Hi, I'm new here.

Can anyone give me a definitive answer as to whether lie-detectors are beatable or not? Perhaps I would have to 
pay for a test and try it as an experiment (I don't know what it costs).

I REALLY NEED TO KNOW!  ???



I read lots of claims by people that all you have to do is get a good night's sleep and relax, but then there are assertations by people who are, or who have been, polygraph operators who say "Forget it. Countermeasures are just a myth perpetuated by the internet".

Living in the U.K, it's highly unlikely I will ever have to take a polygraph test, but the idea frightens me. Can you really beat the machine? They put cables around your chest to monitor chest movement, pads at your feet so you can't clench your toes, and a pressure pad on your seat so you can't even clench your butt!! 

Every teeny tiny little twitch, change in electrical resistance, change in sweat levels, is monitored.. I can imagine trying to beat the machine and being totally defeated.

Are all these claims of "how to beat the lie detector" just empty boasts? Are the people who post messages about 
how they beat the test or how they were shocked at being 
wrongly found guilty just talking crap? I just don't know.

The polygraph operators reply in a manner that reminds me of scientists responding for the 1000th time to UFO nuts who are convinced that Roswell really happened. They reply as if it's an absurd belief and they've grown tired of trying to convince idiots of scientific fact.

I find it hard to not believe the polygraph operators.

I'm sure it's been said a hundred times in this forum, but the argument "if you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear" angers me.

It's a terribly glib response to an issue that deeply affects 
our rights of personal privacy; our right to think and feel and do things that may do no one any harm, but may cost us our repututations, our dignity, our chance for a decent job. For example, lots of people take illegal drugs  recreationally - perhaps just once in a couple of weeks or on special occasions; no one gets hurt, it doesn't melt their brains, no one needs to know. But... But if you are "requested" to take a polygraph for your employer it could see you blacklisted for life. and as for having to take a lie detector test to get a job.. what are your chances? And who is to say that the information won't be passed on?

It disturbs me that we seem to be living in a world that is increasingly controlled by puritans who see to it that only "good" people have nothing to fear.

So what am I really like?..

Do I take drugs? No, nothing illegal anyway - amyl once in a while (legal in the UK). 

Would I ever do hard drugs? Probably not. I will very likely try magic mushrooms sometime, maybe I'll even try cocaine one day, but the whole "drugs scene" isn't really for me.

Am I a child molestor? Not in a million years, but I don't feel guilty about watching 16 year old girls in short skirts.

Am I a pervert? Depends what you think about BDSM.

Am I a thief? Nope. I've never stolen anything except junk and a couple of nuts and bolts from work.

A "cheat"? I would never cheat on a girl, but then I also believe in polyamoristic relationships (swinging) - something I would not conceal.

Why am I telling you this? Because any of the above confessions would be enough to see me castigated by 
the people who employ the use of lie detectors! Be they 
employers or chat show hosts (I do so hate those smug 
egotists.. "the polygraph says you lied Todd! You're a LIAR Todd! Bob, you FAILED the polygraph, we KNOW you cheated on your wife, Bob"... oh how I hate them).


Polygraph operators... I think if I ever had to take a test and all my secrets were revealed, one of us would walk out and the other would be taken out feet first.

I sincerely hope lie detectors don't work.

Hi Jupiter  
Yeah.. I rather like my name too!

as to whether lie detectors are just a scam...
I'm just not convinced; I am aware that there is a great deal of opposition from credible peer groups, but all the concerns seem to be about the objectivity of the polygraph operator rather than the machine itself.

I read an example somewhere of a polygraph operator challenging subjects to take one of a selection of dollar bills without him looking - $1,$10,$20,$100 - he then asks if the subject has taken the $1, then the $10, then the $20, then the $100 and tells the subject which one it is he or she took, proving to the subject that their body [does betray them to the testing apparatus.

Is this polygraph operator simply lying? Using a magic trick?
Lying about their success record? 

Have you ever taken a lie detector test Jupiter?

I've looked at the statements from people who claim to have taken polygraph tests (is that the correct term or are there multiple devices used?) and many of them - obviously - have had bad experiences. But are they being honest? 
they may say that they have nothingto gain by lying about their experiences, but it's human nature to present our best side and put on a front even in the relative anonymity of this forum.

I want to see the people who run this website take lie detector tests and try to beat them!

Prove that they don't work!
The questions do not need to be personal - the dollar bill test is a good example.

And why is there so much talk of countermeasures anyway? if it is true that lie detectors don't detect anything, then why would you need to use ANY measures to try and beat the machine? ???

If it turns out that polygraph machines don't work, then I would rest much easier over the issue of the next generation of lie/emotion detectors: If polygraphs don't work then most likely, neither will they.

I'll read up on what I can, but once upon a time, I used to be very nearly convinced by UFO books - read stuff like "Above Top Secret" by Timothy Good or watch the "Moon - Mars connection" video by Richard Hoagland. They are VERY convincing speakers, they write in a professional style.. and they are LIARS!

So, everything I read on this site, I read with a touch of skepticism. It would make me very happy to see lie detectors debunked, but what if this is just another phoney site? Do I know for sure that Dr. Richardson is a real doctor? Maybe he's just using a phoney "doctor of doctorology" type certificate (I've looked up his name on the net and I haven't found any reference to him being a fake.. but I don't know for certain).

Quote:


And at the same time, take a big risk of being caught by the polygrapher and being disqualified. The simple fact that you are trying to amplify the chart tracings on certain questions, while feeling that the OTHER questions are the truly significant ones, will likely cause you to show responses to BOTH, resulting at best in an inconclusive exam, and at worst either failing the exam or being caught by the polygrapher and disqualified.

As a polygrapher I have caught examinees using countermeasures on many occasions. Can I guarantee that I catch ALL examinees who use countermeasures? No. But I do believe that those innocent examinees who come up inconclusive or who fail the exam due to messing around rather than following instructions would almost certainly have passed the exam if they had taken it "straight up."

If you've got nothing to hide, why mess around? The anti-polygraph people on this forum will tell you that it will help ensure that you won't be a "false positive," but I say it may very well make you an inconclusive, a failure, or a disqualification.

LieBabyCryBaby wrote on Feb 4^th, 2007 at 3:13am:



LBCB,

As much of your advice contains a certain amount of truth. Most of it, contains the first rule of counter-countermeasures. Tell eveyone that they will be caught and fail, lose your chance, generally the world will end. From my experiece, I know this not to be the case.
The worst case scenario, which happens from having highly detailed and complete polygraph procedure knowlege is inconclusive.  This is based on the facts that the polygrapher needs 3 pillars to be inplace during a polygraph session in order to work. Feel free to argue if you can.

1. Examinee must have fear and anxiety. Without this in place the "fight or flight" response is gone. Knowlege is the key here, some may still exist, but the polygraphers advantage is highly reduced or eliminated.

2. Examinee must believe that deception will be detected. You achieve this, by all the misinformation and scenario presentation during the pretest. This added stimulus is ineffective to those of us who know what you are doing. Again we may have to cooperate, we just don't have to believe or take what is said as anything other than a great show.

3. Examinee must have consequences for failure.  This is the important reason why inconclusive is the result. Pass and inconclusive is not a failure. And the more inconclusives that happen the more familiar the subject gets with the box. Which you can't let happen, as what ever fear or anxiety may be left is shredded and gone. And if you look at this logically, is any job really worth this garbage. Life still goes on, with or without the polygraph. THe subject just has to have the courage to accept he/she may not get the job.

These 3 rules remove the polygraph from the equation. Pushing any decision back where it belongs, based on real facts from a background investigation.  Not a human beings questionable opinion.  And for me, multiple inconclusives effectively defeats the polygraph. 

Regards ....

Triple X,

I have responded to HOW a test subject is usually caught using countermeasures in a polygraph exam in other posts. However, let me repeat it for you.

EosJ's argument about the "worst case scenario" of countermeasures being the inconclusive test result MIGHT be valid if a test subject worked and worked and worked on countermeasures technique until he/she could produce convincing charts that wouldn't betray him/her to an experienced polygrapher trained in counter-countermeasures. However, subjects can not produce those convincing charts because they fail to take into account the factors of normal habituation and variability of control question response. To explain it simply, their charts are not normal. I've seen it over and over again. Sometimes subjects are caught using the old anal squeeze or other visible techniques, but generally it has been the charts that betray them.

In most cases, when confronted, the subject admits the use of countermeasures. In some cases, the subject sits there with a sheepish look on his/her face, but won't admit anything.  Either way, though, it is the polygrapher's call. I know normal charts when I see them, and I know abnormal charts. Could I be "beaten" by a great chart manipulator? Perhaps so, and perhaps I have been. But I caution those who would try to use countermeasures to beat the test that it is very likely that you will be caught. So if we figure the polygraph is already "better than chance" at detecting deception, do you want to further decrease your chances on the exam conducted by a polygrapher who knows what to look for?

Lord_Darkclaw wrote on Feb 6^th, 2007 at 1:49pm:


Individual cases, while sometimes worthy of demonstrating the foolishness of the polygraph, are not evidence rather they are merely anecdote...

The CQT polygraph test (and its variants) has the theoretical assumption that subjects will manifest different physiological changes (breathing, heart rate, blood pressure, sweating) when they lie. This is based on the fact that there is some correlation between changes in physiology and guilt...

However, this is not a one-to-one correlation and this is where CQT polygraph and its variants commit their logical error: just because lying people are nervous does not mean that nervous people are lying...

So the real problem with the CQT polygraph is that it cannot distinguish between the innocent but nervous and the guilty but nervous. As much as polygraphers, CVSA'ers and other mind-readers would have us believe, nature did not equip us with a "Pinocchio's nose"...

If you read the National Academy of Sciences report (its link is somewhere on this site), you will find all of the summary of proof that you need to know that the CQT polygraph and its variants have no scientific basis. In addition, you will find that the NAS also concluded that polygraphs are dangerous in screening applications (e.g., employment and post-conviction) and are biased against the innocent... 

The NAS also concluded that if it is to be used, the CQT polygraph and its variants should only be used in specific criminal incidents because this is the only arena where its accuracy is above chance but well below perfection. This is because the CQT polygraph becomes more like its scientific cousin, the Guilty Knowledge Test (GKT) or as its now known in the psychology literature - Event Related Potential (ERP)...

But in my opinion, the only thing the CQT polygraph and its variants are really useful for is eliciting confessions from the gullible...

Finally, you ask for proof but it seems that you're just echoing the pro-polygraph people on this site that harp about experience. If you really want proof, start with the NAS study then read Lykken's A Tremor in the Blood, these will give you a summary of the CQT polygraph and its dangers. You'll need no other "proof", unless of course you're a polygrapher just masquerading to spread disinformation...

Lord_Darkclaw,

You write in part:
Quote:


Your statement is analogous to saying that aside from the planes flying into tall buildings and the 3000 people who died, 9/11 wasn't such a bad day.  You have missed the forest for the trees.  No one questions that we can instrumentally detect electrodermal responses et. al., but whether polygraph methods and procedures that utilize such measures allow for the discrimination between truth and falsehood.  It is the validity of the methodology and not the instrumentation ("the polygraph machine" as you say) which is in question and which has some import.  I suggest you renew your recent reading endeavors with that in mind...