Page Index Toggle Pages: [1] 2 3 4 Send TopicPrint
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) More Anti-polygraph literature ... (Read 37663 times)
EosJupiter
Especially Senior User
*****
Offline


But of Course ...

Posts: 483
Location: Always Out There ......
Joined: Feb 28th, 2005
More Anti-polygraph literature ...
Aug 3rd, 2006 at 7:48pm
Print Post  
To all Concerned,

Found this last night doing some research. Its not as robust or detailed as our beloved TLBLD, but not a bad tutorial, and it references this website. And again more information is always better.

Links:  This one takes you to the next one ...

http://www.lonnypaul.com/lonny.paul/2006/08/02/wikihow-explains-cheating-a-polyg...

--- Direct
http://www.wikihow.com/Cheat-a-Polygraph-Test-%28-Lie-Detector-%29

Regards .....
  

Theory into Reality !!
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
George W. Maschke
Global Moderator
*****
Offline


Make-believe science yields
make-believe security.

Posts: 5786
Location: The Hague, The Netherlands
Joined: Sep 29th, 2000
Re: More Anti-polygraph literature ...
Reply #1 - Aug 4th, 2006 at 10:02pm
Print Post  
EosJupiter,

The wikiHow article was added to the AntiPolygraph.org News blog yesterday. Since then, that article has been viewed more than 50,000 times.

Smiley
  

George W. Maschke
Tel/SMS: 1-202-810-2105 (Please use Signal Private Messenger or WhatsApp to text or call.)
E-mail/iMessage/FaceTime: maschke@antipolygraph.org
Wire: @ap_org
PGP Public Key: 316A947C
PGP Public Key (offline): 2BF4374B
Personal Statement: "Too Hot of a Potato"
Back to top
IP Logged
 
cesium_133
Senior User
***
Offline


Nulla veritas in se qui
dicunt "Animum tuum lego"

Posts: 91
Location: USA
Joined: Jan 8th, 2006
Gender: Male
Re: More Anti-polygraph literature ...
Reply #2 - Aug 5th, 2006 at 9:17am
Print Post  
Fifty thousand times.  Tres bon  Grin

To anyone who sees this post: keep reading anti-poly, CM literature.  Read about what the box cannot do.  Read what the polyman represents his magic box to be versus what it is.  Read multiple sources, and assimilate the facts into a personal corpus of info on the poly.

Once you have that information down, plus the knowledge of CM's, you have won.  And as Sun-Tzu said, "Every battle is won before it is ever fought."  How true.

Knowledge is power, friends...
  

I think polygraphers escaped among the evils of Pandora's box, which might have been an old analog polygraph... only God can tell whether you're lying or not, and He's got other things on His plate...
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
EosJupiter
Especially Senior User
*****
Offline


But of Course ...

Posts: 483
Location: Always Out There ......
Joined: Feb 28th, 2005
Re: More Anti-polygraph literature ...
Reply #3 - Aug 8th, 2006 at 7:18am
Print Post  
To all Concerned,

This article more or less hits home on all levels.
It is from one of the chief scientists at Sandia National Labs. And just eviserates the polygraph.

Link: http://www.csicop.org/si/2001-07/polygraph.html

------ Article Follows ------

Polygraphs and the National Labs: Dangerous Ruse Undermines National Security
Alan P. Zelicoff



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In ancient Rome, emperors would divine truth by reading the entrails of animals or vanquished foes. The twists and turns of the digestive guts held secrets that only "experts" could see. No self-respecting general would take his legions into battle before seeking the wisdom of the shamans who predicted the battle's outcome from the appearance of the intestines of chickens and men. It was a brutal approach, and not at all effective. In the end, we all know what happened to the Roman Empire.
Today, under the mandate of the Congress and in the name of "national security," the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is using much the same technique with a little box wired to unwary subjects: the polygraph. The polygraph has its own colorful history, not unlike its Roman predecessor. In 1915, a Harvard professor named William Moulton Marston developed what he termed a "lie detector" based on measurements of blood pressure. A few other bells and whistles were added over time, but for all intents and purposes the polygraph has remained unchanged over the past eighty-five years. Marston went on to gain fame not as the inventor of the polygraph, but from the cartoon character he created: Wonder Woman, who snapped a magic lasso that corralled evildoers and forced them to tell the truth.

Perhaps polygraphers would do better with Wonder Woman's lasso than they have been doing with their box. The secret of the polygraph-the polygraphers' own shameless deception-is that their machine is no more capable of assessing truth telling than were the priests of ancient Rome standing knee-deep in chicken parts. Nonetheless, the polygrapher tries to persuade the unwitting subject that their measurements indicate when a lie is being told. The subject, nervously strapped in a chair, is often convinced by the aura surrounding this cheap parlor trick, and is then putty in the hands of the polygrapher, who launches into an intrusive, illegal, and wide-ranging inquisition. The subject is told, from time to time, that the machine is indicating "deception" (it isn't, of course), and he is continuously urged to "clarify" his answers, by providing more and more personal information. At some point (it's completely arbitrary and up to the judgment of the polygrapher), the test is stopped and the polygrapher renders a subjective assessment of "deceptive response." Even J. Edgar Hoover knew this was senseless. He banned the polygraph test from within the ranks of the FBI as a waste of time.

Every first-year medical student knows that the four parameters measured during a polygraph-blood pressure, pulse, sweat production, and breathing rate-are affected by an uncountable myriad of emotions: joy, hate, elation, sadness, anxiety, depression, and so forth. But, there is not one chapter-not one-in any medical text that associates these quantities in any way with an individual's intent to deceive. More important, dozens of studies over the past twenty years conducted in psychology departments and medical schools all over the world have shown that the polygraph cannot distinguish between truth-telling and lying. Despite testimonials from polygraphers, no evidence exists that they can find spies with their mystical box. Indeed, their track record is miserable: Aldrich Ames and the Walker brothers, unquestionably among the most damaging of moles within the intelligence community, all passed their polygraphs-repeatedly-every five years.

The truth is this: The polygraph is a ruse, carefully constructed as a tool of intimidation, and used as an excuse to conduct an illegal inquisition under psychologically and physically unpleasant circumstances. Spies know how to beat it, and no court in the land permits submission of polygraphs, even to exonerate the accused.

Many innocent people have had their lives and careers ruined by thoughtless interrogation initiated during polygraphy. David King, a twenty-year Navy veteran suspected of selling classified information, was held in prison for 500 days and subjected to multiple polygraphs, many lasting as long as nineteen hours. A military judge dismissed all evidence against him. Mark Mullah, a career FBI agent, was the subject of a massive, nighttime surprise search of his home, followed by a review of every financial record, appointment book, personal calendar, daily "to-do" list, personal diary, and piece of correspondence-all as a result of a "positive" polygraph test. He was then placed under surveillance around the clock, and was followed by aircraft as he moved about during the day. Nothing was ever proved, and his FBI badge was restored, without apologies. But his career was destroyed, and he was never again above suspicion, all because a polygrapher-with eighty hours of "training"-asserted that he had lied. Even barbers must have 1,000 hours of schooling before earning a license to cut hair.

And yet the polygraph is one of the major tools in the new DOE program to bolster security at the nation's nuclear weapons labs: Sandia, Los Alamos, and Lawrence Livermore. In the wake of the Wen Ho Lee debacle in 1999, bureaucratic Washington, in search of a "quick fix," made the classic bureaucratic mistake: doing something first, and thinking later. It was the high point of the election cycle, and then-Energy Secretary Bill Richardson was hoping to be nominated as the Democratic vice-presidential candidate. But Richardson, reeling from massive cost-overruns on a gigantic laser project in Livermore, calculated that he needed to show toughness rather than intelligence. Instead of doing the difficult but correct thing-reinstating guards at entry points into the Labs that had been eliminated by his predecessor Hazel O'Leary-Richardson elected to recommend a widespread, screening polygraph program throughout the DOE. Congress went along, and real security was sacrificed on the altar of politics.

The response among the scientific staff at the Labs was universal and united: polygraphs should be avoided at all costs because they undermine national security. The scientists reasoned as follows: first, polygraphs create a false sense of security. As the Aldrich Ames scandal showed so clearly, even when repeated many times, polygraphs are incapable of ferreting out spies. Second, polygraphs would drain enormous resources from sensible security measures and replace them with a feckless deterrent. And finally, polygraphs would demoralize staff, and threaten the vital work of guaranteeing the safety and reliability of nuclear weapons.

After days of official hearings before polygraphs became official policy, neither the DOE nor the Congress paid any attention to the scientists' concerns. Each of the predictions has come to pass. Wen Ho Lee passed, then failed, then again passed a polygraph, and his polygraphers (both of whom are still working for the DOE) disagree to this day on his veracity. The DOE polygraph program has wasted millions of dollars during the past six months, and will squander $10 million more before the first phase of testing is finished. And, most disturbing of all, the majority of Sandia engineers and scientists who service nuclear weapons in the field have refused to take the test, and the DOE is suddenly without authorized staff to deal with a nuclear weapons emergency. Recruitment of new scientists to this program and to the Labs in general has become nearly impossible. The Laboratories' leaders are learning that no one feels valued if they are presumed guilty until "proven" innocent by a disreputable test.

But the damage and foolishness doesn't stop there. The DOE has run roughshod over the sensibilities of scientists through a continuous series of distortions over implementation of polygraphs. For example, DOE polygraphers claim that there are but four questions to the examination, all directly related to national security. This is a lie. In each and every polygraph exam, the subject will invariably be told something like this: "You've done pretty well, but there is a problem here with question number 3. Is there something you were thinking or worried about that you would like to get off your chest before we continue?" This isn't directed questioning; it is a fishing expedition, and has no place among loyal scientists nor in civil society.

Further, during the public hearings, polygraphers admitted that there was no scientific evidence that medical conditions (such as diabetes, high blood pressure, or heart disease) affected the outcome of the polygraph. Yet, they still insist that each subject provide a list of all prescription medications and a complete history of medical conditions. The reason they do so is to maintain the aura of the magical polygraph: "We need to know about medications," said David Renzelman, chief of the DOE polygraph program, "so we can adjust our machine and our readings." Really? I must have slept through that lecture in medical school.

But things are changing. At the recommendation of Sandia National Laboratories' chief medical officer, who has determined that polygraphs are a risk to the health and safety of employees, President C. Paul Robinson has informed the DOE that intrusive medical questions will stop, or he will instruct Sandians not to take the polygraph. This principled action may precipitate Congressional hearings-long avoided by polygraphers-which could finally reveal the truth about the polygraphs grave effects on national security.

Protecting secrets is a challenging task. Spies, particularly those operating within the national security establishment, are very difficult to find. But certainly we should not make their task easier with measures like the polygraph that are, in the end, self-defeating. The scientists at the national laboratories are willing to sacrifice some of their constitutional protections for meaningful benefits to security, but they are unwilling to do so for nonsense. It is time to relegate the polygraph-the fanciful creation of a comic book writer-to the ash heap of bad ideas and misplaced belief.


About the Author
Alan P. Zelicoff, a physician and physicist, is Senior Scientist in the Center for National Security and Arms Control at Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, NM 87185-1203.

------------------------------

Regards ....
  

Theory into Reality !!
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
George W. Maschke
Global Moderator
*****
Offline


Make-believe science yields
make-believe security.

Posts: 5786
Location: The Hague, The Netherlands
Joined: Sep 29th, 2000
Re: More Anti-polygraph literature ...
Reply #4 - Aug 8th, 2006 at 3:16pm
Print Post  
The wikiHow.com article "How to Cheat the Lie Detector" has now had over 100,000 page views in the six days since it was added to the AntiPolygraph.org News blog.
  

George W. Maschke
Tel/SMS: 1-202-810-2105 (Please use Signal Private Messenger or WhatsApp to text or call.)
E-mail/iMessage/FaceTime: maschke@antipolygraph.org
Wire: @ap_org
PGP Public Key: 316A947C
PGP Public Key (offline): 2BF4374B
Personal Statement: "Too Hot of a Potato"
Back to top
IP Logged
 
EosJupiter
Especially Senior User
*****
Offline


But of Course ...

Posts: 483
Location: Always Out There ......
Joined: Feb 28th, 2005
Re: More Anti-polygraph literature ...
Reply #5 - Aug 8th, 2006 at 9:09pm
Print Post  
George,

Thats an impressive run up of hits, since I found it. The genie will never be put back in the bottle with numbers like that.  The more that know the better.

Regards ....
  

Theory into Reality !!
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
retcopper
Very Senior User
****
Offline



Posts: 192
Joined: Aug 31st, 2005
Re: More Anti-polygraph literature ...
Reply #6 - Aug 8th, 2006 at 9:18pm
Print Post  
Eos

Dream on.  Since 911 the polygraph has seen a resurgence in use and will continue to  spiral upward.

Have a good day.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
cesium_133
Senior User
***
Offline


Nulla veritas in se qui
dicunt "Animum tuum lego"

Posts: 91
Location: USA
Joined: Jan 8th, 2006
Gender: Male
Re: More Anti-polygraph literature ...
Reply #7 - Aug 8th, 2006 at 11:06pm
Print Post  
It is interesting that retcopper and nonombre resort to the tactic of ad hominem attacks and the "nyahhh" approach to defend their arguments.  I really don't hear that from the antipoly crowd.

For example, when retcopper responds to a comment about 100,000+ hits on a anti-poly page, he doesn't say that the information included therein is wrong, or why someone should think that.  He proceeds simply by saying that polys have increased in usage since 9/11.

Okay, fine.  That fails to address the purpose of that post, the page with all the hits, or indeed this site, though: all endeavor to show the fraud that is the poly and the arguments behind it.  Mr. nonombre made a similar assertion, which I won't debate here.

What difference does the usage of a failed instrument make if everyone knows it's a failure?  I pose that one to both retcopper and nonombre.  If this nation, to a man, knew (1) what the poly really does and does not do, and (2) knew CM's and read TLBTLD until they had it down pat, what would it matter how expansive your program was?

Augury, the reading of entrails for purposes of divination, was discredited ages ago.  Suppose you brought it back now, government-wide.  Nobody would believe it, and nobody would rely upon the readings in conducting their daily lives or making important decisions.  This site is about relegating the poly to the same junk heap of non-science.

My hope?  That as many people as possible come to this site; read TLBTLD; read that wikisite on CM's and beating the poly; and view and engage in the discussion on these boards.  Very soon, you would have a device scorned at from all quarters.  I'm sorry, that's just what enlightened research and debate according to the scientific method does to false propositions.

Let the poly expand.  Sooner or later, public knowledge will "out" the deceptive techniques of the polygraphy field on a much wider scale.

That, too, is just a matter of time...
  

I think polygraphers escaped among the evils of Pandora's box, which might have been an old analog polygraph... only God can tell whether you're lying or not, and He's got other things on His plate...
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
EosJupiter
Especially Senior User
*****
Offline


But of Course ...

Posts: 483
Location: Always Out There ......
Joined: Feb 28th, 2005
Re: More Anti-polygraph literature ...
Reply #8 - Aug 8th, 2006 at 11:27pm
Print Post  
retcopper wrote on Aug 8th, 2006 at 9:18pm:
Eos

Dream on.  Since 911 the polygraph has seen a resurgence in use and will continue to  spiral upward.

Have a good day.


RetCopper,

Funny I don't see any data to support the increase you say is there. Proof is always hard for you isn't it !!

Here we are again dimetrically opposed. Let the useage increase on the polygraph. As the number of people abused by it,  will also increase. They will come here and our ranks will continue to grow. On a personal note I could care less about its growth, as I have successfully used  the information from this website on multiple occasions. Each time with splendid results. And I will continue to do so as the need arises, unmoved I remain.

Regards ....
  

Theory into Reality !!
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
retcopper
Very Senior User
****
Offline



Posts: 192
Joined: Aug 31st, 2005
Re: More Anti-polygraph literature ...
Reply #9 - Aug 9th, 2006 at 3:11pm
Print Post  
Eos:

I think I posted before that I enjoy the philosophical  discussions about polygraphy more than the "nuts and bolts" part of polygrapghy that most people here are interested in. That is why I do not post evidence or studies to refute a lot of what is posted here. On this particular point I have the information regarding studies about increasing usage  but do not want to take the time  to look for it and post it.

It's funny how people here complain about the abuse of polygraph and how evil we are but when certain individuals here "mock"  handicaped  people not one word of disgust is rasied.  Kind of hypocritical.  Don't you think?

In any event Eos it is fun chatting with you.

Take care.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
LieBabyCryBaby
Very Senior User
****
Offline



Posts: 246
Joined: Apr 28th, 2006
Re: More Anti-polygraph literature ...
Reply #10 - Aug 9th, 2006 at 4:33pm
Print Post  
cesium_133 wrote on Aug 8th, 2006 at 11:06pm:
My hope?  That as many people as possible come to this site; read TLBTLD; read that wikisite on CM's and beating the poly; and view and engage in the discussion on these boards.


Every once in awhile I visit this site.  For quite some time now, I have found this site boring and stale.  Same old people who failed polygraphs and get their "knowledge" second-hand or third-hand, vs. same old people who actually know about the polygraph because they use it.  The discussions are like Philosophy 101: Much debate, with no one proving anything.  Only ignorant people would come to this site and think they found the "holy grail" of how to pass a polygraph; and only ignorant people would take everything either side says as more than biased opinion.

One thing that continually amuses me is how the "Very Senior" users and "Especially Senior" users have posted on this site hundreds of times--enough that they should have bored themselves to tears--yet they still hang around this site as if the whole world actually pays attention to them.  That's the funny thing about internet forums, whether they be polygraph forums, religious forums, teen forums, game forums, etc.--the people who hang around those forums voicing their opinions devote so much of their own time and energy to the forum that they over-inflate the importance of the forum, thinking that the rest of the world is as focused on their daily drivel as they are.  The fact is that the vast majority of examinees who undergo polygraph screening exams--suprise, surprise--PASS the exam.  Compared to the number who pass the exam, the few disgruntled polygraph failures who pose as experts on this site are a TINY minority.

But I guess this site serves a purpose, despite its merely placebo effect for worried people who have to take a polygraph: It makes the tiny minority of polygraph failures feel better about themselves, and it acts as a catharsis as they voice their woes. 
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Onesimus
Very Senior User
****
Offline



Posts: 110
Joined: May 10th, 2003
Re: More Anti-polygraph literature ...
Reply #11 - Aug 9th, 2006 at 6:00pm
Print Post  
LieBabyCryBaby wrote on Aug 9th, 2006 at 4:33pm:
Same old people who failed polygraphs and get their "knowledge" second-hand or third-hand


Sorry, but people who have taken polygraph tests have first-hand knowledge of what occurred.  Do you also consider rape victims second-hand witnesses to what occurred?  Are homicide detectives not qualified to do their job unless they themselves have killed 1000s of people?

Quote:
same old people who actually know about the polygraph because they use it.


Saying that polygraphers know about polygraph machines because they use it to detect lies on a regular basis is like saying someone that uses sugar to brush their teeth every night is an expert on sugar because they use it every day.

Quote:
Only ignorant people would come to this site


Welcome to the site, LieBabyCryBaby.

Quote:
Compared to the number who pass the exam, the few disgruntled polygraph failures who pose as experts on this site are a TINY minority.


The majority of technical people that I know consider polygraph testing a crock, including those that have passed on their first try.  However, I make the mistake of hanging around software engineers, aerospace engineers, mechanical engineers, etc.  instead of the types of people polygraphers are always chirping about.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Sergeant1107
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 730
Location: Connecticut, USA
Joined: May 21st, 2005
Gender: Male
Re: More Anti-polygraph literature ...
Reply #12 - Aug 9th, 2006 at 6:07pm
Print Post  
LieBabyCryBaby wrote on Aug 9th, 2006 at 4:33pm:
But I guess this site serves a purpose, despite its merely placebo effect for worried people who have to take a polygraph: It makes the tiny minority of polygraph failures feel better about themselves, and it acts as a catharsis as they voice their woes. 

What purpose does this site serve for you?  Apparently you visit it frequently enough to have formed fairly strong negative opinions about the people who post here.  Spending that much time in a place where you find nothing of value seems odd, don’t you think?

Why would you continue to visit a site you find “boring and stale”?  And why would you take the time to post paragraphs worth of drivel on a site such as this, given your stated opinion?

I can only hope for your sake that your opinion of this site and its members does not sink any lower, or you will have to spend all of your free time here, feeling superior and writing about how boring and stale we all are.
  

Lorsque vous utilisez un argumentum ad hominem, tout le monde sait que vous ętes intellectuellement faillite.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
quickfix
Especially Senior User
*****
Offline



Posts: 325
Joined: Jan 15th, 2006
Re: More Anti-polygraph literature ...
Reply #13 - Aug 9th, 2006 at 7:51pm
Print Post  
EosJupiter wrote on Aug 8th, 2006 at 11:27pm:
RetCopper,

Funny I don't see any data to support the increase you say is there. Proof is always hard for you isn't it !!
Here we are again dimetrically opposed. Let the useage increase on the polygraph. As the number of people abused by it,  will also increase. They will come here and our ranks will continue to grow. On a personal note I could care less about its growth, as I have successfully used  the information from this website on multiple occasions. Each time with splendid results. And I will continue to do so as the need arises, unmoved I remain.

Regards ....


Have you looked at the homepage of the American Polygraph Association?  Half-way down, under "Examiners Wanted".
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
EosJupiter
Especially Senior User
*****
Offline


But of Course ...

Posts: 483
Location: Always Out There ......
Joined: Feb 28th, 2005
Re: More Anti-polygraph literature ...
Reply #14 - Aug 9th, 2006 at 8:03pm
Print Post  
quickfix wrote on Aug 9th, 2006 at 7:51pm:
Have you looked at the homepage of the American Polygraph Association?  Half-way down, under "Examiners Wanted".


Quickfix,

Yes I have been there and seen it. To me it shows me they are sucking wind on getting anyone to become a polygrapher. More are leaving than they are getting. Not an increase in the overall useage. The telltale give away is how long the want adds are posted and they have been there for quite some time. From my point of view not much upside to being a polygrapher, its like being a CID or NCIS agent in the Army or Navy. Everyone dislikes you except other agents.  And the government is trying hard to find other technologies to get away from the polygraph. I wouldn't feel warm and fuzzy about any job security either. Just my observation.

Regards ....
  

Theory into Reality !!
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: [1] 2 3 4
Send TopicPrint
Bookmarks: del.icio.us Digg Facebook Google Google+ Linked in reddit StumbleUpon Twitter Yahoo