- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Apr 02, 2001, 10:16 AMQuote from: Harlot on Jan 10, 2001, 05:48 PM
The chair you pictured above is quite different from the ones used by the CIA. ÊThe chairs I remember used by the CIA were of the ubiquitous brown Ôlazy boyÕ style. ÊNevertheless, I suppose they served the same function as the chair you pictured. ÊHowever, it was more difficult to determine is any hidden sneakyÕs were implanted in it (but I guess thatÕs the idea). Ê In addition, I was wondering if the CIA treats the results from polygraphs in the same manner as the FBI (e.g., disclosing info to other agencies) or if they keep it Ôin houseÕ. Ê
Excellent site. ÊIt is about time someone exposed these polygraph charlatans.
On the subject of polygraph chairs, CNN's recent series on the National Security Agency offers a glimpse of what seems to be an NSA polygraph chair:
Posted by Officer (Guest)
- Mar 04, 2001, 12:40 AMI have taken one polygraph before which I failed because the guy I giving the test thought I was controling my breathing. Actually I answered all his questions truethfully! This test was to become a police officer at a municipal agency. I later got a job as a police officer at another agency that did not give polygraphs and have a flawless record!
I have to take a polygraph for another job I am applying for. Can you guys give me some suggestions. I really want to get this job! I have told the truth before and got the "shaft".
I have answered the pretest very truthfully and have included minor things I had stolen as a child. Is this a good idea? Can you give me some control questions I may need to look for?
Some of the questions I thought may be a control are listed below:
1. Are you an honest person?
2. List everything under $100 you have stolen?
Please reply soon.
I hope one day they will pass a law against polygraphs. I know first had what crap they are!
I have to take a polygraph for another job I am applying for. Can you guys give me some suggestions. I really want to get this job! I have told the truth before and got the "shaft".
I have answered the pretest very truthfully and have included minor things I had stolen as a child. Is this a good idea? Can you give me some control questions I may need to look for?
Some of the questions I thought may be a control are listed below:
1. Are you an honest person?
2. List everything under $100 you have stolen?
Please reply soon.
I hope one day they will pass a law against polygraphs. I know first had what crap they are!
Posted by scr
- Mar 02, 2001, 01:07 PMI had to take and re-take my polygraph 5 times for a security clearance. All the results were inconclusive. What I did was smoke a cigar and have about 5 cups of coffee prior to the exams, and I lied about almost everything! By this I mean, I answered correctly, but I made myself so nervous and upset, that it all sort of came out as a lie. Even on the control questions (name a number type, and am I in a chair type of thing)I just thought hard on the wrong answer, and became very worried/upset on every answer. Remember to keep your anxiety level up for a while after the question is answered. They even gave me the "hot water" treatment because my galvanic response wasn't what they thought it should be. Also, tell them repeatedly that you don't approve, and you don't believe this is a valid test. Remind them that it is a very good "body response monitor", but it in NO way is a valid lie detector. Mostly, don't let them intimidate you. Tell them you're a liar right from the beginning, and don't worry when they get in your face. This method was effective for me, but it really takes a toll on your body, I was wired for days after these tests.
Posted by George Maschke (Guest)
- Jan 11, 2001, 05:26 PMNate,
If one were to mistake a relevant question for a "control" question, and, as a consequence, mistakenly augment one's physiological responses while answering that relevant question, then one might well end up with an outcome of "deception indicated," or, at best, inconclusive.
However, if, during the "pre-test" interview, one succeeds in distinguishing between the "control" questions on the one hand and the relevant and irrelevant questions on the other (not a terribly difficult task), and applies the point countermeasures described in Chapter 4 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector to augment one's responses to the "control" questions only, then one is very likely to produce a "truthful" chart.
Last modification: George Maschke - 01/11/01 at 14:26:21
If one were to mistake a relevant question for a "control" question, and, as a consequence, mistakenly augment one's physiological responses while answering that relevant question, then one might well end up with an outcome of "deception indicated," or, at best, inconclusive.
However, if, during the "pre-test" interview, one succeeds in distinguishing between the "control" questions on the one hand and the relevant and irrelevant questions on the other (not a terribly difficult task), and applies the point countermeasures described in Chapter 4 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector to augment one's responses to the "control" questions only, then one is very likely to produce a "truthful" chart.
Last modification: George Maschke - 01/11/01 at 14:26:21
Posted by Nate (Guest)
- Jan 11, 2001, 03:02 PMGot a quick question. Is it possible to use counter measures and then end up hurting yourself from not being perfect and have lines all over the place, thus making the results inconclusive consequently resulting in a failed test?
Posted by Harlot
- Jan 10, 2001, 05:48 PMThe chair you pictured above is quite different from the ones used by the CIA. The chairs I remember used by the CIA were of the ubiquitous brown 'lazy boy' style. Nevertheless, I suppose they served the same function as the chair you pictured. However, it was more difficult to determine is any hidden sneaky's were implanted in it (but I guess that's the idea). In addition, I was wondering if the CIA treats the results from polygraphs in the same manner as the FBI (e.g., disclosing info to other agencies) or if they keep it 'in house'.
Excellent site. It is about time someone exposed these polygraph charlatans.
Excellent site. It is about time someone exposed these polygraph charlatans.
Posted by George Maschke (Guest)
- Jan 10, 2001, 08:25 AMIn my post dated 17 December, I wrote:
The device I had in mind is marketed by Axciton, whose polygraph instruments are widely used by federal polygraphers. Axciton's motion sensor is described on its website thus:
The Axciton motion sensor is illustrated on page 60 of James Allen Matte's Forensic Psychophysiology Using the Polygraph (J.A.M. Publications, 1996). I think it is fair use to provide a low resolution reproduction of that illustration for discussion purposes here:
As you can see, although this motion sensor may be considered "discreet," it is not really concealable, either.
Dr. Matte captions this illustration, "Axciton Portable Movement Sensor. This sensor attaches to the rear leg of the polygraph examination chair. It connects and is designed to be used with the Axciton Computerized Polygraph System." The wording "connects...with" suggests that this is not a wireless device.
Last modification: George Maschke - 01/10/01 at 05:25:49
QuoteI understand that there are other kinds of sensors that are smaller and concealable. If we can obtain an illustration, we will make it available on the AntiPolygraph.org website.
The device I had in mind is marketed by Axciton, whose polygraph instruments are widely used by federal polygraphers. Axciton's motion sensor is described on its website thus:
QuoteAlso offered is a small, discreet motion sensor which will detect disruptive countermeasures, and allow the examiner to concentrate more on the exam itself.
The Axciton motion sensor is illustrated on page 60 of James Allen Matte's Forensic Psychophysiology Using the Polygraph (J.A.M. Publications, 1996). I think it is fair use to provide a low resolution reproduction of that illustration for discussion purposes here:
As you can see, although this motion sensor may be considered "discreet," it is not really concealable, either.
Dr. Matte captions this illustration, "Axciton Portable Movement Sensor. This sensor attaches to the rear leg of the polygraph examination chair. It connects and is designed to be used with the Axciton Computerized Polygraph System." The wording "connects...with" suggests that this is not a wireless device.
Last modification: George Maschke - 01/10/01 at 05:25:49
Posted by Robert (Guest)
- Jan 09, 2001, 03:50 PMI suspect that you meant when she asked you "control questions" you contracted your muscle (
) 
) Posted by antipoly
- Jan 05, 2001, 08:28 PMI recently took and passed a poly graph and the dept. that administrated it used the same type of chair. During the test, I controlled my breathing by inhaling for 3 seconds and exhaling for another 3 seconds. When she asked me a relievant questions I contracted my anal muscle.
Posted by Robert C
- Jan 03, 2001, 01:55 AMThank you for the information that you do have at this time, I will check back in the future for any updates. robert
Posted by Gino J. Scalabrini (Guest)
- Dec 18, 2000, 02:39 PMGeorge is right in that any type of device used to detect countermeasures is almost certain to use some additional wiring.
Unfortunately, as information on countermeasures becomes more publicly available, I envision polygraphers engaging in even more trickery in their attempts to fool examinees into not employing them. This would likely involve the polygrapher running down to Home Depot or Radio Shack and purchasing a length of TV coaxial cable or other thick and conspicuous wire. One end of this wire could be placed inside the polygraph case. The other end would then be inserted into the bottom of the seat cushion through a small hole in the back made with a drill. The polygrapher would then set up his ruse with an intimidating speech, telling examinees that his polygraph is equipped with the latest in counter-countermeasures, and that any use of countermeasures will be easily detected.
The most important thing is not to buy any type of scam like this. When properly performed, strain gauges will not detect the "pucker." Practice by sitting on your hand and performing the countermeasure. If performed properly, you cannot even feel any movement with the hand.
If you truly fear a hidden sensor, you can employ mental countermeasures (as George suggested) or a tongue bite (be sure to practice this in the mirror to avoid detection). Still, if the "pucker" is performed properly, it is still a viable option as well.
Unfortunately, as information on countermeasures becomes more publicly available, I envision polygraphers engaging in even more trickery in their attempts to fool examinees into not employing them. This would likely involve the polygrapher running down to Home Depot or Radio Shack and purchasing a length of TV coaxial cable or other thick and conspicuous wire. One end of this wire could be placed inside the polygraph case. The other end would then be inserted into the bottom of the seat cushion through a small hole in the back made with a drill. The polygrapher would then set up his ruse with an intimidating speech, telling examinees that his polygraph is equipped with the latest in counter-countermeasures, and that any use of countermeasures will be easily detected.
The most important thing is not to buy any type of scam like this. When properly performed, strain gauges will not detect the "pucker." Practice by sitting on your hand and performing the countermeasure. If performed properly, you cannot even feel any movement with the hand.
If you truly fear a hidden sensor, you can employ mental countermeasures (as George suggested) or a tongue bite (be sure to practice this in the mirror to avoid detection). Still, if the "pucker" is performed properly, it is still a viable option as well.
Posted by George Maschke (Guest)
- Dec 17, 2000, 02:47 PMQuoteQuestion: Concerning counter-countermeasures, I have read about the use of something put in the seat to assist in detecting the examinee's use of sphincter contractions in attempt to manipulate the polygraph. How can one know if a chair is equipped with this ability, or other devices to detect motion, etc? Would there be wires or other obvious equipment on the examiner's table? Also, what are other common counter-countermeasures and ways around them? Any advice, teaching or direction to online or physical writings would be gratefully appreciated. Thank you. RC
Robert,
I'm sorry for the delay in replying to your question. At least some strain gauges are clearly visible. The illustration below is from the Lafayette Instrument Co. website. The strain gauge is the shiny silver-colored bar under the front legs of the chair:
This gauge won't detect a properly applied "anal pucker," but if other muscle groups were contracted, it might detect a change in strain. This kind of counter-countermeasures device would detect the tack-in-the-shoe method, or that of pressing one's toes to the floor.
I understand that there are other kinds of sensors that are smaller and concealable. If we can obtain an illustration, we will make it available on the AntiPolygraph.org website.
Such gauges are connected to the polygraph computer by wire, so you might look for a cable running to the vicinity of the chair apart from those cables that connect to the GSR electrodes (the sensors that go on your fingers), the pneumo tubes, and the cardio cuff. I don't know whether wireless sensors might also be in use.
The key point is, if you decide to employ countermeasures and fear a hidden sensor, use mental countermeasures.
Posted by George Maschke (Guest)
- Dec 17, 2000, 10:42 AMQuotecounter-measures don't work; they'll give you away faster than a lie.
The experience of Aldrich Ames, who beat both of his CIA polygraph "tests" after he had begun spying for the Soviet Union, gives the lie to your claim.
You might be interested in reading his recent letter on polygraph policy to Steven Aftergood of the Federation of American Scientists:
http://www.fas.org/sgp/othergov/polygraph/ames.html
Posted by Gino J. Scalabrini (Guest)
- Dec 17, 2000, 07:56 AMMs. Whitestone,
Thanks so much for your post. It's always nice to see someone represent the pro-polygraph point of view on our forum.
I beg to differ with your contentions that polygraph countermeasures are ineffective and that polygraphers can reliably detect them. The fact is that polygraph countermeasures are effective and extremely difficult, if not impossible for even well trained polygraphers to detect.
I'd like to cite for you the abstract of an article entitled, "Mental and Physical Countermeasures Reduce the Accuracy of Polygraph Tests" by Charles R. Honts, David C. Raskin, and John C. Kircher (Journal of Applied Psychology, 1994, Vol. 79, No. 2, 252-259):
"Effects of countermeasures on the control-question polygraph test were examined in an experiment with 120 Ss [subjects] recruited from the general community. Ss were given polygraph tests by an examiner who used field techniques. Twenty Ss were innocent, and of the 100 guilty Ss, 80 were trained in the use of either a physical countermeasure (biting the tongue or pressing the toes to the floor) or a mental countermeasure (counting backward by 7) to be applied while control questions were being presented during their examinations. The mental and physical countermeasures were equally effective. Each enabled approximately 50% of the Ss to defeat the polygraph test. The strongest countermeasure effects were observed in the cardiovascular measures. Moreover, the countermeasures were difficult to detect either instrumentally or through observation."
If you read this article in full, you will see that experienced polygraphers in this study were not able to detect countermeasures at above chance levels. Keep in mind that those performing the countermeasures were college students who received a minimal amount of training. Moreover, there was little incentive for these students to become proficient in these techniques—from what I understand, all that was at stake was some extra credit in a psychology course. I posit that those with more detailed training and more incentive to fool the polygraph would be even more effective than the students who participated in this study.
I also direct your attention to the 1994 survey of opinion of the members of the Society for Psychophysiological Research (SPR) conducted by Drs. William G. Iacono and David T. Lykken. Members of this scholarly organization constitute the relevant scientific community for the evaluation of the validity of polygraphic lie detection. Members of the SPR were asked, "Would you say that the CQT (the most common polygraph format) is based on scientifically sound principles or theory?" Of the 84% of the 183 respondents with an opinion, only 36% agreed. Members of the SPR were also asked whether they agreed with the following statement, "The CQT can be beaten by augmenting one's response to the control questions." Of the 96% of the survey's respondents with an opinion, 99% agreed that polygraph "tests" can be beaten (full cite can be found on page 105 of "The Lie Behind the Lie Detector").
Lastly, Dr. Drew Richardson, the FBI's foremost expert on the polygraph has testified before a Senate Committee that anyone can be taught to beat a polygraph "exam" in a matter of minutes (see page 109 of "The Lie Behind the Lie Detector" for a full cite).
An ever-increasing number of examinees are now aware of the trickery on which polygraphs depend and the easy-to-learn methods that can be used to defeat them. Polygraphers are left to resort to desperate attempts at disinformation and scare tactics similar to your post in attempts to save their "profession."
Thanks so much for your post. It's always nice to see someone represent the pro-polygraph point of view on our forum.
I beg to differ with your contentions that polygraph countermeasures are ineffective and that polygraphers can reliably detect them. The fact is that polygraph countermeasures are effective and extremely difficult, if not impossible for even well trained polygraphers to detect.
I'd like to cite for you the abstract of an article entitled, "Mental and Physical Countermeasures Reduce the Accuracy of Polygraph Tests" by Charles R. Honts, David C. Raskin, and John C. Kircher (Journal of Applied Psychology, 1994, Vol. 79, No. 2, 252-259):
"Effects of countermeasures on the control-question polygraph test were examined in an experiment with 120 Ss [subjects] recruited from the general community. Ss were given polygraph tests by an examiner who used field techniques. Twenty Ss were innocent, and of the 100 guilty Ss, 80 were trained in the use of either a physical countermeasure (biting the tongue or pressing the toes to the floor) or a mental countermeasure (counting backward by 7) to be applied while control questions were being presented during their examinations. The mental and physical countermeasures were equally effective. Each enabled approximately 50% of the Ss to defeat the polygraph test. The strongest countermeasure effects were observed in the cardiovascular measures. Moreover, the countermeasures were difficult to detect either instrumentally or through observation."
If you read this article in full, you will see that experienced polygraphers in this study were not able to detect countermeasures at above chance levels. Keep in mind that those performing the countermeasures were college students who received a minimal amount of training. Moreover, there was little incentive for these students to become proficient in these techniques—from what I understand, all that was at stake was some extra credit in a psychology course. I posit that those with more detailed training and more incentive to fool the polygraph would be even more effective than the students who participated in this study.
I also direct your attention to the 1994 survey of opinion of the members of the Society for Psychophysiological Research (SPR) conducted by Drs. William G. Iacono and David T. Lykken. Members of this scholarly organization constitute the relevant scientific community for the evaluation of the validity of polygraphic lie detection. Members of the SPR were asked, "Would you say that the CQT (the most common polygraph format) is based on scientifically sound principles or theory?" Of the 84% of the 183 respondents with an opinion, only 36% agreed. Members of the SPR were also asked whether they agreed with the following statement, "The CQT can be beaten by augmenting one's response to the control questions." Of the 96% of the survey's respondents with an opinion, 99% agreed that polygraph "tests" can be beaten (full cite can be found on page 105 of "The Lie Behind the Lie Detector").
Lastly, Dr. Drew Richardson, the FBI's foremost expert on the polygraph has testified before a Senate Committee that anyone can be taught to beat a polygraph "exam" in a matter of minutes (see page 109 of "The Lie Behind the Lie Detector" for a full cite).
An ever-increasing number of examinees are now aware of the trickery on which polygraphs depend and the easy-to-learn methods that can be used to defeat them. Polygraphers are left to resort to desperate attempts at disinformation and scare tactics similar to your post in attempts to save their "profession."
Posted by rebecca whitestone
- Dec 17, 2000, 06:13 AMcounter-measures don't work; they'll give you away faster than a lie.