I recently took a polygraph and the person kept telling me that I'm moving too much. We went over the first section about relevant questions fine and then finished the next part about my drug activities and such. After she went outside to take a look at the graphs and papers, she came back in and told me that she needed more data on the first part and that the results of both parts were completely different as if I were a different person. We re-did the first part again like 3-4 more times and she kept telling me that I was moving too much and couldnt use the data that she collected. She kept asking me questions about why I kept moving and what was on my mind when I was answering the relevant questions that mightve made me to move or something. She then tried to use a different method for me to do the polygraph. Instead of answering yes or no to the questions, she told me to nod my head up and down for yes and nod my head left and right for no. After trying this out, she told me I was doing better and the data was better. She went outside and again she looked at the data and graphs again. Next, she came back in and told me she was still seeing responses and that she no longer wanted to waste her time dealing with me because she couldnt use the data that she collected.
So, my question is: was she telling me the truth or what?

what she was telling you was that you were suspected of engaging in countermeasures despite repeated warnings to remain still;  you were administered a "silent answer" test, which is designed to eliminate answer distortions which occur on occasion.  If the movements continue during this type of test, it's a good bet you were attempting CMs, just like George M. did on two separate occasions with two different, unrelated agencies.  This type of behavior is considered "purposeful noncooperation".  Contrary to what you read on this site, CMs don't have to be confirmed, only suspected, to put a quick halt to your employment pursuit. George found out exactly that when the FBI and LAPD showed him the door.

wrote on Sep 22^nd, 2011 at 7:18pm:

CMs don't have to be confirmed, only suspected, to put a quick halt to your employment pursuit.

You hit the nail on the head--polygraphists exercise their control and power based upon a subjective whim. This is exactly why the practice should be abolished.

it's not subjective, it's pretty obvious when someone is deliberately distorting the tracings;  "suspected" is not a whim, but it's just not confirmed by an admission;  we do exercise control (I don't know about "power";  maybe if those who read this site exercised their own "control and power" and went through the exam honestly, they wouldn't find themselves in this guy's predicament.

quickfix wrote on Sep 22^nd, 2011 at 8:21pm:

it's pretty obvious when someone is deliberately distorting the tracings

I would not call this a countermeasure; it's an attempt at sabotage. The truth is you have no ability to detect a properly executed countermeasure--any "suspicions" would only be a subset of your examiner bias. And yes, contributing to a decision to send somebody back to prison or lose a chance at a career is power--power that should not be ordained upon someone who completed a 320 hour course (minus time spent at the donut shop).

homework,

It's possible that you were suspected of using countermeasures, as polyboy1 opines, but it's not necessarily the case. The silent answer test may be used as a counter-countermeasure, but it may also be used in an attempt to minimize movements not suspected as being countermeasures. In any event, movement during the relevant questions is a pretty stupid countermeasure.

If you were strongly suspected of using countermeasures, I would expect that you would have received a post-test interrogation in an attempt to get an admission. But that doesn't seem to have happened in your case.

polyboy1,

You allege that I attempted countermeasures "on two separate occasions with two different, unrelated agencies." Where did you hear that?

wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2011 at 12:29am:

And yes, contributing to a decision to send somebody back to prison or lose a chance at a career is power--power that should not be ordained upon someone who completed a 320 hour course (minus time spent at the donut shop).

Stefano,

A polygraph examiner makes no decision regarding employment or sending a person to prison.  The APA states polygraph should not be used as a stand alone tool to disqualify a person from employment.  It should be used as an aid to the background investigation.  If some agencies ignore APA's stand on polygraph, blame the agency, not the examiner or polygraph and lets work together to right the wrongs. 

George M:  I didn't "hear" it anywhere;  I have seen your charts.  We use them as a training tool;  yours are a classic.  After ten years, isn't it time to move on?  You were caught at the FBI using CMs, you were caught at LAPB, you didn't fess up, and you weren't hired by either.  End of story.  Give it up!

Bill_Brown wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2011 at 6:09pm:

lets work together to right the wrongs.

How I wish there were more like you to work with. Most of your ranks are filled with the polyboy1 and quickfix types.

polyboy1,

When you say regarding my polygraph charts, "We use them as a training tool," who is "we?"

wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2011 at 10:32pm:

Most of your ranks are filled with the polyboy1 and quickfix types

That is just your opinion, Stefano.  I know many thoughtful reasonable examiners of the Bill Brown type, but they won't post on a site dedicated to the abolishion of their chosen profession.

George W. Maschke wrote on Sep 24^th, 2011 at 4:33am:

When you say regarding my polygraph charts, "We use them as a training tool," who is "we?"

I believe "we" is us!  I think almost everyone on our side has seen those charts.

pailryder,

Are you saying that you've seen my polygraph charts? If so, where, and when? Who/what agency presented them?

Pailryder:  right on the money; "we" is indeed us (although to answer his question, "we" is my polygraph unit);  George M. can't possibly be that naive to think agencies don't share anecdotal CM charts, or that suspected and confirmed cases are not used to train new examiners, can he?

I don't know, polyboy1, according to George and the Lex Luthor of Polygraph, we are wasting our time because it is impossible to identify a properly executed cm.

pailryder wrote on Sep 24^th, 2011 at 5:55pm:

Lex Luther of Polygraph

That's "The Lex Luthor of Polygraphy"; please don't misspell. And I would like to once again invite you and polyboy1 to step forward and accept the countermeasure challenge.

pailryder:  kind of like when the examinee is wasting HIS time when there is a "properly identified CM".

polyboy1 and pailryder,

It may be more useful to engage in meaningful debate and discussion without insulting others.  stefano is very aware of polygraph and its strengths as well as the weaknesses.  We can learn from this site and our opposition. 

Bill_Brown

I have been a member of this website every since its inception and have seen this insulting nature and, admittledy, been a part of it from the beginning. I love a good, intellgent debate. However, it seems that when one falls short, it evolves into insults and name calling. Pailryder has not been much of an insulting polygrapher. He mostly debates and asks intelligent questions. Invarialby, though, we all lose it at times. On the other hand, most polygraphers lose it just by reading the information here and immediately start attacking. It still amazes me that they let this website destroy their personality (if they ever had any) unless, of course, it is still presenting problems for them. Which, I suspect, is the case.

I usually don't debate the "technical aspects" of the polygraph because I don't know enough about it. I usually get involved when the insults and name calling starts.

My involvement with the polygraph started in the 1960's when I had to take one for employment. I had a friend, at that time, in medical school and he showed me how to raise my BP. He also said that the anxiety produced by the test would prevent passing. Anyway I passed even with lieing. One of the question I lied on was "do you intend on making this a long term employment"? It was a piddling job and I had no intention of staying there. Ever since that test, I have researched the poly and come up with NA for employment.

polyboy1, pailryder,

If my polygraph charts are indeed being circulated among polygraphers as examples of "classic countermeasures," then that is ironic because 1) the FBI averred that it was unable to locate my polygraph charts when I requested them under the Privacy Act and 2) I did not use countermeasures.

Bill_Brown wrote on Sep 24^th, 2011 at 10:48pm:

It may be more useful to engage in meaningful debate and discussion without insulting others.stefano is very aware of polygraph and its strengths as well as the weaknesses.We can learn from this site and our opposition

Bill_Brown

I agree completely, and I did not intend, nor do I see any insult in my postings.  stefano chose "the Lex Luthor of Polygraph" for himself and I don't think my use of his choice is an insult.  Maybe a small dig, because it seems a bit grandiose, but not an insult.

If this site was dedicated to the reform of polygraph, rather than abolishion, we would have much more common ground for civil discussion.

I believe, as the late Dr. David Lykken once wrote, " No good social purpose can be served by inventing ways of beating the lie detector or deceiving polygraphers."

pailryder wrote on Sep 25^th, 2011 at 11:21am:

Maybe a small dig, because it seems a bit grandiose, but not an insult.

It may appear grandiose, but in reality, it's a very apt moniker I assure you.

It would seem most unprofessional for these "experts" to be gloating over possession of George's polygraph charts under the guise of using them as "training aids."

Bill_Brown

You see what I mean here?

polyboy1 and pailryder both has said that they have seen George's charts and that they are being used as training tools for polygraphers. I doubt if they will answer George. However, if they do and confirm the use then that is a strong indictment of the FBI as liars. Also a strong indictment of the agency as "Blacklisters". Isn't that a criminal offense?

Statements have been made here folks. Let's have some confirmation or retraction.

TwoBlock,

I understand the frustration, and can only suggest not responding to the sarcasm.  Polygraph examiners do get annoyed when trying to make a point and having the opposition attacking.  i personally don't get weighted with the emotion, I attempt to stay on subject. 

We do have some examiners that enjoy attack mode.  By monitoring this site and learning from individuals posts, I am able to become a better person and have learned to treat all with respect.  Many examiners I associate with are of the same nature.  We also learn from our mistakes. 

Bill_Brown wrote on Sep 24^th, 2011 at 10:48pm:

stefano is very aware of polygraph and its strengths as well as the weaknesses.We can learn from this site and our opposition.

Bill

Is this opinion based on personal knowledge or private conversations?  I have read all of stefano's postings and I failed to find any that mentioned polygraph's strengths.

Pailryder, If you have read all of my posts, you should have been able to glean that I am not concerned so much with the strengths or weaknesses of the polygraph technique, but rather that I don't wish to live in an America where people are wired up to Orwellian devices.

stefano

I understand and share your concern for compelled testing.  Even though you may personally think it foolish, is there room in your America for people to contract for a private polygraph?   

pailryder wrote on Sep 27^th, 2011 at 5:48pm:

is there room in your America for people to contract for a private polygraph?

I will admit, if it were limited specifically to those who step forward with no external coercion that it would steal some of my fire. However, coercion can be subtle and take on many forms.

stefano

My assumption, which I am sure you will correct if I am wrong, is that you have a great deal of experience interviewing patients and making theraputic assessments.  If so, in your practice have you found any difference between the interview of a person seeking treatment by his own decision and one compelled to treatment by a court, probation officer or other authority? 

quickfix wrote on Sep 22^nd, 2011 at 8:21pm:

it's not subjective, it's pretty obvious when someone is deliberately distorting the tracings;  "suspected" is not a whim, but it's just not confirmed by an admission;  we do exercise control (I don't know about "power";  maybe if those who read this site exercised their own "control and power" and went through the exam honestly, they wouldn't find themselves in this guy's predicament.

You seem to be assuming that the people who read this site are not going through the exam honestly.  While that is certainly true in some cases, it is certainly not true in all cases.

What do you tell the examinee who answers all questions honestly, does not withhold any information, and does not use or attempt countermeasures, but still is deemed deceptive or is accused of using CM’s?

Unfortunately, I have not heard any satisfactory response to that situation.

Pailryder, I would suggest that the therapists all get into a room, open up a big box of granola and find another way.

Bill_Brown

I am certainly not frustrated by the stupid post of people like polyboy1. As you have noticed, I'm sure, there has been no confirmation or retraction. There never is. Statements like polyboy1's and much worse have been made about George primarily, including treason. When they are challenged, there is NEVER any confirmation or retraction. Stupid is as stupid does. If I was in George's shoes, the lawsuits would flow.

Nope, I'm not frustraded. Maybe joyed that this website is enough of a problem to polygraphers that it makes some of them show their ass.

Question to you. Have you learned that the one machine - one operator decision has ruined the LE employment life of many truthful applicants?

Still not frustrated. Just angry.

Two Block:  what exactly is "stupid" about my post?  I made a statement that I have seen George M's charts, and we use them to train new examinersin the detection of countermeasures.  I don't have to provide "confirmation" to you or anyone else.  What do you want, a sworn affidavit? Notarized statement?  It's a free country;  you may believe it or not. I lose no sleep over your disbelief.  Reading your past postings, it's clear that you are narrow-minded, and the type ready to sue at the drop of a hat.  What a sad little man you are.

wrote on Sep 28^th, 2011 at 7:07pm:

What do you want, a sworn affidavit? Notarized statement?

That would do nicely. Please provide it.

There are many who post lies here and then do as you just did: "if you don't believe me, screw you." This is very infantile and totally incongruent with someone who is supposedly an instructor responsible for producing experts. Nobody here can spend time to validate your preposterous claims, it is up to you to give them provenance if you hope to build any credibility.

The truth adds up and fits, lies are awkward and disjointed. Quite frankly, your claims don't add up. First of all, you should only use "training aids" where you can be certain countermeasures were attempted. As George already told you, he did not use countermeasures. Moreover, properly executed countermeasures are impossible to detect, so such a technique cannot be taught, especially by someone with such a neanderthal-like demeanor.

Polyboy1

No you don't have to provide proof of anything you say but it sure would provide believability to your statements.

So actually you are calling the FBI liars. Right? They couldn't provide George's charts, asked for in his FOIA request, because "they couldn't find them". Yet they turn up as a training tool vainly trying to discover a way to detect CM's. How ironic!

You betcha I'm suit happy when it comes to protecting my integrity and If I was in George's shoes, some polygraphers would have already felt my sting. At least if I was accused of treason as he was.

I don't want you to lose any sleep. I want you to stay awake and still be greatly bothered by this website.

For your information, I'm not a sad little man. I'm a very happy, 81 yr old, 6', 200 lb. man with very little fat. I can still hold my own with the youngsters at the mine when I want to. I still pump iron and work out on the hanging and speed bags in the gym and haven't lost much timing since my younger boxing days. In other words, I can still kick ass when it's necessary.

Dear Readers,

I find it amazing at this point that the proponents of polygraph truly believe in their craft. This country will never understand the true costs of applicants who lost federal careers due to the collateral damage of "false positives." As long as polygraph examiners have their careers that make them money they are very happy to live with collateral damage. That is the price of doing business with the federal government if you want to apply for a job. Mark my words, the time of plentiful federal employee applicants willing to roll-the-dice just to get a job will be ending by about August of 2014. Yes, it will take that much time for the economy to recover and provide a reasonable amount of jobs that employers will have to compete for qualified employees who can pass most background checks.

Combine a two year wage freeze which might be extended by three more years with increased pension contributions, increased health payment deductions, shifting of high-three to high five annuity calculations and the perfect storm is going to be created in filling federal jobs.

Imagine a new FBI agent who is told that the law-enforcement pension has been done away with, the extra 25% law enforcement availability pay has been done away with, and they have to put up with passing a polygraph with yearly financial detailed disclosures for a GS-11 pay grade.  Good luck getting a new applicant for a "Special Agent" position.  You would have to be very "Special" or desperate to apply for a job like that.

If anyone thinks I am exaggerating,  they have not been keeping up with OPM, GSA, recent Congressional acts and proposals.  Passing a polygraph will be the least of any applicant coordinator's problem when they have no qualified applicants in about three years.

Regards.

Twoblock

Have you learned that the one machine - one operator decision has ruined the LE employment life of many truthful applicants?


I am certainly aware of false positives and false negatives.  I do advocate using BI's to clear up any responses on polygraph.  The standard in the industry, as stated by the APA, states polygraph should be used as an investigative tool.  I am about to retire and enjoy reading about polygraph, assisting in more studies and advocating for stringent regulations on the use of polygraph and polygraph examiners. 

I believe polygraph is a useful tool when used properly.  You don't use a hammer to place a thumb tack on a cushion board, and you don't use polygraph to eliminate candidates.  It should be  used to develop further leads an investigator can followup on. 

Bill_Brown

I, and I think the majority of posters, respects your opinion of the polygraph and would go along with an additional BI. However, our national security agencies and most other LE agencies don't hold with your advocacy. Apparently they use it in place of BI's. I believe this is wrong and it's what I rail against. If all polygraphers held your beliefs, there would be less use for this website. There have been entirely too many horrow stories posted here and they all can't be false stories.

wrote on Sep 28^th, 2011 at 7:07pm:

Two Block:  what exactly is "stupid" about my post?  I made a statement that I have seen George M's charts, and we use them to train new examinersin the detection of countermeasures.  I don't have to provide "confirmation" to you or anyone else.  What do you want, a sworn affidavit? Notarized statement?  It's a free country;  you may believe it or not. I lose no sleep over your disbelief.  Reading your past postings, it's clear that you are narrow-minded, and the type ready to sue at the drop of a hat.  What a sad little man you are.

Wouldn't you want to use charts from someone who was proven to have countermeasures for that?

George has always stated he did not use countermeasures and had never even heard of countermeasures.

I'm sure you can see the hole in the logic of simply declaring a set of charts to be an example of countermeasure usage and using them to train examiners how to spot countermeasures.

Sergeant 1107:  you make a good case, but sorry, no sale.  We do use charts from those who have admitted using CMs, but we also use those from cases where there is absolutely no doubt that they were employed.  Funny you should mention that we should use confirmed cases, since this site professes that CMs can't be detected.  Of course George M has always denied using CMs during his two polygraph exams, and he's not going to confess now, after more than  10 years;  it certainly would not help his credibility after all these years.  The majority of those who do, won't admit it, but that doesn't mean they didn't.  It just means it's not a confirmed case.  I suspect you are LE, so let me ask you, when you interrogate a suspect, and he denies involvement in the crime, do you simply take his word?  I wouldn't think so.  Same logic here.  However, we do take appropriate counter-countermeasures to confirm our suspicions, and when they are confirmed, it's a good bet CMs were employed (whether the subject confesses or not).  Again, having myself seen George M's charts, there's no doubt in my mind about his use of CMs.  Nor in the minds of everyone I have talked to who have also seen them.  CMs have been used long before Geoege M came along; I have no doubt some were successful, others were not.  However, polygraph technology has come a long way in the last decade, and we now have more tools to fight CMs than we did in years past.

Guest,

You don't begin to make a good case, so not sorry, but, yes, not buying.  Either you are brain dead stupid in the sense that Sergeant 1107 implies (wildly guessing about unconfirmed charts along with your peers) or you are lying. 

George has made the polygraph community look completely stupid (actually allowed it to do so itself) for more than a decade.  If this community had any credible evidence/serious analysis that indicated that GM had used countermeasures and had lied for a decade about same, such would have been exposed long ago and both he and this site would have been history long ago. 

Get real or call my bluff and show me (with charts and real analysis) to be wrong and/or or as stupid and/or as dishonest as I claim you to be.  I'm waiting....lol

A larger point re polyboy1 (Guest)'s misinformation -

The countermeasure info in "The lie behind the lie detector" remains good.

See http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19543828. Respiration CMs change SCR (skin conductance), which is the measure most polygraphers rely primarily/exclusively on. They are not detectable.

wrote on Sep 30^th, 2011 at 7:24pm:

Funny you should mention that we should use confirmed cases, since this site professes that CMs can't be detected.

I don’t know why you would think that was funny.  The easiest method of obtaining “confirmed” countermeasure charts would be to use the charts of those people who have admitted to using countermeasures.


wrote on Sep 30^th, 2011 at 7:24pm:

I suspect you are LE, so let me ask you, when you interrogate a suspect, and he denies involvement in the crime, do you simply take his word?  I wouldn't think so.  Same logic here.

It is hardly the same logic.

It would be the same logic if I had no physical evidence or witnesses, but when I interviewed the suspect I believed they were lying (despite their assertion that they were being truthful) so I arrested them.  And then I used a recording of our interview to teach classes on how to identify people who are lying in the interview room.

That would make about as much sense as what you say you do with George’s charts.

I suspect that the “evidence” of countermeasure usage in George’s charts is oddly similar to the evidence in Aldrich Ames’ charts that he was lying.  Once the FBI knew he was a Soviet agent, they were able to review the charts and say, “Oh, sure, here it is.  Clearly he was lying.”

After George became a large thorn in the side of the polygraph industry, I’m sure various polygraph operators took a look at his charts and said, “Oh, sure, here it is.  He was using countermeasures.”

pailryder wrote on Sep 24^th, 2011 at 11:25am:

I believe "we" is us!I think almost everyone on our side has seen those charts.

Pailryder, you are kind of silent for being Polyboy1's partner in all of this. Please elaborate for us about your experiences with George's charts and how you surmised that he was using countermeasures.

Well, Stefano, we got in a big room and opened a box of granola and found another way.

Thanks for the confirmation. I knew it was BS.

wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2011 at 10:43pm:

Please elaborate for us about.....how you surmised that he was using countermeasures.

Stefano

Please read my post more carefully before you make other unfounded assumptions.  Or perhaps you can point out where I wrote that I surmised GM used cm's.

Dr Maschke

Just for the record, in my experience, all polygraph charts used in training are sanitized.  All identifying information such as, date, agency, examiner, and subject, is removed.

Although we will never find common ground as to the proper use of polygraph technique, I respect your opinion and have never questioned your honesty.  I am comfortable taking your word that you did not use cm's.

Several years ago, I saw a set of charts that, without mentioning any specific name was attributed, by someone who seemed to know, to "the asshole that runs that antipolygraph web site."  I did score the charts, but I did not then and I do not now offer my opinion of them. 

pailryder wrote on Oct 4^th, 2011 at 11:35am:

by someone who seemed to know, to "the asshole that runs that antipolygraph web site."

Since you jumped in to sing a duet with polyboy1, I assumed you were in concurrence; I see now it was just a marriage of convenience.

Also, thanks for this nice snapshot view into the professional demeanor of those populating your ranks.

I was wondering why I was asked to nod yes or no as opposed to a verbal yes or no ?

wrote on Apr 16^th, 2017 at 9:44pm:

I was wondering why I was asked to nod yes or no as opposed to a verbal yes or no ?

The polygraphers will do everything to mess up your head.  I've been told to keep my eyes closed, adjust my posture, answer "no" to every question, as well as putting up with the operator inexplicably keep leaving the room.  >:(