Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9  ReplyAdd Poll Send TopicPrint
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) "how to sting the polygraph" (Read 64908 times)
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box beech trees
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 593
Joined: Jun 22nd, 2001
Gender: Male
Re: "how to sting the polygraph"
Reply #105 - Jun 22nd, 2003 at 10:08pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Saidme wrote on Jun 11th, 2003 at 7:38pm:
I have a question.  If you have nothing to hide and you intend to use countermeasures, how do you know your countermeasures are what got you over the hump as opposed to your truthful responses to the relevant questions?


Sorry, I'm only now seeing this post.

Saidme, the bottom line is that I consciously controlled my breathing, bp, and heart rate the entire time I was hooked up, including during the ridiculous stim test, and the polygrapher not only did not detect it, he did not detect my artificially augmented responses to the Control Questions. Your question is moot.
  

"It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from its government." ~ Thomas Paine
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Saidme
Especially Senior User
*****
Offline



Posts: 311
Joined: Jun 11th, 2003
Re: "how to sting the polygraph"
Reply #106 - Jun 23rd, 2003 at 12:51am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
We'll just call you Spock from now on. Wink
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Poly-Killer
Senior User
***
Offline


"Knock, Knock!"

Posts: 78
Location: Everywhere
Joined: Apr 29th, 2003
Gender: Male
Re: "how to sting the polygraph"
Reply #107 - Jun 24th, 2003 at 12:14am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Saidme wrote on Jun 23rd, 2003 at 12:51am:
We'll just call you Spock from now on. Wink



Ahhhhh...Saidme must be a "trekkie"...that explains alot. But which of the characters would be his equivalent? Perhaps a klingon

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



Posts: 107
Joined: Jul 31st, 2002
Re: "how to sting the polygraph"
Reply #108 - Jun 24th, 2003 at 11:25pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Followers of CM lore:
George said on the 13th that:

"So then, the only countermeasures you have "detected" are those by subjects who were dumb enough to admit it... "

I love this kind of logic because its so simple and hard to argue....something like: If a subject does not admit it, you cant be 100% sure you are not seeing the real thing, therefore how can you really know?  When a applicant attempts countermeasures, and 2 have with my agency in the past 6 tests, are confronted with this accusation does'nt this mean detection has taken place?  Since a very small percentage of applicants would be questioned in this way, the polygrapher is reacting to specific clues as contained in the charts.  George, you seem to think that any CM detection is random luck, blind chance or the result of a botched attempt by a half witted numbskull that could not follow directions.  Not everyone with jogging shoes does a 4 minute mile, so you will have to accept that your readers will follow advice with varying levels of skill.
Our last two attempts were college educated, articulate and had passed thier backgrounds.  They also admitted to numerous omissions once they confessed to attempting to manipulating the test.  Somebody called Onesimus asked how many CM users have been caught in a way that would pass scientific muster.  I think I spoke of the GKT test administered previously, that showed conclusively that not only had the applicant used information that only someone who had logged on to this site would know, but such applicants had much to hide beyond the stated fear of a false positive.

The fact that Drew, George and the master of sophisticated CM's did not respond is because they cant.
You all know the statistical impossibility of failing a CIT using information that you have made available here.  We will continue to use it, your readers will keep failing, and you cannot stop it.  We will also write them out of future processes permanantly.

And enough about this silly CM challenge.  I have told you that polygraphers are answering the "challenge" daily and there is no need for spectacle.  Does a homicide investigator submit to some kind of mock crime scene creation, and under the watchful eye of an academic (who conducted a few tests Im told rather poorly) go about his investigation hoping to be graded and recieve affirmation from a group who wants only failure? I think polygraphers are less interested in your attention grabbing attempt than getting to the difficult issue of factfinding.
Drew thinks that doing poorly on this challenge would mean the end of CQ polygraph.  Thats alot like saying that the next time a doctor leaves a sponge in a patient medicine will end as we know it.  Even if some polygrapher was bored enough to accept entry into your circus, then did poorly, it would prove that that polygrapher did poorly that day...thats it.
I liked Drew's baiting comment about the reasons including cowardice that an examiner would not participate. I've got a few more:
They recognize a media circus
They have lives, cases, and responsibilities
Contempt for the premise in light of thier experiences
Mild disinterest

You get the idea, keep it running if it amuses you.  Staple it to a pole next to your campus posters.
And finally Anonymous and Skeptic, you both had the same idea that GKT was not the problem etc. etc. Your take home message is that the subject had already failed (a CQ format), used CM's and the CIT was to prove the CM use beyond doubt, not serve as a substitute.  This has worked very well.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box wombat
User
**
Offline



Posts: 48
Joined: Mar 20th, 2003
Re: "how to sting the polygraph"
Reply #109 - Jun 25th, 2003 at 12:39am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
what does CIT stand for?
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box guest from canada
Guest


Re: "how to sting the polygraph"
Reply #110 - Jun 25th, 2003 at 12:41am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
To thebreeze:

I read your two posts and have to wonder the following?  If this sites, and the "sting the poly" sites, mention or disclosing of CM's to beat the poly is actually helping you to detect and uncover applicants using them why would you open your mouth and state so??? 

Would it not be intelligent to keep quiet and possibly unanomously support these sites and their beliefs that countermeasures are undetectable?  According to your posts, the use of CM's has resulted in their infalliable detection by you and subsoquent admissions which is really all you can take to the bank anyways.

By coming on this forum and stating to all that George, et al are actually helping you do your job seems to raise red flags in my eyes.  Your feeble attempts to "scare" the readers here in to continuing to use CM's, because you think you can detect them, reeks of a grade three attempt at reverse psycology.

If my post rings true, why are you not supplying applicants with copies of Georges book with every application you hand out?  It would only seem to reason that doing so would bolster your chances of weeding out the deceptive applicants.  At the very least it might add to the scare tactics you require to stay in a job.  If you provide applicants with the book and then corner them before your test and "convince" them you can detect CM's you should better your stats. I think you are fishing here.  We all know the poly only really works on the uninformed to gain disqualifying admissions.  Once the word is out (it is coming slowly but surely) that your job and existence are nothing but snake oil sales you will need books like Georges to help regain the mystique the poly once had.  You will have to claim that you can indeed detect CM's just like you now claim that you can detect deception and hope that the majority of the appliacnts are indeed using them.  "Hmmm..  the charts are showing that you employed countermeasures... I'm sorry you failed unless you tell me the truth now before this gets blown out of proportion" and hope you get your admissions that way.

On a separate note.  Do you truley believe that altered human physiological responses when detected simultaneously with the asking of certain questions is proof of deception?  What is your background?  It can't be in science, human physiology, or psycology.  My guess is business with a major in sales.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Marty
Especially Senior User
*****
Offline



Posts: 499
Joined: Sep 27th, 2002
Re: "how to sting the polygraph"
Reply #111 - Jun 25th, 2003 at 1:02am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Breeze,

The_Breeze wrote on Jun 24th, 2003 at 11:25pm:
.... Your take home message is that the subject had already failed (a CQ format), used CM's and the CIT was to prove the CM use beyond doubt, not serve as a substitute.  This has worked very well.


Ah, yes.  The CIT (aka GKT and CKT). If this site accomplishes anything, getting the polygraph community more familar with these potentially  more reliable techniques would rank as an accomplishment. I am confused about one thing though. You are equating knowledge of polygraph technique and the secret of the control questions, the concealing of which the CIT can be applied, to an intended deception on the CQT itself. Do you intend that interpretation or am I missing something?  I would expect most people with a modicum of curiousity and an ISP to investigate (and be astonished at) the inner workings of the polygraph. Is knowledge a disqualifier? Are the affected agencies really willing to cull applicants showing even this minimal initiative?  Guess it depends on the job.

-Marty
  

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



Posts: 551
Joined: Oct 10th, 2002
Re: "how to sting the polygraph"
Reply #112 - Jun 25th, 2003 at 2:44am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Marty wrote on Jun 25th, 2003 at 1:02am:
I would expect most people with a modicum of curiousity and an ISP to investigate (and be astonished at) the inner workings of the polygraph. Is knowledge a disqualifier? Are the affected agencies really willing to cull applicants showing even this minimal initiative?  Guess it depends on the job.

-Marty

Dear Marty,

What a thought!  The government needs the best and brightest for the future survival of our country yet we expect those very competitive applicants to stick their heads in the sand and completely ignore the information which is easily obtained on the internet or library.  The government needs people who are capable of "thinking outside the box" for new and fresh innovations to existing problems.  The "cream of the crop", multiple degree candidates with many years of private sector experience (and survival techniques) are expected to leave all the traits which have helped them get to where they are and "just trust us" as they apply to the government.  I wonder if we in the civil service are just trying to deceive ourselves in this matter.

I have always advocated honesty of all applicants but the agencies involved must also display integrity as well.

Regards.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box George W. Maschke
Global Moderator
*****
Offline


Make-believe science yields
make-believe security.

Posts: 6060
Location: The Hague, The Netherlands
Joined: Sep 29th, 2000
Re: "how to sting the polygraph"
Reply #113 - Jun 25th, 2003 at 8:20am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Breeze,

You write:

Quote:
When a applicant attempts countermeasures, and 2 have with my agency in the past 6 tests, are confronted with this accusation does'nt this mean detection has taken place?


No, it doesn't, because there is no known valid methodology for countermeasure detection. All that has happened in your example is that you have made an unscientific inference (a guess) that the subject has attempted countermeasures. This is so even if the polygraph operator "is reacting to specific [perceived] clues as contained in the charts."

Similarly, when a person "fails" a CQT polygraph examination, deception has not been "detected" because CQT polygraphy has no scientific basis. Unless confirmed by a corroborated confession, the polygrapher's conclusion (based on polygraph test data analysis) that a subject was deceptive is merely a guess.

Quote:
I think I spoke of the GKT test administered previously, that showed conclusively that not only had the applicant used information that only someone who had logged on to this site would know, but such applicants had much to hide beyond the stated fear of a false positive.


Although a subject might make admissions to such, a GKT itself cannot "show conclusively" that a test subject actually used information that only someone who visited AntiPolygraph.org would know. It can only show that a person is likely to have knowledge of such information.

Note that in constructing a GKT, it is important that the person stating the choices for each question be ignorant as to which ones are the "correct" ones. Otherwise, it is possible that the questioner's demeanor or tone of voice might provide unintended clues as to which items are the "correct" ones, resulting in reactions to them from those who in fact have no knowledge of them. David Lykken explains this in The Body on the Stairs: A Pedagogical Detective Story (Chapter 21 of the 1st edition of A Tremor in the Blood: Uses and Abuses of the Lie Detector).

For the GKT you have suggested, it would not be proper for you, or anyone else who is familiar with AntiPolygraph.org, to speak the items to be used in the test. Instead, you might make a tape recording as someone who is unfamiliar with AntiPolygraph.org -- and with polygraph matters in general -- reads the items in a monotone at appropriate intervals, and  then "test the test" by administering it to people known to have visited AntiPolygraph.org and on people unlikely to have ever done so.

Did you follow these procedures before you started administering your "countermeasures GKT?"

By the way, is not your resorting to a GKT a tacit admission that you know you don't actually have any reliable methodology of countermeasure detection?

Is mere knowledge of polygraph procedure, or having visited AntiPolygraph.org, to be made a ground for disqualifying an applicant for life? If not, then how is your agency going to deal with applicants who adopt the "complete honesty" approach and admit up front that they know "the lie behind the lie detector?"
  

George W. Maschke
Tel/SMS: 1-202-810-2105 (Please use Signal Private Messenger or WhatsApp to text or call.)
E-mail/iMessage/FaceTime: antipolygraph.org@protonmail.com
Wire: @ap_org
Threema: A4PYDD5S
Personal Statement: "Too Hot of a Potato"
Back to top
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box wombat
User
**
Offline



Posts: 48
Joined: Mar 20th, 2003
Re: "how to sting the polygraph"
Reply #114 - Jun 25th, 2003 at 11:33am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Lucky me, i dont live in the USA. there is ZERO awareness here to the polygraph issue. once in a blue moon you hear about its validity. and there are no sites on the net from my country regarding the issue.
so hopefully when i get to my test i wont even get a lecture about CM's.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Saidme
Especially Senior User
*****
Offline



Posts: 311
Joined: Jun 11th, 2003
Re: "how to sting the polygraph"
Reply #115 - Jun 27th, 2003 at 8:16pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
To our Candadian Guest

You mention:  "I read your two posts and have to wonder the following?  If this sites, and the "sting the poly" sites, mention or disclosing of CM's to beat the poly is actually helping you to detect and uncover applicants using them why would you open your mouth and state so." 

Everyone we polygraph is not guilty of a crime.  Those  who choose to come on to these sites and make a conscious descision to "help themselves" place themselves in jeopardy.  For those conducting pre-employment exams, if they see CM's they'll most likely address the issue.  If discovered; bye bye job.  At the very least the examiner will be suspicious causing the examinee undue hardship (further testing and interviews).  For the criminal specific examinee whose not involved in the matter at hand, they now jeopardize placing themselves in the cross-hairs as well as dragging out a criminal investigation that might be solved in a shorter period of time. 

Of course, most people undergoing a criminal specific issue polygraph test who visit this site have reasons to visit this site. Wink
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Anonymous
Guest


Re: "how to sting the polygraph"
Reply #116 - Jun 27th, 2003 at 8:25pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Saidme,

You write:

Quote:
...Of course, most people undergoing a criminal specific issue polygraph test who visit this site have reasons to visit this site....


Actually all people who visit this site have reason to do so....those who have committed crimes, those who have not, and those who know both groups....the American and international public needs to know what a fraud polygraphy is as a diagnostic instrument and how it likely affects all these groups and society in general.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box The_Breeze
Very Senior User
****
Offline



Posts: 107
Joined: Jul 31st, 2002
Re: "how to sting the polygraph"
Reply #117 - Jul 3rd, 2003 at 5:43pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
North of the border friend and others:
How is that gun confiscation going? I hear its a bit over budget and suffers from non compliance-fix it so I can come up and slay a moose.

Why write here? thats actually your best point.  Its hard to explain.  Maybe a strange fascination with so much wasted talent giving such jaded advice, maybe to make an applicant think twice before doing something he will not do very well and wreck a career. I dunno.
Your premise is wrong of course but I understand you.  My livlihood in no way depends on polygraph, should they be banned tomorrow, Im still working. I would rather have one of our applicants stand on thier merits rather than attempting some sort of artificial augmentation as they hide part of their background.  We ask if an applicant has recieved advice or conducted research, not because its disqualifying, (its not) but because the advice may be very badly flawed.  It also shows an applicant that the examiner is "current" and understands the issue.  Personally, I would like to see an applicant do all the research he has time for in order to make an informed choice.  It would not be confined to polygraph, help is there for those wishing to confuse urinalysis and psychological testing as well.  Call it feeble if you want to, but I can promise you that the applicant who follows advice as presented here, fails, uses CM's, is called on it, and finally confesses feels the process was anything but.
You may not want to believe this, but we want our applicants to pass.  So I post on occasion to provide some type of balance, you do not have to believe anything I say.
Marty, I hope that answers your question about research.  You see, logging on to a site and becoming informed cannot impact an applicant.  Using techniques to attempt to mask an omission will.
And finally George.  LE work is filled with unscientific methods, as you know-you just focus on one of the tools that has offended you. To continue to throw up "lack of scientific method" at the end of all your arguements is weak.  Because something cannot be proved to your satisfaction in a lab does not mean it is without merit!
For something like polygraph that lacks a scientific basis it sure does get to the right answer an overwhelming percentage of times (in my experience)  You do not have to accept this, but then again, you have never seen the tool used, and your experience base is primarily from the testimony of others.  Our applicants almost without fail will admit disqualifying information after failing an exam, and it will be specific to the area in which they failed.  However this usually takes about 20 minutes of wading through denials.  Sorry, ive just seen it too much to believe its random chance.
And please explain to me how a follow up exam, done for the purpose of verifying use of CM is an admission that detection is unreliable?  Its simply additional evidence.  Follow up exams are standard practice as things come into focus.  The fact that very few people would be subjected to such a test I have already explained in a previous post.  And as I explained to marty, knowledge is not and never will be a problem, augmentation is.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box guest from canada
Guest


Re: "how to sting the polygraph"
Reply #118 - Jul 3rd, 2003 at 10:55pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
The breeze,

you make some valid points.  thanks for the reply.  I suppose if I were in your shoes I would be taking the same stance as you regarding the poly.  I just fail to see the science in the poly and have very well been tainted to taking the anti poly stance due to a bad poly experience.

As for the gun registry we up here in Canada have to laugh too.  It is th precusor to gun confiscation.  The liberal thieves with their fearless leader Chretien have managed to spend approximately 1 billion dollars on a registry that was only supposed to cost around 2 million.  It has yet to prove it has decreased gun crime by 0.1%.  A complete and total waster of tax payers dollars.  If Alberta were to vote for separation I would do it in a second.  Next choice would be to join you guys down there!
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Marty
Especially Senior User
*****
Offline



Posts: 499
Joined: Sep 27th, 2002
Re: "how to sting the polygraph"
Reply #119 - Jul 5th, 2003 at 1:21am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Breeze,

The_Breeze wrote on Jul 3rd, 2003 at 5:43pm:
We ask if an applicant has recieved advice or conducted research, not because its disqualifying, (its not) but because the advice may be very badly flawed.

Fair enough but it doesn't address the basic issue. An accurately* informed examinee cannot be easily given a CQT. Perhaps compliance psychological techniques can be sufficiently powerful to create the required dissonance on the control Q's but it is pretty obvious that an accurately informed individual who makes the ethical choice not to use countermeasures will be more likely to render a false positive in a CQT.

Quote:
It also shows an applicant that the examiner is "current" and understands the issue.  Personally, I would like to see an applicant do all the research he has time for in order to make an informed choice.


That is difficult to align with the secrecy of the CQT. Why not just use the DLT with everyone if you desired examinees to be accurately informed?

Quote:
It would not be confined to polygraph, help is there for those wishing to confuse urinalysis and psychological testing as well.


False positives for metabolic byproducts are rare, but then these are more easily quantified. OTOH, drug users that can't abstain long enough to pass a piss test shouldn't be hired for dog catcher. LE should use hair samples taken at time of application and occasionally through the hiring process. A lot more reliable and can't be gotten around by short term abstention.

Quote:
Call it feeble if you want to, but I can promise you that the applicant who follows advice as presented here, fails, uses CM's, is called on it, and finally confesses feels the process was anything but.

There is no advice presented here that I've found that includes the examinee confessing.  That said, I do believe CM's can be done poorly. One of the thing's I've been ruminating over is CM detection methodologies. I am of the belief that some types of CM's can be detected - in particular, when an examinee claims to not know about CQT's and CM's, and then uses them they become susceptible to the specific incident polygraph techniques (such as the GKT), which has more scientific basis than CQT or other screening techniques.

Quote:
You may not want to believe this, but we want]our applicants to pass.

I believe you want examinees who are not deceptive on the R's  to pass. Why would anyone think otherwise?

Quote:
Marty, I hope that answers your question about research.  You see, logging on to a site and becoming informed cannot impact an applicant.

If that were only the case. If knowledgeable candidates were not problematic then polygraphers wouldn't be misleading examinees on the controls to start with. The theory is (as you well know) that selection and presentation of well chosen controls is crucial to minimizing false positives.

-Marty
  

Leaf my Philodenrons alone.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9 
ReplyAdd Poll Send TopicPrint
"how to sting the polygraph"

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