nonombre

I am still waiting for you to answer to the questions I asked a while back. I guess we can assume that you cannot show an increase in subjects caught using CMs. Looks like this website does no harm to pre-employment testees after all.

Sorry to point out an old topic, but I am relatively new to this forum and I had never read it before. In my opinion, this topic is the most interesting I have found on this forum. Both sides of the argument, for and against the polygraph, are presented. While there is some very bitter name calling and even some personal attacks, the overall discussion is very informative. The conclusion one must logically reach is that the countermeasures advice and instructions provided on this web site is faulty, and any polygraph subject who takes that advice is a fool. On the other hand, as pointed out by former APA President Skip Webb, and as any serious polygrapher knows, the polygraph is not perfect, and there may be a few innocent victims of its imperfections. The question then is whether an innocent subject feels that their chances of passing the polygraph are so poor that they must abandon their integrity during the test as is advocated on this web site. I think the answer is clear after reading this discussion.

Quote:


If countermeasures are so ineffective why do old hack polygraph operators keep coming to this board to post so, under numerous aliases, after being repeatedly banned?  That would seem to indicate a fear on their part that the advice provided on this board is having an effect.  How else would you explain such a neurosis? 

TC

I am really surprised that this is even on here. The fact that this topic which proves wrong all the claims on this web board about countermeasures proves that this web board is open to all comers on both sides of the issue. Props to the administrators.

Here's a post from another web board called Polygraph Place that I think is also very good:

Concerning the countermeasure issue, the problem with a lot of the countermeasures discussions on the anti-polygraph sites and "how to beat the polygraph" articles, is that the people really don't know what the hell they are talking about - which is good because even the most inexperienced polygraph examiner can easily see that the examinee is attempting countermeasures. The examinee thinks that they are being subtle when they are actually being obvious. All of the recognized polygraph training programs have ample instruction on countermeasures and how to identify them - also we read the anti-polygraph sites and the "how to beat the polygraph" literature as well so we know what the potential user will be practicing. 
I totally agree with Jack in his analysis of the situation presented by the original post. Attempting to control or distort the breathing rate is the most common countermeasure used, and the most easily detected since we have two additional channels on the polygraph to tell us what is happening physiologically - or what should be happening in correspondence with the breathing rate. In this case, the electrodermal (GSR or GSE)pattern was very telling, besides just being flat. Jack didn't go into detail, and neither will I. We aren't going to educate the potential countermeasure user how it is that we identify them so that they can refine their methods for instruction to others. 

In 85-90% of the examinations that I conduct on specific-issue situations for attorneys, the examinee fails the examination and most of them confess to confirm the deceptive charts. Also, at approximately 50% of them attempt countermeasures, and most admit it when I have told them they failed the examination and let them know that I also saw the presence of countermeasures. THey indicate, almost, unanimously, that they got the countermeasure information from some anti-polygraph internet site - most haven't had the time to buy the books written on "beating the polygraph" since the issue of "will you take a polygraph" and the scheduling to the test generally present too short a time period for anything but internet searches. 

We many times get anti-polygraph persons who will try to "fuel the fire" with horror stories on how they were abused, mistreated, or unfairly declared deceptive on a polygraph examination trying to project the message to readers that the polygraph doesn't work. I have attempted to follow up on each of these situation, which you can find on other parts of the bulletin board, and sent each of the person e-mail personally as well as announcing it on my post that I would help them resolve their
alleged abuse by the polygraphist, and not one has ever responded back with another post or with an e-mail to me. I notice that the person who made the original post has not made any comments back to Jack on his evaluation of the situation, either. 

Please keep in mind that most of the "experts" on the anti-polygraph sites have never been trained as polygraphists and do not completely understand what it is we do or how we do it, but they sound like they know what they are talking about. Most of the actual experts (whatever that is) in the polygraph field just look upon them as pitiful buffoons who really need to "get a life" - as they say. 

I hope this answers your questions or at least sheds some light on what you wanted to know. 

Elmer Criswell, Moderator

Polypro Pauline

Why delete laughable polybabble???

Never mind that I've passed three polygraphs using the countermeasures in The Lie Behind The Lie Detector, or that I failed a 'lie detection test' prior to reading the book even though I was telling the truth.

Forget that the stupid polygraph, in the Control Lie Question format, BANKS on the examinee lying in order to determine wether or not they're telling the truth on the Relevant Questions. (This alone should really raise a red flag)

Toss out the window the fact that on all three polygraphs, the polygraphers varied in their aggression, tactics and style.

Flush down the toilet the fact that there has YET to be an accurate study done to determine how well polygraphers can or cannot detect countermeasures (sorry, no a bunch of college kids who might get movie tickets doesn't count).

Ignore that most polygraphers try to interrogate and coerce confessions out of examinees no matter their stupid machines tell them, or that a polygrapher's only purpose in life is to get an examinee to admit they lie. In fact, let's also disregard that some polygraphers get paid by the confession. Let's also ditch how unethical it is to tell someone you're on THEIR side during a hiring process when in reality all you're trying to do is disqualify them.

In fact, let's pay no attention for the moment to the fact that part of the problem with testing this stupid, unethical process is that experiments can't get past ethics boards at colleges precisely BECAUSE polygraph testing is so brutally stressful and deceptive.

Disregard, ditch, throw to the dogs, throw out the window, all of the above. I, as an applicant processing with law enforcement, ask THIS of the star-gazing, lying, slime-ball, hypocritical, delusional, This-Works-Because-I-Say-It-Works closed-minded polygraph 'examiners:'

What in the name of Zeus' holy hammer are those of us who have learned the basics of how polygraphy works (or, more accurately, doesn't work) wether through a friend in the system or The Lie Behind The Lie Detector, supposed to do the next time we walk into one of these exams?

If you're ready to tell me, "just tell the truth" you truly do live in a dream world. You're lying about everything else. How can I possibly trust you to even ADMIT to your practices? Or tell me THAT agency's real policy on people who understand polygraphy?

Polygraphs make the truth impossible. That's why this site is Google's second when one simply types in the word 'polygraph.' That's why these asinine polygraph/CVSA exams will one day draw to a close, why they're completely illegal in Minnesota and why so many law enforcement agencies have stopped using them.

So enjoy it while it lasts, PropolyPatty or whatever your name is. You're as plastic as your name. 'Cause when this is all over, I wish I could be there the first time you put "Polygraph Examiner" on a resume. I hope you reap as much pain as you sowed.

Oh come on. You guys should thank me for even writing something here. Without the occasional polygrapher on this site it would be its usual dull self-congratulating self. But we polygraphers should also thank you all. By giving out bad advice and freaking out the weak-minded, you help us do exactly what the polygraph also does: weed out cheaters, liars, and others who have no business in law enforcement in the first place. So thanks.