I am the original poster, and I wanted to update this thread a few years later.  First I want to clarify exactly what happened.  I took a CIA polygraph.  I made the mistake of not clearly understanding "The Lie Behind The Lie Detector" (TLBTLD).  I mistaked the irrelevant questions for control questions.  This is a Grade "A" crappity smack Up on my part.  I deserve to die because of this.

During my CIA polygraph, at the Dulles Discovery site on Air & Space Museum Pkwy in Chantilly VA, I tried to hold my breath slightly during the irrelevant questions.  I thought these were "Control" questions, which is where I crappity smacked myself.  By using countermeasures during the irrelevant questions, I set off an alarm to the polygraphers that I was using countermeasures.  The CIA uses the Irrelevant/Relevant questions pattern, so what I should have done was just have used countermeasures to cause reactions during different sets of Relevant questions so that I would pass.  This is clearly explained in TLBTLD, page 151.

The Irrelevant questions, as I recall, were similar to: Are we in Virginia?  Are the lights on?  Is your name XXX? 

The relevant questions, as I recall, were something like: Did you intentionally lie during any part of your recruitment or application?  Are you hiding any criminal activity?  Were you honest about your drug use?  Have you crappity smacked an animal or are you a f*g**t?  LOL, just kidding about that last one.  I wasn't asked that, but who knows if others were, as it all depends on the applicant's character...

At the end the polygrapher said "I know you were holding your breath, just like they tell you to do on the internet".  Then he asked "What do you know about the polygraph, where did you hear about it?".   I mentioned this site, and he responded with a negative comment about "the antipolygraph" site.  I don't remember the details though, I knew I was crappity smacked at this point.  Anyway, I did not confess to using countermeasures or anything, and I denied everything.  This was my last chance to save grace.  I was still rejected, but at least my file says that "no confessions were obtained" and simply that "the CIA felt strongly not to hire applicant".  This proves that they were aiming for a confession, which is the whole goal of polygraphy.  I have sense bounced back and now have a stable and successful career.  This CIA incident is behind me.  Everyone, make sure you understand TLBTLD before you take a polygraph.  Don't do like me and pull and ultimate fail.  Know the difference between a Control and an Irrelevant question, and know when to employ countermeasures.   

Busted is out.

rawform wrote on Jul 6^th, 2011 at 4:38am:


Curious?  I was under the impression, that in order to work for the government. One obviously had to be a moron to begin with.... 

Did anyone else notice the stinky photo on page 3 of this thread?  I'm surprised the site moderator left the pic up.  Maybe that is his sort of thing.  *giggles*

Quote:


George, it has been a long time since I have visited your site.  After hearing you on C2C I thought I'd stop by and "see what's been going on", and this clown show up.  

Busted, you sir don't deserve a Government job and with your latest outburst you have shown your mental capacities, or lack of them.  Busted your probably best suited at working at Wal-Mart.  Last I checked they don't poly.  

On the other hand if you are a poly examiner, which I suspect along with others that you are, you need to work on your demeanor.  From a former polygraphee to a polygrapher, your line of work is right up there with used car salesman and politicians!  True Scum!  Don’t agree?  Your precious box never uncovered Aldridge Ames or Robert Hansen.  There are more, however, these are the more contemporary ones that come to mind.  

Quote:



And you have now proved you are a liar.  That's really something to be proud of.

I used countermeasures incorrectly and got busted and failed my poly once ago.  What had happened was...
- I used CMs during the Irrelevant Questions instead of the Control Questions by mistake for a 3-letter agency's polygraph.  I didn't study TLBTLD thoroughly and screwed up.  Hence, I failed the poly.
- After realizing what went wrong in my first poly, I was recruited later by a different 3-letter agency and I used CMs, in my own way in a sense, and I passed (and I even lied out of my ass during the poly session). 

This proves the polygraph is one big joke.  It is a psych game.  Each time the polygrapher tries to falsely accuse you of stuff and get you to spill your guts because all polygraphers love confessions, so don't give them any!  By the way, failing a government polygraph will stay on your record and be shared with every other government agency you try to get a security clearance from.  A failed poly will flag your government file.  This is a pain in the butt and will make it harder and take longer to get other clearances in the immediate future.  However once enough time (at least a year) elapses and you have mitigated the issues (you can't really mitigate a failed poly unless you appeal and your appeal is granted, which may take at least a year), then you should be good to go with other clearances.

Bottom line, poly is a joke.  I failed a poly and passed a poly even though I lied.  It is a mind game, understand that.  Voodoo science.  A trick.  Be close-minded and understand that your brain can’t be read.  Play along with the polygraher’s “numbers game” which is becoming a far-too-common tactic that is getting old as well as the other standard polygraph games.  Do your research and don't screw up like I did.  This is a good site with lots of good material and will help anyone get through the polygraph.

Interesting post figs. I guess what I meant by haphazard is to be without a plan. Having a plan to be inconsistent would not be haphazard.

Quote:


How do we know consistant CMs are better then inconsistant ones? 

Maybe closing you're eyes sometimes (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1388245711002331), decreasing GSR reactivity during a relevant question, is a good move. Highly visible, but luks naturel. 

Varying CMs mite keep responses from being consistent. This might work *better* then consistant CMs on R/I tests (eg w/CIA and NSA). 

In all fareness, stefano, I can see how you may meen something other than "inconsistent" by "haphazard."

George,

Thank you for the information regarding blocking the image above.  It is a violation of treatment rules for persons in SOV treatment to view an image like this.  I did notice Chuckles posted and this would violate his treatment and may place he and others in his situation in jeopardy.

Sergeant1107,

Yes, it is possible for anyone to post as a guest and choose the name "busted." However, I have compelling reason to believe that all posts by "busted" in this thread are from the same person.

Bill,

Please, call me George. I also find the picture offensive. However, given the controversy this thread has engendered, I'm hesitant to modify busted's post in any way. If you're using Mozilla Firefox or Google Chrome, you can use the free Adblock Plus extension to block the image.

Mr. Maschke,

Your explanation for Busted is commendable.  I would suggest someone trained in LSA review the posts and proffer an opinion also.   

Also, can you please remove the picture, it is offensive to me personally.  Thank you for your consideration.

George,

Since "busted" is a guest registration, is it possible for the the messages posted under that screen name to be from different posters?

Can one person register as a guest, using the name "busted" at one time, and then days or weeks later another person register as a guest using the same screen name?

Just curious...

Quote:


Thank you for posting this clarification. Your subsequent post, however, is entirely inappropriate and an egregious violation of AntiPolygraph.org's posting policy. Under normal circumstances, it would be removed to the Discarded Posts forum. However, given the controversy that this message thread has engendered, it seems appropriate to leave it here so that readers may form their own judgments.

To All,

I do not assume that "busted" is a polygrapher trolling the forum. While such behavior is not without precedent, it does not seem to me that busted's postings in this thread are an example of such.

I thought I recognized your style.

There goes the next director of the CIA.

Busted, I'm sorry you are so perturbed about this. Perplexing as it may seem, some polygraphists, who are supposedly professionals in search of the truth, engage in silly childish deception themselves with their lame and often humorous attempts at impostorization. They seem to have total control over their charade in the polygraph suite, but not here. I have no ill will towards you, I simply don't believe you because your postings didn't add up. If I'm wrong, then I'm sorry. Good luck to you.

crappity smack ALL OF YOU!  YOU WOULDN'T KNOW A TRUE STORY IF IT PISSED ON YOUR FACES!  crappity smack THIS SITE, IT IS NOTHING BUT A BUNCH OF IDIOTS WITH SMART ASS COMMENTS.  YOU ARE PROBABLY ALL POLYGRAPHERS AND GEORGE IS THE ONLY LEGITIMATE ONE ON THIS SITE. YOU ARE ALL A BUNCH OF crappity smackIN BITCHES AND CAN GO TO HELL!  crappity smackIN ASSHOLES!


George, feel free to delete this entire thread since the assholes on here only crappity smacked it up and swear that I must be lying or be an undercover polygrapher, which is their stupid response to everything.  I hope you all die a slow painful death!

Busted,
My intention is not to be rude but to state the obvious. If you are a legitimate applicant, then you must be a moron and I would think that you should not be working for our government. Since you knew about TLBTLD and could not even properly prepare for such and important part of your application process it’s my thought that you would be of no benefit to any of the government’s agencies. Your application process is of the utmost importance and the first impression the recruitment office has of you. If I where going to be applying to "a big secret government agency" I would have studied TLBTLD until I my eye’s bled. There is no way I would just apply with out preparation. Which leads me to believe one of two things, you must be a NEW polygrapher making a lame attempt to sidestep new viewers of this site, because any seasoned polygrapher who has been on this site knows damn well most of us would not fall for such a bad act. Or you are truly an idiot that should go back to school and learn a few things before attempting to apply for a J-O-B with our government. Good luck with what ever you’re attempting to do.

Quote:

You read TLBTLD before taking the polygraph exam, but you failed to grasp the difference between an irrelevant question and a control question? And after George impeaches your original posting, you are overcome by this sudden epiphany? Your story becomes more enigmatic with each posting.

I have a BIG CORRECTION to make.  I apologize for this in advance and sorry for any trouble I caused.  In my original posts, I claimed  that I was caught using CMs on "Control Questions" for pre-employment with a top secret government agency.  I had kept a personal journal of my recruitment process where I documented everything that occured, then stashed it away for some time.  I have just dug this journal up out of my clutter and discovered something.  The questions that I was asked on my polygraph WERE NOT CONTROL QUESTIONS, they were IRRELEVANT QUESTIONS as classified in TLBTLD book on this site.  I didn't realize this at first but after re-reading TLBTLD, I noticed this.  Therefore, I had been using the breathing method of CMs on the Irrelevant Questions, not Control Questions which are non-existent in this polygraph session.  I bet that by me using breathing CMs at the wrong time (TLBTLD says they should be used during control questions, not irrelevant questions), that I screwed myself.  This is likely the reason for my failure of the polygraph.  Well, I admit this mistake.  I recommend everyone reading TLBTLD thorougly  before you take a poly so you don't make the same mistake I did.  Anyway, I'm sorry for the confusion.  I used breating CMs at the wrong time and I screwed myself.   I have more faith in this website now.  I was busted due to only to my negligence.

Quote:


I'm interested in the questions you believed to be "control" questions because you stated in your original post that you took a polygraph for "a big secret government agency." The implication is that it was either the CIA or the NSA. Both of these agencies use the relevant/irrelevant technique for pre-employment polygraph screening. This technique does not generally include any control questions. Hence my curiosity regarding the specific questions that you identified as control questions.

Quote:

I don't believe you because I have studied all of your postings and they don't pass the reasonableness test.

Wow, I can't believe this.  Really guys?  So a person comes on here and says they were busted using CMs, and that person must be a pro-polygraph supporter in disguise.  But if a person comes on here and says they beat the poly using CMs, then the pro-polygraph people swear that that person must have been tested by a less-than-qualified-examiner.  Does this logic make sense to anyone???

I give you my word that I am not a polygraher or a pro-polygraph supporter.  I am someone who tried to use CMs and failed.  I'm sure I'm not the first person in the world that this happened too.  You all are free to believe what you want to believe. But if you just dispell those of us who supported this site but failed to successfully employ CMs and got caught, then what good is it to even try to post our story here?  I'm done.  I've given my honest story and provided my first hand advice to those who will be taking a poly soon.  If you are nervous and going to take a poly and will be trying these CM tricks for the first time and think you will pass with no problem, as if you are the first person to ever do this, you are fooling yourself.  Try sitting in that chair for three hours while the same questions are repeated over and over and think you can mimic your same CM pattern the entire time, on the right questions, without fault...
Goodbye

Polygraph examiners or advocates who attempt to be impostors on this website are doing their cause a disservice. You are supposed to be professionals seeking the truth, yet you engage in this immature deception. Oh, how I love the irony.

figs wrote on Jun 29^th, 2011 at 12:41am:

Figs, "haphazard" is not a measure of quality. It is a lacking of plan, order or direction.