Very interesting reading George, this is the first time I've seen this statement. Curious, did you ever attempt to get your polygraph charts?

Interesting.  When I got rejected from the CIA a few years back, I mentioned Antipolygraph.org during my polygraph! Stupid me.  But I made no confessions, though I still got rejected right afterwards. When I filed my FOIA and received it, all of the polygraph info was censored out...except for one statement that read: "Applicant admitted to visiting Antipolygraph.org".

Speaking as a lowly polygraph operator with only ten years of experience, the polygraph industry seems to suffer from an abject fear of the Countermeasure Bogeyman. 

That fear is wholly justifiable, in my opinion.

From what I've seen, a test subject who admits to visiting this site -- or even studying polygraph theory in academic journals -- is at risk for suffering irrecoverably prejudicial handling by a suspicious (or fearful) examiner. 

Backster repeatedly cautioned his pupils against "hallucinating" (his word) a subject's reactions on the polygraph charts, which seem to have a strange way of appearing when an examiner is biased.

Again, these comments are just the reflections of my personal views and observations.

1st4th5thand6th, I do not wish to imply that examiners “reward” those subjects who deny researching polygraph. The examiner will automatically assume they have. It's just that those who admit to researching the “test” will be facing even more scrutiny, in my view. Think of it as a double whammy.

As to polygraph being “all an act,” I must disagree. Polygraph testing – in single-issue or incident-specific applications – works to a fairly significant degree, although that exact figure is unknowable. I doubt it's nearly as high as the polygraph industry would have one believe. The error rate may in fact be huge, but when used as a gross (i.e., heavy handed) culling tool, polygraph indeed gets the job done – but it comes at a cost: Collateral damage is high.

Uncle Sugar is more worried about catching bad guys than he is victimizing good guys. That's just the way the cookie crumbles. It's not going to change.

To be clear, I have no firsthand knowledge of the federal government's internal polygraph machinations. Many federal examiners monitor this site, so maybe someone will chime in and address your questions.


Meanwhile, something that should be of concern to anyone pondering taking a polygraph test is the inherent religiosity rampant in the industry. For example, polygraph seminars routinely begin with an appeal to supernatural powers for guidance. 

I am not making this up.

Invocations to a deity are actual line items on the programs of scheduled events. At the conclusion of such seminars, benedictions are not uncommon. 

When I started in polygraph some ten years ago, I thought all those little giveaways I saw at seminars, such as mouse pads and coffee mugs, that were emblazoned with “IN GOD WE TRUST, ALL OTHERS WE POLYGRAPH” were just feel-good freebies sporting a cute punchline. But there seems to be more to it, from what I've seen.

How this squares with the alleged science, I don't know.

Imagine a huge hall filled with hundreds of polygraph examiners, their heads bowed in reverence as a designated cleric – usually a minister, chaplain, pastor, etc. –  makes an impassioned plea to The Almighty for the members to be heavenly endowed with apt judgment as they go about their polygraph work.

In other words, the polygraph profession, at their events,  routinely appeals to God and asks for help.

OK...  I got to wondering... What happens, then, in a case where God apparently gives some sought-after help to a polygrapher? 

Say an examiner runs a so-called maintenance polygraph on a convicted sex offender, and the charts are picture perfect NDI with no signs of countermeasures. But the examiner “has a feeling” something isn't right, and decides to pray on it overnight. Say the examiner has a vision (in a dream) and the perceived message from on high is that the test subject is indeed deceptive... What then? Is the polygrapher obligated – at least ethically – to make mention of it in his report?

Here's a larger question...  Can religion – as evidenced by the polygraph professions' formal appeals to supernatural forces for assistance – coexist with “polygraph science”?

By the way, whose religion should the polygraph industry be talking about? The invocations I've heard were decidedly Christian in nature. What about other religions? Maybe they could have a rotation...  Oh wait, then the Satanists would want to get in on the act, and that would probably irk the polygraph establishment at large. Better come back to that later.  How should the atheists be dealt with?  And what about the courts? Polygraph-science proponents are eager to share the APA's meta-analysis. Can the same folks explain the industry's affinity for Divine Intervention? 

Let me be clear: I'm not knocking religion, anyone's beliefs, or any organization's religious leanings. I'm simply asking if religion should have such a formal place in an entity that espouses and promotes polygraph science. 

Hey, if polygraph were all about utility, no one would care about the religion angle.

I've raised a few rhetorical and sensitive questions, to be sure, but they should be addressed.

Let's hear some comments – especially from the polygraph industry lurkers who frequent this site.

Quote:


Well congratulations to you for beating the system and gloating about it. You say the polygrapher was disappointed, was that what he/she said, or simply your over-inflated assumption?? Usually when people have shameful pasts that they don't wish to share with everyone, the first thing they don't do, is go online stating as much. I'd send you a medal if I thought you had a chest to pin one on!

Quote:



Given Religion is the LARGEST SHAM in history!! The world will only be a better, safer, happier place to be in, when we all agree to disagree and completely do away with religion. I'm a realist, so I know it'll never happen. What the hell would all the God loving/fearing people do?? People who believe in faith are people who can't deal with reality and need a patsy.

How is it ironic?? How many exams have you sat in on where the Polygrapher has said, 'Okay, before we start Mr. Moses, I'd just like you to hold my hand while I say a little prayer so my machine gets it right today??!! Sorry, but you're an idiot... amusing, but an idiot none-the-less.


Who the hell are the Political Police, pray tell??!! No really, I need to know now!! Please part with your gifted knowledge so I can throw my laptop down and enlist immediately!! 

My heart goes out to you as it seems you've suffered some harsh and unjustly treatment whilst attempting to pray in a public place. That's just not on, is it?  Okay, so I'm being a tad sarcastic. But do you blame me? Your comment is on my top 5 most outrageous comments of the week. Maybe it's got nothing to do with praying or public places, it's just you they have a problem with. Food for thought.

As for polygraph results go... I believe they should be determined and thus discussed, on a case-by-case basis. So George had a negative experience, does that make all polygraph tests wrong?! I strongly believe it does not.

Not every person on death row, waiting to be executed is guilty but has the death penalty been abolished everywhere? No! Reason being because the majority are in-fact guilty. Do I condone killing innocent people? Hell no, who would?! 

I happened to drive through a speed trap last week whilst on my way to work. Now, how many people are unduly fined because the machine got it wrong or malfunctioned on the day? Quite possibly a few. So do they remove them all together? 

At the end of the day, a polygraph is not the one and only defining factor of guilt or innocence. In some States it is inadmissible and others it's admissible. I don't pretend to be an expert but I do know it's not as cut and dry as a lot of people lead us to believe. I personally believe, at the end of the day, provided the test is carried out by a qualified technician (as opposed to an online certificate), is taken within the correct environment, then the results are one of the many steps in making a case for or against a person. You don't convict some-one purely on a polygraph result.

This is my first visit to this site and I've read quite a number of posts before posting my own. I have noticed a trend wherein if some-one like myself disagrees with you, you tend to call us ignorant and other like-minded comments. So, let the quote/comment bashing/insult slinging begin. I'm a big man, I'll always be pro-poly and not much ever sticks to me, so fire away and let the games begin.

Time Out. . . 

Oh, one other quick comment. George, you stated to another poster that Jack Trimarco found you to be deceptive, despite you having answered all questions truthfully, yes? So, are we supposed to take your word for that, are we? This entire site is based around the belief polygraph testing is inaccurate and therefore unjustly performed. That and the fact you say 'they' got it wrong. I don't know you from a bar of soap so why the hell would I take your word for it?? IF you ARE innocent, I'd have to say sorry for your bad experience and repercussions it must have had on your life. However, it really is your word against theirs, correct?

Ding Ding - Time In. . .  continue mud-slinging!!

I'd like to hear George's answer to that one, too, since I have personally seen his polygraph charts, and there is no doubt CMs were employed.

George, I said I saw your charts, not that I have them.   And you don't honestly think I would I would send to you if I did, or point out the exact CMs identified?  Besides, even if I could, it would be a violation of the Privacy Act to post such information on a public site.