We'll just call you Spock from now on.

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.

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.

Marty wrote on Jun 25^th, 2003 at 1:02am:

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.

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.

Saidme,

You write:

Quote:


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.

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!