Dear All, 

I just PASSED THE POLY!!!!!!!

The polygrapher was so nice, and we talked for maybe 1 hr before the poly started. He noted some detail we had talked, and then guided me into the test.

It's a Stoelting model(just like George mentioned), and it was connected to a PC. He first wired me with 1 tubes around my chest and the other around my ab. Then he put 2 electric devices sticked to my index finger and ring finger. He also put something like a blood pressure gauge around my arm. And here it went.

Stim test of course. I used anal pucker and breath control to beat to the stim test. He said that I was a "good candidate for poly test". Then we started. He used the mixed model with CQT and POT. And I just followed George's advices. There were 2 question sets. And after the CQT and POT, he smiled at me and said "I think there is no problem about your test".

After leaving the room, he told me the room was video-taped, so he could not talk much. But he reassured that I had passed the polytest. And he was so nice to say that if the policemen tried to set me up, he will certainly investigate it. He said he was so happy that I passed the poly because he thought I was an honest man.

Thank you George, I would have not passed the polytest without you.

So George, knowing that you're helping rapists pass the polygraph, how do you feel about it?

Who else are you helping pass the poly? Murderers? Drug users? Child pornography types?

We aren't talking about people trying to get a job in the pre-interview phase of testing here. We're talking about known criminals, using your book, to beat the system. I don't think I could sleep well if it was me.

If your goal is simply to rid the world of polygraphs, isn't there another way to do it?

Duc748,

You wrote:

Duc748 wrote on Mar 9^th, 2002 at 5:51pm:


With regard to Verbatim's recent post, I see nothing in it that makes me uncomfortable with the use to which he put the information we've provided: that is, there is no indication that he lied with respect to any relevant question he was asked during his polygraph interrogation.

Note that AntiPolygraph.org's goal is not merely the abolishment of polygraphy, but also to help protect the truthful/innocent from polygraph abuse until that ultimate goal is achieved. This requires making detailed information about polygraphy and polygraph countermeasures readily available to all who seek it. We are unapologetically non-obscurantist in this regard.

The more important question you might ask yourself is, is polygraphy reliable? And if not, then why do we place any reliance on it?

Quote:

No, I was talking about people like this guy xpmachina.

Quote:

But here's my point George. That's not all that you're doing here. You are basically aiding criminals to defeat the poly. Let's say a rapist is convicted in a court of law and is then told to submit to poly's for the next 10 years, to help keep him in line. He reads your book and then come his first poly he passes. Now he thinks he's safe from the poly. He goes out and commits another rape. He passes the next poly. Had he not known about the book and ways to defeat the poly, would he still have passed? No one can no for sure, but at least there was a chance to stop this guy before he was able to do it again.
Granted this is a far fetched story, but do you see my point here? Knowing that the possibility exists, it would be hard for me to sleep at night, knowing that I have aided criminals to beat the system.

Quote:

I don't know if it is or isn't. 
But, do you honestly believe that all the guys that come on here are innocent as they say? If so, I could take you down to the local prison and I'm sure 95% of those guys would say the same thing.
As far as poly's themselves, I think they are a tool and not the end all, be all of the investigative process. 
Just my point of view.

Quote:

And that is where the problem lies. 

Quote:

My education of the process came while under its magnifying glass. I had a positive outcome. Others on this site, have had ONE polygraph and it came out bad. I would say that the majority of people have positive outcomes, but you fail to hear from them, because they have no need to try and "beat" the system. 
You claim it is a fraud, because it is based upon interpretation. Doctors base medical diagnosis' based upon their interpretation of an EKG. The majority of the time the diagnosis is correct. True doctors and polygraphers may make mistakes, as nothing in this world can garauntee 100% reliability. So would you say that doctors are nothing more than frauds?

It seems to me that even if one believes that the polygraph can have utility, the very act of complaining that websites like Antipolygraph.org are allowing criminals to pass the polygraph is a tacit admission that the polygraph has been compromised (and is compromisable). The success of the polygraph as an interrogation instrument depends inherently on the interrogation subject not being aware of the techniques involved. If this information is revealed, the polygraph is not effective. If this were not the case, there would be no reason to accuse antipolygraph websites of assisting criminals (or anybody else, for that matter).
 
Of course, blaming Antipolygraph.org for this spread of information is rather like trying to shoot the messenger. Information revealing the methodology and deception behind polygraph interrogation has in fact long been available. If you go to your local library you will surely find, at very least, a well-thumbed copy of the first edition of Lykken's book. And probably much else on the subject. The internet, and sites like Antipolygraph.org,  simply makes access to this sort of information easier and encourages discussion and debate. 

Now, it seems to me that at this juncture there are two possible courses of action. The first is the one that those who accuse Antipolygraph.org of assisting criminals would seem to prefer: preserved the utility of the polygraph by restricting access to information. This is sort of like putting the toothpaste back in the tube, but it is possible. Antipolygraph.org could cease operation or instead switch to disseminating propaganda on the effectiveness of the polygraph. The books in the library can be burned. The internet and other means of communication, such as faxes and copier machines, can be eliminated. Those who continue to try to propagate and discuss such information can be deported or interned in prison camps. All of these techniques have been done before in a number of countries on the basis of "national security."

The second option is to admit that the polygraph has lost its utility (or is rapidly in the process of losing its utility) as an instrument of interrogation and of law enforcement, and shift resourses to more effective means of investigation. 

Of course a third option would be to develop counter-countermeasures that are actually effective, or at very least pretend to have done so. That seems to be the approach of several of the polygraphers and polygraph proponents who have posted recently to this board. Given the inability of such persons to date to convincingly argue that effective counter-countermeasures exist (or are even possible), I rather suspect that they have chosen instead to simply pretend that such measures exist. The fact that they are even making the attempt to convince people of this is further evidence that this is the case. In any case, the whole approach inherently depends on concealing information, the ultimate result of which is a return to my first option above.

In summation, it would seem that rather than accusing Antipolygraph.org of compromising the polygraph by disseminating information, it would be more effecting (and more logical) to berate the government and law enforcement agencies for putting any reliance in compromised technology. 

Timofei

Duc748 wrote on Mar 9^th, 2002 at 8:31pm:


Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...

I, as a member of the People, am doing just that.

Duc748,

In context, you wrote to beech trees:

Quote:


I think your remark while perhaps not libelous was certainly inflammatory and hardly conducive to rational discourse. Rather than attempting to justify your injudicious comment to beech trees, you might consider apologizing for it.