I took my Poly this morning and it went exactly as the book said it would. He told me this Flight/Fight story of a bank robbery and how I would have the Flight or Fight feeling. They truly are deceivers. I puckered during the control Q's and thought of flowing water and windy trees during revelant Q's. I saw straight thru the examiners bull. He really tried hard to convince me that he could tell if I was going to lie....Thanks to this site I passed! Beware and be informed if you are going to take the test soon!! The whole process was about 2 hrs. I admitted to "trying" weed during my Teens (70's)  and to taking pens from the office. He also asked if I had looked up any info on the poly procedure...NOPE!!! He asked if I was familiar with the poly...YEP, TELL THE TRUTH AND ALL SHOULD GO WELL ( I replied)..HA HA.  I played HIS game and won! Thanks a million for keeping us informed!!

Ray wrote on Oct 14^th, 2004 at 2:10am:



NOPE, Sorry Ray. Wrong answer !! If you gonna tell it to me, tell it right and know what you are saying is actual fact.  If you MUST know, Prior to finding this site...I admitted MJ use on the initial application actually fearing the polygraph would show this, so there goes your "undisclosed theory" . I never said (or implied) that on a post and I would appreciate you reading my posts more carefully and not making up things.  After I found this site it helped me to try to distingush between control Q's and Rev Q's However, your opinion actually means nothing to me but is welcomed...I passed the polygraph using advise from this site and the book..That was MY goal.  I'm moving forward in this process with or without your blessings.  Thanks to the help I've received here, it was indeed the examiners final "score" that passed me on the polygraph Ray, NOT YOURS! .  Hope you had a nice day Ray!

Quote:


This was taken from your post the day before your polygraph.  It appeared to me that you were unsure as to whether or not to admit to your past drug usage.  My assumptions were made based on this information and I think they were very reasonable.   

That being said, if you had no additional derogatory information in your past, how did you "beat" the polygraph?  Perhaps you have some serious issues  that you're hiding?

Ray wrote on Oct 14^th, 2004 at 6:49pm:


What on earth are you talking about Ray...When did I ever say "I BEAT the Poly"? For God sake man READ MY WORDS and stop trying to read more than what I write. Indeed it is quite apparent that your narrowly thought out perceptions seem limited to your own narrow interpertations.  Perhaps I'm getting a little too personal Ray , but this may be due to some underlying issues that are deep within you. Oh, and as far as your weak efforts to defend your earlier comments, it seems that your most recent comment speaks volumes into how you perceive , process and "assume" information that is placed before you. You know what happens when you "assume" I'm sure.   As always and until your next reply,  Have a nice day Ray! 

"I played HIS game (polygraph) and won. "  = I Beat the polygraph.   

If you play a game (as you described it) and win, doesn't that mean you beat your opponent?  Explain to me how I twisted your words.   

Let me get back to my original point....The polygraph clearly worked in your case.  In the application process, you admitted to drug use due to fear of detection on the polygraph.  This is information that would probably not be detected in a background investigation. 

My question to you is were you attempting to hide any serious issues on your polygraph?  I'm not implying that you were....I'm just curious for the sake of our discussion.

Anxietyguy,

Feel free to jump in with your juvenile insults.  You're amusing me.

Quote:


You are very much so missing the point Ray! IT'S NOT ABOUT HIDING AN ISSUE OR LYING.  No, I had no issue to hide. You see,  I grew to realize that a person that comes in and tells the truth is just as likely to fail a poly as one that lies.  The only admission I gave was due to my earlier blinded beliefs and ole folk tales of the great lie about the Poly...It can no more tell if a person is lying than a shoe can. Its the examinee's perception that gives it that power Ray, It can only monitor changes, not read minds. these changes do not mean that a person is being deceptive in each and every case. Examiners, however, have the power to assume that its indicative of deception with no actual proven base for this assumption other than just that..."assumption" based on a "reaction". The REAL lie here Ray is what the examiner is attempting to instill into the examinee...FEAR!!  If you recall thats what this site is about! Folk like myself that have nothing to hide but have to face a machine that has some type of lie based legend behind it! This imperfect machine can help destroy a good reputation if one is not aware of the deception. I passed because I played the game and won...meaning (in my own words)...I outsmarted the examiner and his lie based legend and controlled the process while being honest. It has nothing to do with "beating" it! Thats street slang for a "con" game and to quote a former president, "I'm not a crook". It's not about lying Ray, Its about the imperfection of a machine that is being used despite it's proven shortcomings and the outright deception of its operators. Try not to put words in my mouth or tell me what I meant to write....I am the author of my own posts Ray! I stand by what I say and dare you or anyone else to explain me for me! I'm sure you will reply and I welcome it  but please refrain from your constant urges to explain or "assume" what I meant. It only further proves my point about your personality and I have no time for senseless mind games. Have a good evening Ray!

Quote:

Try again.

Fans? I'm really not concerned about fans. Angry polygraph examiners? Now that’s another story.

Reading posts from people such as you who are angry about the fact that we are exposing the trickery about polygraphy provides me with all of the satisfaction I could ever need from this site.

If countermeasures were as easily detectable as polygraphers claim, we wouldn’t see a steady flow of posts here by polygraphers engaging in ad hominem attacks against George and I, attempting to scare people out of using countermeasures, etc.

Each day, more and more people are visiting this site and learning the trickery behind polygraphy. The day is fast approaching when the ability of polygraphers to intimidate the uninformed into confessing (polygraphy’s only real utility) is gone. 

"the-man,"

Please point out any passage(s) of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector that you honestly believe to be plagiarized, along with the unacknowledged source upon which you believe such to be based. I predict that you will not be able to point out even one...because there aren't any. But go ahead, prove me wrong, if you think you can. Your failure to do so will be a tacit admission on your part that your accusation was a baseless fabrication.

Your suggestion that Gino Scalabrini authored an article arguing that countermeasures do not work is patently absurd, and shows that you haven't done your homework.