I'd just like to point out here that each of the polygraphers that have posted on this thread have NOT supported the scientific basis for the polygraph itself, but rather, have supported the INTERROGATION, which the polygraph gives them an excuse to conduct.

In Soviet Russia, similar "rule through terror-style" interrogation techniques were employed AND WORKED quite well.  In fact, most corrupt governemnt make LIBERAL use to brutal interrogation tactics.  It is a well-known fact that totalitarian regimes can function adequately for a LIMITED time, through only terror-based law, which always includes lies and manipulative interrogations--just ask any Russian citizen who was thrown into the gulag.

The main point here is that this form of governing and/or leadership is eschewed in the free-world and in all human-rights oriented societies.  In such governments, these tactics for leadership and rule are typically seen for what they are--lies that are meant to control and manipulate people.  Lying for the sake of controlling--the ends justifying the means.

I am the first to admit that the polygraph may well, force some admissions from the FEW truly guilty people that undergo the interrogation process.  However, #1--people have also been known to make false confessions under such duress, and (most importantly)

#2--Rule through terror is NEVER a form of leadership that will ultimately yield good fruit.  These agencies will CONTINUE to suffer severe brain-drain, as the BEST and most gifted people will refuse to be mistreated in such a manner, and will take their skills and talents to organizations that will respect them and their basic human rights.

retcopper wrote on Feb 9^th, 2006 at 10:40pm:


retcopper,

Now let me get this straight, I am going to go and give up all my real degrees and training, and go to a half baked trade school and get a bunch of worthless training that isn't even accredited by real universities or colleges. Then I am going to go and do some BS polygraph testing, and lie through my teeth to the unwitting examinees, so I can feel good about myself because I believe I am doing whats right.  The best part of this reply is knowing that by not even debating me, it more than proves that you don't have the training or capabilities to debate. And the interpretation on the Virginia case came directly from a practicing defense lawyer in Virginia. Next time you need to argue with real facts not off the hip. I generally give most LEO's a lot of credit, in your case I consider it sour grapes that your little polygraph world is crumbling. I dislike the use of polygraphs period. Destroying an honest persons life with a false positive, just 1 time is just wrong.  And we all know how much you polygraphers admit to being wrong.  Its way too much abusive power in the wrong hands.

Regards ...

John:

The New York Times.  Now that is a real credible source.  The times and LEO are like oil and water.  They don't mix. I bet 90% of the people who post here beleive the propaganda that the Times prints.

EosJupiter:

I read your feeble attempt at trying to explain the law regarding the polygrapher in the Vriginia excecution case and I rolled on the floor laughing, so I won't attempt to respond to your misinformed and ignorant statements regarding polygraphy.  When you have completed the required training and have administered some polygraph tests I will answer your questions. When you have done that I will know that you at least know a  little of what you are talking about.

retcopper,

what is the answer to those of us cheated out of careers by being called drug dealers by the FBI or whomever?

I know what the folks at Polygraphplace.com say. As long as the polygraph is 51% accurate, friendly fire is OK because its a net gain. Also, interviewing and other parts of the process are subjective so whats the diff?

the answer: Other parts of the process arent purporting to be scientific or to find the answer to a non-subjective issue, ie--whether one is lying.

retcopper,

You seem to maintain the same MO as most of the other flash-in, flash-out polygraphers (there are exceptions) who post here. You make a statement, spew forth BS, then take off like a screaming little girlie man. Why don't you try coming in with some real verbage and debate real issues. But I sense that your not really interested in anything constructive. I bet your relieved to be retired, as now you can relax and not have to face all the folks that are prepared with countermeasures and would make you look silly. Enjoy the time off.

Regards ...

retcopper wrote on Feb 8^th, 2006 at 10:45pm:


And why do I  need to be a criminal law expert for me to understand that the polygraph is garbage?

I don't have to be a doctor to know that smoking is bad for my health.  The surgeon general already made his statement.  In this case, the National Academy of Science, the New York Times, Melissa Boyle Mahle and countless others have already made their statements.

Nonombre:

I drop in here once in awhile to get amused.  I have been doing investigations and polygraphs for over 35 yrs and the statements  by some of these characters in here leaves me flabbergasted.  They think  have all the answers despite not having ever conducted an investigation.

On the original topic of this message thread, Dr. John Furedy sends the following observation:

Quote:


The obvious choice for someone facing a CIA polygraph session is to go with mental countermeasures (described in Chapter 4 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector).

nonombre wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2006 at 5:16am:


Nonombre,

There you go again with your ASSumptions. I simply stated that I never said that I was a thorough, perceptive investigator and adept interrogator. Having said that, that doesn't mean that I've never conducted interviews and investigations. Unlike you, I don't need a useless tool to aid me as I try to read people. I don't mind working hard and digging until I uncover the truth. I strive to be the best that I can in my profession and feel good about the work that I'm doing. I can honestly say I have no problem looking in the mirror and liking what I see. I don't have to sit around and wonder how many people I've vicitmized.      

With all due respect, I don't think there are many people posting on this board who have purported to be experts and administered polygraphs. However, there are many who have told the truth and failed them. If you'd ever  taken a poly without any prior knowledge, told the truth and failed, then you would know just how truly worthless those machines are.  You state that examinees try to figure out what examiners are thinking. Examiners are also trying to figure out what examinees are thinking. Although I'm sure you would love to be able to--the truth is that you can't read minds, though hard as you may try. Sure you may know things as an examiner that we don't know, but we know things as examinees that you'll never know. 

You might want to think twice before you go ASSuming things about people you don't know and spouting off about them. Sort of like spending a couple of hours with someone, hooking them up to machine and then fooling yourself into believing that you know everything about them. As usual, Nonombre,  you've fallen well short of proving any point. You have been successful at one thing--making yourself look bad as you duck the hard questions, surface for quick jabs and offer very little in the way of substance. 

NoNombre,

By waning I mean, here are statements made by the parent of a child that was molested. If you have ever been in Huron County, Michigan, (Which I have), you would know how far off the beaten path this is. These folks live in a gorgeously rural area of the lower 1/2 of Michigan. For what reason would this father, research or even make the statement about the polygraph being subjective. Unless he had the belief to question it. The newspaper quoting the  parent makes it a public opinion.  I can't assume that he researched anything on polygraphy, but the statement alone poses the question that he gained the information that the polygraph was subjective from somewhere. Most likely from public sources or local opinions. This theory supports the waning premise. 

Good post with support arguements ... We may never agree on the polygraph, but your getting better with qualitative postings.

Regards ..

EosJupiter wrote on Feb 4^th, 2006 at 4:39am:


Eosjupiter,

I know nothing more about this case than the article you have presented, but I have a question:

Isn't it a bit of a "leap of faith" to extrapolate, "..., it appears the publics opinion on the validity of the polygraph is waning," from .."the parents openly dispute the polygraph results as subjective."

I mean many people consider polygraph results as "subjective."  How does that equate to  "...(the) publics opinion on the validity of the polygraph is waning?"

I don't see the connection...

Nonombre

All Concerned,

I have here a recent article on a polygraph clearing a kid of child molestation. But what is interesting to note is it cleared him, the parents openly dispute the polygraph results as subjective. It appears the publics opinion on the validity of the polygraph is waning. Now for our polygraphers here. So did your boy, not catch the countermeasures or did he honestly pass the test? There was a lot of time to prepare for this exam it appears too. Seems to me the DA was smart to drop the charges,  now even if he is guilty, by statements made to the Michigan State Trooper, there isn't a snowballs chance in Florida of ever getting a case to court. To sum up the point on this tread,  again the results can be argued unreliable and now its closed anytype of investigation to follow.  So again it appears we have a dicotomy, and it can't go both ways. Definately makes one wonder to know if the CIA polygrapher could have caught it either.

Link:
http://www.michigansthumb.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=16061143&BRD=2292&PAG=461&dep...



Regards ...

Nonombre,

I've never given a polygraph exam, but I've been the receipient of two failed ones while telling the truth.   

Who can tell you more or less if a medical procedure works?  The patient who has to live with the disfiguring  medical mistake for the rest of his life, or the doctor who performed the foul-up and is sipping a pina colada at a remote beach?

As long as there are fools like "razor", unqualified applicants who seek advice on how to cheat their way through a polygraph exam (see "Beta Blockers and Poly" under Polygraph Procedure), polys will continue to be used in the hiring process.

nonombre wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2006 at 2:00am:

Nonombre,

I guess it is a matter of opinion.  I believe we are losing more good applicants through the polygraph process than we are weeding out bad applicants.

Your experience of running down every possible lead on outstanding applicants and having them confess to serious crimes has happened, in your own words, “more than once.”  If you can quantify that more precisely it would be helpful.  However, to me that phrase implies that, although such a thing has happened, and has happened more than a single time, it has not happened on a regular basis, nor has it happened often enough on a sporadic basis to justify a description of anything other than “more than once.”

You wrote that you have done thousands of background investigations, yet the number of times an apparently “outstanding” applicant has unexpectedly confessed to serious crimes because of the polygraph is probably less than ten or you would have likely phrased it differently.

I have no idea how many BI’s you have conducted, but since you characterize it as “thousands” it would be safe to assume you have done at least two thousand.  In that span you have encountered, say, ten applicants who passed the BI but unexpectedly confessed to serious crimes when they took the polygraph.  

Using those numbers (which I realize involve assumptions on my part) means that utilizing the polygraph weeds out .05% of applicants who otherwise would have moved on in the application process if only the background investigation was used.  One-half of one percent.  That’s it.

As you may recall, I failed my first three polygraphs and was removed from the application process at each of those agencies.  The fact that I told the complete truth during each polygraph, did not withhold any information, and had never even heard of countermeasures apparently did not matter – I failed anyway and was not hired, even though I was an outstanding candidate.  In my fourth polygraph I answered the questions the same way I had on my first three and inexplicably passed.

Using my own experiences as a guide, the polygraph disqualifies outstanding applicants, who have already passed the background investigation, at a rate of 75%.  I realize my experiences may not be typical, but the massive disparity in numbers is striking.  

If agencies relied solely on a thorough background investigation, and eschewed the polygraph completely, it might very well result in a fraction of unsuitable applicants “sneaking” through without their illegal activities coming to light.  According to my admittedly rough estimates, it could result in, say, five bad applicants out of every thousand.  While no one wants any dishonest or lawbreaking police officers at all, I think we can all agree that no matter what the application process consists of there will, sadly, always be a small percentage of “bad” cops.

I believe that tiny percentage would be more than made up for by the large numbers of outstanding candidates who successfully pass the background investigation and are not mindlessly removed from the process because of the polygraph exam.

Quote:


George,

Its interesting to know this, and reveals alot about the current mindset of the polygraphers. If it could have been filmed it would have made "Americas Funniest Home Videos", but its obvious the effects of this website seem to be reaching the nerves of our illustrious polygraph community. So paranoid they have become, that now they don't even trust there machines, and have to try and catch a physical type countermeasure. Trouble is its a testimony to the fact that they can't detect the mental ones.  Personnally I would have told the polygrapher to stick that machine where the sun don't shine. No organization is worth working for, if you have to put up with this type harassment.  Better to be your own boss than put up with any organization that believes your guilty until polygraphed innocent. I state again that everytime a polygraph is given. A new antipolygraph person is created. !!! Just my opinion of course, but I bet the numbers of downloads from this site just keep on increasing. 

NoNombre:

I enjoyed the walk down memory lane, most of the smart comments were mine. Good to know that I was appreciated !! But to your credit you actually had arguments and verbage to support it. Good Job !!


Regards

Nonombre

This post is not ment to be insulting or as a stinger, although I am guilty of spouting a couple on this site mostly in fun, and I am not an expert on polygraphy. Having been on my college debate and never losing one, I know an intelligent debate when I see one and doggone it guy, you expert polygraphers can't seem to hold your own with "experts" (your quote) on this site. When you get into trouble and can't/wont answer ligitimate questions you resort to trash rhetoric (which brings on responces of same) or "we won't give away our secrets". Don't ask me for examples. That would be a cop out. There are too many to even start listing. All you have to do is review your past posts and their responses. Although I have done a lot of research on the polygraph over the years, I do not enter into the debates because I don't know enough to effectively debate the issues and I hate to lose at anything. My question is: will you people return to ligitimate debate?

Your question is probably: Then why are on here. And the answer is !!!! It is a forum where I can promote my views on government waste and corruption of which I believe polygraphy is an example. And yes, my field (mining) has corruption and I expose it whenever I run across it. Gets a little sticky at times but, what the hell, I'm still alive. This is my hobby.

nonombre wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2006 at 5:16am:


Nonombre,

You are correct.  I have never adminstered a polygraph exam.  However, I have sat for two of them (so far).  Damned funny thing about it is that I failed the first and passed the second.  Funnier yet, is that the particular question I failed on the first I passed on the second.  More humor?  I didn't consider or attempt countermeasures.  So in my experience (so far) the polygraph truly is a 50/50 coin toss.  No, I don't qualify as an expert and I never claimed to be, although I log on often.

No to burst your little investigative bubble, but I do hope you are not so dim that you believe only law enforcement personnel conduct investigations.  I, not being law enforcement, have conducted many investigations as a part of my current employment (about 12 years worth).

Any informed examinee is able to see what a polygraph examiner is doing.  The relevant questions stick out like a sore thumb.  It has a bit to do with the seriousness of the question asked.  It really is not difficult to zero.

Employment should not hinge upon a polygraph result.  You know that to be true.  If you believe otherwise, I commend you on your dedication, however I feel sadness for you for your blindness.

So...which excuse would you offer up for the vast discrepancy between my first and second polygraph exam?  Examiner error?  Examinee manipilation?  Misread of the charts?  Sour grapes?  Please feel free to choose from one of the above multiple choice answers or provide a write in for extra credit.   8)

nonombre wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2006 at 5:16am:


Nonombre,
Who qualifies as being a polygraph expert in your book?  Do non-polygraph experts ever have anything intelligent to say about the polygraph?

polyfool wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2006 at 3:29am:


Polyfool,

You actually just proved my point.  You have never conducted a polygraph examination, never conducted an investigation, but you sure know all about it.

You see I have determined this website is populated by people who have never administered a polygraph test.  These self proclaimed polygraph "experts," posting day after day telling themselves and others over and over, all about the intricate details of how a polygraph works, What the examiner is "really doing," what he is "really thinking," how to "beat the process," oh, the vast conspiracy of it all.

These same people are also suddenly "experts" in the field of background and criminal investigations, although most have never opened a case file of any kind, have never conducted and interview or an interrogation, never faced the rigors of any of these jobs, oh but they sign on night after night, and inform the rest of us who have dedicated our lives to these pursuits, how we are 'obviously not doing it right.  They are smarter than, we are.  If we only gave them a chance, they would show us all how to do it.

Ah yes, they would conduct a "proper" investigation.  They would do it right.  The rest of us?  Let me see, oh yeah, that's right.  We are "lazy," "incompetent", "liars,", "manipulators," "evil,""uneducated," "stupid," "destined to serve up French fries at the local drive in, while THEY pull up in their new BMW's and have the last laugh," etc, ect, ect.

Keep on posting.  Tell me all about it...

Nonombre

Quote:

FYI 
#4 & #5 can be detected by the seat cushion.

Quote:


Most Govt Examiners sit so they can see the examinee's face from the side.

nonombre wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2006 at 3:22am:

I never said it was me, but it's obviously not you.

My two cents:

In both of the polygraph exams I've taken the examiner sat to my side, once to my left and once to my right.  The examiners each studied my face during the exams as well.  The first examiner was quite concerned with countermeasures as he had the seat pad as well as a mirror next to my foot which was angled for his viewing pleasure.  For some reason, the first examiner directed me to lower my suspenders from my shoulders and remove all contents in my pockets (shirt and pants).

I have heard of examiners requesting the test subject remove his or her shoes.


To Nonombre:  As far as finding admissions during a background investigation that would not otherwise be found except through polygraph (these are not my words or belief but the words and belief of many a polygraph examiner) why not do what investigators have done for ages?  Play the bullshit card.  The ole' "Well we don't think you have been completely honest with us, through our background investigation we have found (insert bullshit).  If the applicant provides an admission zap him from further consideration.  If not, he continues.  It would basically be the polygraph without the "instrument."

polyfool wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2006 at 3:06am:


I guess that be you?

A thorough, perceptive investigator and adept interrogator wouldn't need to use a polygraph.