Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 ... 22 ReplyAdd Poll Send TopicPrint
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) Polygraph Countermeasure Challenge (Read 344276 times)
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Twoblock
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 732
Location: AR.
Joined: Oct 15th, 2002
Gender: Male
Re: Polygraph Countermeasure Challenge
Reply #75 - Jan 31st, 2003 at 7:36am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Batman

I have been away for a while but, fast searching, I have not seen answers to questions to my last two or three posts. One which comes to mind is "wasn't there, in fact, a lie told to the NAS by the feds about 'yes, we have countermeasures but they are secret and can't be divulged', and 'no, we do not have countermeasures'" Which one was a lie?

Now it's time for you and your buddies "stand tall" and answer a question.

As for con men in nearly every profession - Hell yes, there is. I was in the oil business. Full of con men. Now I am in the precious metals business. Full of con men. In the recent pass, I have put a couple of them on their ass, out cold, for trying to con me. But, far and away, the largest group of con men and women are our elected politicians and their appointees. If anyone of the general public pulled the crap they do, we would find ourselves in the cross bar hotel. What are you doing toward putting them there. Are you afraid to tackle anyone but street people?

QUESTION. Are these questions going to get intelligent and truthful answers or, am I going to get stupid shitty remarks?
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Marty
Especially Senior User
*****
Offline



Posts: 499
Joined: Sep 27th, 2002
Re: Polygraph Countermeasure Challenge
Reply #76 - Jan 31st, 2003 at 8:00am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Twoblock wrote on Jan 31st, 2003 at 7:36am:
Batman

....Now I am in the precious metals business. Full of con men. In the recent pass, I have put a couple of them on their ass, out cold, for trying to con me. ...


Hi twoblock,

I've always been amazed at the virtual identity of the specific gravity of Gold and Tungsten (19.2 ish if memory serves). Gold is fairly unique except for Tungsten because of the high density but this could be a vulnerability.  Have you ever run across people trying to pass 24k gold with Tungsten cores?

My engineering training coming out I'm afraid.

-Marty
  

Leaf my Philodenrons alone.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box steincj
Very Senior User
****
Offline



Posts: 103
Joined: Dec 8th, 2002
Gender: Male
Re: Polygraph Countermeasure Challenge
Reply #77 - Jan 31st, 2003 at 8:56am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  

Torpedo wrote on Jan 31st, 2003 at 3:09am:
Captain Chris....you are sooooooooooooooo right. I was mistaken......you may have your clearances as a former, former, former etc....but I will bet that just like George, your access have been stripped....Now isn't that correct?


Torpedo,

I thought we talked about you thinking before you write?  Oh well, I gess it will take a while for that to sink in.  Meanwhile you'll have to continue to make a fool of yourself in public.  Can't say I won't enjoy it, though!

If I could send you a picture, I'd send a screenshot of my online ARMY PERSCOM records, complete with my name, today's date and my current level of SECRET, with the same dates as in my personal staement, clearly displayed.  But since I can't send that image, you'll have to take my word for it.  Now I know this will be very hard for you, since you are a ploygrapher, and you can't take me at my word unless you have me hooked up to your machine.  But try, please, for your dignity.  I can only laugh at your expense for so long . . .

Chris

PS - If you really want proof, you can give me a place to send a regular e-mail (via private message) and I will gladly send you the screenshot.  Then you can apologize to me, and then Mark, and then everyone else on this site you offend.  Boy, that could take a while . . .

  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Twoblock
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 732
Location: AR.
Joined: Oct 15th, 2002
Gender: Male
Re: Polygraph Countermeasure Challenge
Reply #78 - Jan 31st, 2003 at 5:52pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Marty

I am sure tungsten cores in gold are more easily accomplished than polygraphers detecting countermeasures. Led cores are more difficult but still better than chance validity.

When I have time, maybe this weekend, I will send you an e-mail with more technical data.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Marty
Especially Senior User
*****
Offline



Posts: 499
Joined: Sep 27th, 2002
Re: Polygraph Countermeasure Challenge
Reply #79 - Jan 31st, 2003 at 11:26pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  

Twoblock wrote on Jan 31st, 2003 at 5:52pm:
Marty

I am sure tungsten cores in gold are more easily accomplished than polygraphers detecting countermeasures. Led cores are more difficult but still better than chance validity.

When I have time, maybe this weekend, I will send you an e-mail with more technical data.


Lead is more maleable and melts nicely but has a density far lower than Tungsten so would be easy to spot. I think a specific gravity test and some sort of acoustic check (tungsten would impact sound propogation) would be all that's needed. I have, from time to time thought about designing a counterfeit detection kit for bullion coins. Have no idea about how big a problem it is though. I would appreciate any info you might have in regard to that and thank you for the offer.

BTW, US currency is magnetic. A strong magnet easily attracts a bill. Probably better than those Iodine pens that blacken when exposed to starchy paper. Never seen a cashier use a magnet for that though.

-Marty
  

Leaf my Philodenrons alone.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Twoblock
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 732
Location: AR.
Joined: Oct 15th, 2002
Gender: Male
Re: Polygraph Countermeasure Challenge
Reply #80 - Feb 3rd, 2003 at 1:28am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Batman (and the rest of the polygraphers)

By your posts, you have been to this site a couple of times since I asked questions in my above post.  Your buddies probably have also. Enough time to answer questions that I posed.

You don't stand very tall either, do you? Except in ridiculing people and calling them names.

By your silence, you stand convicted of everything, and more, of which you accuse the "failed poly's" that post on this website.

I BELIEVE Public Servent is the only one who has attempted to answer "some, not all" of the pertinent questions that I have asked.

No guts, no glory!!!
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box GUEST
Guest


Re: Polygraph Countermeasure Challenge
Reply #81 - Feb 3rd, 2003 at 10:33pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Time to put this puppy to sleep…

Torpedo,

As like Chris, I was determined DI on my FBI polygraph (one year ago), but I continue to work on TS investigations.  My supervisor and co-workers find the FBI’s accusations to be “laughable.”  How do explain my continued access to classified information?
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Skeptic
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 549
Joined: Jun 24th, 2002
Re: Polygraph Countermeasure Challenge
Reply #82 - Feb 4th, 2003 at 12:26am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Quote:
Time to put this puppy to sleep…

Torpedo,

As like Chris, I was determined DI on my FBI polygraph (one year ago), but I continue to work on TS investigations.  My supervisor and co-workers find the FBI’s accusations to be “laughable.”  How do explain my continued access to classified information?



He can't, GUEST.

You see, if Torpedo or Batman were to admit that many (if not most) people here "failed" polygraphs without deserving to, they'd have to acknowledge that they participate in an activity that screws people over, robs our country of needed talent and endangers national security every day.  It's much easier to rationalize that you are a liar and a cheat who somehow slipped through the cracks, or will lose your clearance soon.

After all, you can't prove you're not scum, can you?

Wink

Skeptic
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Fair Chance
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 551
Joined: Oct 10th, 2002
Re: Polygraph Countermeasure Challenge
Reply #83 - Feb 4th, 2003 at 3:19pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  

Skeptic wrote on Feb 4th, 2003 at 12:26am:
After all, you can't prove you're not scum, can you?

After my second examination in which the FBI found me deceptive and not acceptable for employment, my current Department of Justice law enforcement agency CEO said "Don't worry about it, their loss is our gain."  I was still working on very sensitive equipment concerning high level cases which the FBI uses for information!  It was only later during my appeal that someone used some common sense at the FBI and put two and two together.

A "Brother Agency" in the Federal government has no faith in the polygraph as a pre-screening tool.  My agency is only interested in factual evidence which will stand up in court or a group of reasonable people.

Regards.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Twoblock
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 732
Location: AR.
Joined: Oct 15th, 2002
Gender: Male
Re: Polygraph Countermeasure Challenge
Reply #84 - Feb 4th, 2003 at 5:45pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Fair Chance

I believe it was you who told me, when Batman first started posting on this site, "this one is too tough for you". Well, it appears that I am too tough for him and the rest when it comes to the question of fed lies. He and the rest have gone silent when backed into a corner.

Since I have to get ready for the mining season, I have to leave my 'puter' and do some meaningful work until next winter. Won't be able to enjoy this website. Keep up the good work.

Adios
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Alfred of Wayne Manor
Guest


Re: Polygraph Countermeasure Challenge
Reply #85 - Feb 5th, 2003 at 4:30am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
My Dear Mr TwoBlock,

Sir, with all due respect, you don't know jack.  The Batman is currently out of the Bat Cave and unavailable to answer the call.  Upon his return I'm sure he will respond.

Signed,

Alfred, the butler
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box steincj
Very Senior User
****
Offline



Posts: 103
Joined: Dec 8th, 2002
Gender: Male
Re: Polygraph Countermeasure Challenge
Reply #86 - Feb 6th, 2003 at 10:02pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  

Skeptic wrote on Feb 4th, 2003 at 12:26am:
After all, you can't prove you're not scum, can you?


What's amazing is that I shouldn't have to prove I'm not scum.  Why is it that the DoD gave me a TS/SCI clearance, but the FBI doesn't think I'm worthy for the same?  

Why is it that the DoD does a full background check, taking up to a year, to give someone a TS clearance, while the FBI only does a polygraph and a 3 month background check for their TS?  

The FBI makes accusations agianst me about my time serving the DoD -- accusations about mishandling and unauthorized release of classified information to foreign spies.  What gives the FBI the right to make such accusations, based on polygraph results, when the DoD owned me?  If it is so obvious to the FBI, shouldn't the DoD have been aware of these heinous acts?  Is the FBI that much better than the DoD?

Even with the inter-agency disrespect, the most ironic thing is that omniscient FBI polygraphers get their training from the DoD Polygraph Institute.  If the DoD trains the FBI to run a polygraph, shouldn't they use the machine in similiar ways?  

Puzzling . . . .

  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box steincj
Very Senior User
****
Offline



Posts: 103
Joined: Dec 8th, 2002
Gender: Male
Re: Polygraph Countermeasure Challenge
Reply #87 - Feb 9th, 2003 at 3:20am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  

Torpedo wrote on Jan 31st, 2003 at 3:09am:
Captain Chris....you are sooooooooooooooo right. I was mistaken......you may have your clearances as a former, former, former etc....but I will bet that just like George, your access have been stripped....Now isn't that correct?


Torpedo,

TODAY IS YOUR LUCKY DAY!!!

I just received a letter from the Army Reserve Personnel Command.  Even though I am on Inactive Ready Reserve (IRR) staus, they are ordering me to resubmit for my TS clearance.

Now I want you to get on the phone and call all of your powerful polygraph friends, and make sure that scum spy like me doesn't get my TS back, OK?  You can't let a known threat to national security like me go from Secret back to TS!!!

Please, gather all of your polygraph powers-that-be and stop my TS!!!  The reputation of your beloved machine depends on it . . . .

This is going to be fun to watch!

Chris  
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box triple x
Very Senior User
****
Offline


Fear what you cannot see...

Posts: 209
Location: USA
Joined: Oct 16th, 2002
Gender: Male
Re: Polygraph Countermeasure Challenge
Reply #88 - Feb 9th, 2003 at 5:59am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Scientists attack polygraph's accuracy

http://www.oaklandtribune.com/Stories/0,1413,82%257E1865%257E912692,00.html

Tool unreliable in detecting unloyal government workers, researchers say.

By Ian Hoffman, STAFF WRITER,


Polygraph tests used by nearly every federal national-security agency as a screening tool will flag loyal workers as security risks and free actual spies from suspicion, a panel of top scientists reported Tuesday.

Gathered by the National Research Council, scientists said the theory and research supporting polygraphy is too weak and the accuracy of the test is "insufficient to justify reliance on its use in employee security screening."

"National security is too important to be left to such a blunt instrument," said panel chairman Stephen Fienberg, a statistics professor at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh.

Two lawmakers called on the U.S. Department of Energy to replace its polygraph screening program, targeting 16,000 employees mostly in California, New Mexico and Washington, D.C., with a testing program solely for interrogation of suspects.

Yet beyond the Energy Department and its national labs -- Livermore, Los Alamos and Sandia -- the polygraph is deeply embedded in the U.S. national-security apparatus, with an estimated 40,000 workers or applicants tested every year at the CIA, Defense Department, National Security Agency, Secret Service, DEA and -- in the wake of the Aldrich Ames and Robert Hanssen spy cases -- the FBI.

Thousands more are tested at state and local law-enforcement agencies. This summer, many in Congress

who voted to polygraph nuclear weapons scientists were themselves "put on the box" in an FBI search for leaks at the Senate and House intelligence committees.

Inventors such as psychologist and feminist theorist William Moulton Marston -- later known for creating Wonder Woman, whose lasso compelled truth telling -- devised polygraphy to interrogate World War I spies. The polygraph became hugely popular over the next 80 years, and no one has been more captivated by its mystique than Americans and their law officers.

Yet, said NRC panelist Kathryn Laskey, a professor of systems engineering at George Mason University, "We stress that no spy ever has been caught using the polygraph."

The conclusions of the 310-page report are not new. Scientists have criticized polygraphs as poorly grounded and researched since their creation.

The 310-page NRC report, however, is among the most comprehensive and authoritative on the subject, and the first to highlight the national security risks of growing federal reliance on a test that invariably clears the spies and saboteurs it was designed to catch.

Employees of the nation's three nuclear-weapons labs hailed the report as powerful vindication, in large measure because it echoed their attacks on the scientific foundations of polygraphy and found them equally weak or nonexistent.

"It's time to stop it, for everybody," said Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory physicist Jeff Colvin, president of the Society for Professional Scientists and Engineers, a labor union.

"It doesn't get any better than this. There's no wiggle room here," said Dr. Alan Zelicoff, a physicist and physician at Sandia National Laboratories in Albuquerque, N.M. "We've been spending millions of dollars on a test that is not worthless, but worse than worthless because it does more harm than good."

In 1999, Congress went into a lather over suspected Chinese thefts of U.S. nuclear secrets and instituted polygraph tests for thousands of career nuclear-weapons employees. Scientists denounced the tests as "voodoo" and "junk science" that insulted their dedication to national-security work.

"You're talking about people who for the most part are very loyal and find it terribly offensive that their loyalty is questioned," veteran Livermore weapons designer David Dearborn said Tuesday. "Then you have an undependable piece of electronic flimflammery, and someone pops up and says 'I think you're being deceptive,' and your clearance is pulled. ... What are we getting as a nation in return? We're getting political cover at best. Because if that's the best we can do to catch spies, we're in trouble. You're not catching the people who are spying, and yet you are having large numbers of people suffer as they're treated like criminals."

Rep. Ellen Tauscher, the Alamo Democrat whose district includes Livermore and Sandia labs, persuaded the Energy Department to limit the population of polygraphed scientists to a minimum. It now includes somewhere in excess of 700 at both labs, mainly workers who handle weapons parts or weapons materials or have access to highly classified intelligence information.

In the wake of the report, Tauscher said she still supports screening polygraphs, used with other tools such as background checks, for those scientists, as long as the Energy Department's National Nuclear Security Administration doesn't over-rely on them.


Polygraphs, Tauscher said, "have been a silver bullet, and this report tells us what we knew intuitively -- that they are not."

Contact Ian Hoffman at ihoffman@angnewspapers.com

New Mexico senators Jeff Bingaman and Pete V. Domenici, who represent employees of Los Alamos and Sandia in Albuquerque, called on NNSA to abolish the screening tests.

"Polygraph tests may have a role to play in law enforcement, but they don't work as a screening tool for our national laboratories," Bingaman said. "In the panic to protect classified information, Congress rushed to implement a policy that had the effect of treating prospective lab employees as suspects. From a practical standpoint, this policy never made sense to me. Now we have scientific evidence that it doesn't work. It's time to change this flawed policy."

NNSA acting administrator Linton Brooks said the NRC report pinpointed the problem: "How to administer a program that is maximally effective at weeding out security risks while minimizing damage to the vast majority of loyal, patriotic employees. There is no easy answer, but it is a question we will examine very seriously in the coming months."


Polygraph testing is undeniably unreliable, unethical and unfair. Polygraph testing depends solely on trickery, deceit and untruths as told by the polygraph examiner conducting and controlling the polygraph exam.

The national public is beginning to realize the significant impact of unethical ramifications polygraph testing is having on countless innocent people.

The polygraph examiner "claims" to be able to determine truth from deception simply by monitoring the breathing pattern, pulse rate, blood pressure, and the palm sweat of the individual subjected to polygraph testing.

In addition to the above; some polygraph examiners also claim to possess the ability of detecting polygraph countermeasures.  

One must ask; if polygraphers can determine truth from deception by merely watching a test subject breath, pulse rate, BP, and palm sweat... then by what methods do they detect polygraph countermeasures...??

I guess a spike on the chart following a test question (via employed c/m's) is obviously different in comparison than a spike caused by an assumed lie and/or deception...

Tell me this; how can one determine the precise difference between a spike caused by a "suspected" lie, verses a "suspected" countermeasure..??

Respectfully,
triple_x

  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box treetop
Ex Member
*



Gender: Female
Re: Polygraph Countermeasure Challenge
Reply #89 - Oct 12th, 2003 at 9:36pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
As I mentioned before, I have applied with a local LE agency.  I recently passed my background investigation and I will soon take to polygraph.  As I said before, I am going to have to lie on the polygraph and use countermeasures in order to pass it.  If I pass it, then countermeasures work.  If I fail, then we can go from there.  Wish me luck.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 ... 22
ReplyAdd Poll Send TopicPrint
Polygraph Countermeasure Challenge

Please type the characters that appear in the image. The characters must be typed in the same order, and they are case-sensitive.
Open Preview Preview

You can resize the textbox by dragging the right or bottom border.
Insert Hyperlink Insert FTP Link Insert Image Insert E-mail Insert Media Insert Table Insert Table Row Insert Table Column Insert Horizontal Rule Insert Teletype Insert Code Insert Quote Edited Superscript Subscript Insert List /me - my name Insert Marquee Insert Timestamp No Parse
Bold Italicized Underline Insert Strikethrough Highlight
                       
Insert Preformatted Text Left Align Centered Right Align
resize_wb
resize_hb







Max 200000 characters. Remaining characters:
Text size: pt
More Smilies
View All Smilies
Collapse additional features Collapse/Expand additional features Smiley Wink Cheesy Grin Angry Sad Shocked Cool Huh Roll Eyes Tongue Embarrassed Lips Sealed Undecided Kiss Cry
Attachments More Attachments Allowed file types: txt doc docx ics psd pdf bmp jpe jpg jpeg gif png swf zip rar tar gz 7z odt ods mp3 mp4 wav avi mov 3gp html maff pgp gpg
Maximum Attachment size: 500000 KB
Attachment 1:
X