In cases where a polygrapher suspects countermeasure use, he/she may resort to either or both of the following techniques: 1) the "Silent Answer Test"; 2) the "Yes Test." These techniques are nothing new: they are described in John E. Reid and Fred E. Inbau's classic polygraph textbook, Truth and Deception: The Polygraph ("Lie-Detector") Technique (2nd edition, 1977) as well as in James Allen Matte's Forensic Psychophysiology Using the Polygraph (J.A.M. Publications, 1996).

AntiPolygraph.org has received information that the FBI is using these techniques, and it is timely to review them here.

In the "Silent Answer Test" the subject is instructed to remain silent and to answer the questions in his/her head. Matte explains the Silent Answer Test in Chapter 19 of Forensic Psychophysiology Using the Polygraph:


Quote:

Several years ago, while conducting a psychophysiological veracity (PV) examination using the polygraph for a defense attorney on a suspected arsonist, this author observed that in both the first and second polygraph charts, the examinee consistently took a deep breath while listening to the relevant questions, which caused a substantial rise in the electrodermal response (GSR) pen. The excessive amount of air taken in by the examinee as a result of the deep breath naturally caused a need for less air intake in subsequent breathing cycles, causing a suppression pattern commonly found in a reaction tracing segment. However, the cause for the rise in the GSR pen and the breathing suppression could not be attributed to the activation of the sympathetic system while a logical scientific explanation for this physiological occurrence could also be attributed to another factor, the deep breath. The fact that this examinee only took deep breaths while listening to the relevant questions and not while listening to the control questions would tend to indicate that the examinee's greatest concern or psychological set was focused onto the relevant questions. The possibility that the deep breaths may be a form of attempted countermeasure must also be considered. In order to eliminate the distortion caused by the deep breath, this author decided to administer a Silent Answer Test (SAT) as the third chart. The examinee was advised that a third chart would be conducted using the same identical questions, but that this time, instead of answering the questions aloud, he was to listen carefully and then answer each question to himself truthfully but silently, in other words, he remains silent throughout this third chart.  A review and interpretation of the third chart containing the silent answer test revealed strong and consistent responses to the relevant questions and a lack of any deep breath or other distortion in the entire chart. A fourth chart was then administered similar to charts one and two requiring a verbal response from the examinee, which subsequently revealed a deep breath on the last relevant question only, but which clearly indicated strong responses in all tracings on the relevant questions. The conclusion of attempted deception to the relevant questions was verified by a confession from the examinee who admitted taking the deep breaths in an attempt to distort the chart tracings.  Research conducted by Frank S. Horvath and John E. Reid (1972) revealed that the Silent Answer Test produces better respiratory patterns by eliminating causes of distortions from the examinee who prepares himself or herself to answer each question aloud by inhaling a great amount of air; from the examinee who loudly bellows his or her answer to emphasize his or her denial; from the examinee who feels compelled to give an elaborate answer instead of a simple "yes" or "no" as instructed; and from the examinee whose throat is dry or irritated necessitating the clearing of his or her throat or coughing at intervals during the test. Their research further indicated an enhancement of the utility of the electrodermal (GSR) recording. The SAT not only produced a chart with greater purity of tracing but also acted as an effective stimulation test for the subsequent polygraph tests/charts requiring a verbal answer. The stimulating effect of the silent answer test on the guilty examinee may be due to the dilemma encountered when told he or she is not to answer the questions aloud but truthfully and silently to himself or herself. Previously the examinee has geared his or her defenses so that his or verbal answer to the relevant questions would not betray him or her. Now the examinee wonders whether he or she should answer those questions truthfully to himself or herself and presumably not show a reaction, which may reflect a different pattern than the previous charts, or silently answer them the same way as before and perhaps show a strong reaction as he or she may have on previous charts. This causes an inner conflict, a feeling of helplessness, which carries over into the subsequent test requiring a verbal response. The guilty examinee must now readjust his or her defenses again in preparation for his or her verbal responses to the relevant questions, which causes his or mind to race inasmuch as the two tests are administered back-to-back. The examinee's concern is on the relevant questions, which are now an even greater threat to his or her well-being which increases the strength of his or her psychological set onto the relevant questions and creates greater and clearer responses. The Silent Answer Test has the effect of enhancing the threatening power of the relevant questions to the guilty examinee, and conversely also enhances the innocent examinee's concern over the probable-lie control questions inasmuch as the relevant questions should be of no concern to him or her. While most polygraph techniques employ the Silent Answer Test as a stimulation test and/or countercountermeasure, usually after the second chart, some polygraph techniques use the SAT as the very first test prior to the administration of the relevant issue test and include the SAT data in their decision-making process.

The way to pass the Silent Answer Test, as with polygraph techniques where one is directed to answer out loud, is to produce stronger reactions to the "control" questions than to the "relevant" questions.

The second counter-countermeasure technique is the "Yes Test." The subject is instructed to answer all questions "Yes." (In some cases, the "control" questions may be left out.) The idea is to trick the subject who has been augmenting his/her reactions to the "control" questions into producing reactions to the relevant questions insead. If he/she does so, countermeasures use is inferred. Anyone encountering the "Yes Test," should be careful not to augment reactions to the relevant questions.

Reid & Inbau describe the "Yes Test" as follows (Truth and Deception, p. 118):


Quote:

The "Yes Test" The "yes" test is particularly helpful in case situations where the subject has tried to evade detection by a distortion of the Polygraph tractings on his card test or other prior tests. As previously stated, the subject is instructed before this particular test to say "yes" to all questions, including those pertaining to the matter under investigation. On the "yes" test, subjects who had previously lied when they answered "no" to the same questions will often try to distort the  tracings in an effort to make their "yes" answers look like lies.... ...[R]ecent experience has demonstrated that it is probably advisable to exclude control questions during this portion of a Polygraph examination. We recommend this variance so as to alleviate any confusion in the examiner's mind as to whether or not the subject is distorting his "yes" test responses because of his deception on the relevant questions or the control questions. With the elimination of the control questions from the "yes" test the examiner can be assured that if the subject attempts to distort the test he is doing so because of efforts to conceal his deception regarding the matter under investigation. ... It is of considerable interest to note that when a subject who has been lying on his previous tests answers "yes" (and therefore truthfully) on his yes test, he may nevertheless react in blood pressure and respiration  in the same manner as though he were actually lying. The reason for this, apparently, is the fact that he views his "yes" answer as an incriminating one, and it is, therefore, disturbing to him. One the other hand, and contrary to what would normally be expected, a subject who has been telling the truth on his previous tests, may give no "lie" reactions when he says "yes" to the relevant questions on his "yes" test. He knows he has been telling the truth and apparently assumes the "yes" test is a part of the routine test procedure and is ordinarily undisturbed by the instructed lie answers....Exceptions do occur, however, and a liar may give no response when he says "yes" to the relevant questions..., whereas a truthful person may give a response."

George,

Have you reviewed Matte's supplement by any chance?

-Marty

Marty,

No. After reviewing the contents, I decided not to purchase Matte's 2002 supplement. Why do you ask?

wrote on Sep 25^th, 2003 at 5:43pm:

Marty, No. After reviewing the contents, I decided not to purchase Matte's 2002 supplement. Why do you ask?

I am increasingly intrigued by the meta psychological aspects of polygraphy. How the industry developed in spite of a weak scientific basis. The degree to which polygraphy has possibly been made stronger as a consequence of legislative restrictions, a rather unanticipated outcome. Those sorts of things.

The many related areas such "compliance" psychology and "cold reading" intrigue me too. I was fascinated, but not surprised, to see LE interrogation experts as well as sales professionals inquire into the CR art since it has been largely confined to "psychic" performers. Of course, compliance psychology is widely known.

I am leaning to purchasing Matte's set, including the CD) and was wondering if the supplement would add much. I think I will also get it since there is info about DLT's and Kleiner's book in there, both subjects are interesting.

I have a tendency to become fascinated with a subject and often go on to incorporate it it some way occupationally. Don't see how that could happen here but one never knows.

-Marty

Lafayette Instrument Co. is marketing a new "Piezo Activity Sensor  Model 76878US":

https://antipolygraph.org/graphics/768762.jpg

Lafayette is also peddling a device ("Countermeasure Detection System Model 76876US") that it claims is "the only device that detects BOTH physical and mental countermeasures":

https://antipolygraph.org/graphics/voicecntmser.jpg

Since Lafayette is in the mind reading business, perhaps they should give priority to coming up with a device that can actually detect deception.    ;)

Previously, Lafayette had marketed a pneumatic "Activity Sensor." The pads you see below are inflatable air bladders:

http://www.licmef.com/images/76875AS1.jpg

Another device used in an attempt to detect physical countermeasures is a strain gauge that is typically placed under the front legs of the polygraph chair. Stoelting Co.'s "Portable Activity Sensor" looks like this:

http://www.stoeltingco.com/polygraph/New/85020.jpg

Axciton produces a "motion sensor" that clips onto a leg of the polygraph chair:

http://antipolygraph.org/graphics/axciton-motion-sensor.jpg

To date, no polygrapher has ever demonstrated any ability to reliably detect the kinds of countermeasures described in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector using such "sensors" (or any other methodology).

George

You wrote:  "To date, no polygrapher has ever demonstrated any ability to reliably detect the kinds of countermeasures described in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector using such "sensors" (or any other methodology)."

You continue to mislead these poor unfortunate souls down the primrose path.  Why don't you just suggest confessing?   ;)

Saidme,

If you genuinely believe anything I have written here is misleading, please explain and provide any documentation in support of such belief.

I note that with the National Academy of Sciences' review of the scientific evidence on the polygraph, the polygraph community had a golden opportunity to demonstrate its claimed ability to detect countermeasures, but failed to do so.

Similarly, Dr. Richardson's polygraph countermeasure challenge continues to go without any taker(s).

Those sensors are comical. I can create an internal reaction at will (adrenaline rush, I'm on fire!) while sitting perfectly still. It takes but a few minutes of practice to master that ability. Next technological improvement for the polygraph will be that box of fire thing from Dune where Paul had his hand placed in it by the witch mother.

I got an idea George...and everybody's questions will be answered once and for all.  You write a letter to the FBI and cut a deal with them.  They agree to let you take your test again and you tell them that you will try every countermeasure you have "encouraged" people to use.  If they are able to catch you and identify the countermeasure, then you will abandon your site and quit this foolishness (of course that means you will have to be honest if they are able to catch you - a novel approach huh?).  If they cannot, the you get to contrinue your processing (you still have to complete the physical and academic portions to be fair about it) for your "dream job"  Sounds like a deal to me.  What do you say George.  The clock is ticking now for you!

And reliance on the polygraph to actually determine truth or deception isn't foolish? Oh please!

guest,

The odds of the FBI agreeing to such an arrangement as you have proposed are so slim as not to justify the cost of a postage stamp. However, if you (or any polygraph examiner) would like to give me a personal demonstration of your purported ability to detect countermeasures, I'd be happy to discuss it with you.

Several things have amazed me as I have read posts over the last month.

1)  20% of the posts seem to revolve around individuals who have been convicted of molesting children.  The are not coming to learn about the polygraph, they are actively seeking ways to beat the polygraph so they can continue to MOLEST CHILDREN!  Children who will go on to repeat this cycle.

2)  20% of the posts revolve around people who are utterly confused about polygraph and by reading the TLBTLD are only lessing the effect of the questions that are to their benefit.  These people are mistakely led to think that people in LAW ENFORCEMENT do not want anyone else hired and the cards are stacked against them and that they will be a false positive.  A false positive which will serve as a scarlet letter procluding from all further employment.  

Departments and agencies do not share this information.  IT IS ILLEGAL!  People who apply for these jobs cast a wide net and if they are in the 3-5% false postive percent range they will still hook up with one of the several thousand other law enforcement agencies.

3)  30% of the people who come to this site are those who have criminal behavior they are trying to hide.  Criminal behavior which in my experience includes attempted murder, rape, armed robbery, and many cases of child molestation.  All of which would not have come to light if not for polygraph.  People who would have been sworn in and patrolled the streets today.

4)  20% are those who have nothing to hide but hear alleged horror stories about the polygraph.  Being screamed at, tortured, etc.  This doesn't happen!  Most departments tape there tests for this reason and project oversight exists.  After reading this, the person becomes scared and makes a giant leap of faith. They think there is only way to pass the testis to:
COMMIT CONTERMEASURES!!!!!

Unfortunately, they get caught.  Instead of obtaining thier dream job the research has been their demise.  People say CM's are not caught.  They are caught VIRTUALLY ALL THE TIME.  People that have nothing to hide are now disqualified.

If you have nothing to hide, met the departments guidelines and tell the truth you will pass the polygraph.

The unknown 10% are the real scary part.  What are their intentions? Are they using the information obtained on this site, through TLBTLD, and William's to try and obtain access to intelligence agencies.

Let's look at the teacher:
A man who was told he failed an intelligence polygraph and gave disqualifying confessions.  
A man who studied Arab languages and now resides outside the United States.  
A man who may receive foreign funding.
A man who teaches child molesters to beat the test.

Who is the enemy to America, Not the polygraphers who are fighting the fight every day.
The enemy is you George

So why are you here, DADDY-O? By your own definition, there is a 60% probability you are a child molester or some other type of criminal.

Hey DADDY-O

Some questions:

1. How many months did it take you to calculate these
    percentages?

2. What is the percentage of posters who used counter-
   measures and beat the poly. Or, are you calling them
   liars?

3. My main purpose in here is attempting to expose  
    corruption. Do I fall into the 10% scary column? To
    some, I am damn scary.

4. Do you have the guts to help me force our piliticains
    to take and pass a polygraph in order to keep their
    jobs? Hell, I can answer that. NO

5. If our elected officials would be forced to take a
   polygraph, how many polygraphers do you think    
   would take their payoffs to pass them. Don't say
    none. That would make you look silly.

6. Do you think they would use countermeasures?

7. What fear caused you to make the silly post and label
    George the enemy? Enemy to who, polygraphers?

WOW,

My post had no profanity, spoke only the truth and it was removed from the recent post page.  I wonder why.  The truth hurts George

Two-Block
If only one molester beat a test with this information ann ruined several kids lives would it be worth it?

DADDY-O wrote on Oct 8^th, 2003 at 5:06am:

WOW, My post had no profanity, spoke only the truth and it was removed from the recent post page.  I wonder why.  The truth hurts George Two-Block If only one molester beat a test with this information ann ruined several kids lives would it be worth it?

The ten most recent posts refers to threads. It is the 10 most recently posted threads which seems a logical way to do it.

-Marty

DADDY-O

If you have spent enough time on these boards to calculate percentages, then you have seen my posts concerning child molesters. I am for any means in which LE apprehends and convicts "guilty" molesters. That means gaining confessions with the polygraph. However, you know as well as I that there have been quite a number of false convictions and those are being released due to DNA evidence, recantations, etc. But to come on here and categorically percentage label everyone who posts to these boards is wrong. You know nothing about the posters here, but your (and other polygrapher's) puntitive attitude causes your mouth to overload your ass. Why can't all of you be like Public Servant, whose stock is pretty high on my ticker tape, and debate the issues, not demean others and admit errors are made. Public Servant gets overheated at times. So do I and most everyone else.

There is a lot of posters here that will disagree with you that federal agencies don't hand out info to state, county and city LE on failed polys. If you are not a federal polygrapher, which I suspect you are, how did you gain all that info about George. If you are not a FBI polygrapher then you have proven, by your condemnation of George, that failed polys are banded about between LE agencies.

Lastly - Are you going to respond to my question about fighting political corruption with me?

Before I respond to Daddy-O's post, I would note that he has provided an example of what is perhaps the most widespread counter-countermeasure: simply attempting to deter countermeasure use by confidently (but falsely) claiming that polygraphers can reliably detect countermeasures.

Daddy-O,

You write:


Quote:

1)  20% of the posts seem to revolve around individuals who have been convicted of molesting children.  The are not coming to learn about the polygraph, they are actively seeking ways to beat the polygraph so they can continue to MOLEST CHILDREN!  Children who will go on to repeat this cycle.

Except for one instance of a polygraph supporter posing as a child molestor, I recall only two posters on this board who have acknowledged having been convicted of a sex offense against a child. And I don't recall any posts by anyone "actively seeking ways to beat the polygraph so they can continue to molest children."


Quote:

2)  20% of the posts revolve around people who are utterly confused about polygraph and by reading the TLBTLD are only lessing the effect of the questions that are to their benefit.  These people are mistakely led to think that people in LAW ENFORCEMENT do not want anyone else hired and the cards are stacked against them and that they will be a false positive.  A false positive which will serve as a scarlet letter procluding from all further employment.

It is hardly surprising that individuals who are confused about polygraphy would post questions. That is to be expected, and indeed, one of the key purposes of this message board is to provide answers to those with questions about polygraphy.

It is neither my position, nor AntiPolygraph.org's, that people in law enforcement do not want anyone else hired. However, as I have explained elsewhere, the polygraph process is indeed inherently biased against the truthful, because the more candidly one answers the "control" questions, and as a consequene experiences less stress when answering them, the more likely one is to fail. We don't argue that anyone taking a pre-employment polygraph examination is destined to fail, but the risk is quite significant. Nor do we argue that a false positive is a scarlet letter that will preclude (note spelling) one from all employment. However, a false positive outcome with one agency can most definitely have an adverse effect on one's ability to gain employment with others.


Quote:

Departments and agencies do not share this information.  IT IS ILLEGAL!  People who apply for these jobs cast a wide net and if they are in the 3-5% false postive percent range they will still hook up with one of the several thousand other law enforcement agencies.

While agencies that rely on polygraph screening might not share polygraph results with private companies, they most certainly do share polygraph results amongst themselves. It is not illegal.

In addition, given polygraphy's lack of scientific underpinnings and the high polygraph failure rates associated with pre-employment polygraph screening (~50% in the FBI and LAPD, for example), your posited 3-5% false positive rate is almost certainly grossly understated.


Quote:

3)  30% of the people who come to this site are those who have criminal behavior they are trying to hide.  Criminal behavior which in my experience includes attempted murder, rape, armed robbery, and many cases of child molestation.  All of which would not have come to light if not for polygraph.  People who would have been sworn in and patrolled the streets today.

No doubt, some who visit AntiPolygraph.org have done something that would disqualify them from certain positions that require polygraph screening. Your conclusion that 30% of those who visit AntiPolygraph.org are trying to hide criminal behavior is entirely conjectural however. (More than 99% of visitors to this website never post on the message board.)

In any event, AntiPolygraph.org has made countermeasure information publicly available and free not to help liars beat the system, but to help honest, law-abiding persons protect themselves against the high risk of a false positive outcome that is associated with the pseudoscience of polygraphy. We cannot make this information available to those who legitimately need it without also making it available to everyone.


Quote:

4)  20% are those who have nothing to hide but hear alleged horror stories about the polygraph.  Being screamed at, tortured, etc.  This doesn't happen!  Most departments tape there tests for this reason and project oversight exists.  After reading this, the person becomes scared and makes a giant leap of faith. They think there is only way to pass the testis to: COMMIT CONTERMEASURES!!!!!

I am not aware that anyone here has claimed that they were tortured during a polygraph examination. The only allegations of physical pain being inflicted of which I am aware involve over-inflated pressure cuffs. And while it is not the norm, instances of polygraphers screaming at subjects are documented. See, for example, the public statement of Bill Roche.

For those facing a pre-employment polygraph "test," the risk of a false positive outcome is significant. Countermeasure use is a rational choice for reducing that risk. You speak of "committing" countermeasures as if it were a crime. It's not.


Quote:

Unfortunately, they get caught.  Instead of obtaining thier dream job the research has been their demise.  People say CM's are not caught.  They are caught VIRTUALLY ALL THE TIME.  People that have nothing to hide are now disqualified.

No polygrapher has ever demonstrated any ability to detect countermeasures. When you say that countermeasures are caught "virtually all the  time," you are lying -- falsely asserting that which you cannot possibly know.

If you truly believe that you can reliably detect polygraph countermeasures, then why not accept Dr. Richardson's polygraph countermeasure challenge?


Quote:

If you have nothing to hide, met the departments guidelines and tell the truth you will pass the polygraph.

Lies such as the foregoing will not fly anymore, Daddy-O. As the National Academy of Sciences has affirmed, polygraph screening is completely invalid. Who do you think you're fooling?


Quote:

The unknown 10% are the real scary part.  What are their intentions? Are they using the information obtained on this site, through TLBTLD, and William's to try and obtain access to intelligence agencies.

As I alluded to earlier, neither you nor I know the motivations of more than 99% of those who visit AntiPolygraph.org. It is certainly possible that spies, saboteurs, terrorists, and other criminals will exploit information made available on this website to fool America's intelligence agencies. All the more reason not to rely on the polygraph.

As for your cowardly attack on my patriotism and insinuation that I am some kind of foreign agent, shame on you.

[quote author=George W. Maschke link=board=Proc;num=1064482960;start=0#19 date=10/08/03 at 06:18:46]Before I respond to Daddy-O's post, I would note that he has provided an example of what is perhaps the most widespread counter-countermeasure: simply attempting to deter countermeasure use by confidently (but falsely) claiming that polygraphers can reliably detect countermeasures.

George,

In a nutshell, this statement agrees with the behavior of my second polygraph experience.  I was completely truthful, had no knowledge of this website or polygraph procedures at the time, and was accused of using countermeasures with absolute certainty.

I believed that I was accused to defend the inconclusive first polygraph exam and emotionally "jack me up" to conclusively show responses which would fail me.  In my case, this backfired on the examiner.

Regards.

wrote on Oct 8^th, 2003 at 1:18pm:

...AntiPolygraph.org has made countermeasure information publicly available and free not to help liars beat the system, but to help honest, law-abiding persons protect themselves against the high risk of a false positive outcome that is associated with the pseudoscience of polygraphy. We cannot make this information available to those who legitimately need it without also making it available to everyone. .[/i]

The above quote from George Maschke the author of this website, seems hauntingly similiar to the quote below from today's Fox News regarding the manufacturer of a device designed to "beat" the urinaylsis test.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,99577,00.html

"...The device, reusable and available in five flesh colors, is sold by California-based Puck Technology for $150. A prosthetic thingy is attached to an undergarment resembling a jock strap and connects to a pouch containing dehydrated urine. Water is added to the pouch and a heat pack can be attached to keep the urine close to body temperature.

Company owner Dennis Catalano has sold the device and one designed for women for about four years, mainly through an Internet site. He said what he does is legal.

"How people choose to use it is beyond our control," he said. "But we manufacture this and sell it for people who believe we still have a semblance of privacy in this country." "

Catalano:  "How people choose to use it is beyond our control."

Maschke:  "....We cannot make this information available to those who legitimately need it without also making it available to everyone."

Hmmm, birds of a feather ;) ???

PolyCop

wrote on Oct 9^th, 2003 at 9:39pm:

The above quote from George Maschke the author of this website, seems hauntingly similiar to the quote below from today's Fox News regarding the manufacturer of a device designed to "beat" the urinaylsis test. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,99577,00.html

PolyCop,

There aren't that many similarities. Drug testing is actually based on scientific principles and has a very low false positive rate, unlike polygraph screening. Further, drug testing doesn't require the "donee" be deceived in order for the test to "work."  Comparing the "art" of polygraphy screening with the science of drug screening is a stretch at best and it is clear a lot of damage is being done in screening when the results of such screening are done after a long application process and are an absolute determination in rejecting candidates. Absent these effects I believe you have a reasonable ethical case though I think the burden on those supressing information has to be quite high.

-Marty

Is there any doubt that urine testing can detect the presence of drugs? No. Is there any doubt that polygraph testing can detect deception? Yes.

How often do clean tests result in a positive reading? The error rate is measurable, can be replicated, and can be reduced via additional testing. The error rate is minimal. How often do truthful answers on a polygraph result in deception indicated? Somewhere in the neighborhood of 50% of the time, but let's be generous and use the claim of 90% accuracy, leaving an error rate of 10%. Am I getting thru to you, PolyCop?

Axciton has joined Lafayette in offering a piezoelectric sensor pad for sale. Axciton's "Advanced Motion Sensor Pad" is illustrated below (click on image for larger view):

http://www.axciton.com/images/Motionpad_sm.jpg

That is exactly what they had on the seat during my polygraph.  When I sat on it, the computer beeped.  Wow, so maybe the pad actually was supposed to catch countermeasures. :-/

Another counter-countermeasure that seems to be in use is the following: during the pre-test phase, the polygrapher will deliberately refer to one or more irrelevant questions as "control" or "comparison" questions in an attempt to mislead the examinee. If the examinee then shows strong reactions to any of these irrelevant questions, the polygrapher infers that countermeasures have been used.

The polygrapher may also apply "time bars" to such irrelevant questions in an attempt to make them appear more like "control" questions. An example of a time-barred irrelevant question would be, "Between 1996 and 2000, did you attend Georgetown University?"

George, if polygraph examiners can't detect countermeasures such as those described in TLBTLD, why would they run such tests?  

I mean the silent answer test and the yes test you described...

JB Dawson,

I think that the rationales for the "silent answer test" and the "yes test" are adequately explained in the citations I've provided in the first message in this thread.

However, the mere fact that polygraphers may believe such techniques useful for deterring/detecting countermeasures is no evidence, let alone proof, that they can actually detect the kinds of countermeasures described in TLBTLD. Indeed, no polygrapher has ever demonstrated any ability to reliably detect such countermeasures.

The point is that before an examiner employs the SAT and the yes test, the examiner must obviously see something that leads them to suspect CM.  This flies in the face of your position that polygraphers can't detect CMs.  

Certainly, polygraphers may observe behaviors that may lead them to suspect countermeasures. But this is not evidence, let alone proof, that they can actually detect the kinds of countermeasures described in TLBTLD at better-than-chance levels.

With regard to the Silent Answer Test described by Matte, recall that it is suggested for "eliminating causes of distortions from the examinee who prepares himself or herself to answer each question aloud by inhaling a great amount of air; from the examinee who loudly bellows his or her answer to emphasize his or her denial; from the examinee who feels compelled to give an elaborate answer instead of a simple "yes" or "no" as instructed; and from the examinee whose throat is dry or irritated necessitating the clearing of his or her throat or coughing at intervals during the test. "

Note that none of the foregoing behaviors are consistent with the countermeasures described in TLBTLD.

DADDY-O

I am a first time poster today, and I read your post and it pissed me off!! I am only here because I am curious as to how the polygraph works, how it can be beaten and why the exam sessions are run the way they are!! I DO NOT have sex with children, I AM NOT a convicted felon and I AM NOT a threat to U.S. national security (let alone my own country!!). I would just like to say, you are [glb]PARANOID[/glb]. I am probly like a large percentage of the posters here, curious. And the other people here are here to answer questions. Share knowledge. That is all. It is up to the individual person as to how they use that knowledge.

-Jim

learning how the test works, and learning how to beat it go hand in hand. if you know all the little secrets to the test, in my opinion and im sure george will confirm or deny, you will have no chance to pass the test because you wont worry about the questions you should (control) because you've learn of certain irrelevences to questions. either go in blind, or with full vision. not partial

gijoeyl33 wrote on Apr 10^th, 2004 at 7:25pm:

learning how the test works, and learning how to beat it go hand in hand. if you know all the little secrets to the test, in my opinion and im sure george will confirm or deny, you will have no chance to pass the test because you wont worry about the questions you should (control) because you've learn of certain irrelevences to questions. either go in blind, or with full vision. not partial

This idiotic babble is typical of the advice given on this site.  No wonder George and his followers are a considered nothing but fools crying to one another.

gijoeyl33 wrote on Apr 10^th, 2004 at 7:25pm:

learning how the test works, and learning how to beat it go hand in hand. if you know all the little secrets to the test, in my opinion and im sure george will confirm or deny, you will have no chance to pass the test because you wont worry about the questions you should (control) because you've learn of certain irrelevences to questions. either go in blind, or with full vision. not partial

gijoey,

There is no peer-reviewed research on the effects of examinee knowledge of polygraph procedure on the accuracy of polygraph outcomes. However, the basic assumption of CQT polygraphy (that is, that  truthful subjects will be more concerned about the "control" questions while deceptive subjects will be more concerned about the relevant questions) collapses when the examinee understands the true nature of the "control" questions.

Some polygraph programs, such as the counterinteligence-scope screening programs of the Departments of Defense and Energy, as well as the FBI's screening program for current employees (as opposed to applicants) have a nearly 100% pass rate. In programs such as these, knowing the truth about the procedure may be less likely to have an effect on the outcome, since policy considerations dictate that almost everyone will "pass."

In other polygraph programs, where the failure rate is higher (for example, the FBI's pre-employment polygraph screening program, with a failure rate of about 50%), it is still hard to say what the effect of one's knowledge will be. Some people, understanding the function of the "control" questions, might involuntarily show physiological reactions to them just because they know that doing so is crucial to passing the "test." Then again, others might not react to them, based on their knowledge that the polygraph operator is not really concerned about "deception" to these questions.

Considering that CQT polygraphy has no scientific basis and polygraphers have no demonstrated ability to detect countermeasures, I do think it would be prudent for anyone facing a polygraph examination to employ countermeasures rather than leaving the results to chance.

An Israeli named Emmanuel Cohen has filed a U.S. patent application for a "System for and method of detecting polygraph countermeasures." The technique, which is explained in detail in the application, involves comparing the length of time between the asking of a question and the examinee's response. HTML and PDF versions of this document are available, respectively, here:

http://antipolygraph.org/documents/cohen-patent-application.shtml

http://antipolygraph.org/documents/cohen-patent-application.pdf

The technique described in this patent application seems similar to that of Lafayette Instrument Co.'s Countermeasure Detection System Model 76876US.

Interestingly, the patent application mentions AntiPolygraph.org by name in its discussion of polygraph countermeasures.

Quote:

An Israeli named Emmanual Cohen has filed a U.S. patent application for a "System for and method of detecting polygraph countermeasures." The technique, which is explained in detail in the application, involves comparing the length of time between the asking of a question and the examinee's response. HTML and PDF versions of this document are available, respectively, here: http://antipolygraph.org/documents/cohen-patent-application.shtml http://antipolygraph.org/documents/cohen-patent-application.pdf The technique described in this patent application seems similar to that of Lafayette Instrument Co.'s Countermeasure Detection System Model 76876US. Interestingly, the patent application mentions AntiPolygraph.org by name in its discussion of polygraph countermeasures.

I think it likely that there is sufficient variance in the timing of events measured over question types in a standard polygraph exam (in the absence of properly applied countermeasures) such as to make any conclusions drawn, stemming from relative changes noted in such timing during a situation in which countermeasures might be so applied, as completely meaningless.  But the proof is in the pudding...

i think you are an idiotic babble. if you think there is some info on this board that is misleading, and you can prove it. please post it right here.
wrote on Apr 11^th, 2004 at 4:03am:

This idiotic babble is typical of the advice given on this site.  No wonder George and his followers are a considered nothing but fools crying to one another.

A patent is no indication that an invention actually works.  I don't know for sure, but I'd bet that there are patents out there on activity sensors for detecting countermeasures, too.

I would think that the idea behind the invention is either the assumption that knowing the two types of questions are different in importance will translate consistently into different time lapses between questions and answers, or that conscious concentration on countermeasures during control questions will cause the same result.  This may, of course, be the case, but I'll wait for the evidence.  After all, if such an obvious indicator were available, I would guess countermeasures would be consistently detectable by polygraph operators themselves, without the need for the electronic timing mechanism that the patent holder would doubtless be happy to sell them.  

Why buy an expensive stopwatch when you could be making money ($5000) by taking up Antipolygraph.org's countermeasure challenge?

Skeptic


wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2004 at 4:48pm:

I think it likely that there is sufficient variance in the timing of events measured over question types in a standard polygraph exam (in the absence of properly applied countermeasures) such as to make any conclusions drawn, stemming from relative changes noted in such timing during a situation in which countermeasures might be so applied, as completely meaningless.  But the proof is in the pudding...

gijoeyl33 wrote on Apr 24^th, 2004 at 4:12am:

i think you are an idiotic babble. if you think there is some info on this board that is misleading, and you can prove it. please post it right here.

gijoey,
Don't sweat it.  I think this is a case of miscommunication: Amazed's comment is standard polygraph-ese for "Yeah, we've got nothin'.  And we're scared to death".

Skeptic

Skeptic wrote on Apr 24^th, 2004 at 8:40am:

A patent is no indication that an invention actually works.  I don't know for sure, but I'd bet that there are patents out there on activity sensors for detecting countermeasures, too.

Isn't some showing that an invention actually does that which its inventor claims required? Would Thomas Edison have been granted a patent for his electric lamp (U.S. Patent Number 223,898) if it did not yield electromagnetic radiation within the visible spectrum?

I searched the U.S. Patent Office website, but was unable to find any patents or applications for patents for the activity sensors (seat pads) that are currently being marketed as countermeasure detection devices. I did, however, find some patents by such polygraph pioneers as Leonarde Keeler, C.D. Lee, and John Reid. While I have not yet thoroughly reviewed these patents, the inventors do not at first sight appear to make the claim that their inventions actually detect deception. They instead describe them as physiological recording instruments. These patents will eventually be made available on AntiPolygraph.org.


Quote:

I would think that the idea behind the invention is either the assumption that knowing the two types of questions are different in importance will translate consistently into different time lapses between questions and answers, or that conscious concentration on countermeasures during control questions will cause the same result.  This may, of course, be the case, but I'll wait for the evidence.  After all, if such an obvious indicator were available, I would guess countermeasures would be consistently detectable by polygraph operators themselves, without the need for the electronic timing mechanism that the patent holder would doubtless be happy to sell them.

I am aware of no studies (published or unpublished) of Mr. Cohen's technique. Surprisingly (to me, at least) a Google search for "Emmanuel Cohen" and "polygraph" yielded no matches.


Quote:

Why buy an expensive stopwatch when you could be making money ($5000) by taking up Antipolygraph.org's countermeasure challenge?

Indeed!

wrote on Apr 24^th, 2004 at 9:55am:

Isn't some showing that an invention actually does that which its inventor claims required?

George,

Skeptic is right.

In a majority of cases a patent application is filed without any supporting experimental evidence that the "invention" works. Patent offices do not have the resources to validate the technologies involved. Mostly, they just look for a lack of prior art combined with non obviousness. Since patents are pretty meaningless until productized, the market serves to weed out the bogus patents from useable ones. Most of the time this works.

-Marty

Here is another counter-countermeasure technique that may be in use within the federal polygraph community with subjects who deny having researched polygraphy and who produce "passing" charts.

After the "in-test" or chart-collection phase, the polygrapher will inform the examinee that his polygraph results are "NDI." An examinee who has not researched the polygraph should not understand that "NDI" means "No Deception Indicated" (that is, he/she has passed), and should appear confused by the examiner's statement. On the other hand, if the examinee appears relieved by the news that his charts were "NDI" it would suggest that the examinee had in fact researched polygraphy and it might be further inferred that the examinee had employed countermeasures.

Alternatively, the polygrapher might use the term "NSR," which is shorthand for "No Significant Response." Some agencies prefer to use this term in the context of screening examinations instead of "NDI."

This ruse can also be used with subjects whose charts are scored as "failing." In this case, the polygrapher may start by telling the examinee that his charts are "DI" which is shorthand for "Deception Indicated" (or possibly "SR" for "Significant Response"). Again, the subject who has not researched polygraphy should not understand the meaning of either of these terms.

One thing I don't get about all this countermeasures stuff:

If a person continually shows an abnormal response to a "relevant" question, despite a manipulation to the "control" questions, wouldn't that be a dead giveaway to an experienced polygrapher?

What I mean by "abnormal response" is an obvious reaction that is consistent throughout the exam.  A person who HAS used illegal drugs, for example, and lies about it, is really going to have much more of a response to that question than the polygrapher usually sees on that question.  If that strong response is consistent over the course of the whole examination, it seems to me that any polygrapher worth his salt would see that reaction despite the control question manipulations.  And don't polygraphers move the relevant questions around during the test so that you'd have to manipulate ALL of the control questions at the right time to get them to counter the obvious and consistent relevant question response?

Not only that, but wouldn't it appear strange to a polygrapher that not just one or two control questions "spike" off the chart, but that ALL of them do?  It's my understanding that people taking a polygraph usually are MUCH more concerned about one particular control question than the others, so I think that if all the control questions are showing very high reactions it might lead to suspicion.

George W. Maschke wrote:

"In any event, AntiPolygraph.org has made countermeasure information publicly available and free not to help liars beat the system, but to help honest, law-abiding persons protect themselves against the high risk of a false positive outcome that is associated with the pseudoscience of polygraphy. We cannot make this information available to those who legitimately need it without also making it available to everyone."



George, I find it amusing how you can claim there is a "high risk of a false positive outcome."  Anyone who knows about polygraphy knows that, at least with CQT tests, there is a large chasm between passing a polygraph and out-right failing a polygraph.  That chasm is called "inconclusive."  It takes a lot to leap that chasm--the risk of a false positive is extremely low.  I believe that, more often than not, when a person actually makes that leap, they are indeed hiding some serious skeletons in their closet.  Could it happen, though?  Sure, it's possible.  But what are the odds?  Certainly less than your chances of dying in a plane crash.  You spout rhetoric like you know what you're talking about.  All you really "know" is what other people tell you.  You are simply spewing questionable information to scared little boys and girls, many of whom, even if your countermeaures information actually worked, don't deserve to pass a polygraph or be hired as law enforcement officers.

I agree with you anal.  funny name too!  I have worked for "the agency" for many years now.  I have taken quite  a few polygraph tests and passed them all and I never used any of the dumb countermeasure stuff on this forum  I probly shouldnt even read the stuff here because it could be detremental (spelling?) to me, huh?
Thanks for being a voic of reason here too.  Oh and how did you get that cool picture next to your name, I want one.

Thank you, Loopy.  You have an original name, too.  Is that like CindyLu Who in The Grinch Who Stole Christmas?

So, you like working for the Agency?   ;) I hear they don't pay well.  I'm sorry you have to go through regular polygraphs, if that's the case.  It isn't a pleasant experience, but I believe it's a necessary evil to avoid problems later.

I try to be a voice of reason.  Eventually--and George and Co. know this--I'll tire of these boring bitchers, moaners, whiners and worriers on this forum, and I'll find myself another amusement.  But for now, I like playing devil's advocate and countering the idiotic rhetoric so many people on this forum engage in.

About reading this forum being detrimental to you, it might be if you take any of it seriously.  Just keep taking the polygraph the same way you have--sounds like you have a winning approach.  Any advice to the forum?

Oh, and about the picture: If you go to the top of the page, click on profile, and then go down, you can find the picture add-on section.   Pick a good one so we all recognize you right off.  Later, Loop.   :)

Thanks again anal. You are my new hero! My advice to the forum is to just be your self and you should pass the polygraph. I am a pretty honest person and I havent had problems with it. I hate taking the polygraph even tho I havent had a really bad experience with it I do not like being asked all those questions. I guess like you say it is a necesary evil. Thanks for telling me how to get a good picture also.

Glad to be of service, Loopy.

I like your advice.  Sounds like a winner.  I have taken multiple polygraphs, too, and I have passed them all with no stupid anal or oral manipulations.  No, it's not fun taking a polygraph.  Fortunately I haven't run into any jerk polygraphers--they have all been extremely polite and professional.  Georgie Pordgie would have us believe that they are the enemy, but I haven't yet met a polygrapher I didn't like.

By the way, nice picture.  If you didn't notice yet, even your previous posts have that picture on them now.  I take it you are a female then.  If so, nice to read a female perspective.  If not, sorry buddy!

Our polygraphers are nice people too if not just a little strange. So anal where do you work if you dont mind me asking. I kinda told you so maybe you can kinda tell me too. My name is not from the grinch, but that comment made me laugh. Luanne is a special name to me and Im kinda loopy I guess.  :P

As the old saying goes, Loopy, "I could tell you, but then I'd have to kill you."  Just kidding, of course!  I'd rather keep some things to myself, no offense.  Now, niceties aside, let's get back on track with this thread topic of so-called countermeasure techniques.   ;)

I'd like to "challenge" this forum.  All of you who actually lied your asses off on relevant issues in a polygraph and passed despite your lies due to countermeasures, speak up now.  Which relevant questions did you lie to, and which countermeasures did you use to pass?  Before anyone speaks up, make sure you understand what a relevant issue is, or you're going to come off sounding like the release of gas through a real anal sphincter. 8)  Also, make sure you read up on the difference between a conclusion of deception and a conclusion of inconclusive.  There are enough morons on this board who don't know the difference in either case, so don't be one of them.

ok anal I will accept that. I just love your wit and humor!!!  Are you single by any chance?  oops, guess that answers if I'm a female. I dont think anybodys gonna accept that challenge though. who wants to admit they really lied on the polgraph? what if big brother is watching? I for one would just like to tell people that if they want to pass the polygraph dont mess with it and you should do fine.  those guys really know what they are doing and they will see right through you. bye bye now.

Loopy, I have just one question for you:

What are you wearing?   ;)

I'm glad you like the show, Loop.  I'm in town til Thursday.

Now, don't everyone jump at once to the "challenge."  Time for a little self-disclosure here.

(Other than the sound of crickets, silence . . . )

The same reasons that polygraphs are not used in court are the same as the reasons why polygraphs should not be used against anyone applying for a job.

THEY ARE NOT ACCURATE ANY WHERE NEAR 100%

Meaning for those who are hard headed, they do not work.

WOW!  Now lets all play nice, This is the best board I have found. I just had to say that..

PG, you can't just lay that out there and not expect to be hammered, buddy.

So, here is a reply I just sent to one of your most distinguished (or should I say extinguished) senior members, Gino Scalabrini.  Thank heavens for cut and paste:

OK, Gino.  Although this will probably just lead to both of us citing studies and articles that none of the worriers on this forum will actually read, I'll humor you . . . at least once.  We'll look like two people arguing over the true meaning of an obscure Biblical passage.    

In 1983, the Office of Technology Assessment of the United States Congress selected 10 field studies they believed had scientific merit.  The overall accuracy of the polygraph decisions was 90% on criterion-guilty suspects and 80%  on criterion-innocent suspects (Lykken, D.T. (1997) The detection of deception.  Psychological Bulletin , 86, 47-53).

Pretty darned good, huh, Gino?  It gets better, so read on:

In 1997, the Committee of Concerned Social Scientists found four significant field studies that showed the average accuracy of field decisions for the CQT (comparison question test) was 90.5%.  It is signficant, though, that nearly all of the errors made by the CQT were false positive errors.  (Still, when you're dealing with accuracy over 90%, don't place too much emphasis on those FP's--besides, it just gets better after this, Gino.)  In the four studies, the data was derived from independent evaluations of the physiological data (the raw charts).   Because it is usually the original examiners who testify in court, and because they obviously make the decisions on how to proceed in their exams, the Committee went further in an effort to ascertain their accuracy compared to that of the independent examiners.  The Committee also included an additional two studies in this evaluation.  What they found was that the original examiners were even more accurate than the independent examiners.  In fact, the mean acccuracy for the innocent was 98%, while the mean accuracy for the guilty was 97%.  The studies used by the Committee are as follows:

Horvath, F.S. (1977)  The effect of selected variables on interpretation of polygraph records. Journal of Applied Psychology, 62, 127-136.

Honts, C.R. and Raskin, D.C. (1988) A field study of the validity of the directed lie control question. Journal of Police Science and Administration, 16, 56-61.

Kleinmuntz, B. and Szucko, J. (1984) A field study of the fallibility of polygraphic lie detection.  Nature, 308, 449-450.

Raskin, D.C., Kircher, J.C., Honts, C.R. and Horowitz, S.W.(1988)  A Study of the Validity of Polygraph Examinations in Criminal Investigation, Grant No. 85-IJ-CX-0040.  Salt Lake City: Department of Psychology, University of Utah.

Patrick, C.J. and Iacano, W.G. (1991) Validity of the control question polygraph test: The problem of sampling bias.  Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 229-238.

Honts, C.R. (1996) Criterion development and validity of the control question test in field application.  The Journal of General Psychology, 123, 309-324.

So much for your crystal ball/tarot card/flip of the coin analogies, huh, Gino?

(By the way, those two sunglassed smilies in the dates of one Honts and one Raskin reference should be 1988--your forum has a problem with the number one thousand nine hundred and eighty-eight--it shows the last eight as a smiley--weird!)


Go ahead and come back with some more referenced studies that the worried boys and girls on this forum won't ever read.  This is more for you and me, Gino, just so you and I both know that I know what I'm talking about.  The difference between you and me, though, is that all you can do is counter with your own citations, while I have real-world experience and have rubbed elbows with the Top Guns of the polygraph world.  Take your best shot, Gino.  I probably won't waste so much time to counter your inane, memorized rhetoric again, so rest easy, baby!

Oh, where, oh where has my little George gone, oh where, oh where can he be?  He'll be back, of course. This ridiculous forum is his whole life.  He's not much good for anything but entertainment, though.

Now, back to my "challenge."  That's right, I thought so--nothing but the sound of crickets in the grass.  Ha ha ha ha ha!!! I slay me!

I have a question if polygraph is 97% accurate what happens to the 3 that are wrongly accused or released. How does the inconclusive results figure in.
 
 Polygraphist claim that accuracy rates are as high as 97% but that rules out inconclusive results that are obtained 15-25% of the time. Inconclusive is an error or an inaccuracy if you can not make an opinion then it should be considered inaccurate.

 Lets see out of 100 people tested here is my question.

Say 40 were (DI) deception indicated
  40 were (NDI) no deception indicated
  20 were inconclusive how do you figure that is anywhere near the average   accuracy claims that were posted.

Posts by "Anal Sphincter" and "LoopyLuWho" in this message thread originated from the same IP address.

OH MY GOSH!!!    :-*

Loopy, have you been spying on me?

If this means what I think it means, here's the  plan for Monday:

High noon.  The table in the northeast corner by the water fountain.  I'll be wearing something red.  Be there.

I bet you had make believe friends as a child.

Well, I believed in Santa Claus for a few years, but that's about it.  Now, don't scare Loopy away until I get a chance to meet her--assuming she really is a female and not some cross-dresser or something . . .  :-*

Well, Loopy . . .  :-[

[quote author=AnalSphincter link=1064482960/60#62 date=1108425780]Well, Loopy . . .  :-[/quote]

It is obvious that you are the author of the LoopyLuWho posts, which you fabricated to support your own point of view. It is unseemly for you to continue attempting to keep up the charade, after you've been caught red-handed, as it were.  Stop playing games.

I can't really comment on Loopy unless my suspicions are confirmed.  Community computers certainly have their drawbacks . . .

I've examined the Loopy posts myself.  They are nothing like my posts in style, diction or . . . or . . . sheer Pizazz!

For those of you wondering, I have unmasked  our dear Loopy, and he is not a girl at all!  I will say no more on this subject after this, but after talking to Loopy I don't think he'll be around anymore.  What a shame, really.  I was hoping I had a more credible ally.   >:(

Sorry for the sidetrack.  I got carried away in my flirtations only to end up feeling like I was that poor guy in The Crying Game.

Back to the challenge:  If anyone of you who claim that countermeasures worked for you wants to speak up now, feel free.  Remember, we need to know which "relevant" issues you really lied about and which countermeasures you used to overcome your significant lie(s).  Incorporating countermeasures when you don't have anything to hide with regard to the "relevant" issues proves nothing; that would be like telling us all that the multivitamin you take each day guarantees your good health, when you are already eating a good diet, exercising and living relatively stress-free.

I eagerly await your replies.

Oh, and one more thing: If I suddenly disappear from this forum without saying goodbye, it won't be because I chose to abandon you.  It would be because the administrator is tired of my voice of reason and has banned me from this forum on a pretext rather than for good reason.  I bid you adieu for now.

anythingformoney wrote on Feb 9^th, 2005 at 1:00am:

One thing I don't get about all this countermeasures stuff: If a person continually shows an abnormal response to a "relevant" question, despite a manipulation to the "control" questions, wouldn't that be a dead giveaway to an experienced polygrapher? What I mean by "abnormal response" is an obvious reaction that is consistent throughout the exam.  A person who HAS used illegal drugs, for example, and lies about it, is really going to have much more of a response to that question than the polygrapher usually sees on that question.  If that strong response is consistent over the course of the whole examination, it seems to me that any polygrapher worth his salt would see that reaction despite the control question manipulations.  And don't polygraphers move the relevant questions around during the test so that you'd have to manipulate ALL of the control questions at the right time to get them to counter the obvious and consistent relevant question response? Not only that, but wouldn't it appear strange to a polygrapher that not just one or two control questions "spike" off the chart, but that ALL of them do?  It's my understanding that people taking a polygraph usually are MUCH more concerned about one particular control question than the others, so I think that if all the control questions are showing very high reactions it might lead to suspicion.

See my reply to your above questions (which you cross-posted) in the message thread, Polygraph Countermeasure Challenge.

Finally, the great one speaks to me.  ME! I'm not worthy, I'm not worthy!   :)  Ok, George, then I'll just address your reply in the other thread.  No time to write a thoughtful reply right now.  Talk to you later.

OK, George, check out the reply in the thread entitled "Polygraph Countermeasure Challenge."   :)

Hey ANAL

What do you say answer the counter measures challenge?  A person with your vast experience should have not problem proving the hundreds of people on this board wrong.
 I bet you could do it, or at least arbitrarily accuse someone of using them, just like most examiners do.

I have a question, if counter measures do not work, why is every polygraph manufacturer making some sort of device to attempt to catch them being used.  

Ok Anal let me have it..

PG, check out my reply to George on the other thread.  That will give you some answers.  You may not accept those answers, but they are there for you.

I think the reason why manufacturers make anti-countermeasure devices is because there is a market for them.  That's business.

Now, why is there a market for those devices?  Because polygraphers know that there are people out there who will attempt countermeasures, and it's nice to be a step ahead of those people.

I have previously admitted that some countermeasures may work.  Studies I have referenced show that the use of countermeasures has absolutely no effect with innocent examinees, but that countermeasures may help a guilty examinee produce a false negative.  There has not been much research done regarding mental countermeasures, which may be more effective than physical countermeasures, at least until functional brain imaging is perfected.  I believe that the average Joe on the street won't be able to perfect physical countermeasures without access to the polygraph itself and the input and feedback of an experienced polygrapher.   As far as my actual experience with anti-countermeasures devices, I have seen the "butt pad" in use, and I have personally seen it catch an examinee with his britches down, so to speak.  It is a very effective device in my experience.

I didn't really "let you have it," PG, because I feel that you are at least probing for information rather than just reguritating tired rhetoric like others on this forum, and because you are rather likeable.   :)

All
As I briefly come out of retirement to comment, I have to say George that in my absence this site has come to resemble a shabby transient shuffling down the street kicking a can....remember those thrilling discussions we had with various anon's, skeptics and rotting tree stumps that thrilled the polygraph fearful? where are the Vikings now??
That said, since I have stopped to pick up a transient (on the way to jail of course) I would like to relate a true story of one of this sites pupils the other day.
Well groomed, intelligent, educated and articulate this person had a good work record and had passed the background.  The polygrapher noted during the test that this individual was applying CM's via muscle contraction, and breathing alteration...perhaps the applicant did not know an irrelevant from a control, how could that have happened?
Well, no one had informed this person in thier research that regardless of the clenches that one may perform, it will be very difficult (I am told) to suppress a legitimate reaction to a relevant question, which is indeed what happened.
The polygrapher in his post test set the results aside briefly and concentrated on the CM use.  After some initial denial, a full confession was received which included a description of advice received in George' and Gino's phamplet.  So whats the point? this individual will never work in LE and has been barred from re-aplying for life.  Seem harsh? Had this person demonstrated a different set of ethics and not rec'd encouragement from this site, the result may of been much different.
CM's are not detectable after all, and that is what this person had been told here and elsewhere...of course experienced people know this story I am telling is routine.
And before the faithfull break squelch about "how many slipped thru without admissions"? etc. etc. just know that CM's are indeed not difficult to observe, and specific tests can then be given easily to confirm the belief without any admission required.
So chalk one up for integrity, and know this George and others, that your advice has a real life impact that you do not want to believe in your belief that this tool is nothing more than a coin toss.

Alot of angry people here that would give advice have as much polygraph specific time as I have piloting the space shuttle.

Breeze,

Thank you for sharing this anecdote. The applicant in question made a big mistake by admitting having employed countermeasures, which is something we specifically warn against doing in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector (at pp. 158-59 of the 3rd edition).

I don't doubt that polygraphers may sometimes obtain admissions from subjects they may suspect of having employed countermeasures. But such anecdotal evidence does not demonstrate an ability on the part of the polygraph community to genuinely detect countermeasures.

On what do you base your assertion that countermeasures are not difficult to observe and are easily confirmed without any admission required? It would be helpful if you could provide a reference to any article, book chapter, or research study that supports this contention.

Yeah, what's up with that, Breeze?  If you're going to address George, make sure you throw in a few regurgitated study references.  Since he has absolutely no experience with the polygraph other than being a total failure at taking one, regurgitations are all he knows.  Of course, if you DO regurgitate for him, he'll just discount your regurgitations with more of his own, even cutting and pasting small segments from your "pro-polygraph" regurgitations and using them out of context.

It's his site, though, and he has much ego invested in it, so he will always get the last word.  That said, don't just throw out something that sounds like nostalgia and then never come back.  I repeat, what's up with that?

Here is yet another (rather stupid) counter-countermeasure, known to be used by at least one retired federal polygraph examiner now in private practice. The polygrapher will casually tell the examinee during the pre-test phase, "You know what, this is not a control question test. This is a relevant/irrelevant test."

The polygrapher will then proceed to administer a probable-lie control question test. The false statement that the relevant/irrelevant technique will be used is a simple attempt at misdirection intended to throw off guard any examinee planning to augment reactions to the "control" questions.

anythingformoney wrote on Feb 15^th, 2005 at 4:29pm:

I can't really comment on Loopy unless my suspicions are confirmed.  Community computers certainly have their drawbacks . . .

Community computer?  You are not dealing with simpletons and mouth-breathers here.  Your preposterous claim that you are using a community computer within minutes of another person, back and forth and on the same site is just too much.

Let me tell you why you are a liar (aside from the fact that you are in the polygraph field):

Anal posted on Feb 10th, 2005, 2:38pm
Loopy replied on Feb 10th, 2005, 3:38pm
Anal replied on Feb 10th, 2005, 3:46pm
Loopy replied on Feb 10th, 2005, 4:12pm
Anal replied on Feb 10th, 2005, 4:19pm
Loopy replied on Feb 10th, 2005, 4:48pm
Anal replied on Feb 10th, 2005, 4:54pm
Loopy replied on Feb 11th, 2005, 11:49am
Anal replied on Feb 11th, 2005, 12:22pm

You are maintaining the position that during a 2.5 hour period on Feb 10 you were sharing a "community computer" with another AP user, and the two of you switched positions no less than 4 times during that time only to reply to one another's posts?

You posted in some cases 6 minutes apart from the SAME computer?  This is really stretching the limits of probability and maybe even the limits of possibility since community computers generally have accounts that one needs to log in and out from.

Ok, the fact that you a creating a secondary account any replying to support your own argument is nothing new.  Its been done ad nauseum on the web for the past 10 years since I have been a webmaster and administrator on no less than 8 highly trafficked message boards.

What I find disturbing is the little "relationship" you developed with yourself.  You created a fictional character then proceeded to create fictional rapport and sexual tension.  "What are you wearing?"....are you friggin' serious?  You expected us to buy that?

Then you presumably had a good night's sleep and came back on the 11th and resumed the charade...this time the "two" of you logging in within an hour of one another ON THE SAME COMPUTER.

If I worked in an agency with you, behavior of this sort would certainly raise some mental health and stability red flags.  It is not just dishonest, but also quite creepy.  I wonder if this will come back to haunt you on a future polygraph.  Could this be considered deviance of a sort?

Hi, I'm new here. :)

Can anyone give me a definitive answer as to whether lie-detectors are beatable or not? Perhaps I would have to
pay for a test and try it as an experiment (I don't know what it costs).

I REALLY NEED TO KNOW!  ???



I read lots of claims by people that all you have to do is get a good night's sleep and relax, but then there are assertations by people who are, or who have been, polygraph operators who say "Forget it. Countermeasures are just a myth perpetuated by the internet".

Living in the U.K, it's highly unlikely I will ever have to take a polygraph test, but the idea frightens me. Can you really beat the machine? They put cables around your chest to monitor chest movement, pads at your feet so you can't clench your toes, and a pressure pad on your seat so you can't even clench your butt!!  :-[

Every teeny tiny little twitch, change in electrical resistance, change in sweat levels, is monitored.. I can imagine trying to beat the machine and being totally defeated.

Are all these claims of "how to beat the lie detector" just empty boasts? Are the people who post messages about
how they beat the test or how they were shocked at being
wrongly found guilty just talking crap? I just don't know.

The polygraph operators reply in a manner that reminds me of scientists responding for the 1000th time to UFO nuts who are convinced that Roswell really happened. They reply as if it's an absurd belief and they've grown tired of trying to convince idiots of scientific fact.

I find it hard to not believe the polygraph operators.

I'm sure it's been said a hundred times in this forum, but the argument "if you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear" angers me.

It's a terribly glib response to an issue that deeply affects
our rights of personal privacy; our right to think and feel and do things that may do no one any harm, but may cost us our repututations, our dignity, our chance for a decent job. For example, lots of people take illegal drugs  recreationally - perhaps just once in a couple of weeks or on special occasions; no one gets hurt, it doesn't melt their brains, no one needs to know. But... But if you are "requested" to take a polygraph for your employer it could see you blacklisted for life. and as for having to take a lie detector test to get a job.. what are your chances? And who is to say that the information won't be passed on?

It disturbs me that we seem to be living in a world that is increasingly controlled by puritans who see to it that only "good" people have nothing to fear.

So what am I really like?..

Do I take drugs? No, nothing illegal anyway - amyl once in a while (legal in the UK).

Would I ever do hard drugs? Probably not. I will very likely try magic mushrooms sometime, maybe I'll even try cocaine one day, but the whole "drugs scene" isn't really for me.

Am I a child molestor? Not in a million years, but I don't feel guilty about watching 16 year old girls in short skirts.

Am I a pervert? Depends what you think about BDSM.

Am I a thief? Nope. I've never stolen anything except junk and a couple of nuts and bolts from work.

A "cheat"? I would never cheat on a girl, but then I also believe in polyamoristic relationships (swinging) - something I would not conceal.

Why am I telling you this? Because any of the above confessions would be enough to see me castigated by
the people who employ the use of lie detectors! Be they
employers or chat show hosts (I do so hate those smug
egotists.. "the polygraph says you lied Todd! You're a LIAR Todd! Bob, you FAILED the polygraph, we KNOW you cheated on your wife, Bob"... oh how I hate them).


Polygraph operators... I think if I ever had to take a test and all my secrets were revealed, one of us would walk out and the other would be taken out feet first.

I sincerely hope lie detectors don't work.

Lord_DarkClaw,

Cool handle by the way,  but these questions you ask, have a John Clease - Monty Pythonish approach. To understand what transpires in a polygraph interrogation and its validity. I would recommend you download, "The Lie Behind The Lie Detector", which is downloadable from this website, and read it cover to cover. Then download the manuals that are posted here and read what they have to say, primarily the examiners handbook. Then you make the decision on the machines validity, as it will be a personal one. But on this website, the polygraph and its uses are entirely worthless in my opinion and by others that are antipolygraph, but we do have a few polygraphers who will obviously dispute this. Other good reads are, Tremors in the Blood, by David Lykken. Do your research, and know what a sham this machine is.
Much success to you.

Regards ...

Hi Jupiter :)
Yeah.. I rather like my name too!

as to whether lie detectors are just a scam...
I'm just not convinced; I am aware that there is a great deal of opposition from credible peer groups, but all the concerns seem to be about the objectivity of the polygraph operator rather than the machine itself. :-/

I read an example somewhere of a polygraph operator challenging subjects to take one of a selection of dollar bills without him looking - $1,$10,$20,$100 - he then asks if the subject has taken the $1, then the $10, then the $20, then the $100 and tells the subject which one it is he or she took, proving to the subject that their body [does betray them to the testing apparatus.

Is this polygraph operator simply lying? Using a magic trick?
Lying about their success record?

Have you ever taken a lie detector test Jupiter?

I've looked at the statements from people who claim to have taken polygraph tests (is that the correct term or are there multiple devices used?) and many of them - obviously - have had bad experiences. But are they being honest?
they may say that they have nothingto gain by lying about their experiences, but it's human nature to present our best side and put on a front even in the relative anonymity of this forum.

I want to see the people who run this website take lie detector tests and try to beat them!

Prove that they don't work!
The questions do not need to be personal - the dollar bill test is a good example.

And why is there so much talk of countermeasures anyway? if it is true that lie detectors don't detect anything, then why would you need to use ANY measures to try and beat the machine? ???

If it turns out that polygraph machines don't work, then I would rest much easier over the issue of the next generation of lie/emotion detectors: If polygraphs don't work then most likely, neither will they.

I'll read up on what I can, but once upon a time, I used to be very nearly convinced by UFO books - read stuff like "Above Top Secret" by Timothy Good or watch the "Moon - Mars connection" video by Richard Hoagland. They are VERY convincing speakers, they write in a professional style.. and they are LIARS!

So, everything I read on this site, I read with a touch of skepticism. It would make me very happy to see lie detectors debunked, but what if this is just another phoney site? Do I know for sure that Dr. Richardson is a real doctor? Maybe he's just using a phoney "doctor of doctorology" type certificate (I've looked up his name on the net and I haven't found any reference to him being a fake.. but I don't know for certain).

Lord_Darkclaw,


You asked:

"And why is there so much talk of countermeasures anyway? if it is true that lie detectors don't detect anything, then why would you need to use ANY measures to try and beat the machine?"

Reduce the risk of a false positive result.

v/r
triple x

wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2007 at 4:29am:

Lord_Darkclaw, You asked: "And why is there so much talk of countermeasures anyway? if it is true that lie detectors don't detect anything, then why would you need to use ANY measures to try and beat the machine?" Reduce the risk of a false positive result. v/r triple x

And at the same time, take a big risk of being caught by the polygrapher and being disqualified. The simple fact that you are trying to amplify the chart tracings on certain questions, while feeling that the OTHER questions are the truly significant ones, will likely cause you to show responses to BOTH, resulting at best in an inconclusive exam, and at worst either failing the exam or being caught by the polygrapher and disqualified.

As a polygrapher I have caught examinees using countermeasures on many occasions. Can I guarantee that I catch ALL examinees who use countermeasures? No. But I do believe that those innocent examinees who come up inconclusive or who fail the exam due to messing around rather than following instructions would almost certainly have passed the exam if they had taken it "straight up."

If you've got nothing to hide, why mess around? The anti-polygraph people on this forum will tell you that it will help ensure that you won't be a "false positive," but I say it may very well make you an inconclusive, a failure, or a disqualification.

LieBabyCryBaby,

All valid points and a reasonable assessment, however.

Simply telling the truth is no guarantee of passing a polygraph exam.

The use of polygraph countermeasures if employed correctly, can enhance the chances or odds of achieving a desirable test result or NDI.

On the other hand, as you said and I agree to a certain point, there is risk involved should an examinee employ countermeasures. At best, it's a coin toss, or a 50/50 chance a test subject does not use countermeasures, and tells the truth.

Whether one uses countermeasures... or they do not use countermeasures, there remains a risk of a false positive. Countermeasures simply reduce the risk of a false positive result, although there is certainly no guarantee that CM's will warrant a desirable end result.

You claim that you have caught several examinee’s using or employing countermeasures during the process of a polygraph exam. How did you catch these people using cm's.?

Did you:

1) Actually observe or somehow catch someone squeezing there sphincter muscle?

2) Did you find a tack in their shoe?

3) Did you "suspect" or somehow catch them trying to solve complex mental math problems?

4) Did you catch someone trying to alter or "control" their breathing rate? If so, how do you know for certain that they don't breathe that way normally when under equal or comparable degrees of stress?

Although I cannot be for certain that you did or did not catch test subjects employing cm's during a polygraph exam in which you were the polygraph examiner. However, I must admit that I'm skeptical of your claims at best.


v/r
triple x

LieBabyCryBaby wrote on Feb 4^th, 2007 at 3:13am:

And at the same time, take a big risk of being caught by the polygrapher and being disqualified. The simple fact that you are trying to amplify the chart tracings on certain questions, while feeling that the OTHER questions are the truly significant ones, will likely cause you to show responses to BOTH, resulting at best in an inconclusive exam, and at worst either failing the exam or being caught by the polygrapher and disqualified. As a polygrapher I have caught examinees using countermeasures on many occasions. Can I guarantee that I catch ALL examinees who use countermeasures? No. But I do believe that those innocent examinees who come up inconclusive or who fail the exam due to messing around rather than following instructions would almost certainly have passed the exam if they had taken it "straight up." If you've got nothing to hide, why mess around? The anti-polygraph people on this forum will tell you that it will help ensure that you won't be a "false positive," but I say it may very well make you an inconclusive, a failure, or a disqualification.

LBCB,

As much of your advice contains a certain amount of truth. Most of it, contains the first rule of counter-countermeasures. Tell eveyone that they will be caught and fail, lose your chance, generally the world will end. From my experiece, I know this not to be the case.
The worst case scenario, which happens from having highly detailed and complete polygraph procedure knowlege is inconclusive.  This is based on the facts that the polygrapher needs 3 pillars to be inplace during a polygraph session in order to work. Feel free to argue if you can.

1. Examinee must have fear and anxiety. Without this in place the "fight or flight" response is gone. Knowlege is the key here, some may still exist, but the polygraphers advantage is highly reduced or eliminated.

2. Examinee must believe that deception will be detected. You achieve this, by all the misinformation and scenario presentation during the pretest. This added stimulus is ineffective to those of us who know what you are doing. Again we may have to cooperate, we just don't have to believe or take what is said as anything other than a great show.

3. Examinee must have consequences for failure.  This is the important reason why inconclusive is the result. Pass and inconclusive is not a failure. And the more inconclusives that happen the more familiar the subject gets with the box. Which you can't let happen, as what ever fear or anxiety may be left is shredded and gone. And if you look at this logically, is any job really worth this garbage. Life still goes on, with or without the polygraph. THe subject just has to have the courage to accept he/she may not get the job.

These 3 rules remove the polygraph from the equation. Pushing any decision back where it belongs, based on real facts from a background investigation.  Not a human beings questionable opinion.  And for me, multiple inconclusives effectively defeats the polygraph.

Regards ....

*sigh*

I just don't see anything conclusive in these forums!
I've started to read a little about the case against lie-detectors, and there certainly does seem to be a strong case; but I want to see someone go for the jugular!

Show me the proof-positive case, for or against.

Show me a case of a hardened skeptic failing to beat the test, or show me a case of an average person confounding the test.

Triple X,

I have responded to HOW a test subject is usually caught using countermeasures in a polygraph exam in other posts. However, let me repeat it for you.

EosJ's argument about the "worst case scenario" of countermeasures being the inconclusive test result MIGHT be valid if a test subject worked and worked and worked on countermeasures technique until he/she could produce convincing charts that wouldn't betray him/her to an experienced polygrapher trained in counter-countermeasures. However, subjects can not produce those convincing charts because they fail to take into account the factors of normal habituation and variability of control question response. To explain it simply, their charts are not normal. I've seen it over and over again. Sometimes subjects are caught using the old anal squeeze or other visible techniques, but generally it has been the charts that betray them.

In most cases, when confronted, the subject admits the use of countermeasures. In some cases, the subject sits there with a sheepish look on his/her face, but won't admit anything.  Either way, though, it is the polygrapher's call. I know normal charts when I see them, and I know abnormal charts. Could I be "beaten" by a great chart manipulator? Perhaps so, and perhaps I have been. But I caution those who would try to use countermeasures to beat the test that it is very likely that you will be caught. So if we figure the polygraph is already "better than chance" at detecting deception, do you want to further decrease your chances on the exam conducted by a polygrapher who knows what to look for?

Lord_DarkClaw,

On this website in the blogs area, is the original CBS 60 minutes expose "Truth and Consequences", it was done in 1986. It shreds, without a doubt any validity of the polygraph. I highly suggest watching it. If you still think there is any doubt about its dubious workings. Then you will  have to find your own answers.

LBCB,

I knew you couldn't resist a rebuttal. But then again I would expect you to support your position. And contrary to your position, countermeasures are not even needed to get the inconclusives. Once the fear is gone, all thats left is an indignant relaxed attitude. And no matter how much false stimulation added to the scenario, nothing changes. I repeat once the fear and anxiety is gone, all you get is inconclusive.  And at this point in my life, not too much shakes those of us who know deep down in our souls that its a load of horse hockey while in the chair. We may have to submit to the polygraph, but nothing says we have to believe. And without that belief, you get nothing. Its cooperation without cooperating. And this works in all cases. Civil Disobedience for the polygraph, if you wish to use a cliche.

Regards .....

Lord_Darkclaw wrote on Feb 6^th, 2007 at 1:49pm:

*sigh* I just don't see anything conclusive in these forums! I've started to read a little about the case against lie-detectors, and there certainly does seem to be a strong case; but I want to see someone go for the jugular! Show me the proof-positive case, for or against. Show me a case of a hardened skeptic failing to beat the test, or show me a case of an average person confounding the test.

Individual cases, while sometimes worthy of demonstrating the foolishness of the polygraph, are not evidence rather they are merely anecdote...

The CQT polygraph test (and its variants) has the theoretical assumption that subjects will manifest different physiological changes (breathing, heart rate, blood pressure, sweating) when they lie. This is based on the fact that there is some correlation between changes in physiology and guilt...

However, this is not a one-to-one correlation and this is where CQT polygraph and its variants commit their logical error: just because lying people are nervous does not mean that nervous people are lying...

So the real problem with the CQT polygraph is that it cannot distinguish between the innocent but nervous and the guilty but nervous. As much as polygraphers, CVSA'ers and other mind-readers would have us believe, nature did not equip us with a "Pinocchio's nose"...

If you read the National Academy of Sciences report (its link is somewhere on this site), you will find all of the summary of proof that you need to know that the CQT polygraph and its variants have no scientific basis. In addition, you will find that the NAS also concluded that polygraphs are dangerous in screening applications (e.g., employment and post-conviction) and are biased against the innocent...

The NAS also concluded that if it is to be used, the CQT polygraph and its variants should only be used in specific criminal incidents because this is the only arena where its accuracy is above chance but well below perfection. This is because the CQT polygraph becomes more like its scientific cousin, the Guilty Knowledge Test (GKT) or as its now known in the psychology literature - Event Related Potential (ERP)...

But in my opinion, the only thing the CQT polygraph and its variants are really useful for is eliciting confessions from the gullible...

Finally, you ask for proof but it seems that you're just echoing the pro-polygraph people on this site that harp about experience. If you really want proof, start with the NAS study then read Lykken's A Tremor in the Blood, these will give you a summary of the CQT polygraph and its dangers. You'll need no other "proof", unless of course you're a polygrapher just masquerading to spread disinformation...

I read the National Academy of Sciences report, but it doesn't seem to criticize the validity of the polygraph machine - it does criticize the methods of testing, but it does not offer any damning criticsm of the accuracy of the machine.

What the report gives, is a set of "what if" scenarios -
situations in which the test subject may produce atypical responses.

But in testing for responses to specific questions - ie;
questions that are not generic - the validity of the polygraph test is not called into question except in regard to countermeasure techniques - techniques which are now limited since the introduction of counter-counter measures (pressure-sensitive seat pads/foot pads etc).

So, for me, the question remains: when someone is strapped into a chair;  pad on seat, pads under feet, tubes around chest, wires on fingers; can they really beat the test when asked direct questions?

Lord_Darkclaw,

You write in part:

Quote:

I read the National Academy of Sciences report, but it doesn't seem to criticize the validity of the polygraph machine - it does criticize the methods of testing, but it does not offer any damning criticsm of the accuracy of the machine.

Your statement is analogous to saying that aside from the planes flying into tall buildings and the 3000 people who died, 9/11 wasn't such a bad day.  You have missed the forest for the trees.  No one questions that we can instrumentally detect electrodermal responses et. al., but whether polygraph methods and procedures that utilize such measures allow for the discrimination between truth and falsehood.  It is the validity of the methodology and not the instrumentation ("the polygraph machine" as you say) which is in question and which has some import.  I suggest you renew your recent reading endeavors with that in mind...

LieBabyCryBaby wrote on Feb 6^th, 2007 at 4:32pm:

Triple X, I have responded to HOW a test subject is usually caught using countermeasures in a polygraph exam in other posts. However, let me repeat it for you. EosJ's argument about the "worst case scenario" of countermeasures being the inconclusive test result MIGHT be valid if a test subject worked and worked and worked on countermeasures technique until he/she could produce convincing charts that wouldn't betray him/her to an experienced polygrapher trained in counter-countermeasures. However, subjects can not produce those convincing charts because they fail to take into account the factors of normal habituation and variability of control question response. To explain it simply, their charts are not normal. I've seen it over and over again. Sometimes subjects are caught using the old anal squeeze or other visible techniques, but generally it has been the charts that betray them. In most cases, when confronted, the subject admits the use of countermeasures. In some cases, the subject sits there with a sheepish look on his/her face, but won't admit anything.  Either way, though, it is the polygrapher's call. I know normal charts when I see them, and I know abnormal charts. Could I be "beaten" by a great chart manipulator? Perhaps so, and perhaps I have been. But I caution those who would try to use countermeasures to beat the test that it is very likely that you will be caught. So if we figure the polygraph is already "better than chance" at detecting deception, do you want to further decrease your chances on the exam conducted by a polygrapher who knows what to look for?

LieBabyCryBaby,

Your claim to detect and differentiate natural physiological responses during a polygraph examination from artificially produced physiological responses [cm’s] short of an admission from the test subject is lacking in plausible support. That said, I would certainly agree and understand if you catch a test subject with a tack in their shoe… or, if you visually observe someone tensing/flexing while attempting to employ the tried and true butt squeeze, however. Short of the admission that a test subject was in fact employing polygraph countermeasures would be nothing more than speculation and opinion.

The ability to manipulate polygraph charts via artificial physiological responses is not as hard as you may think. Anyone with minimal training can easily produce artificially enhanced physiological responses indistinguishable from natural responses expected during a polygraph exam.

Simply telling the truth is no guarantee of successfully passing a polygraph exam.


triple x

Lord_Darkclaw wrote on Feb 10^th, 2007 at 1:07pm:

I read the National Academy of Sciences report, but it doesn't seem to criticize the validity of the polygraph machine - it does criticize the methods of testing, but it does not offer any damning criticsm of the accuracy of the machine.

Dr. Richardson is right, you should really question your reading comprehension ability...


Lord_Darkclaw wrote on Feb 10^th, 2007 at 1:07pm:

What the report gives, is a set of "what if" scenarios - situations in which the test subject may produce atypical responses.

Nope, the NAS gives situations based upon assumed levels of accuracy and the base rate of lying and calculates the predictive value of the test which show that even with an accuracy rate of 80%, the test would falsely accuse thousands of people for every spy it caught.


Lord_Darkclaw wrote on Feb 10^th, 2007 at 1:07pm:

But in testing for responses to specific questions - ie; questions that are not generic - the validity of the polygraph test is not called into question except in regard to countermeasure techniques - techniques which are now limited since the introduction of counter-counter measures (pressure-sensitive seat pads/foot pads etc).

Perhaps you missed the part where the NAS said that only area that the polygraph showed accuracy above chance but well below perfection was with specific incidents with subjects untrained in countermeasures.


Lord_Darkclaw wrote on Feb 10^th, 2007 at 1:07pm:

So, for me, the question remains: when someone is strapped into a chair;  pad on seat, pads under feet, tubes around chest, wires on fingers; can they really beat the test when asked direct questions?

For those trained in countermeasures, the answer is yes.

Dr. Richardson is right, there is no doubt that the polygraph machine accurately measures pulse, blood pressure, respiration, and sweating. And to echo him again, there is serious doubt as to whether changes in these measure correspond to deception.

An analogy to the polygraph would be ghosthunters that use electromagnetic field detectors who claim that when the EMF meter goes off, it means there's a ghost present. Does anyone question if EMF meter detect electromagnetic fluctuations? No, but to make a claim that the fluctuation corresponds to a ghost and not to some other cause such as electrical wiring, magnetized metal, etc., one should have evidence.

The CQT polygraph is seriously lacking in its evidence that it can detect deception because there is not a one to one correlation between lying and changes in physiology because these same changes in physiology can occur from other emotional, physical, and mental conditions. The CQT polygraph has no way of winnowing out these other causes and hence is an unreliable and invalid determination of deception.

In addition, countermeasures are a set of methods that allow individuals to exhibit the expected response for non-deception. How hard is it to believe that one can mimic these responses to beat the machine? This isn't the same as drug testing where one is employing a masking agent, one is merely demonstrating the expected physiological changes needed to demonstrate non-deception.

Again, your purported skepticism belies someone who thinks that the CQT polygraph actually works. A true skeptic would look at the evidence and come to the same conclusion as the NAS which is the CQT polygraph in any screening application is danger to society.

digithead,

I have argued this issue for years since I joined this message board. Polygraph examiners like to claim that they possess the uncanny ability to gaze into the charts and identify a natural response from an artificial augmented [cm] response. I would sure like to know how one could tell a response on a chart caused by mental countermeasure versus a response from fear, anger, embarrassment, etc.


triple x

Here is another technique that some polygraph examiners are using to deter countermeasure use. The idea is to trick the examinee into thinking that the examiner will "know what it looks like on the charts" if the examinee employs countermeasures.

The polygrapher will ask a question series similar to the following:

1. When I say "now," please curl your toes for the count of three and stop. "Now."

2. When I say "now," please take three shallow breaths and return to normal. "Now."

3. When I say "now," please take three breaths slightly deeper than normal and return to normal. "Now."

4. When I say "now," please take several fast shallow breaths as if panting like a dog and return to normal. "Now."

5. When I say "now," please take three breaths each slightly deeper than the last and return to normal. "Now."

6. When I say "now," please push down gently with your left arm for the count of three and stop. "Now."

7. When I say "now," please tighten your sphincter muscle for the count of three and stop. "Now."

Upon completion, the polygrapher will tell the subject, "That worked well! I now know what is normal for you and what it looks like if you do these things intentionally. Obviously we don't want to see any of these things done intentionally as we go through the testing process."

The polygrapher will then proceed with the remainder of the polygraph examination. If you are planning to use countermeasures to reduce the risk of a false positive outcome, don't be fooled by this ruse.

People like User (Daddy-O) who is obviously a poligrapher are upset because they "KNOW" they are losing there "Cash Cow" and will "Lie" to ANY possible peak they can just to keep the polygraph in use. Well I got news for you. whether you like it or not, Your "polygraph" will soon be trashed. Face it, Its people like you who just make excuses and have no regard for human life. People like you have no heart.   Its people like George Maschke who make an awesome difference in the world. I thank George Maschke for protecting the rights of people all over this world NO MATTER WHAT CRIME THEY Have committed.

John R. Schwartz, who heads the U.S. Customs and Border Protection polygraph unit, claims in a memo to the American Polygraph Association that "sophisticated countermeasures can be routinely identified":

https://antipolygraph.org/blog/2014/01/25/cbp-polygraph-chief-john-r-schwartz-claims-sophisticated-countermeasures-can-be-routinely-identified/

However, Schwartz adduces no evidence to support this claim, and did not respond to a request for comment. Any input from knowledgeable sources would be welcome.

George,

As you point out, if the document claims were anything more than bluff and bluster, it would certainly be in the polygraph community’s interest to present (publicly and loudly proclaim) the evidence for such with the likely result that countermeasure attempts would be diminished if not altogether stopped in the face of certain detection. 

Although I can think of a couple of other things to add to your list of indirect evidence that this document is nothing more than the usual smoke and mirrors and aggrandizement on the part of the polygraph community’s leadership for the encouragement and motivation of the greater peanut gallery, it is not such that still leads me to believe counter-countermeasure efforts are largely unproductive.

It is also not that I am convinced that would be teachers of polygraph countermeasures are inherently smarter or more skilled than those who would detect such countermeasures… Certainly the latter community is much larger than the former and would, no doubt, include some of the best talent government money could buy.

It really comes down to this…I believe that the normal examinee physiology as displayed at the time of score-able responses and in the absence of countermeasures during a polygraph examination has greater variation than exists with (and will include) score-able responses produced as a result of well-executed countermeasures.

Although a different subject, the substantial variation previously referred to in the last paragraph is also consistent with a lack of diagnostic validity for lie detection in the absence of countermeasures.

Let's use some common sense here regarding polygraph countermeasures.  TLBTLD describes these primary physical countermeasure methods:

1. Tongue Biting - If the polygraph victim...err...candidate doesn't do this discretely, it is possible the polygrapher can see his/her mouth moving.  It is also possible that the camera(s) in the room have high resolution and can zoom in on the candidate's face and detect mouth movements.  Hence, the candidate can be caught easily if they screw up.  Bad idea.

2. Breathing Pattern Changes - There are pneumatic tubes placed around your chest to measure breathing.  These tubes are very sensitive.  If you screw up your breathing manipulation countermeasure just the slightest (like not holding your breath correctly), the tube sensors may detect it.  I mean your breathing is being measured.  I wouldn't chance this.  Bad idea.

3. Mental Thoughts - There is no machine, no doctor, no sensors, no psychic, no magician, nobody that can read your thoughts.  People that claim they can are just entertainers or con artists. Only God knows what you are thinking.  So you can use mental thoughts to excite and calm yourself as needed during the control, relevant, irrelevant questions.  It is easy to pull this off with practice.  BEST IDEA!

And other rumors from movies and such also mention:

4. Putting a Nail/Tack in Shoe - Sometimes you put your feet on a floor pad sensor.  And again, the cameras in the room and the polygrapher may spot  your toes wiggling abnormally.  Plus, do you want to walk around with a tack in your shoe all that time you are in the polygraph building before you take your poly?  Bad idea.

5. Squeezing Your Anus - You sit on a seat sensor.  The polygraph machines knows when you squeeze your butt, wiggle your butt, or pass gas.  Bad idea.

The best countermeasures are mental ones.  I can tell you from experience.  I was able to beat my FBI polygraph with mental countermeasures.  I had also been though the polygraph game before and so I knew how it worked, plus I read TLBTLD, so I was no stranger to this. That along with being on my best behavior, cooperating and playing the stupid game, and making the polygrapher think I was a good guy with nothing to hide.  The impression you give from your behavior is also very important, so that you get on the polygrapher's good side.   I will bet my life and life savings (all two dollars) that nobody can detect mental countermeasures.  If you can read my thoughts, prove it!

To beat your poly, use mental countermeasures only.  Trust me.  This is your safest bet and it works like a charm.

Properly executed countermeasures are impossible to detect because the body will react in the same way whether the stimulus originates externally (from the voice of the charlatan) or internally (within the mind).

If I spring one from watching a sexy girl on the beach or later at night nurturing the memory, the girth is the same.

Drew Richardson wrote on Jan 25^th, 2014 at 3:53pm:

George, As you point out, if the document claims were anything more than bluff and bluster, it would certainly be in the polygraph community’s interest to present (publicly and loudly proclaim) the evidence for such with the likely result that countermeasure attempts would be diminished if not altogether stopped in the face of certain detection.  Although I can think of a couple of other things to add to your list of indirect evidence that this document is nothing more than the usual smoke and mirrors and aggrandizement on the part of the polygraph community’s leadership for the encouragement and motivation of the greater peanut gallery, it is not such that still leads me to believe counter-countermeasure efforts are largely unproductive. It is also not that I am convinced that would be teachers of polygraph countermeasures are inherently smarter or more skilled than those who would detect such countermeasures… Certainly the latter community is much larger than the former and would, no doubt, include some of the best talent government money could buy. It really comes down to this…I believe that the normal examinee physiology as displayed at the time of score-able responses and in the absence of countermeasures during a polygraph examination has greater variation than exists with (and will include) score-able responses produced as a result of well-executed countermeasures. Although a different subject, the substantial variation previously referred to in the last paragraph is also consistent with a lack of diagnostic validity for lie detection in the absence of countermeasures.

Drew,

Thanks for sharing these thoughts. I think the polygraph community could benefit greatly by taking to heart the latter points you raise.

What I find particularly interesting about John Schwartz's claim that sophisticated countermeasures can be routinely detected is the extent to which he is engaging in self-delusion. His claim is, after all, directed not toward lowly job applicants, but to senior members of the polygraph community.

Perhaps Schwartz would be willing to stand up to your polygraph countermeasure challenge (which has now gone some 12 years without a single taker)?

Common Sense,

Thank you for sharing your thoughts and experience with polygraph countermeasures. With respect to tongue-biting, the available research suggests that it is not detectable through physical observation.

However, the Lafayette Instrument Company, a major supplier of polygraph equipment, is now marketing a $525 headphone system that it purports can detect tongue biting:


Quote:

Lafayette Instrument announces the availability of the Masseter Headphone System (MHS), a unique approach to detecting facial and jaw movements during a polygraph examination. The Masseter Headphone System is designed to detect and record movements in the Masseter muscle of the mandibular region during the recording phase of a polygraph examination, sensing activities of the tongue, clenching of teeth, and other jaw-line actions. The Headphones are fitted with highly sensitive transducers that allow for on-screen observation and recording of Masseter muscle activity. The MHS provides high-quality sound, a comfortable fit, and listening/audio-recording versatility. Issues with outside distractions and examiner's voice fluctuation are mitigated by the system's ability to play prerecorded questions through the noise suppressing headphones. This reduction in outside stimulus will aid the examinee's concentration on the exam. The Model 76879HM includes connections for the LX5000 only. For more information about the Model 76879HM-C (for the LX4000), view the RELATED PRODUCTS tab.

There is no published research documenting this device's ability to detect tongue-biting as a countermeasure, and I don't know what agencies, if any, may have adopted its use.

---

wrote on Jan 25^th, 2014 at 6:28pm:

5. Squeezing Your Anus - You sit on a seat sensor.The polygraph machines knows when you squeeze your butt, wiggle your butt, or pass gas.Bad idea.

George,
Are any data available on the efficacy of these "butt pads?"

Ex Member wrote on Jan 26^th, 2014 at 12:05pm:

wrote on Jan 25th, 2014 at 6:28pm: 5. Squeezing Your Anus - You sit on a seat sensor.The polygraph machines knows when you squeeze your butt, wiggle your butt, or pass gas.Bad idea. George, Are any data available on the efficacy of these "butt pads?"

No studies have been published in this regard. I have seen numerous polygraph charts from instruments that have such sensor pads, though, and they do seem to be highly sensitive. The tracing typically undulates in sync with the examinee's breathing.

George,

I have no doubt that the “butt pad” sensors are sensitive as has been the case with motion detector bars, etc. over the last few decades. 

Sensitivity is not the end-all-be-all though. It is a combination of both sensitivity and specificity which is required (as is the case for real scientific endeavors, e.g., forensic chemistry/toxicology, etc.) to be successful at analytical detection.

In that, I mean it is a much simpler task to produce a response, and say yes I can see it with this gizmo vs. the task of determining whether there is any response at all in an unknown field that might or might not include (physiologically and/or countermeasure-produced) signal and which does include a lot of noise. 

The results of the first task are what you show the boss to indicate that you are doing something or what you present to he who doles out government research funds to keep the good times rolling.

The degree to which one is successful at the latter task is the measure of whether one is successful in detecting truth and falsehood in real life, and that is what has to be demonstrated, and which to my knowledge has not.

With regard to the countermeasure challenge that you mention in a separate post, the operational parameters are pretty clear and simple as well as the statistics which would be derived from simulated crime ground truth: accuracy in determining truthful and deceptive examinees, both those who have applied countermeasures and those who have not.

The conduct of the countermeasure challenge does not require my participation and could well have been performed many times over the last dozen years by the government proponents of lie detection.  I would not be surprised to find that such is the case.  No public response to the challenge will be forthcoming until those who would accept such challenge have convinced themselves through their own private efforts that they would likely and regularly prevail in taking up the challenge.  Sound of crickets…

George W. Maschke wrote on Jan 26^th, 2014 at 9:57am:

Common Sense, Thank you for sharing your thoughts and experience with polygraph countermeasures. With respect to tongue-biting, the available research suggests that it is not detectable through physical observation.

Maybe it's just me, but when I look in the mirror and try to subtly bite my tongue, I can see my own jaws move.  I assume the polygrapher and anyone else watching me can see it too.

common sense,
The masseter muscle can become enlarged if you are a gum chewer or tend to grind your teeth at night. But, I agree with you that this is not the optimum choice for CM's, but should not be discarded outright either.

I think the manufacturer of the fancy headset is just cashing in on polygraph operators' fear of countermeasures. They probably made a bundle off of the silly "butt pad" and see a market in such novelties.

George W. Maschke wrote on Jan 25^th, 2014 at 10:54am:

John R. Schwartz, who heads the U.S. Customs and Border Protection polygraph unit, claims in a memo to the American Polygraph Association that "sophisticated countermeasures can be routinely identified": https://antipolygraph.org/blog/2014/01/25/cbp-polygraph-chief-john-r-schwartz-claims-sophisticated-countermeasures-can-be-routinely-identified/ However, Schwartz adduces no evidence to support this claim, and did not respond to a request for comment. Any input from knowledgeable sources would be welcome.

Describing my training as teaching "countermeasures" so liars can pass the polygraph "test" is the same thing as describing the polygraph as a "lie detector"!  Both descriptions are PURE, UNADULTERATED BULLSHIT!  The word "countermeasures" can only be used to describe polygraph chart manipulation by the subject of a polygraph "test" when two conditions are met: 1) The polygraph "test" must be proven to be 100% accurate and reliable as a "lie detector", and 2) the person is attempting to deliberately lie.  There is never a case where BOTH of these conditions are met.  In other words, you could only claim "countermeasures" are being used to thwart the polygraph operator's ability to detect deception IF the polygraph is able to detect deception accurately 100% of the time and that that deception would be detected were it not for the use of "countermeasures" by a person intent on being deceptive.  But, since many people know that just telling the truth only works half the time - i.e. the US Supreme Court, and the NAS report, among others, saying it is no more accurate than the toss of a coin - then a prudent person would try to mitigate the very strong probability of being falsely branded as a liar by learning how to produce a "truthful" chart.  That would not be using "countermeasures" - that would be using common sense!

Why do polygraph operators tell people not to research the polygraph before they take their test?  It is very simple - the only way they can intimidate people with the polygraph is to keep them ignorant about how it works.  When polygraph operators say I teach people "countermeasures" in order for them to "beat the test".  I simply say, that's bullshit, because polygraph operators routinely call truthful people liars - and my technique is the only way for honest, truthful people to protect themselves from being falsely accused of lying.  Go to the MEDIA page and watch the CBS 60 MINUTES investigative report I helped to produce and see the proof yourself - three out of three polygraph operators called three different truthful people liars on a crime that never even happened!  You may also enjoy watching me prove THE LIE DETECTOR IS BULLSHIT on Showtime's PENN & TELLER: BULLSHIT!

So, let me emphasize this - I DON'T TEACH SO-CALLED "COUNTERMEASURES" - I simply teach people how to ALWAYS PASS by knowing how to show a perfect "truthful" polygraph chart!  The word "countermeasures" is a word that has been misappropriated by polygraph examiners - it is used to describe what they say is a means to thwart their ability to detect deception.  But polygraph operators have always maintained that they can tell when a person is using these so-called "countermeasures".  If that is true, how can anyone use them "beat" the test?  But, for the sake of argument, let me ask a few more pertinent questions:  If people can indeed be taught to use "countermeasures" to "beat the test", wouldn't that prove the polygraph is not a "lie detector"?  Does the validity and reliability of the polygraph test demand that the subjects of the test must be ignorant about how it works?  If anyone could be taught how to produce and/or prevent a reaction on the polygraph at will, wouldn't that make the whole idea of a "lie detector" a fraud?   And wouldn't polygraph operators have to admit their little machine is actually just a sick joke - and that the polygraph instrument is simply a prop used by an interrogator to frighten people into making admissions and confessions?  And would it not be prudent for the government to quit wasting money on something that is nothing but a fraud and a con job?  The fact is the answer to all these questions is a resounding YES!

Polygraph operators do not want to debate the validity of the polygraph as a "lie detector" because they will lose.  And these con men certainly don't want to answer any of the questions I have posed!  They know they cannot prove the polygraph is valid and reliable as a "lie detector", and they know they can't justify their actions - so they just say that people who get my training are all lying and are only doing research on the polygraph in order to "beat the test".  Again, I say that is just BULLSHIT!  I have spent almost forty years proving that the "lie detector" is just a myth, and it is common knowledge that just telling the truth only works half the time, so people are smart enough to know that they must LEARN HOW TO PASS or they will be falsely accused of lying.  I don't teach any so-called "countermeasures"!  I don't teach people how to "beat" the test!  The fact is, people are getting my manual & video/DVD and my personal training because they are telling the truth and just want to make sure they pass - they know that just telling the truth doesn't work!  The methods I teach are very simple.  I just show people how to remain calm when answering a relevant question and how to produce a reaction when answering the control questions so as to always produce what the polygraph operators say is a "truthful chart".