perhaps your test was inconclusive. don't panic.take new test, laugh at silly little machine....

Thanks for the insight.  I did read the online book and I did not use any CMs because I did not want to kick myself in hte a@@ because I am not sure I know exactly how to employ the CMs.  I guess I will just have to wait to see how it goes.  Thanks

Marty wrote on Dec 13^th, 2002 at 9:17am:

Dear Marty,

I do not quite know where to begin with your short but challenging ideas.  The examiner used CQT technique similar to my first two exams but I feel that in my case (I am far from a polygraph expert but I do have a rigid scientific background in scientific experiments), it would make sense to check my overall base line to my first polygraph experience where I was inconclusive and I had no polygraph knowledge.  I did not contest my first polygraph findings or professional performance of the polygraph examiner during that test.  I believe that they would concentrate on breathing patterns and bloodpressure since those are the two easiest "control" responses to manipulate.  Any strong responses to questions very similar to my first test where I was possibly unresponsive would be the only indicator of "possible" countermeasures.  I do feel that anyone who performs a "perfect" test will be strongly accused of countermeasures.  This is not a scientific result but more of a statistical probability for an examinee to respond perfectly to all control questions (and start and stop of test).  The polygraph readers know from history that few examinees score perfectly and will be suspect especially on a retest.  They obviously cannot prove anything, it is just a statistical quess that many of the examiners will call "gut" feeling (results from experience, not scientific test).  It might be completely coincidental that some examinees will confess to using countermeasures when accused which reinforces the confidence of this "gut" feeling.

As far as testing other polygraph examiners, my observation (please use understanding of "remarks or comments" instead of "observed facts" in this context {editied on 12/14/02 @1154 hours})is that they try and choose a more reactive question about specific incidents in their past which will allow a better reaction on control questions.  As human nature goes,  if I wanted to test someone, I would just keep running strips until random chance gives me acceptable strips and destroy the rest of the results.  I strongly doubt that the strips themselves are electronically encrypted and numbered (such as court evidence video tapes from banks) so this would be an easy process to do without anyone's knowledge.

I am not suggesting that any polygraph operator does this and this is speculation on your questions and ideas.  I believe it is a possibility.

Regards.

Batman wrote on Dec 14^th, 2002 at 12:53am:


Glad to know you guys "no can do anymore"  -  Not that anyone ever did

Interesting, and makes sense. For about the last 10 years designing that sort of mechanically intense instrumentation actually costs more than using modern techniques. Generally what is done in modern designs is to produce printouts that mimic the older strip chart recorders. This makes it easier for persons to work with what they are used to. The total information flow in polygraphs is probably well under  100 bits/s and even with poor compression storing 200 or so bits/s is essentially free. Of course this would go up a lot if audio was recorded (let alone video).  Still, these days both of these are fairly cheap.

Fair_Chance, I gather that your tests were done with conventional strip chart machines.

-Marty

Unqualified applicant removed from the process. (FACT)

Marty wrote on Dec 14^th, 2002 at 3:58am:

Dear Marty,

Forgive my latest outburst to Batman but I try to be accurate and open minded with my postings.  As of December 15, 2002, I would like to see Batman give me a list of any FBI Field offices which use anything but paper strip machines.

Marty, when you read my answer to your question, did you perceive that I represented any of my views as known fact?  I believe that I tried to clearly state that they were my opinion of possibilities and I represented them as such.

When I am asked to give a urine test, I must sign the evidence bottle after it is sealed and thus ensuring a chain of custody with my initials on it.  I have never signed one polygraph strip to evidence that it was actually my strip which was taken.  I have never signed that "x" amount of strips where taken during my hours of testing.  The current system is subject to tampering in the FBI.  Strips can be omitted in the current system.  I am only observing the possibilities and many lawyers have precluded the admission of evidence based on the same arguments.

Have I misrepresented ideas as facts to you, Marty?

Regards.  

Fair Chance,

Why so upset?  I was simply asking you about what you stated to be your "observations".  You did not preface this with any sort of hypotheticals or qualifiers.  You said it was an observation.  That would lead any reader to believe you have had some sort of actual hands-on or personal experience in order to be able to make such an observation.

As for what the FBI does, I am fully aware they use the older Lafayette analog instruments.  That is why I worded my post, "very few, if any, federal agencies utilize the analog instruments", leaving the door open, as I did not feel it was my place to openly identify which agencies utilized what type of equipment, and my knowledge of their instrumentation is dated a few years so I thought it possible they may have changed to digital instruments since then. 

You stated, "I know how the FBI does theirs and you should investigate for yourself before accusing me of giving false testimony on this website regarding the FBI polygraphs."  What did I accuse you of?  I was simply asking you to provide additional information because your "hypothetical" example of unethical behavior certainly was detailed enough to lead one to believe you may have actually observed same.  You coupled your description of destroying charts in the same paragraph that led off "As far as testing other polygraph examiners, my observation is...” Of course that was the lead sentence and it may have dealt only with what that one particular sentence was talking about, however when it was the lead to the paragraph it could allow the reader to believe that what you referred to in the rest of the paragraph, "...that they try and choose a more reactive question about specific incidents in their past which will allow a better reaction on control questions.  As human nature goes, if I wanted to test someone, I would just keep running strips until random chance gives me acceptable strips and destroy the rest of the results.  I strongly doubt that the strips themselves are electronically encrypted and numbered (such as court evidence video tapes from banks) so this would be an easy process to do without anyone's knowledge.” was based on some sort of personal observation.

Regarding your challenge to me to provide you a list of FBI field offices that utlize anything other than analog instruments, I do not have access to such information.  My dated knowledge that they still utilize analog instruments comes from personal contact with that agency, but not such that I would be able to provide the information you request of me.  However, I am curious as to exactly how did the FBI became the focus here.  Howard W., who started this thread, never mentioned any particular agency, he simply stated he had taken a polygraph exam ad was being asked to undergo additional testing.  As a matter of fact he specifically stated it was a "PD" that he was dealing with.  Fair Chance, you are the one, in your reply to him, that brought the FBI into it.  In your post that I replied to you did not make any mention that it was the FBI you were referring to as using analog instruments and obtaining "strips".  In fact, you did not mention any specific agency in that particular post.

I apologize for not including your disclaimer, "I am not suggesting that any polygraph operator does this and this is speculation on your questions and ideas.  I believe it is a possibility.” in my reply to your post.  I simply find these type disclaimers to serve no useful purpose.  It seems to be vogue for folks to make pseudo accusations, under "hypothetical" circumstances, then add one little disclaimer, such as yours.

As for quoting the entire context of your post, I quoted those portions I needed clarification on.

As for the state of your mind's openness, I can not comment.  I can only make an "observation".  It appears you may already be somewhat closed-minded when it comes to the issue of polygraph utilization.  I may have simply provided you with the opportunity to state this openly as a reply to a perceived slight by me.

FOR STEINCJ: 

If you were actually accused of engaging in espionage as you state, you most likely would not be afforded the opportunity to be out and about posting on sites such as this, or any others.   

If you allowed your career aspirations to be ruined by someone you classify as a, "Deranged Polygrapher", then you either need to bolster your confidence a bit, or aim in a different direction.  I find it hard to believe that one "deranged" individual could "ruin" the career aspirations of someone such as you, a "Innocent, truthful applicant."

Batman