ok. ive spent the last few weeks reading obsessivly all the info i could find on the net regarding poly screening.
pro poly,anti poly and scientific work.
i am now totaly convinced that if i walk calmly into my poly ,"act" like a nice and cool guy for the examiner and then do CM's when hooked up the the poly that ill be fine.
im totaly convinced that its imposible to detect mental CM's.im also convinced that detecting breathing changes would be very very hard. (i dont think it will be too big a deal to keep a baseline breathing for 30 mins, with changes on the controls)
BUT! from what i have read im not convinced that using just these two CM's will be enough. or will it??
im afraid that for the CM's to be affective id need to use physical ones too. (other than breathing).
NOW, these are the problem ones.
1) anal pucker. it seems to me that there is too much info out on the net that suggests that a)if the examiner is looking for it he has a fair chance of seing you pucker.
b) that the response it put out on the chat is "strange".
id like as many coments on this as possible. (can any one provide me with a single scientific paper that says that anal pucker will produce a response that is "normal" ). 
2) biting ones tounge or cheek. its simply too obvious. especialy if there is a hidden cam in the room.

id like as much feedback on this as possible, i assume that this does not only worry me but many other people about to do the "test".
any publications that support/ refute this would be great.

Wombat,

You write, amongst other things:

Quote:


Why do you believe this to be the case?

Quote:


To what information are you specifically referring?

Quote:


In studies by Charles R. Honts and collaborators, even experienced examiners (who were looking for it) could not detect tongue-biting employed as a countermeasure.

wombat,
Ultimately, the degree of countermeasures used should be determined by the situation at hand. Just how "strongly" do you expect to react to the relevant questions?

It's my personal opinion that physical CM's would have more usefulness in an incident-specific criminal investigation rather than a screening-type poly. The theory is that you would react quite strongly to a question regarding a crime you may have committed last week that can send you to prison, but you would react far less to a question about past drug abuse on a pre-employment poly that at worst would mean you find a job elsewhere. Thus the reactions you want to force on the control questions only need to be as strong as the reactions on the relevant questions.

I wouldn't exactly trust any information on polygraphplace.com regarding CM's, as it is a pro-poly site. Naturally, they will want you to believe that they have all sorts of devices and training to detect countermeasures.

As I said, it's just my opinion. Any who disagree are welcome to post their thoughts (in a civil manner, please).

wombat,
I guess that would be right. I think if you were to desensitize yourself to the issue of past drug usage that you would not react very strongly to the questions about it. So if you force a slightly stronger reaction to the control, seems that it would be very close to the reaction on the relevant. But as I said, I'm being theoretical. Perhaps some of the others on the board can lend further insights to my theory.
As for my poly experience, that story is long and involved, and can be found elsewhere on this board. Briefly, I took one poly scored as "no deception indicated" even though I lied on it, and a second exam that I was never told how it scored. I was told that I no longer had to take them, though. I used no CM's, as I didn't know they existed until I found this site over 6 months after the second one.

Quote:


One cannot be completely certain, but I suspect that this is likely the case, especially when one considers that one can prevent any breathing reactions to the relevant questions from occuring.

Quote:


There are two basic kinds of polygraph attachments that some polygraphers use in an attempt to detect countermeasures. The first is a strain gauge that is typically placed under the front legs of the polygraph chair. Stoelting Co.'s "Portable Activity Sensor" looks like this:



Axciton produces a "motion sensor" that clips onto a leg of the polygraph chair:



And Lafayette markets this pneumatic "Activity Sensor":



No polygrapher has ever demonstrated any ability to detect the kinds of countermeasures described in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector using such "sensors" (or any other methodology).

Nor is there any evidence that the physiological responses associated with an anal pucker are somehow "abnormal" or that polygraphers have any way of distinguishing such responses from those associated with fear or anxiety in the context of a polygraph examination.

As for the website PolygraphPlace.com, you will notice that claims made by polygraphers there typically go unrebutted by polygraph critics. The reason for this is that the operators of that website censor their message board. Polygraph opponents are not allowed to post there. Why do you suppose this is so?

By contrast, this message board is uncensored. Anyone may post their views on polygraph matters, and polygraph supporters are welcome to counter any arguments put forth by polygraph opponents here. But for the most part, all you'll see from polygraph advocates is taunts, personal attacks, and obfuscation (as you have no doubt noticed).

You mention that it is your dream to be a "spook." If your past drug use would disqualify you, you might want to consider other career options. You may pass the polygraph, only to be disqualified when a background investigation is conducted if others know about your drug use.

That said, be aware that it's possible that the polygraph program of your country's intelligence service is modeled after that of the American CIA, where applicants are routinely told that they are "having trouble" after the first polygraph session and are brought back for one or more additional polygraph sessions.

wombat wrote on Jun 20^th, 2003 at 1:11pm:


wombat,

As you and I have previously discussed, the reason they 'look scary' is intentional: They are placebos aimed at intimidating you. They can detect nothing. Strain gauges, or gauges that measure distortions on the legs of the chair, are another matter-- fortunately none of the countermeasures discussed in The Lie Behind The Lie Detector are quantifiable via any 'sensor' currently being used. 

Think about it: If there were in fact any sensor capable of detecting anal pucker, then surely the polygraph industry would not make it visible, so that they might catch any interrogation subject actually brash enough to employ the technique. 

A sphincter contraction is undetectable externally, period.

You give your tormentors exceedingly too much credit, and that fact will be made abundantly clear to you when you sit for your polygraph interrogation.

wombat wrote on Jun 20^th, 2003 at 5:54pm:


That is exactly what I'm saying. In fact that is the sensor that my polygraph interrogator used, and I used sphincter contraction as part of my physical countermeasures.

Quote:


It spikes your BP. And yes, it looks 'natural'.

wombat wrote on Jun 21^st, 2003 at 10:05pm:


Like so much in the polygraph world, the sensors are largely for bluffery.

They would presumably pick up attempts to press one's feet against the floor, etc.  But no, they won't pick up the anal pucker.

In fact, just about the only thing that would is an anal probe.  Haven't seen that proposed yet, but I suppose it's coming.

Skeptic