Of all the silly, "let me prove Im smarter than you" replies I received, I may of liked Marty's the best. Is any anti-polygraph person here shocked and outraged giving the questionably legal advice they give? why would it be different if you yourselves applied the advice? You might hasten the demise of polygraph, something you do want.  Guess its easier to just talk about it, Im not surprised by this.
I enjoy having my posts called meaningless, while yours are obviously stimulating and overflowing with goodness.  Has it occurred to you anonymous that the questions posed by your soul mates have induced boredom, and I am not here to scramble around and try to respond to every rehashed notion you folks cough up?
Ok George, If you would rather do campus fliers and compete for telephone pole space with rock bands, thats your decision.  My suggestion is based on the simple belief that I have that your crew is better at dispensing faulty advice, than serving as an example.  Your little book is certainly within my reading level, but as someone who does not have a victim's mindset I refuse to embrace your vanity work.  And you should not be so quick to dismiss someones attention span if it differs from your own.  My own experiences in this area are far more extensive than yours, and your research is selective to your viewpoint. I will in the future not take you to task for being inexperienced.
Gino, it would prove that you could defeat an applicant process at will and send agencies utilizing screening exams into confusion.  Having looked at a few applications in my time, applicants are not generally asked if they intend to take a job if sucessful, and there is no consequence if an applicant withdraws.  Your "foot soldiers" would be specially trained, since it only takes a few minutes, and the results documented.  It is my belief that you folks are just as liable for advocating a behavior as performing it.
Skeptic, my good, stout hearted friend.  Turned away from your choice of profession by the overwhelming prospect of a polygraph every 5 years? wont you guys have killed it off by then? why so little confidence?  Thanks for bringing up my point, even if you tried to turn it around.  I maintain that the anti polygraph assertions have not been backed up, and are hysterical and pathetic. The way to prove me wrong is to just do so, and document it here.  Stating that sophisticated  countermeasures were sucessfully employed (among other things) in vague terms, sounds like BS.  You declined employment with NSA, why dont you get the ball rolling and specifically post what happened?  Certainly it could not impact on whatever it is that you do now.  Set an example.
Its curious to me that you are so concerned with things Ive said to George when he seems to have recovered nicely on his own.  Is it just deflecting, while trying to fill a post with something, anything?  How could you of all people question anyones honesty and integrity when you have recently admitted to employing countermeasures on a screening test for a high level government agency? If your examiner would of looked you in the eye and asked if you were manipulating the test, you would of answered "NO". Conclude again, oh pillar of truth!
Ok, Ill answer one of Beech Tree's lame questions: I passed my CQ tests (one was RI) because I must of been unsure during the asking of such questions.  While I certainly made admissions, no one will put every juvenile indiscretion on paper.  The relevant questions did not bother me, so there you go.  An example: If I gave a cat a well deserved kick, would I want to go into an applicant process stating that I abused animals? You get the idea, Im sure.
Stein, good post. You've joined the very small group of posters here that may in time command respect.  Plus you served with my brother.
Have a prosperous new year my anti polygraph friends.  Make it your resolution to spend less time here, and shoot your rifles more often!  Watch the "wind and the lion" at least once, and let your keyboards rest.