Polyreject:

Don't you think you made a mistake by choosing to employ more than one type of breathing CM? Why didn't you just stick with one? I'm under the impression that the examiner is looking for a consistent reaction to the controls---what is the truthful examinee's response to the controls when lying or stressed? Didn't you say you changed your breathing between the different charts?

P.S. Your friend is right--being truthful during an FBI polygraph is not enough.    

i tried honesty 4 times and failed all 4, so F*#k you.
Sorry, do i seem a bit angry?

All the complete honesty approach got me during a polygraph was a tense, unpleasant interrogation followed by a  "not within acceptable parameters" letter.

Anxietyguy

I do not doubt that I may have over used the anal CM (tightened too much).  I am going to request my chart via FOIA.  If George permits I am ok with posting the chart on the website so everyone can see.  Would it be possible that the chart produced indicated such a high degree of truthfulness due to the over tightening of the anal CM that it was obvious CMs were being used?   

And for those who are wondering, how much tension should one use on the anal CM?   I don't believe I ever tightened even half as much as I could have

George:

Does TLBTLD mention anything about the possibility of being caught using CMs by over tightening the anal muscle?  I don't remember anything about that when I read it, but I think I read the previous edition.

Polyreject,

It is a mistake to conclude that because your polygrapher told you he thought you were trying to manipulate the results, and you had in fact employed polygraph countermeasures, that your polygrapher had necessarily "detected" your countermeasures. Recall that, as you mentioned above, your polygrapher also apparently thought you had been moving your feet, when in fact you hadn't. Accusations of countermeasure use are not uncommon, and numerous individuals who did not even know what countermeasures are have been wrongly accused of such (myself included).

To date, no polygrapher has demonstrated any ability to detect the kinds of countermeasures outlined in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector. There are no articles or book chapters in the polygraph literature that explain how to detect such countermeasures, and the available peer-reviewed research on countermeasures suggests that even experienced polygraphers cannot detect them at better-than-chance levels of accuracy. Under the circumstances, it is perhaps not surprising that Dr. Drew C. Richardson's polygraph countermeasure challenge has gone more than three years now without a single taker. For further information, see pp. 156-162 of the 4th edition of TLBTLD (beginning with the subchapter "Can't Polygraphers Detect Countermeasures").

While it is not clear precisely what criteria polygraphers may be using to make accusations of attempted countermeasure use, I understand that there is a maxim amongst polygraphers that "if a reaction looks too good to be true, it probably is." It is possible that if reactions to "control" questions appear to the polygrapher to be "too big" that countermeasure use may be inferred. But again, documentation is wanting. For relevant discussion, see the message thread, Lies in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector.

As for why some suspected that you might be a polygrapher, there is a precedent of polygraphers forging posts on this message board. Examples include:

thevet2/checking (who also posted in this thread as "darkcobra2005")

AnalSphincter/LoopyLuWho

usarmyofficer2004

PolySucks/Cancerman

Policeman

nopoly/POLYSCORE

Zena/Boy_Wonder

George and others:

My intuition tells me that this polygrapher and maybe others suspect CM use when there is a significant reaction to control questions.  But let me ask you all this:

What is the reaction difference between a normal lie on a control, and a control manipulated by a CM?  (Let’s say the anal CM)

If there is a substantial difference between the two, then I can't imagine the polygrapher having too difficult of the time distinguishing between them.  On this point, if I were a polygrapher, which I’m not (and I know some of you think that I am) why would I answer Dr. Richardson’s challenge and give away my secret???

I have a hard time accepting the notion that polygraphers randomly accuse people of using CMs. (I'm sure it has happened, but it does not make sense for this practice to be the norm)

If random CM accusations are given by polygraphers then I would imagine they would be intended to elicit a confession of CM use.  (This idea would be especially true, if examiners really cannot detect CMs, which I'm not so sure about). 

However, if no such confession is rendered then it seems counter-intuitive for the sake of the agency's hiring practice to label the person as using CMs nonetheless and dismiss their application.

Having worked for the fed gov't in the past, I know that it is far from perfect.  But to suggest that CM accusations are randomly made, when the polygrapher truly cannot detect CM use, and applicants are subsequently disqualified even without making a confession, then that is essentially saying that the agencies adhere to a level of conspiratorial behavior that is so far-fetched it is nearly unbelievable.