I have a poly at the end of week for a police dept. I have had 2 other tests. The first one I was accused of something I had never done and failed. The second I went over the top with the countermeasures. The examiner told me I failed and the test was unscoreable. I have bettered my countermeasures since but my question is: 
Should I try the honesty apporach and tell the examiner the truth and run the risk of him testing me and failing me saying I used countermeasures or should I keep my mouth shut and use countermeasures? 
 
billybob 

P.S. to the mods I posted this also under the law enforcement topic because I'm bind.

George,

Thanks for your thoughts, I think I'll go your route and keep my big mouth shut.

billybob

Yo Billybob,

You say you took a polygraph because you were accused of something you did not do, yet you failed.  OK.  The second one you used countermeasures, got caught, even though that isn't supposed to happen, and you failed.  OK.

You improved your countermeasure use (Worked out on those ass hole muscles?) and now you're going to take a third polygraph, but you ask,

"Should I try the honesty approach and tell the examiner the truth and run the risk of him testing me and failing me saying I used countermeasures or should I keep my mouth shut and use countermeasures?"

Does that mean you have something to lie about?

Hell Billybob, don't waste your time or the examiner's with the "honesty approach".  Why?  First you probably haven't perfected that concept yet, and second, three blown polys and you're out, so do the world a favor and blow this one too.

Pucker up!

Batman  

Glad to see your back posting Batman, we all missed your eloquent diatribes and profound use of vulgarities.   

Did your mother have any children that weren’t bullied as a child?

Quote:


no_sugar_coating:
I respect the fact you feel the polygraph examination is accurate even though I do not agree with this viewpoint.  I have not been personally insulted by any of your posts, which leads me to believe that you are a very professional and thoughtful human being.   

Thus, I would like to put something in perspective for you from a scientific viewpoint.  Have you heard of a presumptive test?  Basically, in fields such as drug chemistry or DNA, the analyst must run a series of tests before before drawing conclusions about a specific substance.  In drug chemistry, this is referred to as the ABC method of classification.   

Step A is the presumptive test which reacts the analyte with a series of chemicals resulting in a color change.  This color change tells the analyst what possible drug class the analyte may belong to, but it does not provide the identity of the drug.  Step B is a much more advanced test like gas chromatography.  An experienced analyst can guess the identity of the drug based upon its retention time on a given instrument at specific instrument conditions.  However, this information alone is insufficient to identify the drug.  Step C is mass spectometry, which provides structural information about the drug through its fragmentation pattern.   

Step C is the most advanced test and by itself could identify the drug.  However, performing Step C alone without performing A and B will result in the analyst being fired.  Consequently, performing Step A without confirmation from B and C will compromise the case as there are many uncontrolled substances, like excedrin, that will test false positive.

To me, the polygraph examination is like Step A, the presumptive test.  I hope this analogy is helpful to you in why I personally have a problem with this test.  Thank you for your consideration.

Batman:
I have found your comments very dismaying and unprofessional.  Your comments are disdainful in regards to people nervous about the examination or have considered countermeasures.  While I respect the fact that you feel the test is accurate, I have to wonder if you display such negativity with the people you are testing.