Joe McCarthy wrote on Feb 24^th, 2017 at 11:55am:


It's the principal online forum of the BDSM community -- some folks there might be seriously interested in new and creative applications for the torture rack!
Check them out at fetlife.com 

ya lost me on that one, whats fetlife?

Joe,
You'll have to go over to the Fetlife site and provide further details and photos!   

xenonman wrote on Feb 21^st, 2017 at 6:05pm:



You make the stretching rack sound like a bad thing.  Used correctly, it can be hours of fun.

Sorry, I saw a sarcastic moment and had to take it

Ex Member wrote on Jan 28^th, 2013 at 7:01pm:


No more than there are 4-year degrees in astrology, divining, or "map dowsing". 

Confused 2 wrote on Jan 27^th, 2013 at 5:28am:


Yes, your assessment of the mission of this forum is absolutely correct.

One can not "beat" the polygraph, anymore than one can "beat" the ducking stool, the hot coals, the "Iron Maiden", or the stretching rack!   

Confused 2 wrote on Jan 27^th, 2013 at 5:28am:


Long-time lurker and I agree with you. I have not found any useful coherent information on how to get a favorable polygraph result. The board comes across as spam. They have all these "simple" methods to beat the test, but those methods are complex. So if you failed one using the suggested "simple" methods, then it's because you did not use the "simple" methods.

From what I read, I just don't know why you can't answer your own questions when given a question by an administrator. For example, if you are asked if you stole money, then you say to yourself "I am not answering that question. But I will answer if I killed JFK" and state "no."

Off-Topic replies have been moved to this Topic.

Confused 2 wrote on Jan 29^th, 2013 at 4:20am:

You cannot split them apart. How can a dishonest answer be made to look like the truth, when the truth cannot be divined? Countermeasures only serve to elevate responses on control questions, nothing more. Fooling the fooler has nothing to do with lies or truth.

The fact of the matter is; I do teach truthful people how to pass (because just telling the truth doesn't work), AND I also teach liars how to pass, (because that is just one more weapon I use against the polygraph thugs).  By doing this, I have proved the polygraph is worthless.  I can teach anyone how to pass NERVOUS OR NOT, LYING OR NOT, NO MATTER WHAT - that makes the people who rely on the results of the polygraph fools, and it makes polygraph operators paranoid.  
Doug Williams
www.polygraph.com
405-226-4856
doug@polygraph.com
If you want to know more about what I have done and continue to do to prevent people from being victimized by the so-called "lie detector", and to make polygraph operators as miserable as possible by exposing their insidious "Frankenstein's Monster", email me and I'll send you a free PDF copy of my new book "FROM COP TO CRUSADER: THE STORY OF MY FIGHT AGAINST THE DANGEROUS MYTH OF 'LIE DETECTION'!"

Ex Member wrote on Jan 28^th, 2013 at 7:21pm:


The point I'm trying to make has nothing to do with the science or lack thereof behind the polygraph.  Nor has it anything to do with whether truth or lies can be divined.  It's about not using the phrase "beat the polygraph", because that, to me, infers a dishonest answer can be made to look like the truth on a polygraph test.  It goes hand in hand with the phrase "beat the rap".

The fact of the matter is that prior to trial our justice system gives credence to the polygraph through our D.A.'s.  A person accused of a crime can get the D.A. to not prosecute the case, to advise a Grand Jury to no-bill the case, and to dismiss a case, if that person passes a polygraph from a polygrapher the D.A. believes in.  

Which brings up another question, namely if the goal is to find the truth and they all use the same equipment, what's the difference between a polygrapher with law enforcement experience as compared to one without?  Why does that make any difference if the polygraph is based on scientific fact and is as accurate as every polygrapher says they are?  If they both claim 95-99% accuracy why does the D.A. require a polygrapher with former law enforcement experience?

The results of a polygraph cannot typically be presented in a trial, but they can be presented to a D.A. in an attempt to get him to drop the case.  This can be done right up until the jury returns a verdict.

Most people who have been charged with a crime and are guilty would love to find a way to "beat" the polygraph with some kind of countermeasure that will magically make their lies appear to be the truth on the polygraph.  This is what I think of as "beating the polygraph", i.e. answering a relevant question on a polygraph with a lie and then trying to use a countermeasure to make the lie appear to not be a lie.  I don't believe that is a goal of this site, and I appreciate that.

I do believe one of the goals of this site is to give people countermeasures that will cause the truth of their answers to be emphasized so the possibility of errors will be reduced.

Ex Member wrote on Jan 28^th, 2013 at 7:01pm:


I think you're correct.  I didn't do a very good job of writing that.  He has a degree in psychology and completed a course of study in polygraphy from the mentioned university.

Confused 2 wrote on Jan 27^th, 2013 at 5:28am:

That is not possible, because truth or lies cannot be divined. Polygraphy only infers it based upon relative psychophysiological responses. This inference is based on conjecture, not science.

Confused 2 wrote on Jan 26^th, 2013 at 3:27pm:

I don't think there are any 4 year degrees in Polygraphy.

i would file a complaint with the Texas Board and seek a  refund

Sorry George, I didn't specify that my attorney was the one who set up everything with the private polygraphers, including the attempt to take a second polygraph from the first polygrapher.  Since my attorney was the one who set everything up, attorney client privilege is in effect.

Yes, after going back and re-reading the lie behind the lie detector I realize I blew the first test completely.  The complex math is for the comparative questions not the relative questions.  I guess the countermeasures work better than I thought.  Unfortunately in my case I didn't use them correctly and paid the price.  All I wanted to do was make sure my truthful answers were interpreted as such.

I do have a little bone to pick with you though.  There are numerous references to "beating the polygraph".  To me, that implies making lies appear to be the truth.  I don't think that is the goal of this site.  After reading most of the site, it appears to me that the real goal of this site is 1) to abolish the use of the polygraph, and 2) insure that truthful answers are interpreted as such.  I haven't read anything on this site that would be effective in making a lie appear to be the truth.  And if I might add, rightly so.

Confused 2,

I'm afraid you screwed up by the numbers:

1) You disregarded our advice to persons under criminal investigation not to submit to any polygraph "test." See the subsection, "If You Are Suspected of a Crime" at pp. 122-124 of the 4th edition of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector.

2) You should not have "used the complex math technique when answering the relevant questions." Only reactions to "control" questions should be augmented.

3) Having chosen to use countermeasures, you never should have admitted it. While (absent a stipulation agreement) your failure to pass the polygraph administered by the D.A.'s polygraph operator would not be admissible at trial, your confession to having attempted polygraph countermeasures may well be admissible and could be highly prejudicial.

I had only a few days to take a polygraph prior to a grand jury hearing.  I wanted to know more about polygraph testing before I took the test because I worked for a police department and did not like what I overheard when detectives were talking to polygraphers.  I googled "polygraph" and the first site that was listed was WikiPedia.  After reading the full WikiPedia article I was convinced I needed to do something to insure my truthful responses would be interpreted as such.  It was there that I found antipolygraph.org.  I read "The Lie Behind The Lie Detector" and became even more fearful of what I was in for.  I read about the countermeasures and decided I needed to use them to insure I passed the test.

To make a long story short - they didn't work.  I used the complex math technique when answering the relevant questions to make sure my mind was cleared after the answer, and I used the breathing technique on the comparative questions and the stim test.  When speaking with my attorney the polygrapher was adamant that I failed the test because my reaction to the relevent questions was too high.  This turned my attorney against me, though he won't admit it.

I insisted on taking another polygraph from someone who wasn't ex law enforcement.  My attorney found a guy that had a bachelor of science degree in psychology and polygraphy, graduated at the top of his class, and was class valedictorian at Texas A&M.  He has over thirty years of experience in the field of polygraphy, has numerous awards from the polygraph industry, and owns a well known business security company that includes professional polygraphy.  I decided to answer the questions without the countermeasures and passed with what he called a very large margin of certainty that I was telling the truth.

Unfortunately, the D.A. will not accept the polygraph because it wasn't done by a law enforcement polygrapher or a private polygrapher that they approve.  Naturally the polygrapher they approve is ex-law enforcement.  I know these guys lie through their teeth and are extremely biased in favor of the D.A.  The D.A. did present the polygraph to the Grand Jury, but obviously played it down because they still true billed the case.

So I'm confused.  Both polygraphers used the same equipment in their testing.  The second polygrapher said there was practically no reaction at all to the relevant questions and I didn't use any of the countermeasures from the book.  I even went back to the first polygrapher, the D.A.'s only choice, apologized for trying to use countermeasures, and asked to take the test again.  He said there was no way I would pass the test.  I did happen to mention that if I took the test again he would need to follow the requirements of the Texas Department Of Licensing And Regulation, and leave at least 20 seconds between the questions.  Which he had not done on the first test.  He got very belligerent when I told him I knew he didn't leave 20 seconds between the questions because I was counting the seconds on the breathing countermeasure to make sure I didn't go too long.  He left less than 10 seconds on most of the questions.  What I didn't tell him was that I had a digital recorder in my pocket and recorded the whole session.  I called my wife when I started the recording and again when it was finished.  The phone calls are on the recording and my phone records prove the length of time of the recording is accurate.  His charts and video should also verify he didn't follow regulations.

I know I'm the one who blew the test by trying to use countermeasures, but his lack of honesty and conformance to regulations is not acceptable and I intend to pursue charges against him.

Sorry for the rant.