I was feeling pretty nervous since I found out that I would have to take another polygraph test. Finally the day I have been dreading had arrived, but I preparedby reading up on it on www.antipolygraph.org. I HIGHLY recommend that website, especially the included PDF book, "The lie behind the lie detector." That book explained to me exactly what the different questions were for and how to answer them in a way that would ensure that I did not appear deceptive to the guy giving me the test.

The previous time I failed the polygraph test I was full of anxiety and fear going in there. I was intimidated by the process and felt like if I wasn't 1000% squeaky clean with the purity of Christ that the machine would be able to detect my sins. When he asked me if I had had any contact with minors, I knew that I had not done anything wrong, but it was in the back of my mind that I had chatted with a few minors here and there, at church, at stores. Even though I knew that I hadn't done anything even remotely wrong, I second guessed myself and worried that I wouldn't pass the question (and I didn't).

This time I followed the advice from the book and showed up early, well groomed and well rested, with something to read so I wouldn't appear fidgety. I shook the polygrapher's hand and acted friendly, polite and respectful. I didn't give one hint of the disdain I felt for him and his bullshit profession. Anti-polygraph.org compares polygraphers to "witch doctors," and that is a great comparison, because they only have power if you believe they have power. On the outside I was respectful, but on the inside I was scoffing at his self importance and wasted life of bullshitting people all day.

The test went exactly like the book described it. The polygrapher started off by giving me this threatening speech about how he is very good at his job and the machine is very accurate in detecting the physiological responses that liars naturally give off. The speech is designed to make liars feel tension and fear, but I knew from my preparation that the polygraph is unreliable and highly subject to interpretation by the polygrapher. He assured me that he was not a mind reader and it was all up to the machine, but I knew that I already had half the battle won by being neat, calm and willing to cooperate. I did not make any of the mistakes that many nervous people do, like saying I didn't sleep well last night or saying I am usually an anxious person. I just told him that as long as the questions are clear, I should have no problem answering them.

When he hooked me up to the machine I knew that none of it made any difference at all, except for the breathing detector he strapped across my chest. From the moment that the breathing detector straps were attached to the moment he unhooked me I monitored my breathing. My breathing was a slow waltz. In two three, out two three, in two three, out two three...

When he asked me if I was in a chair I answered and kept on breathing the waltz

When he asked me if it was February I answered and kept on breathing the waltz

When he asked me if I had ever in my life lied to get out of trouble (besides the few things I we had discussed) I recognized a "control" question. He knew that everyone has lied some time in his life and I couldn't be 100% sure of my answer. I answered "no" then bit my tongue and imagined someone getting their guts stabbed open in a vicious attack. I stopped breathing for 4 seconds before quietly returning to the waltz. My mind spun, was I doing the augmentation right? Had I bit my tongue enough? Did he notice my mouth move?

When he asked me if I have been unsupervised around minors I said no and went back to breathing the waltz while thinking of petting my dog.

When he asked me if I have ever yelled at someone in anger (besides the few things we had discussed) I recognized another "control" question and again augmented my response. This time I remembered to think the violent thoughts faster, but forgot to bite my tongue for a second. I did remember to not breathe in for four seconds again. I had the same worries that I had not augmented enough or correctly.

When he asked me if I have been looking a pornography or sexy pictures I said no and again waltzed and mentally rubbed my dog's tummy.

And so on for three cycles of questions. Whenever he asked an irrelevant question I just answered and stared at the wall. Whenever he asked a control question I answered as honestly as I could, but those questions are made to make you feel nervous, because you know there are a few examples of yelling at people or lying that I didn't cover in the pre-test interview. Answering the control questions was hard for that reason, plus I had to remember to think scary thoughts, bite my tongue, screw up my breathing. After all that, the relevant questions were easy to answer, almost relaxing. I answered and then immediately forgot what the question was as I imagined my dog frisking towards me across the field. Breathing the waltz is so easy after a bit of practice.

As you probably know, the polygrapher compares the control questions to the relevant questions and as long as the control questions are more squiggly than the relevant questions you are telling the truth. I'm sure that my control questions had way more squiggles than the relevant questions.

At the end when he asked me if there were any questions that I was worried about, I mentioned that the question about yelling in anger might have thrown me off, because I was thinking of my pal Gregory taking my car without permission. I had yelled at him, because friends don't steal from friends. If he had just asked me I would have given him a ride. I told him I was worried that my anger might have effected the results. I knew better than to theorize why I might have some wiggles on the relevant questions. He dropped it after that - apparently there were no suspicious wiggles.

The polygrapher asked me how I thought I did over all and I told him that I felt really confident this time. I told him that I have really done some thinking since my last polygraph exam and I feel quite confident that I passed. He said I passed with flying colors.

Maybe you should just stay the crappity smack away from minors, freak!

Please tell me that they were at least girls!

Hello Lunger,

Yes I am a freak, but I am a freak who did his homework and learned how to beat the polygraph. The particulars of my case are not relevant to the discussion. Since you are reading these pages, I assume that you have a polygraph test coming up. I urge you to put aside your moral judgement, because being a morally good person will get you no where with the polygraph test.

The person who is most likely to fail a polygraph exam is someone who trusts in the professionalism of the polygraph examiner and assumes that having nothing to hide will ensure a good result from the exam. This is a most dangerous misconception. Allow me to illustrate my point with this hypothetical question. Imagine that someone hooked you up to the machine and asked you:

"Did you rape a boy?"

Perhaps you could just calmly reply "no" to that question, but it is likely that you would be upset to even be asked such a question. Maybe inside you would be thinking, "How dare they ask me such a question? I am no freak like Chuckles!" It would be very likely that you would be judged "deceptive" in such a case.

But if you had done your homework you would have been prepared for the question. You would have known that the examiner is a liar and a bullshit artist. You would be breathing according to your preplanned pattern. You would simply say "no" and return to the breathing pattern and the preplanned soothing thought (maybe thoughts of reclining in a nice bubble bath). In this case the squiggles from your "no" answer would not be significant compared to the control questions.

I hope you have done your homework about control questions. You can think crazy thoughts, bite your tongue, change your breathing pattern to the "altered breathing pattern" that you picked from "The Lie Behind the Lie Detector." If you are like me you will be anxious, wondering if you are augmenting enough or too much, and that anxiety will be to your benefit, making your control answers produce even more squiggly lines. These squiggly lines will be larger than the squiggly lines associated with the question about boy rape, and thusly the polygraph examiner will be able to conclude that you are not guilty of raping a boy.

Of course YOU already knew that you were not guilty of any such thing. Anyone who knows you knows that it's insane to accuse you of such a heinous crime. But your innocence would not protect you in a polygraph exam. Reading "The Lie Behind the Lie Detector" and preparing for your test is the only thing that will protect you.

I wish you the best. Thanks for giving me an emotionally charged example to work with.

First off, let me point out the obvious. You are trying way to hard at playing the Hyper-Intelligent sociopath. Just stop, your making yourself look bad. Secondly I would like to point out that 99.99% of polygraph examiners look for CM's. CM's are the quickest way to fail the polygraph. For anyone reading this I HIGHLY advise just completely blanking your mind, just go into auto pilot, and answer with the obvious "right: answers (easier if you are devoid of a conscience, or you can at least distance yourself from it). Now back to you Captain Try-Hard, I would also like to point out that amidst your gloating about beating an apparently mentally challenged polygraph examiner and your guilt of molesting children, you posted a picture of yourself next to your name. I can only hope for the well-being of the socio underground (lol, no really) that you are in fact a fat, middle-age, balding man and the picture is what you want to look like. You’re making socio's look bad man...

I actually tried the blank mind and answer truthfully approach three times. In the first and third tests I was declared deceptive, when I know in my heart that I was telling the truth. I can't prove it to you, but this conversation isn't about me or how bad I look or if I am mentally challenged or whatever. The real issue at stake is the unreliability of the polygraph. You have to admit that many, many people have come up deceptive when they were telling the truth, including people who were later exonerated. There have also been cases when people passed the polygraph when it was proven later that they were lying. It's an unreliable and easily fooled test and no amount of personal attacks from you is going to change that fact.

The idea that countermeasures are easy to detect is propaganda put out by the polygraph industry. If they were so easy to detect, then why haven't they taken the countermeasures detection challenge? http://antipolygraph.org/audio/polygraph-challenge.wav

Indeed, no polygraph operator has ever demonstrated any ability to detect the kind of polygraph countermeasures outlined in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector. Countermeasure "detection" consists of guesswork and browbeating the examiner for an admission.

Examiners do detect countermeasures on a regular basis.  There is no guess work on the type Chuckles used, they are abundantly obvious to any experienced examiner. 

It is strange that you would post on this thread George, I have been following this one closely because something just jumped out and hit me when I read it. 

Still analyzing it for my own personal reasons.  Will get back with you when I actually decide what it is about the postings that caught my attention. 

Chuckles,  I do not need to accept any challenge or prove anything to you or anyone else.  I am confident in my abilities.  I did compliment you and you missed it or chose to ignore the compliment and focus on the one statement

. 

wrote on Apr 5^th, 2011 at 4:06am:

Examiners do detect countermeasures on a regular basis.There is no guess work on the type Chuckles used, they are abundantly obvious to any experienced examiner.

Please tell me which attributes of a mental countermeasure response distinguish it from a normal response. I am curious, because there is no scientific data publish on this anywhere.

bite your tongue, change your breathing pattern to the "altered breathing pattern"

"mental countermeasure"

These are not Mental, they are physical. 

wrote on Apr 5^th, 2011 at 5:24pm:

bite your tongue, change your breathing pattern to the "altered breathing pattern" "mental countermeasure" These are not Mental, they are physical.

I agree that those who may attempt this kind of countermeasure without being adept its execution may generate a chart with anomalies or artifacts. But, if someone like myself, who knows the standard pneumo reactions like apnea, suppression, inhale/exhale ratio etc were strapped to your instrument, you would never be able tell in a million years.

Also, to all you examiners and trolls. By engaging in such spirited conversation with those who are in the know scientifically, you become your own worst enemies. You attack us with a double-edged sword. While we can absorb your hatred and cheap shots, the unexpected result is further promulgation of the truth to those whom you wish to keep in the dark.

Stefano,

Thank you.  An individual that has scientific knowledge of polygraph may be able to defeat polygraph, there are no scientific studies that support or defeat your supposition.  Possibly you would be willing to engage such a study?  I would be interested in the result of this type scientific study. 

I am not a troll, have demonstrated no hate in my posts, and there have been no attacks from me.  Your information has been on target regarding some of the problems with polygraph use in multiple issue examinations. 

I inform persons using "screening examinations" to use caution and make no decision based only on polygraph results.  I further advise them to use single issue examinations when possible.

A multiple issue "screening" examination that has significant responses to relevant issue questions can and should be reduced to a single issue examination when possible.  Of course there is a possibility of sensitizing a subject to the relevant question.   

wrote on Apr 5^th, 2011 at 8:53pm:

An individual that has scientific knowledge of polygraph may be able to defeat polygraph, there are no scientific studies that support or defeat your supposition.

I don't think a scientific study is needed. Simply tell me which attributes of a countermeasure response distinguish it from a normal response.

wrote on Apr 5^th, 2011 at 8:53pm:

A multiple issue "screening" examination that has significant responses to relevant issue questions can and should be reduced to a single issue examination when possible.

It should always be done if you want to be compliant with the successive hurdles criterion as suggested by the APA.

I have not had an opportunity to evaluate and compare responses using mental countermeasures vs normal reactions generated from a deceptive response.  Over the next few days I will conduct a non-scientific experiment and attempt to test your supposition. 

I cannot answer your question at this time. 

wrote on Apr 5^th, 2011 at 9:53pm:

I have not had an opportunity to evaluate and compare responses using mental countermeasures vs normal reactions generated from a deceptive response.Over the next few days I will conduct a non-scientific experiment and attempt to test your supposition. I cannot answer your question at this time.

Good luck. The DoDPI and Axciton have been trying for decades. Let me know what you find out.

I am sure my results will be the same as Bruce and NACA. 

Stefano,

One question for you regarding Chuckles countermeasures;  do you believe they would be observed and identified by a competent examiner?

wrote on Apr 5^th, 2011 at 10:13pm:

One question for you regarding Chuckles countermeasures;do you believe they would be observed and identified by a competent examiner?

Cannot say as I wasn't there. Let's let him respond to that.

wrote on Apr 5^th, 2011 at 8:53pm:

Thank you.An individual that has scientific knowledge of polygraph may be able to defeat polygraph, there are no scientific studies that support or defeat your supposition.

I stand corrected. I should have said psuedo-scientific.

wrote on Apr 6^th, 2011 at 2:22am:

wrote on Apr 5th, 2011 at 8:53pm: Thank you.An individual that has scientific knowledge of polygraph may be able to defeat polygraph, there are no scientific studies that support or defeat your supposition.  I stand corrected. I should have said psuedo-scientific.

Yes, you stand corrected. 

wrote on Apr 6^th, 2011 at 3:30am:

Yes, you stand corrected.

Good, that at least we both agree that polygraphy is a pseudo-science.

We do not agree on polygraph being pseudo-science, I was commenting on my proposed project of studying the difference in reaction caused by mental countermeasures and deceptive responses.  Sorry for the confusion.  I noted you quoted scientific studies and knowledge.

I will be more precise in the future.   

stefano,

I have registered rather than using "Guest".  I am working with several students on mental countermeasures and education on polygraph.   

I am having them view the tracings they are producing and coaching them on how to alter the tracings physically, then asking them to follow the instructions in the Lie Behind the Lie Detector.  This is going to take some time. 

Do you have any further suggestions?

Bill_Brown wrote on Apr 8^th, 2011 at 1:35am:

I am having them view the tracings they are producing and coaching them on how to alter the tracings physically, then asking them to follow the instructions in the Lie Behind the Lie Detector.This is going to take some time. Do you have any further suggestions?

If I understood correctly, you were going to see if you could determine which attributes of a countermeasure induced reaction make it distinguishable from a normal reaction. If you think this through, it's impossible. The sympathetic and parasympathetic nervous systems are permanently enervated and thus generate the same reactions regardless of the origin of the applied stimulus.

When Chuckles asked you to take the countermeasure challenge, you rebuffed him say that you don't need to prove anything and are confident in your abilities. Nobody here is doubting your proficiency in the polygraph technique. It is the technique itself that is under scrutiny. If you and your students believe you can detect countermeasures, then stepping up to the countermeasure challenge would put the matter to rest once and for all.

I did not pass my poly because my examiner was inexperienced or not good at his job. He is very well known in my state as one of the top polygraph examiners around. He has over 20 years of experience in the industry and his main job these days is running a school where people learn to give polygraph examinations.

My original polygraph examiner was an arrogant insulting crass foul mouthed bum. I wouldn't be surprised if it was "quickfix" in the flesh! After I complained that he was such an unprofessional jerk my therapist decided to bring in someone with impeccable qualifications.

Of course the polygraph is totally unreliable no matter who is administering the test. I just wanted to answer your question about the level of polygraph examiner who tested me.

I understand your hypothesis, and my students are not polygraph students, they are collage students.  They are reading TLBTLD at this time.

They have read the statements regarding polygraph being totally inaccurate and I will not instruct them regarding accuracy.

Before either of us make a declarative statement regarding the difference, if any, in the responses we will see, allow me to complete this Pseudo Scientific experiment. 

It will not establish anything concert and will allow me to answer the question regarding any possible difference I observe. 

"permanently enervated"  I am not sure what that actually means, would you elaborate please.

Bill_Brown wrote on Apr 8^th, 2011 at 6:55am:

"permanently enervated"I am not sure what that actually means, would you elaborate please.

Sorry, I meant to say "innervated"-I never was a good speller.

Thank you that clarified for me.  And again all I'm looking for with the experiment are noticeable differences in reactions.  There may be none, and you will be correct if this is the case. 

Should there be differences the subject deserves further studies by persons that are not biased or attempting to prove anything.  It would also require testing in the blind by the examiner and not be aware of what is being studied.   

wrote on Mar 18^th, 2011 at 3:28pm:

Maybe you should just stay the crappity smack away from minors, freak! Please tell me that they were at least girls!

I should e-slap you for being a worthless breeder, since were bringing up gender. What difference does that make?

What are you? Like 15?

stefano,

We have progressed well with the experiment,  I will say examinees involved with this experiment have listened attentively. They have demonstrated an ability to create significant responses on polygraph charts with mental thoughts. 

The responses are not distinguishable from normal responses observed during a polygraph examination.  I am speaking of "normal responses" in regards to increased blood pressure skin resistance and breathing tracings. 

We are seeing a difference in onset of responses and magnitude of responses.  This should be studied and possibly investigated with a larger population and under a more controlled study. 

Bill_Brown wrote on Apr 28^th, 2011 at 4:37pm:

We are seeing a difference in onset of responses and magnitude of responses.

Interesting. Countermeasures made haphazardly by the uninformed can surely present as chart anomalies. But if the person employing them is somewhat intelligent and has practice many hours, the chances of detection are nil. It would be nice if you could .PDF a report with the tracings for us to see. However, that may surely bring down the wrath of your peers. You have a good attitude sir.

Oh my, undetectable countermeasures!  Nil chance of detection! Whatever will we do now?  Woe is me.

wrote on Apr 29^th, 2011 at 3:57am:

Bill_Brown wrote on Apr 28th, 2011 at 4:37pm: We are seeing a difference in onset of responses and magnitude of responses. Interesting. Countermeasures made haphazardly by the uninformed can surely present as chart anomalies. But if the person employing them is somewhat intelligent and has practice many hours, the chances of detection are nil. It would be nice if you could .PDF a report with the tracings for us to see. However, that may surely bring down the wrath of your peers. You have a good attitude sir.

I did not post on this site to inform anyone how to use "countermeasures".   The experiment was done in order to make an informed statement on the differences "I" saw in tracings when mental countermeasures were used.  My informed statement was onset time and magnitude. 

I don't believe persons on this site will have access to the instrumentation required to effectively practice using these techniques. 

I will continue researching this interesting subject.  I am sure there are other resources available to assist me in further research.   

Your statement regarding informed subjects and many hours of practice should be studied in a scientific study, and then conclusions made.  I have not had that opportunity. 

The Honts/Raskin/Kircher study from 1994 did address use of countermeasures and their conclusion suggested the use of countermeasures caused subjects to produce deceptive charts.  Have you reviewed the study, if so what are your conclusions based on their work?

pailryder wrote on Apr 29^th, 2011 at 11:24am:

Oh my, undetectable countermeasures!  Nil chance of detection! Whatever will we do now?  Woe is me.

Are you suggesting that there is no level of intelligence, training, or proficiency attained through practice that would allow a person to use countermeasures and not be detected?

That seems a bit unlikely to me.  The OP was not suggesting that all countermeasures have no chance of detection, only that countermeasures used intelligently and after hours of practice do.

I think it is far more logical that polygraph operators, by definition, have no idea who is successfully using countermeasures.  I think it is far more likely that polygraph operators are aware that skillful use of countermeasures are virtually undetectable but, for obvious reasons, they continue to deny that fact.

Bill_Brown wrote on Apr 29^th, 2011 at 4:58pm:

The Honts/Raskin/Kircher study from 1994 did address use of countermeasures and their conclusion suggested the use of countermeasures caused subjects to produce deceptive charts.Have you reviewed the study, if so what are your conclusions based on their work?

Yes I am quite familiar with all of these studies. They used college students and the testing was in a lab environment. If Dr. Honts could prove that countermeasures are detectable, he could make a lot more money than the university of Utah pays him. Again, if you believe countermeasures are detectable, take the countermeasure challenge.

You cant be too well informed, Honts hasn't been at the University of Utah for over a decade

pixkbi wrote on Apr 30^th, 2011 at 12:21am:

You cant be too well informed, Honts hasn't been at the University of Utah for over a decade

I'm well informed, just getting old. I should have said Boise State, thanks for keeping me in line. This seems to be a strategy with polygraphists in this forum. They will pick out one discrepancy in someone's post with the attempt to discredit it in its entirety. I make many mistakes, but it doesn't change the objective facts at hand. Perhaps you have some meaningful contribution to the discussion?

I think we really went off the original topic. 

My original wording on detection of countermeasures.

"An individual that has scientific knowledge of polygraph may be able to defeat polygraph, there are no scientific studies that support or defeat your supposition.  Possibly you would be willing to engage such a study?" 

stefano

Again you miss, or choose to ignore, the point.  Honts study did not prove that cm's are detectable, but that use of cm's may produce deceptive charts.

Sergeant1107

Of course I agree that proper training can increase a persons chances of influencing the results.  I have no direct knowledge but, with the growing international use of polygraph, I assume our government provides that type of instruction to our agents that need it.   

Bill_Brown

How would a study such as you suggested be structured?

stefano

Love that new avatar!  Not bad for an old guy.  Haven't seen one that grandiose since Lethe and EosJupiter were retired.

pailryder wrote on Apr 30^th, 2011 at 11:35am:

Again you miss, or choose to ignore, the point.Honts study did not prove that cm's are detectable, but that use of cm's may produce deceptive charts.

The study that you refer to involved 80 college students who were instructed to apply both physical and mental countermeasures when the control questions were asked. This usually amounted to tongue biting and counting backwards from 100. They found that the physical and mental countermeasures were equally effective with 50% of the participants able to erroneously pass the polygraph. This in itself shows the difficulty an examiner faces when dealing with potential countermeasures. These were college students probably getting 10 bucks a piece to participate and most certainly didn't practice hours beforehand. How much more effective would the countermeasures have been if Dr. Honts had allowed me to personally train the students weeks in advance?

pailryder wrote on Apr 30^th, 2011 at 12:49pm:

Love that new avatar!Not bad for an old guy.Haven't seen one that grandiose since Lethe and EosJupiter were retired.

Thanks. You're going to love my book even more when it's published. I'll give you a signed copy.

I would suggest a study using a format similar to that in the Otter-Henderson/Honts/Amato study.  Rather than only looking at truth and deception, look at countermeasures.  The examiners would be told the examinations were for employment purposes. 

I believe this was published in about 2003. 

stefano

Thanks, I look forward to that.  I am sure I will learn a great deal from your book.  I am saving a spot in my library between A Tremor in the Blood and my unbound copy of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector Test.

@ Chuckles

Hello I tool a polygraph and was so nervous my anxiety was over the top. They ask me three questions that I knew I didn't do. I failed two and I'm devastated I tried so hard but my anxiety level and the polygraph pumping my arm made my heart rate jump.

wrote on Jun 7^th, 2016 at 7:16pm:

I failed two and I'm devastated I tried so hard but my anxiety level and the polygraph pumping my arm made my heart rate jump.

The polygraph technique does not allow for failing individual questions. A decision can only be rendered on the entire exam.

Ex Member wrote on Jun 7^th, 2016 at 10:38pm:

The polygraph technique does not allow for failing individual questions. A decision can only be rendered on the entire exam.

That's the theory, but in practice, polygraph operators routinely make split calls --irrespective of "model policy." This is a big problem, especially in PCSOT.

Dan, if this is true, then they are rotten to the core. There is no research supporting this practice. All the more reason for you to toss your hat in. You are sorely needed in the APA.

I'm in, Ark. Haven't any of your harem members shared the latest APA magazine with you yet?

Yes, I have it. I'll take a look. This is good news.

Okay, I looked over your write up. Although it's a slightly tamer version of the Dan Mangan we know here, it's still quite provocative. I think it will shake some foundations.

Why are only 2 people running?

Why no mention of the countermeasure challenge?

Ark, I don't know why only two members are running for APA president-elect. Evidently, no one else was nominated.

As for the countermeasure challenge, it's contained in my candidate statement. Look at point two of my platform...

2. Open-book research, including an ongoing countermeasure challenge series integral to APA seminars, designed to reveal polygraph's real-world accuracy and expose the wide variations in examiner competence

By the way, yesterday I invited my esteemed opponent, APA Director Jamie McCloughan, to debate the issues with me right here on A-P.

I have yet to hear from Mr. McCloughan, although my proposal has been condemned by at least two of the APA politicos who I copied on my email to Mr. McCloughan.

Let the games begin.

Dan Mangan wrote on Jun 8^th, 2016 at 12:52am:

I invited my esteemed opponent, APA Director Jamie McCloughan, to debate the issues with me right here on A-P.

That's a great idea. I've tried to bring a sense of moderation to A-P. In the past, the polarization accomplished very little beyond unproductive vitriol. The debate would be healthy and good for all concerned.

I
Ex Member wrote on Jun 8^th, 2016 at 2:06am:

The debate would be healthy and good for all concerned.

Indeed.

There are many APA members -- including president Walt Goodson -- who feel that a 500-word statement alone is insufficient for voters to get a sense of what a given candidate is all about.

An interactive debate on the world's largest and most authoritative polygraph web site --- www.antipolygraph.org -- would go a long way in remedying that informational shortcoming.

Later today I will start a separate thread under the "announcements" section of this forum, and again invite Mr McCloughan to join me here to debate the issues. I will also post my 500-word candidate statement as it appears in the current APA magazine.

Next month's APA elections could result in a watershed outcome. APA members have a right to know who is "dedicated to truth" (as the organization's motto goes), and who is not.

A candid and vigorous debate will shed some much-needed light on that key aspect of APA politics.

Dan,

Almost a decade and half ago, on this blog, George Maschke and I engaged in a rather extensive and protracted discussion with J.B. (Jamie) McCloughan regarding polygraph validity (https://antipolygraph.org/cgi-bin/forums/YaBB.pl?num=1011498360/0). ; Perhaps you might want to review that thread and propose that you and he revisit/update the issue(s) addressed as a part of your proposed candidate's debate.

Well in my situation i told the truth on a post conviction Polygraph and they said i flat out lied. So after that I had to do SO classes yuck so my lawyer told me to go with the flow and I did I didn't know about this website but I figured If i was telling the truth originally then i would start lying on future polygraphs hell I didnt change anything had computers when I wasn't supposed to saw hookers porn did what I pleased but i was careful so then when it came time for the polygraph I simply went in and flat out lied on every question except for the control questions and i went on to pass 8 straight polygraphs. Then I finished up the class and I was released from classes and probation so long story short I was convicted of a he said she said situation and it was my fault as far as going to the cops telling my side and got screwed over royally now I don't trust cops nor will i ever help them I despise them. Oh and the polygraphs are nothing more then a witchhunt and moneymaker i don't care what anyone says whether your a SO or not this system is useless it doesn't help anyone!!