posted 02-08-2012 10:37 AM            

Scientific evidence proves that you have about a 50% chance of failing your upcoming test regardless of truthfulness, or lying. That is the same odds as the coin toss at the beginning of every football game on television. Polygraph examiners are often trained professionals using state of the art computerized equipment and are very skilled interrogators. You can not possibly take a polygraph test with any confidence of passing on your own...it is the same odds as flipping a coin. Our training program empowers you to take and pass any polygraph exam in the world no matter what every time. Its that simple!

Learn more
Welcome!

You will learn to produce a truthfull

chart no matter what every time!

With our training program

you will learn to produce truthfull

charts even if you are really

nervous, and even if you are flat

out lying. You will pass no

matter what every time!

See our services

HOME

OUR TRAINING PROGRAM

CONFIDENTIALITY

ORDER OPTIONS

CONTACT US


About our training program

Why do our clients always pass there polygraph exam? Because our training program, study guides and methods have been prepared in a manner that allows you to quickly understand the polygraph process and how you can beat it every time no matter what. It makes no difference if your being truthfull or bold face lying we will teach you how to produce truthfull charts guaranteed. Your personal instructor is an expert in teaching people just like you how to pass any polygraph exam. Equally important, there is no way anybody will be able to tell that you have been trained. The end result is the same every time, and that’s you passing your examination guaranteed!

Why You need our program

- We offer rush service to all 50 states bringing the training program to you...or you come to us

_ No confusing downloaded manuals or risking your future on outdated countermeasures

_ We do not teach

countermeasures...We teach you to pass any polygraph for any reason no matter what

- 100 % confidential. Nobody will ever know that you have been personally trained

- 100 % success rate. We have never had a client that has failed there polygraph test.

posted 02-08-2012 10:40 AM            

The person will come to you for $2,000-3,000 per day.

posted 02-08-2012 04:23 PM            

the web site says:

posted 02-08-2012 05:36 PM         

These guys are under cutting Doug Williams. Boy is he going to be pissed!

posted 02-08-2012 10:44 PM            

He had no real polygraph training and no real information. He seemed to be possibly a student who had found a way to leverage some kind of business using what he thinks he knows and understands or whatever he thinks he can get people to pay him to fabricate.

I think he will be an expensive object lesson for anyone who tries to use his services.

r

------------------
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here. This is the war room."
--(Stanley Kubrick/Peter Sellers - Dr. Strangelove, 1964)

posted 02-09-2012 07:58 AM         

If polygraph, when using sound, empirically based practices is a science, then isn’t antipolygraph (countermeasures), if brought to a similarly high level of sound, empirically based practice, equally scientific?

What if there existed an “anti-APA” -- not a virtual thing in cyberspace like GM‘s site, but a bricks and mortar entity -- compete with standards of practice, by-laws, certified instructors, accredited schools, testing standards (as for PCSOT), etc.

Is it not conceivable that effective instruction in countermeasures could indeed undermine any blanket claims of polygraph’s accuracy? What if my hypothetically “real” antipolygraph organization had its own Grand Wizard of Statistical Alchemy? How could polygraph ever be welcomed into the forensic science big leagues?

In all seriousness, if matter can be “cancelled out” by antimatter, can’t polygraph be likewise negated by antipolygraph (countermeasures)?

On another note, it seems that everyone associated with any kind of AP activity is immediately condemned by members of the APA, AAPP and other pro-polygraph groups. One of the tired old chestnuts frequently trotted out by the polygraph apologist crowd is this gem: “No test is perfect.”

If polygraph isn’t perfect, does that not suggest that there are some legitimate FP victims for whom countermeasure training is the only remedy?

I’ve read the meta-analysis. Conspicuous by its absence is a similar treatment of countermeasures and their effect on accuracy. It seems to me that without an intelligent approach to integrating the CM factor into the overall analyses, we are not seeing everything that’s out there.

posted 02-09-2012 09:34 AM            

If I go to an optometrist and lie about what I can see; tell him I can't read the third line down; reverse the answers to “which one is better, this one or this one" I will end up with glasses that are of the wrong prescription for my needs. That doesn't mean the test, the equipment utilized or the practitioner is inaccurate or flawed. The same goes for a hearing test. If I fail to push the button when I hear the sounds or push the button when I don't really hear a sound, the results will be inaccurate.

I've spoken with both my eye doctor and a hearing specialist and both describe "counter-countermeasures" designed to "catch" this type of behavior.

We use urinalysis tests routinely and yet there are countless web sites offering substances, devices and even instruction on how to countermeasure the effectiveness of the tests. In CID we send a number of urine samples to our forensics laboratory monthly that appear to be adulterated and have them tested to determine what substance was used as the adulterant. We then polygraph the person.

All of these are sound scientific measures or tests and all can be defeated or frustrated using properly executed counter-measures.

I well remember the many tricks and substances some young men would use to try to elevate their blood pressure before going for their induction physical after being notified of their draft into the Army in the 60’s. They used these countermeasures to try to “beat” the physical and be declared “4F” rather than 1A.

posted 02-09-2012 11:05 AM            

quote:

---

If polygraph isn’t perfect, does that not suggest that there are some legitimate FP victims for whom countermeasure training is the only remedy?

---

posted 02-09-2012 11:08 AM            

These are good questions, and I think Skip has presented a realistic and understandable answer.

I will add that Skip's last sentence applies to screening tests also: the fact that a screening test can be defeated or frustrated does not mean the test is not scientific or is ineffective and should be stopped.

The pattern may in fact be one of mutual escalation of threats. Increasing CM development and use is met with increasing polygraph methods and technology development, and increasing polygraph development is met with increasing efforts to defeat or resist the test.

The solution, in this dangerous game, is NOT to simply give up and give in. The solution is to be better. We do that not by pretending, and not with bravado, not with tough talk, not with slick politics, and not with narcissistic charm, and not with social or economic intimidation. The way to be be better is with data and evidence (and that will mean some statistical alchemy also).

If we give up we lose instantly. If we fake it via all the other methods we will lose eventually, because - the internet is a small world and some geek somewhere will ferret out the facts.

quote:

---

If polygraph, when using sound, empirically based practices is a science, then isn’t antipolygraph (countermeasures), if brought to a similarly high level of sound, empirically based practice, equally scientific?

---

Possibly. Perhaps someone somewhere is attempting a systematic approach to defeat the test. That could be a real threat. Maschke, Williams and others have attempted just this: systematic alteration of the test result, based on their understanding of the test. It is also possible that countermeasures (even when reframed for internet marketing as being taught to "pass the test") are an unscientific attempt to confound the test with chaos, or and equally unscientific attempt to impressionistically manage what someone thinks they understand about the test. Countermeasures can be a mixture of systematic/scientific attempts and unscientific (artful?) attempts.

Our efforts to detect countermeasures can be equally scientific or unscientific. A scientific approach would use measurement and statistical math to evaluate the data quality. A scientific approach could also engage a systematic approach to pattern recognition. An un-scientific approach would depend more or less entirely on "expertise" and impressionistic evaluations of the data, without reliance on a systematic or structured approach to pattern identification.

One hallmark of an unscientific approach would be a deliberate non-reliance on measurement and math - placing us back in the old "trust me I'm an expert" mode that will ultimately fail to impress scientists, courts, legislators, policy makers, and funding sources. Without data, without measurement and math, all you have is one man's opinion. Someone can always find another expert with a different opinion. Fortunately we are moving beyond this - slowly.

Continued progress requires that we learn a little more about, and make a little more use of, the principles of measurement, observation, parametric and non-parametric inference.

quote:

---

In all seriousness, if matter can be “cancelled out” by antimatter, can’t polygraph be likewise negated by antipolygraph (countermeasures)?

---

Metaphors are fun, and useful for teaching new basic concepts, but it is important to remember to not take them literally because they will always fall short of adequately representing the new concept. Matter and antimatter are not thought to cancel each other but to obliterate or annhiliate each other. I think the metaphor fails. Regardless, scientific thinkers have already recognized the potential threat that polygraph countermeasures could present.

quote:

---

On another note, it seems that everyone associated with any kind of AP activity is immediately condemned by members of the APA, AAPP and other pro-polygraph groups. One of the tired old chestnuts frequently trotted out by the polygraph apologist crowd is this gem: “No test is perfect.”

---

I don't know about that. I had fun at AP for a short time. Also, I think your use of the term "apologist" is not quite ncorrect. Apologists and apologetics are all about formulating an argument to support a predermined position. The position that no test is perfect, including the polygraph, is one that is informed by evidence. It is necessary at times to remind people of this because polygraph critics attack imperfection and attempt to equate that with "un-scientific." So, it is actually a matter of point out the evidence not apologetics.

An apologetic approach would be to conclude that the polygraph is perfect or near perfect, and then formulate an argument, including relying on counfounded studies, if supportive of the apologist's position, to defend the pre-made conclusion.

A scientific approach is to ask the questions, formulate the hypothetical question, and then discard the hypothesis if the evidence does not support it or withhold endorsement if there is any possible alternative explanation due to confounding factors.

quote:

---

If polygraph isn’t perfect, does that not suggest that there are some legitimate FP victims for whom countermeasure training is the only remedy?

---

First, if we are going to have a thoughtful conversation about this it will be important to discard emotional drama. Your use of the word "victims" requires discussion. People are not victims, the are victimized. They are still people. People are victimized when their rights are interfered with. Rights are things like: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness - you get the idea. Now that can be interpreted as "it-is-therefor-my-right-to-do-anything-that-makes-me-happy." But this is not the common interpretation. Rights are limited to the degree that they interfere with other people's rights. So we don't have the right to yell "fire" in a crowed theater when there is no fire - even if it makes someone feel happy to watch others in panic. Now, employment with the police, employment with the government, and access to secret information are NOT rights. They are privileges. If one is convicted of sexually assaulting children (or adults), in the pursuit of one's own happiness, of course, then it is not a right to live in the community. It is a privilege. FP results in police investigations are not themselves going to be used as evidence in a legal or judicial proceeding - so the FP error will not itself result in the removal of someone's rights or freedoms.

So, I will argue that yes there are FP errors, but people are not "victims" of polygraph errors. This is because the polygraph itself does not prevent them from life, liberty and pursuit of happiness - and all the approved (by the supreme court) forms of activity that encompass what we consider to be "rights," such as "family," "religion," and so on.

There is no doubt there are FP errors. There is no doubt that there are FN errors also - regardless of swaggering assertions to the contrary. There is also no doubt that the polygraph seems to increase the correct classification of liars and truthtellers above chance levels.

quote:

---

I’ve read the meta-analysis. Conspicuous by its absence is a similar treatment of countermeasures and their effect on accuracy. It seems to me that without an intelligent approach to integrating the CM factor into the overall analyses, we are not seeing everything that’s out there.

---

We are absolutely not seeing everything that is out there. We said this in the meta-analysis. We have to first know how well the polygraph works, and then begin to study the complications. To do otherwise would be try to study the effects that rocks in one's shoes have on one's mile-race times. First you get a base-line on the mile-race time, and then you add the rocks and compare the results.

Also, remember that ALL deceptive examinees are doing something to try to pass the test. Some, of course, are doing more than others. Because a number of the studies included int he meta-analysis were field samples, we can assume that it is quite likely that some of them were doing more than others.

It might also be said that all truthful examinees are doing something to try to pass the test. For deceptive examinees it is easy to assume that everything they are doing in attempt to pass the test is an attempt to defeat the test. The boundaries being doing something and doing too much, or doing the right things and doing something inappropriate, are more difficult to delineate for truthful examinees.

The real point of the meta-analysis, and much polygraph accuracy research, is this: if you conduct the polygraph in these ways, and if you score the test in these ways then you can expect a certain proportion of correct and incorrect results when you test a lot of people. This is group accuracy. Applying group accuracy statistics to an individual case (which is what courts and other risk-assessment/risk-management adjudicators actually do) requires Bayesian conditional probability statistics which are non-resistant to base-rate differences. Different base-rates yeild different accuracy estimates (because all test results are probabilities, and therefore estimates).

Using normative data, we can now use inferential statistics to calculate an accuracy statistic for an individual case. The advantage of this is that inferential statistics are [i]resistant[/it] to differences in base rates. The accuracy statistic (error estimate) is the same whether the base-rate is high or low.

But as you point out, we are not seeing everything that is out there. The studies included in the meta-analysis did not include young juveniles, did not include psychotic persons, and did not include persons with serious medical complications. Some of the studies did include persons taking medications, but those persons were functioning at a level that did not preclude their taking a polygraph during the investigation.

The point is this: if you do the test in these ways and score it in these ways, and if you are reasonably certain that the examinee is not very young, not medically compromised to the point of inability to take a polygraph, not psychotic (out of touch with reality - which you can gauge by whether they found your office at the right date, time and location), and if you are reasonably certain that your result is not the result of some activity intended to alter or defeat the test result - then we have scientific calculations to inform us of how accurate the polygraph is, both with groups of cases and for the individual cases.

(OK, that was a long sentence - but I'm still not even close to Victor Hugo).

Great questions Dan.

Peace,

r

------------------
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here. This is the war room."
--(Stanley Kubrick/Peter Sellers - Dr. Strangelove, 1964)

posted 02-09-2012 12:45 PM         

May 21, 2007 – Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department Staffing Table ..... DIXON CHAD EDWARD. 20016 ...... POLYGRAPH UNIT SUPERVISOR …

posted 02-09-2012 04:04 PM            

r

------------------
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here. This is the war room."
--(Stanley Kubrick/Peter Sellers - Dr. Strangelove, 1964)

posted 02-10-2012 08:23 AM         

You said:
>>>>So, I will argue that yes there are FP errors, but people are not "victims" of polygraph errors. This is because... <<<

That is patently absurd.

You've been drinking too much apologist Kool-Aid.

BTW, I have an idea for your own cable TV show: Pimp My Alchemy Juggernaut

Looking forward to squaring off at the firing line with you in April and our next confab at Uno's.

posted 02-10-2012 04:37 PM            

quote:

---

That is patently absurd.

You've been drinking too much apologist Kool-Aid.

---

posted 02-11-2012 01:13 AM            

One thing that is great is that Dan has challenged our thinking - in mostly substantive ways. We don't have to like it, but you gotta respect it. Listening carefully to thoughtful criticism may not be fun, but it will make us better.

Anyway, as the victimized question...

What rights have been interfered with as a direct result of failing a polygraph, whether FP or TP?

first we have to find some examples, and then maybe we can argue about whether those are common and intended manifestations or something else

r

Please count me in for Uno's and the firing line. Nayeli too.

r

------------------
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here. This is the war room."
--(Stanley Kubrick/Peter Sellers - Dr. Strangelove, 1964)

posted 02-11-2012 10:27 PM         

Are you inclined to agree with me about the victimization or the Kool-Aid?

I'll respond in detail later. Right now I'm savoring the few days I have left with my son, my daughter-in-law and my 15-month-old grandson who are visiting from Korea.

Meanwhile, understand this: I am polygraph's most passionate advocate and its harshest critic. Sounds paradoxical, I know, but I'm a realist.

More -- much more -- later.

DM

posted 02-13-2012 07:28 PM         

I will tell you that your last post crossed the line and I find it offensive. In my 28 years of law enforcement, I have never had a throw away or thrown down gun. For you to even suggest that, or even have the balls to post something like that, makes me ill. Who do you think you are? You want to go to court? You have provided the vehicle.

posted 02-13-2012 08:22 PM         

I apologize, and have have edited the offending post.

Guess I drove the wrong way down a one-way street. Looky here...

>>>posted 07-12-2007 05:14 PM

STAT and Ray,
Now you've done it. Crazy Dan is not being silent.....he is being very angry.

He is currently in his basement reloading each of his 26 extended magazines and packing the other supplies he will need to respond to your hazing! RRUUUUNNNNN !!!

Ted>>>>>

So much for running with the "big dogs," eh Ted?

Perhaps you should switch to decaf.

To all, good-bye and good luck.

One last thing: Remember these two talking points:
* No test is perfect. (Cushman)
* There are no victims of false-positive results.(Nelson)

Over and out,
Dan

posted 02-14-2012 10:58 AM            

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

Dan,

As for there being no victims of false positives, no-one doubts that there are false-positives and that these frustrate can people's goals. That will mean they are victims if we include any frustration as "victimizing."

My point is that we have to first decide what we mean by "victim" and whether we want to use that word in this conversation. Clearly there are false-positive errors, and clearly there are false-negative errors. Whether they are victimized by the polygraph is a matter of whether the resulting action is a direct result of the test or are the decisions part of a larger process that attempts to use polygraph test results in a correct way.

If we use a broad and inclusive definition of the word "victim" then any adverse decision is "victimizing." But that is not a viable principle on which to conduct the business of life, or all of us who have children are "abusers" who "victimized" our children when we did anything that frustrated their immediate goals.

Again, no-one doubts that false-positive errors occur and that these errors can interfere with the goals of some examinees. What I am suggesting, as we discuss the ethics of the polygraph, is that we also pay attention to whether FP errors result directly in the denial of rights and liberties.

If we understand "victim" to mean something more circumspect - like the prevention of or interference with rights and liberties without a lawful court order - then we should choose a different word to use in this conversation.

Aside from that there is also an important human side in which we are also obligated to be accountable for frustrating people or hurting their feelings.

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

clambrecht,

So far there is no good way to implement the CIT in a screening context. It requires a known problem, and concealed information.

Also, if you look closely at the details you will see that the CIT is NOT more accuracy than the CQT. It is less accurate.

I am not aware of a great deal of recent research on the CIT.

If scientists like the CIT more than the CQT it is because of the scientific and ethical problems surrounding the complexity of assumptions that we have attached to the CQT and its operation (read: mind-reading and manipulating).

The CIT is considered more sound because the theory and assumptions are simple, compared to the CQT - and there was a method to calculate the probability of an erroneous test result for an individual exam, not just group/sample research results. Now we have the ability to do that with the CQT - calculate a probability of error for an individual exam.

Read the literature carefully, and you will notice that the CQT is a robust testing method that seems to work with both exclusive and non-exclusive PLCs and also works with DLCs. It works with psychopaths, and non-psychopathic persons.

In terms of statistical and measurement theory, CQT scoring systems based on the Backster method, comparison of RQs and CQs, allows us to partition the variance of physiological response to both RQs and to CQs, but also allows us to partition the variance of group of RQs as a whole (event-specific/single-issue exams) and to partition the variance of response to the independent RQs (multi-issue and multi-facet exams). Rank order scoring paradigms cannot do this (well, they can try, the their is not sound mathematical way to do it).

The CIT paradigm cannot do that. It cannot mathematically partition the variance of multiple individual RQs within a single exam.

All things considered it is unlikely that the CIT testing paradigm will ever be effectively turned into a screening test format.

Sure, we can try it. But its actually going to be very difficult to get it to work better than the presently available CQTs, and it will be imperative - if a new screening paradigm is to be taken seriously by the scientific community - to show sound theory that is recognizable to scientists in related fields (that means simple and understandable theory that doesn't require grand-poo-bah level wizard training), and to show good statistical and mathematical theory (alchemy).

Sorry. Of course, now that I've said all this, some statistical genius will come along and show us how to do it. We hope.

Until then, I think it is time for us to stop having low-self-esteem around the CQT. It works. It's robust. It's theory, operation and data-analysis are understandable in the common language of physiology, psychology, and testing/measurement theory.

We're simply not going to convince the ant-poly crown. They don't want to be convinced. So that is not our goal.

Our goal is to move in step and - and maybe someday out in front of - other fields of science. It is possible that other professions could someday learn something valuable from us about categorical decision models.

r

------------------
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here. This is the war room."
--(Stanley Kubrick/Peter Sellers - Dr. Strangelove, 1964)

posted 02-14-2012 03:16 PM            

Telling a police applicant that he will recognize an area he has falsified or omitted and then running a CIT based test of those areas may be possible with creative use of keys/buffers.