pass the relevant quetions.

On the other hand if I keep my poly knowledge quiet and use CM I stand a good chance of passing. But if I get caught employing counter measures I'm toast.

The third option is coming clean before the poly and telling my recruitment officer that I did research initially to prepare myself for what to expect and out of curiousity, NOT as a means of beating the poly. How does this affect the test if I come clean and the examiner knows that I understand how the test works? Can the test possibly be valid (not that it's valid anyways) on someone with prior knowledge? Any thoughts on what might happen to me if I come clean? Might they defer my application based on the fact that I have prior knowledge of the poly?

tia
aj