So here's my horror story.  I'll keep it short and sweet, just looking for input.  About three weeks ago I took the poly for a federal agency.  He starts off the interview asking if had taken a polygraph before and if I had done any research on the topic.  I have taken one polygraph before and passed it and explained that the only research I had done was reading everyone's horror story on another forum.  He said that is good because most people who go looking online for advice end up failing the exam.  No issues there, on to the exam. 

So we go through the entire exam twice with the second time me having to repeat the last word in the question followed by yes or no.  Twice he walks out to confer with "quality control."  The second time he returns and begins the interrogation and starts accusing me of being deceptive during a few of the more ridiculous questions.  Eventually I ask the guy if the responses he is seeing is due do what I am doing in between questions.  During the 10-20 seconds between questions I would think of irrelevant things i.e. childhood memories, lunch, my dogs, etc. and stare at the wallpaper trying to make shapes out of it, much like cloud watching.  I did this will the sole purpose of calming myself down, not to influence the outcome of the exam as he put it.  Not only did I see this as a normal reaction, but it was also advice given to me by a state agency's recruiter before taking their polygraph.  The recruiter told us not to dwell on the question or go looking for answers that would make us second guess ourselves.  So, again I see nothing wrong with what I did.  He continues to grill me and insist that I was doing it to influence the outcome of the exam.  At this point I was getting a little pissed off and was about to start arguing, but I decided that if I stood any chance at continuing I just needed to accept it and go with the flow.  So that's what I did.  He even gave me the option to write an apology to HQ for using countermeasures, which I wrote.  In the end, I bent over and, for the sake of possibly moving on, admitted what I had done and wrote the apology.  As we were walking out, he kept reiterating what a great candidate I was, that this was unfortunate, and hopefully HQ decides to give me another shot.

Obviously, I'm writing this because I didn't get another shot.  However, to this day I still feel like what I did should not be considered as a countermeasure. 

Am I blacklisted because of my admission?  Sorry for the rant, it was longer than I expected.

I'm afraid you were duped into making the worst admission you could have possibly made: using countermeasures to influence the outcome of your polygraph examination. Your admission to having used polygraph countermeasures will be shared with other federal agencies, and you are likely to be blacklisted by them, too. What agency wants to take the risk of giving a security clearance to someone who admitted trying to beat the polygraph?

It's worth noting that the behavior you admitted to is nothing that anyone with a basic understanding of polygraph procedure and countermeasures would do. But it's typical of the so-called "confirmed countermeasure" cases being recorded by federal agencies such as the Defense Intelligence Agency and U.S. Customs and Border Protection, with respect to which see the following recent blog posts:

https://antipolygraph.org/blog/2015/04/18/leaked-documents-point-to-dias-inability-to-detect-sophisticated-polygraph-countermeasures/

https://antipolygraph.org/blog/2015/05/05/on-eve-of-polygraph-trial-leaked-case-files-contradict-cbp-polygraph-chiefs-countermeasure-detection-claim/

I think it is absolutely disgraceful that federal polygraph examiners are characterizing commonplace mental activity such as that in which you engaged as "countermeasures" and using that to pad their stats while destroying the career prospects of innocent test-takers. Polygraphers engaging in this sort of conduct should be ashamed of themselves.

To Dan and Joe McCarthy (and all other polygraphers who visit AP):

If you want to clean up your industry, try to reach out to jw00001.  Perhaps you can communicate with him through PM (might have to go through AP admin).

Find out who the name of this federal polygrapher and expose him.  Let him know it is totally unacceptable behavior to interpret the following as countermeasures:

(1)  relaxing mental imagery
(2)  slow heart rate (long-distance running)
(3)  strong Catholic upbringing
(4)  etc.


By the way I am a retired aerospace employee who worked on SCI programs.  I was a physics major (BS and MA) and appreciate the scientific approach.  I took two CSP polygraphs in 1994 and four in 2000.  The polygraphs were administered in Room 343 somewhere in Southern California.  One of the (year 2000) polygraphers Gary Allen was a complete disgrace, having researched my 1994 polygraphs and describing them as "rocky" and also shoving his credentials onto me in an attempt to impress/intimidate me.  Totally unacceptable behavior.  If any of Room 343 polygraphers want to respond to me on this board you may do so, just keep it civil.  Let me explain to you the difference between junk science and valid science.

Regards, Evan S

Evan S wrote on Jun 8^th, 2015 at 7:54pm:

Find out who the name of this federal polygrapher and expose him.

Expose him for what?  Getting the admission?  Perhaps you did not read the following reply:


George W. Maschke wrote on Jun 8^th, 2015 at 7:27pm:

I'm afraid you were duped into making the worst admission you could have possibly made: using countermeasures to influence the outcome of your polygraph examination.

You simply got caught using CMs and shown the door, as you deserved.  Bye-Bye! ;D

quickfix wrote on Jun 8^th, 2015 at 8:23pm:

You simply got caught using CMs and shown the door, as you deserved.

The mental activity the original poster described cannot credibly be characterized as a polygraph countermeasure:


wrote on Jun 8^th, 2015 at 6:26pm:

During the 10-20 seconds between questions I would think of irrelevant things i.e. childhood memories, lunch, my dogs, etc. and stare at the wallpaper trying to make shapes out of it, much like cloud watching.  I did this will the sole purpose of calming myself down, not to influence the outcome of the exam as he put it.

George W. Maschke wrote on Jun 8^th, 2015 at 8:30pm:

The mental activity the original poster described cannot credibly be characterized as a polygraph countermeasure

Characterized by you, perhaps.  To us, attempting to control one's physiology between questions is typical for someone employing mental CMs.  The poster's remark that it was done to calm himself down and not to influence the outcome of the exam is typical rationalization.  "Yes, I did it, but my intent was pure";  right;  then he confessed why? 

quickfix:

I believe you have stated in previous postings you are a federal polygrapher.  I hope you can read postings from me and other polygraph examinees with an open mind, without jumping to conclusions.

I sympathize with high-visibility organizations like the CIA, FBI and NSA with many applicants per opening (100 or more) and their dealing with the torrent of applications.  Isn't this the primary purpose of the pre-employment polygraph, with its reported failure rate of 50% or more?  (I can believe maybe 10% of the applicants are guilty of lying on their applications but certainly not 50%.)  And so it's understandable the polygraphers who conduct pre-employments polygraphs are under pressure to fail a large percentage of the applicants; perhaps jw00001 was a victim of these guidelines.

I realize the polygraph is not going away anytime soon.  Perhaps an acceptable solution (to both sides) is to relocate all federal polygraphers into a single organization, independent of FBI, CIA etc., under which they would receive their performance appraisals and salary reviews.  Maybe you as a fed can initiate change.  Someone has to take the first step.

Please keep your responses civil.

Regards, Evan S

quickfix wrote on Jun 8^th, 2015 at 8:42pm:

Characterized by you, perhaps.  To us, attempting to control one's physiology between questions is typical for someone employing mental CMs.  The poster's remark that it was done to calm himself down and not to influence the outcome of the exam is typical rationalization.

If the original poster were employing mental countermeasures, he would have targeted the control questions to augment reactions to them, not thought of irrelevant things in an attempt to relax after questions without respect to type.


quickfix wrote on Jun 8^th, 2015 at 8:42pm:

"Yes, I did it, but my intent was pure";  right;  then he confessed why?

As the original poster noted, the examiner (falsely) led him to believe that the only way his application could go forward is if he were to "write an apology to HQ for using countermeasures."

Thanks to those who have replied.  To quickfix: why would I voluntarily admit to what I was doing in between questions if I knew it would be considered countermeasures? I thought what I was doing was normal and innocent, hence the admission.

Unfortunately, when I decided to just go with the flow and hope to save my chance with this agency, I feel like I royally screwed myself with any future opportunities I may have had.  :-/

I thought of irrelevant things throughout the entire exam, including the control questions.

There is no point in defending myself if the exam is already over.  I'm simply stating what happened and my thought process.

yes, I am, and yes I and others in my profession do have an open mind.  But when one engages in CMs, he/she is engaging in moral misconduct (for lack of a better term).  Its' one thing to attempt CMs in order to try to hide a deceptive result.  It's a completely different thing to engage in CMs to "help oneself".  The vast majority of three-letter agency employees/applicants do not attempt to "help themselves".  Those who do are telling us, "I will cheat if it helps me", even if they've done no wrong.  It shows a clear lack of integrity.  What else will they cheat at?  Violating a suspect's rights?  Falsifying an agent's report?  These are the types of applicants who are in the 10-50% you refer to.  Closer to 10% than 50%, but regardless of the percentage, lack of moral character is every bit a disqualifier as one who is deceptive to the relevant issues.  I don't want someone like this guarding our nations secrets or protecting our borders.  Do you?

I thought of irrelevant things throughout the entire exam, including the control questions to stay calm during the entire thing.

There is no point in defending myself if the exam is already over.  I'm simply stating what happened and my thought process.

George W. Maschke wrote on Jun 8^th, 2015 at 8:54pm:

As the original poster noted, the examiner (falsely) led him to believe that the only way his application could go forward is if he were to "write an apology to HQ for using countermeasures."

And we call that a "defense mechanism".  Blame it on the examiner.  If I had a nickel for every time I heard that one, I'd never worry about sequestration!

To the admin of AP: it appears there are two usernames jw0001 and jw00001.  Spoofing?

quickfix:

You write the following:
"You simply got caught using CMs and shown the door, as you deserved."
and
"To us, attempting to control one's physiology between questions is typical for someone employing mental CMs.  The poster's remark that it was done to calm himself down and not to influence the outcome of the exam is typical rationalization."

Aren't you the one who is rationalizing?


jw0001 or jw00001:

Unfortunately you may have destroyed your chances of obtaining federal employment in the national security arena.  My advice to you and others is not allow the examiner to extract a false confession from you or to escalate a minor statement, and never feel obligated to appease the examiner.

Regards, Evan S

Same person, just a typo.

Is it worth trying to get a retest or do I need to just let it go?   Will other agencies that don't polygraph look at this and go, " Uh oh, no thanks?"

jw0001:

I've never taken a pre-employment polygraph for a federal agency so I can't speak from experience, but other posters have stated that there's nothing wrong asking for a retest even if the chances are small; also you can apply to other agencies,  since it's been suggested a failed polygraph at one agency does not necessarily mean you'll fail at a different agency (but you will probably be asked if you've been previously polygraphed.)

Regards, Evan

quickfix wrote on Jun 8^th, 2015 at 9:03pm:

But when one engages in CMs, he/she is engaging in moral misconduct (for lack of a better term).  Its' one thing to attempt CMs in order to try to hide a deceptive result.  It's a completely different thing to engage in CMs to "help oneself".  The vast majority of three-letter agency employees/applicants do not attempt to "help themselves".  Those who do are telling us, "I will cheat if it helps me", even if they've done no wrong.  It shows a clear lack of integrity.  What else will they cheat at?  Violating a suspect's rights?  Falsifying an agent's report?

Protecting a hard earned good reputation against being falsely labeled as dishonorable by pseudo-science is in no way "cheating".


quickfix wrote on Jun 8^th, 2015 at 9:03pm:

Violating a suspect's rights?  Falsifying an agent's report?

Speaking of falsifying a report and violating victims rights....nobody does that better than a polygraph examiner.  Read some actual accounts about how the East German Stasi used mental torture against its victims and then look at today's polygraph practices.  No difference. 

If you dress well for an interview it is commended; if you shower for an interview, it is necessary.  If you calm yourself for an interrogation (ie polygraph) it's not, you're a cad??? If the thing is soooo accurate, there should be no concern re countermeasures, or any other tactic that be employed.  Otherwise we should just roll out of bed without combing our hair or brushing our teeth to show up for an interview.  Polygraphs are unfair.  Period.

wrote on Jun 8^th, 2015 at 6:26pm:

So here's my horror story.  I'll keep it short and sweet, just looking for input.  About three weeks ago I took the poly for a federal agency.  He starts off the interview asking if had taken a polygraph before and if I had done any research on the topic.  I have taken one polygraph before and passed it and explained that the only research I had done was reading everyone's horror story on another forum.  He said that is good because most people who go looking online for advice end up failing the exam.  No issues there, on to the exam.  So we go through the entire exam twice with the second time me having to repeat the last word in the question followed by yes or no.  Twice he walks out to confer with "quality control."  The second time he returns and begins the interrogation and starts accusing me of being deceptive during a few of the more ridiculous questions.  Eventually I ask the guy if the responses he is seeing is due do what I am doing in between questions.  During the 10-20 seconds between questions I would think of irrelevant things i.e. childhood memories, lunch, my dogs, etc. and stare at the wallpaper trying to make shapes out of it, much like cloud watching.  I did this will the sole purpose of calming myself down, not to influence the outcome of the exam as he put it.  Not only did I see this as a normal reaction, but it was also advice given to me by a state agency's recruiter before taking their polygraph.  The recruiter told us not to dwell on the question or go looking for answers that would make us second guess ourselves.  So, again I see nothing wrong with what I did.  He continues to grill me and insist that I was doing it to influence the outcome of the exam.  At this point I was getting a little pissed off and was about to start arguing, but I decided that if I stood any chance at continuing I just needed to accept it and go with the flow.  So that's what I did.  He even gave me the option to write an apology to HQ for using countermeasures, which I wrote.  In the end, I bent over and, for the sake of possibly moving on, admitted what I had done and wrote the apology.  As we were walking out, he kept reiterating what a great candidate I was, that this was unfortunate, and hopefully HQ decides to give me another shot. Obviously, I'm writing this because I didn't get another shot.  However, to this day I still feel like what I did should not be considered as a countermeasure.  Am I blacklisted because of my admission?  Sorry for the rant, it was longer than I expected.

Say good-bye, at least to Langley!   lol :(

Having just stumbled upon this website today, I must admit to total incredulity at this thread.  Not in relation to the original poster, but regarding the jerk 'Quickfix' who appears to figure that you're guilty until proven innocent as well as apparently believing in 'technology' that has not only been proven totally unreliable but is not trusted almost anywhere in the world, with the exception of the US.

'Quickfix', your pseudonym suits.  Do you ever have trouble looking in the mirror when you get home from the daily grind of using fake technology to elicit fake responses to fake questions, or are you really a 'true believer'?  Do you also believe in Scientology's 'E-meter', which is allegedly the same basic technology?  For that matter, why don't you just recommend torture?  It gets the same quality of results.  Although I suppose that would probably require another four day training course.

Have you heard of the scientific method?  The reason I am asking, is that what you have posted in this thread is so utterly anti-scientific (and in fact close to sociopathic) as to render your utterances totally valueless to this casual reader.

I would be interested to hear exactly what 'qualifications' are required for your chosen form of quackery.


P.S. to Administrator - apologies if I have broken your board's rules, or failed to maintain the standards that you apply here.  As stated at the beginning of my comment, I have just stumbled upon your site, and while I have not yet seen the rules I could not remain silent about the jerk and their obvious problems.  I did at least try to temper my language (although I assume a polygraph test administered by the jerk could easily be manipulated into saying "that's a lie").

wrote on Oct 24^th, 2015 at 10:18am:

I would be interested to hear exactly what 'qualifications' are required for your chosen form of quackery.

Loved your post Australian.  I have been wondering why we haven't heard from Quickfix in awhile.  It dawned on me recently that Quickfix has identified himself (anonymously) as a US Government official.  Thus, when he speaks as he does on this site he is representing the US Government.  Having been a US Government official myself I know that speaking on behalf of the Government without proper authorization can get a person fired, especially when using vulgar or obscene language.  Despite the fact that the polygraph folks in the government make up the rules as they go and no one in authority has the moral courage to check them, perhaps it is slowly dawning on Quickfix that he might be playing with fire.

Wandersmann wrote on Oct 24^th, 2015 at 3:15pm:

wrote on Oct 24th, 2015 at 10:18am: I would be interested to hear exactly what 'qualifications' are required for your chosen form of quackery. Loved your post Australian.  I have been wondering why we haven't heard from Quickfix in awhile.  It dawned on me recently that Quickfix has identified himself (anonymously) as a US Government official.  Thus, when he speaks as he does on this site he is representing the US Government.  Having been a US Government official myself I know that speaking on behalf of the Government without proper authorization can get a person fired, especially when using vulgar or obscene language.  Despite the fact that the polygraph folks in the government make up the rules as they go and no one in authority has the moral courage to check them, perhaps it is slowly dawning on Quickfix that he might be playing with fire.

From what I've gleaned from my years of watching these boards, just the fact that he is accessing an anti-polygraph forum, and one with so many intelligence community rejects as its denizens, could in itself place his continued federal employable in considerable jeopardy!
Oh well, he's no great loss I'd say! ;D

xenonman wrote on Oct 25^th, 2015 at 3:56am:

Thus, when he speaks as he does on this site he is representing the US Government.  Having been a US Government official myself I know that speaking on behalf of the Government without proper authorization can get a person fired, especially when using vulgar or obscene language.  Despite the fact that the polygraph folks in the government make up the rules as they go and no one in authority has the moral courage to check them, perhaps it is slowly dawning on Quickfix that he might be playing with fire.

Federal employees have the same First Amendment rights as anyone else.  Any opinions expressed on this website are my own, and not as a U.S. government official.  Amazing how a former government employee can be so dim-witted as to not know anything about freedom of speech.  And BTW, my superiors know I surf this site and make comments.  They too, are familiar with the First Amendment.


xenonman wrote on Oct 25^th, 2015 at 3:56am:

Oh well, he's no great loss I'd say!

Neither are you.  A CIA wannabe-who-never-was.

And Aussie:  did the dingo eat your baby?

quickfix wrote on Oct 25^th, 2015 at 2:43pm:

Federal employees have the same First Amendment rights as anyone else.  Any opinions expressed on this website are my own, and not as a U.S. government official.

Nope, you're wrong.  You don't have the same First Amendment rights.  While you were sleeping in that boring legal class before you got your badge they told you that you give up some of your rights in this profession (law enforcement, not polygraph).  When I served, if a real investigator publicly taunted a subject about going to jail and delighted in his misery, like you have done, he would have been fired.  That your superiors are in cahoots doesn't surprise me.  That's how lynch mobs and kangaroo courts operate.  The fact that you are trolling these sites mean you know you are involved in a scam and you're trying to protect it at all costs.  If someone was attacking the science behind fingerprints and DNA, those professionals wouldn't even give it a second thought because they know beyond a doubt their science is real.   You and your polygraph thugs are enjoying the fruits of corruption but some day you will be relegated to the same historical trash heap as the idiots that burned witches in Salem. 

Wandersmann wrote on Oct 25^th, 2015 at 4:08pm:

When I served, if a real investigator publicly taunted a subject about going to jail and delighted in his misery, like you have done, he would have been fired.

When you served?  When was that?  Before J. Edgar Hoover?   ;D

quickfix wrote on Oct 25^th, 2015 at 4:17pm:

When you served?  When was that?  Before J. Edgar Hoover?

Another childish ad hominem response.  I love it !  Keep 'em coming Quickfix.  You provide the visitors to this site real insight into the mentality of a government polygraph examiner.  You are the best thing that ever happened to the anti-polygraph cause. 

wrote on Oct 24^th, 2015 at 10:18am:

...I must admit to total incredulity...regarding the jerk 'Quickfix' who appears to figure that you're guilty until proven innocent...

You'll have to forgive Quickfix -- logic is punishable by electroshock on his planet.

He is one of those unfortunates who loves to get into an argument but has only a cargo-cult grasp of what an argument is, so all he can do is sort of make loud argument-like noises.  Don't try to engage him on the subject of justice, because he doesn't know the meaning of the word.

Don't believe me?  Allow Aunty to demonstrate.

Hey, Quickfix!  What does "justice" mean?

quickfix wrote on Oct 25^th, 2015 at 4:17pm:

When you served?  When was that?  Before J. Edgar Hoover?

I forgot to mention Quickfix, I believe your comment reflected age discrimination against me.  All that matters is that I am offended and therefore you are guilty.  You need to take another one of those on-line EEO courses that the government mandates you take. 

Aunty Agony wrote on Oct 25^th, 2015 at 10:50pm:

Hey, Quickfix!  What does "justice" mean?

Doug Williams sentenced to 2 years in prison.  How's that for justice!

quickfix wrote on Oct 26^th, 2015 at 7:11pm:

Aunty Agony wrote on Oct 25th, 2015 at 10:50pm: Hey, Quickfix!  What does "justice" mean? Doug Williams sentenced to 2 years in prison.  How's that for justice!

See? I told you doesn't know.

-Aunty.

quickfix wrote on Oct 26^th, 2015 at 7:11pm:

Doug Williams sentenced to 2 years in prison.  How's that for justice!

I've got a better example of justice - Jeffery Deskovic, awarded 54 million dollars after making a false confession due to coercion and mistreatment by a police polygraph examiner.   Wait til starving attorneys realize the fraud involved in polygraph science.  The polygraph industry's 4 billion dollar a year scam will make great compensation for lots of innocent victims. 

Guys I am dying here I took a ploy a year ago and failed it because they think I am some huge drug head which is far from the truth!!! I took steroids a few time in high school and college. I told the truth and they said I was lying. Now I have never done drugs beyond that but they don't believe it. This was for CBP now I want to apply for a deportation officer position they just opened up. Do you guys think I am flagged by them or should I give it a second chance. Again I never received a letter explaining why I failed they just e-mailed me saying I was un suitable for the CBP officer position. I would truly apperciate some feed back on this.

thanks,

Tom

Wandersmann wrote on Oct 25^th, 2015 at 4:56pm:

quickfix wrote on Oct 25th, 2015 at 4:17pm: When you served?  When was that?  Before J. Edgar Hoover? Another childish ad hominem response.  I love it !  Keep 'em coming Quickfix.  You provide the visitors to this site real insight into the mentality of a government polygraph examiner.  You are the best thing that ever happened to the anti-polygraph cause.

He's probably a bored Intelligence Community reject  or retiree with nothing else to do! :)

I  think that Mr. Quickfix may have been the same piece of work that was trolling me on the "Federal Soup" forum a while back.

Very defensive on all aspects of the federal BI process! :)

wrote on Nov 10^th, 2015 at 5:26am:

Guys I am dying here I took a ploy a year ago and failed it because they think I am some huge drug head which is far from the truth!!! I took steroids a few time in high school and college. I told the truth and they said I was lying. Now I have never done drugs beyond that but they don't believe it. This was for CBP now I want to apply for a deportation officer position they just opened up. Do you guys think I am flagged by them or should I give it a second chance. Again I never received a letter explaining why I failed they just e-mailed me saying I was un suitable for the CBP officer position. I would truly apperciate some feed back on this. thanks, Tom

How do you feel about gambling?  Do you play the lottery?  With the poly there's always a chance that you might pass.

What have you got to lose?  Is it a lot of labor and trouble to apply again?  You won't be any worse off after two rejections than you are after one.

Why do you want to work for the CBP?  Do you think you would really enjoy being a jack-booted thug?  Another option might be the TSA, although they specialize in jack-booting and are not really very thuggy.

Aunty could give better advice if she knew you better.

Evan S wrote on Jun 8^th, 2015 at 8:51pm:

I realize the polygraph is not going away anytime soon.  Perhaps an acceptable solution (to both sides) is to relocate all federal polygraphers into a single organization, independent of FBI, CIA etc., under which they would receive their performance appraisals and salary reviews.  Maybe you as a fed can initiate change.  Someone has to take the first step.

Likewise, the CIA, NRO, NSA, etc. aren't going away anytime soon either.
As long as we continue in the delusional mentality that such agencies are "necessary" to "protect" us,
the polygraph will remain.

The Intelligence Community and the polygraph are but two nefarious components of a culture of secrecy and unaccountability. >:(

quickfix wrote on Jun 8^th, 2015 at 9:03pm:

yes, I am, and yes I and others in my profession do have an open mind.  But when one engages in CMs, he/she is engaging in moral misconduct (for lack of a better term).  Its' one thing to attempt CMs in order to try to hide a deceptive result.  It's a completely different thing to engage in CMs to "help oneself".  The vast majority of three-letter agency employees/applicants do not attempt to "help themselves".  Those who do are telling us, "I will cheat if it helps me", even if they've done no wrong.  It shows a clear lack of integrity.  What else will they cheat at?  Violating a suspect's rights?  Falsifying an agent's report?  These are the types of applicants who are in the 10-50% you refer to.  Closer to 10% than 50%, but regardless of the percentage, lack of moral character is every bit a disqualifier as one who is deceptive to the relevant issues.  I don't want someone like this guarding our nations secrets or protecting our borders.  Do you?

ASS CLOWN, he was autogenic breathing to calm down his nervousness AS THE RECRUITER TOLD HIM TO.

It's NORMAL.

He wanted to appear non combative/argumentative when challenged by the polographer and told him what he wanted to hear, as any good natured person would do in the situation.

It's their house, be respectful, as should YOU.

Golden sticker keyboard warrior. I bet you're a punk in real life who asserts their "superiority" over others on this forum. Real tough guy. I'm not impressed. >:(

I was told I failed because I was tapping my foot and it was considered counter measures. Now I explained to the instructor it was simply a nervous twice nothing more. Then he began to give me the third degree about how he's been doing this a long time and seen a lot of things and he knows what he saw. I continued to plead my case by telling him I'm nervous and it was nothing of the sort. Then he began to pressure me into believing that my only chances to continue was to write an apology letter to the  Dept. and ask for forgiveness. So I did under duress. Which at the end I told him I still believe I did nothing wrong. It was the last step in the process and was nervous. At the end he said he was writing a report about me trying to use counter measures to beat the test and I insisted that he was wrong it was a nervous twitch and nothing more.    I'm trying to request a retest but not sure if they will.
:( 
If anybody has any advise that would help I would be grateful...

Tasha1,

What did you write in your coerced "apology letter?"

Also does any know know if it is possible to rescind a false statement made under duress.

He told me to admit my cheating and apologize to the Dept.
However I also stated that I wasn't trying to cheat I was simply trying to relax.

Tasha1,

Please take no offense, as none is intended, but I didn't ask what your polygraph operator told you to write, but rather what you wrote. It is the latter that is of crucial importance in advising you further.

No offense taken. Thanks for the help.
From what I remember again I was under duress. I wrote what he asked of me as far as I admitted guilt and apologized.
I believe it was like
I admit I was trying to use counter measures to beat the test and apologize to whom it may concern. (now keep in mind he told me what to write and this was the only way I could continue with the process.) Also I wrote that I watched a couple of utube videos on how to prepare for the text not on how to beat it. I also wrote that I was tapping my foot due to nervousness not trying to beat or cheat the test.
The entire statement kind of contradicted it self.
I hope this explains.

Tasha1,

Thank you. The admission that you were trying to use countermeasures to beat the test will be damning. I don't see any way that you will end up being hired by this agency, but you can (and should) still write a letter explaining what you've mentioned here: that you wrote the letter under duress, and that you were not, in fact, attempting to beat the polygraph. Your letter will help to document what actually happened and may help if your file is ever shared with any other agency.

It should be obvious to any polygraph operator that nervous foot tapping is not a polygraph countermeasure. What this operator did to you is truly outrageous, and it shouldn't go unchallenged.

I would be interested to learn more about the name of the agency and polygraph operator involved, if you don't mind sharing those details. You might not want to post such detail on a public message board at this time, but you can reach me privately by e-mail to antipolygraph.org@protonmail.com.