Quote:


Pseudeo Revelant,

Your quote is heaven sent. If you remove the "fear" factor from the polygraph you relegate it to basically the decision of the person at the key board.

I believe that many of the polygraphers who visit this site don't want to understand that HONEST PEOPLE have been victimized by this pseudo-science. If they read the personal statements of Captain Jones, and Mark Mallah, who had promising careers destroyed by an exam that has never been proven to be as accurate as those who purvey it want you to believe. 

These men have INTEGRITY and when their dreams were shattered by a person with 8-10 weeks of "training", chose to fight back and with the help of those of us who have joined in here on this site. We will get the attention of the powers that be that polygraph testing is a FRAUD!

Quote:


This is why the polygraphers are very defensive of their jobs.....They have a new enemy, the sister pseudo-science called CVSA....the polygraph industry has jumped all over the "accuracy" of the CVSA in an attempt to keep their own profession untouched.....like you said......

Tick....Tick....Tick


Fred F.  

Quote:
 "Chartgazing"? And you went to an accredited polygraph school? Is that what your instructors called it? I suppose you never had to put money in the "jar" when you called it a "machine", right? I wonder, oh great intrepreter, you gazer of the charts, can you read my thoughts right now? What a load...

Quote:
Citizens? What are you... leader of the storm troopers? Ohhhh, I get it... you're the American Gestapo. You only wish the citizens will stay "unarmed" because if enough become educated to your sorcery, you're toast and you know it. Ask Renzelman...
Quote:
 Kinda like the Jews in Germany during WW II. They deserved what they got too, didn't they? I wonder how loud you'll squeal when the people take action and remove you from your pedestal. Oh, we'll treat you according to your education level. You'll qualify for a burger flipping job at McDonalds, if they lower their standards far enough.
Quote:


We don't "fear" the polygraph. What we do fear is the numbers of people who are going to be wrongly labeled as liars. Being a people of ethics, it is wrong for us to sit back and watch people like you make a living by fraud at the expense of the truthful.
Quote:


Hey Sparky... You should heed your own warning. We know you can be sued. That's why you pay a bond to hold your license every year. Your release form is not worth the paper it's written on. Get your wallets out those who call yourselves polygraphists... your money is going to change hands, your to ours... tick, tick, tick, goes the clock. Your time is short. Now, go and enjoy the rest of your day!

Annuder Examiner,

Like AMM, I, too, appreciate it when polygraph examiners post their points of view on this forum.  

Quote:


We made it very clear on page 71 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector that polygraphers would be reading the book.  I thank you for reminding everyone.

Nonetheless, I fail to see how knowing about the way in which sophisticated polygraph countermeasures are performed equates to a demonstrated ability to detect them.  I encourage any of the examiners reading this forum to post cites for any peer reviewed studies you know of where polygraph examiners were shown to possess the ability to detect sophisticated polygraph countermeasures (like those described on this site) at better than chance levels.  I know of only one such study, and it showed that experienced polygraph examiners were not able to detect sophisticated countermeasures at better than random levels.  

Furthermore, you gentlemen may wish to explain how physiological changes caused by muscle contraction, pain, or stressful thoughts differ from those you equate with deception when recorded by the polygraph instrument.  Once again, any cites (polygraph journals, etc) would be greatly appreciated.  

Quote:


I’m not following your logic here.  The polygraph "test" has not been shown by peer-reviewed scientific research to reliably distinguish truth from deception.  In other words, it doesn’t work.  If one submits to a polygraph and tells the truth, there is a still a substantial chance that this individual will fail, be denied employment, and have absolutely no recourse.  More simply put, even if you are truthful, you have something to fear.  On the other hand, simple techniques exist that, if properly performed, will ensure that a truthful individual will “pass” the test and escape with his reputation unscathed.   I don’t understand why you find it amazing that we suggest that truthful people may wish to manipulate the outcome of a "test" with odds worse than Russian Roulette.  One can either “roll the dice” or be assured of “passing.” 

And, as far as “cheating” and “rationalizing behavior in support of one’s own interests,” I am curious as to how you justify the deception and trickery by the polygrapher on which these “tests” depend.  I may be misinterpreting you here—I apologize in advance if I am—but it appears that you are insinuating that employing countermeasures when truthful is unethical behavior, yet your chosen profession involves a procedure that relies on providing the person being “tested” with false and misleading explanations.   Perhaps you can explain how you rationalize this dichotomy.  

Annuder Examiner:

Please indulge us and post the degree(s) you hold and where you work.  You have impugned not only the integrity of those who use this website, but their intelligence as well. As such, I think it is entirely fair to inquire about your formal education.   Since you have nothing to hide from, you should feel free to provide this information. 

Ad hominem attacks are not productive and I won't engage in them.  I think having a polygrapher participating in this forum is important and I encourage you to continue to post your views.  You should be attacking the arguments made here, not the authors.

What I see missing in your post, as well as Mr. Latimer's, is evidence supporting the polygraph as scientifically valid.  Can  you provide ANY peer-reviewed scientific studies that would support the accuracy claims made by your community?  Peer-review is essential in determining whether a study is valid or merely fiction.  Anyone can publish a study supporting a particular claim, but the real proof is whether or not that study can stand up to the scrutiny of other disinterested professionals.  The research I've reviewed does not support your community's claims.  I would urge you to review the Federation of American Scientists study on polygraphy.  It is available at "www.fas.org"  

I have posted to other threads on this website and enjoyed reading the posts of LykenD, a retired police polygrapher.  He has not found it necessary to attack the characters of those who post here and I applaud him for it.  I also applaud him for acknowledging that polygraphy has an error rate, and given that error rate,  he probably accused innocent applicants of lying and passed those that were.  His honesty is to be commended.

You mentioned in your post that: "One can always rationalize their behavior in their support of their own interests."  I suppose that could be said about the polygraph community as well.  I find it only natural for you to be upset your chosen profession is called into question. However, you haven't engaged in any constructive argument here.  If you should chose to make another post, please avoid using the oft-cited argument of "utility."  (Let's try to keep this science-based, rather than  emotion-based.)  As I mentioned to LykenD, the argument for using rubber hoses on applicants to stimulate admissions could easily be made based on utility.

R,

AMM

good examiners? LMAO is that like saying, I've got a really "nice pimple"? lol 

sorry I don't mean to throw stones.
I guess it's because I am against this junk science so it must be I have bad genes and can't control myself, I must be scum if I don't think the poly is a miracle truth machine.....

bad me bad me.....

Ray,  I think we met at a "chartgazing" seminar a few years back.  Funny, you didn't seem gullible or even given to respond to the (I'm calling-you-out) name calling attitude of those uninformed people who are disgruntled with our profession. I have not commented (until now) because I don't feel the need to have a battle of wits with unarmed citizens.   

As you can see, most of their commentary is ignorant and ill advised.  I also find it also self defeating.  If one reads the cr*p on this site, then enters into a test environment, uses what they have "learned", then returns to this site afterwards and complains of the problems in their test because of their own efforts, then they, like the good people of New York who voted Hillary in, "DESERVE IT!"  I always found it amazing that the same people who say it doesn't work, find it necessary to try and CHEAT.  If it doesn't work then you have nothing to fear...One can always rationalize their behavior in their support of their own interests. 

P.S.  To all, good examiners read this garbage too, so be careful what you decide to use in a polygraph suite or it may come back to bite you!

G.W. wrote on Aug 8^th, 2001 at 10:49pm:


Since when does a polygrapher require "justification" to deem a "test" inconclusive?

If one has made the decision to employ countermeasures, and a polygrapher asks the subject to alter his breathing, as in the above referenced polygraph test, what is the prevailing wisdom on how to respond? Should you stick to your guns and maintain a controled breathing? Or would this piss off the polygrapher and give him/her justification for deeming the test inconclusive?

??? [font=Verdana][/font][color=Blue][/color]
KILL THE HEADLESS CHICKEN!!!!!!!

False +, your conversational vehicle (no pun intended) of a car seat and accompanying seat belt is an excellent focus for the comparisons you draw.  But the comparisons go far beyond the fact that there frequently exists discomfort with the polygraph (cardio cuff) and that, as Mr. Latimer has pointed out and you have concurred with, that, as opposed to a car seat, one is not belted/bolted into a polygraph chair.  Mr. Latimer’s claim to simply correct exaggerations is QUITE DISINGENOUS though, if he does not fully illuminate the truth about the polygraph chair and the environment in which it is used.  Although as opposed to a car seat, a polygraph chair does not contain a chair restraint, the automobile passenger can remove his own restraint and disembark from the vehicle on his own accord.  With the exception of the electrodermal plates, a polygraph examinee cannot readily remove the polygraph attachments (cardio cuff/pneumo tubes) and his therefore is confined to the nearby surroundings of the polygraph chair within the time frame and pleasure of the polygraph examiner.  Furthermore, for all practical purposes the polygraph exam (in-test phase) does not end until the polygraph examiner declares it to have ended.  I suppose minor children directed by parents and kidnap victims held at gun point by kidnappers can be forced to remain in a car, but I hope Mr. Latimer understands that under normal circumstances there is no such compulsion or duress for competent and mature adults to remain in a car beyond their desire.  But the true benefit of your analogy, False +, comes after the completion of the in-test phase of polygraph, i.e., during the interrogation of an examinee found to be deceptive.  Polygraph examiners as they are taught, sometimes while the examinee is still in the chair with polygraph attachments in place, will invade the personal body space of the examinee, i.e., they will go “knee to knee” “in your face” with the examinee in an effort to effort to gain control of the ensuing conversation and elicit the desired confession, even with the knowledge that their deceptive polygraph tracing may simply be a false positive result (They are told you (they) have to “believe the charts.” (in fact, they are taught you (they) must be a true believer to be successful).  Perhaps the biggest benefit of this (our) present conversation is that this sort of thing can be exposed.  Every examinee when confronted with this last set of circumstances should (1) demand to freed from polygraph chair and polygraph attachments if a discussion about polygraph results and conclusions is to take place and (2) should very politely but very forcefully let the polygraph examiner know that the interview has reached its conclusion if the examiner is in any way shape or form accusing the examinee of deception based on the pseudo-diagnostic charade (polygraph exam) which would have just preceded their discussion/interrogation.

The point about being strapped down has been covered before here.

I think Ray Latimer's point on the strapping issue is that a "subject" is not attached to the chair like a driver by a seatbelt in a car. Even so, a seatbelt is actually very comfortable. On the other hand, a blood pressure cuff attached to the arm tightly is painful, as indicated by the poster who first used the term "strapped".

Now that we've gone to great lengths to establish that the subject is not actually bolted to the chair, I'd like to note that polygraphy still has not been proven to sort lie from truth. Oh but wait, would it work if the pneumatic tubes went all the way around the chair? Or if the chair had seatbelts?

XXX
I am sorry that you find my reply to be childish.  The purpose of my reply is not to be didactic or condescending, but rather to call attention to the gross exaggeration that is being perpetuated. one  loses a certain amount of creditability when one tends to exaggerate.  I am shocked that your reply is so acrimonious and shame on you for the language tsk! tsk!   Ray L. 

Ray,
Is that all you can bring to the discussion? We're saying your chosen profession is a bunch of BS and all you can come back with is a childish arguement about being "strapped down"? I've seen this bitching before about being strapped down. Who cares what people call it? Why don't we start a thread about which pronunciation is correct tomato or tomAto?

Quote:


Ray,

Since you are a "purveyor of the art" you know that regardless of what the charts say(or don't say) you tighten the pneumo tubes and inform the candidate that this is to insure that the readings are correct.
 
This is akin to being "strapped down". I suppose when you attended your "Poly U" they showed you that tightening the pneumo tubes will constrict normal chest expansion and change the way the charts read(or don't read). 

The examiner instills the fear into those who are uneducated about your "art" when they give the usual pre-interview speech about the "accuracy and dependability of the "test". You must wonder why the Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department did 4800 polys last year, yet only 1600 people got hired. That equates to 3200 or so "inconclusive" or "deceptive" polys. Nuff said.

Hi! Polyfraud, 
Polyfraud, I am not nitpicking.  I am sure that a "college educated" person should be able to discern the difference between being "strapped down" and having a monitoring device applied.  Why can't you say it like it is.  By the way most of the polygraphists that I know are "college educated",  some of them have graduate degrees and there are a few with Ph.ds, Law degrees and even A couple of Ministers.                              
Ray L.

    In response to Mr. Latimer's reply about being upset by polygraph victims using the term "strapped-in", I think we all know that we are actually not strapped to the chair. I'm sure that they are refering to the pnuemo tubes and arm cuff being strapped on thier body. Having been through 3 Federal L.E. polygraphs myself I must say that you certainly do feel "strapped" to the chair as you are immediately reminded should you even move the slightest bit during the examination. I vividly remember the pressure cuff being "strapped" on so tight on my arm that my whole hand went numb. I was just praying that I wouldn't flinch or move otherwise I would be reminded to stay still. I'm sure that polyphonies (examiners) would just love to be able to strap thier victims down given the opportunity to do so.

Quote:



Um, you're nitpicking my choice of words describing the process after you've read about the crap I had to endure? I wasn't actually ANTI poly anything I had a iota of doubt that maybe the polygraph worked after all and the anti poly sites just had a bone to pick. However, after taking the polygraph myself for a LE pre-employment position I realize how fraudulent the whole thing is. I'm not a stupid person, i'm not some uneducated joe six pack off the street. I am a college educated individual from a tier one university in california I can tell pseudoscience from real science. Hell, acupuncture is around 100% more credible than this poly garbage at least APPROVED medical research has proven that the former works in some cases to ease pain. Polygraph has been disclaimed by people with Ph.D and is invalid in court.. that to me is a sure indicator that something is terribly amiss. I'm not going to let this thing slide however, if I do end up bombing the poly because of the infamous "False positive" I guarantee I will write a letter about my whole ordeal in the student newspaper and possibly write a letter to other media outlets. To be honest, while it would be great to work in LE and it is a dream I can do a great deal of other things in other occupations with my college degree. If the government is so keen on failing good honest people over a stupid pseudoscientific test then maybe they don't WANT or deserve to have young educated recruits. 

I know why your test was inconclusive! "first she strapped me down".  It is extremely difficult to test a "strapped down" person.  Would you please tell me what she stapped you to, exactly where were these straps placed, were you lying down, standing, sitting? As a polygraphist I am always interested in the methods used by others.  Strapping down, according to many anti-polygraph people, seems to be a new phenomenon that is finding it's way into the procedure.  I have searched high and low to find a polygraphist who uses this method and my search has been un successful.  Could it be that this, like so much of the anti-polygraph rhetoric is being said to put fear into those who are to be tested.  I cannot blame anyone for being anti-polygraph if that was the method used, on the other hand, if this was not the case why do certain people insist on perpetuating this lie?  nuff said!   Ray L.   

polyfraud,

As we mention in Chapter 4 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector, polygraphers expect people to breathe at a faster rate than you might imagine. The DoDPI "Test Data Analysis" document recently released under the Freedom of Information Act and posted to the AntiPolygraph.org Reading Room states at page 12: "The normal cyclic rate is 13 to 18 breaths per minute. This may vary due to a person's physical condition and/or physical build."

When examinees breathe more slowly than the expected "normal" rate, it is not uncommon for polygraphers to suspect a "countermeasures" attempt.

Quote:


Heh, it's kind of funny you ask. She asked me once if I did any kind of deep breathing exercises or yoga or some nonsense. I of course said no, i'm a slow breather naturally then she told me to breath faster than what I was doing. This is how ridiculous I think the polygraph is, if they are relying on using your breath as a measurement of truthfulness wouldn't telling me to "breath faster"
be contradictive and screw up the supposed "test"?
It was until after the first set of charts that she came back with the "countermeasures" comment. After I feigned stupidity she then made me do another set and came back with the "drug problem". I think they default on that "drug problem" answer whenever the charts don't fit their criteria and they have to retest someone. The funny thing is when I asked her what the problem was..she paused before saying it was "drugs" like she had to think of a reason.
This just cements the truth that the polygraph is nothing but bullsh*t.

polyfraud wrote on Apr 11^th, 2001 at 9:59am:


Polyfraud,

Good Job! I am curious to know how many "examiners" they are going to use to try and find "something" concrete to back up the "tomfoolery" er polygraph. 

One question I have is that when the examiner mentioned countermeasures did she say you were breathing abnormally or just to breathe normally. It sounds like an attempt to jack you up and you "countered" that well.

Stay Focused and Hopefully the next one is the last one.   

Fred F.

polyfraud,

I suspect that you are not being set up for failure, because if that were the case, it seems unlikely you would have been scheduled for a second session.

Regarding the questions you were asked:

Questions 1 & 2 are irrelevant questions; no physiological response is expected, and you should not have artificially produced a response when answering these questions.

I, too, am uncertain regarding the relevancy of questions 5 & 6.

Questions 3 & 7 are clearly probable lie "control" questions, and you correctly identified them as such and augmented your physiological responses when answering them.

Questions 4 & 8 are clearly relevant questions. Were you also asked a relevant question about drug use in this question series? [Note: in your post, the 8 followed by a right parenthesis got converted into a "smiley." To prevent this from happening, check the "Disable Smilies" box when you post. Because you're a registered user, you can go back and edit your message if you like.]

You may gain some additional insight regarding the rationale of the questions you were asked by keeping in mind the general rule that in probable-lie "control" question "tests," question series typically begin with two irrelevant questions followed by a "sacrifice" relevant (frequently worded along the lines, "Do you intend to answer all questions truthfully on this test?). In addition, each relevant question asked in the series will have an adjacent "control" question.

Apart from chart manipulations, remember also the behavioral countermeasures discussed in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector. Your polygrapher's subjective opinion regarding your honesty may also influence the outcome of the "test."

This is just an update to the poly test I said I was going to take for a large metropolitan PD in California. My polygrapher was a woman and not a man and the polygraph test itself was surprisingly very stress free with little harsh interrogating. She did ask me to clarify several times and then emphasized the honesty part of the test. Well the session itself lasted around 3 hours including the pre-interview. First she strapped me down and did the "calibration" then she asked questions and did 3 chart profiles of my reactions. Then she went in the hallway to ask her supervisor (if there is such a thing)what they thought of the test. She came back and mentioned that I should breath normally and asked if I knew what countermeasures were. I of course said no, and she explained what it was. So she comes back with an abridged listing of questions with 2 relevants and a mix of controls consisting of A) Have I taken anything from an employer over 300 and B) What illegal drugs have I experimented with in my drug history. She then told me I had a problem when answering both of these.

I of course stuck to my guns and did not make any admissions. I've never tried drugs or stolen anything to begin with so the point was moot. We went through the process again with the questions being asked 3 times. After it she took another stroll out to the hallway and came back telling me the test was inconclusive about a "portion". When I asked she told me the illegal drug question was the problem and she will schedule me for another retest. (possibly not with the same polygrapher) 

MY question is...what am I supposed to think about this or what can I do to prepare? I hear it's a normal interrogation tactic to reschedule a person after a polygraph for another focusing on a specific subject. I'm unsure however about whether this is a ploy to get me to make admissions and they plan on failing me anyways or if they are just being "thorough" 

Advice needed.

Btw here are a list of the questions asked.

1)Is your name ________
2) Do you reside in the U.S.?
3) Have you betrayed a person that trusted you?
4) Have you stolen anything from your employer worth over 300.
5) Have you placed any false information on any official document before applying to us?
6) Have you committed any serious undetected crime?
7) Have you ever been biased against someone and did something to them because of it?
8) Have you ever physically abused anyone in a domestic relationship?

I might be missing a couple but those were the main ones.

I'm assuming 1,2 were irrelevant.
However I was uncertain about the relevancy of 5,6.
I used countermeasures on 1,2,3,7.