- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by triple x
- Apr 06, 2004, 10:16 PMQuote from: anonymous on Apr 05, 2004, 06:51 PMI-Smell-BS,
Well, I smell polygrapher ! It is so obvious that most
negative posts are coming from those that this site
might put out of a job. One post, of such, was even
caught coming from the DoDPI. After taking five
polys, and told that I passed (I knew not to ask), and
having taken a number of polys over the years, the
polygrapher made a very good point - the the poly
can't tell the difference between a lie, and just a
reaction, but can tell if the person has some sort of
issue with a question. After the test was over, he
asked me, if I had used counter-measures. I had
nothing to hide, and would not on moral grounds. It
obviously is up to the individual, whether or not to
use them - trying to beat a lie, or out of fear of a
false positive. If a person has been polyed a number
of times, and had previously not used
counter-measures, then any attempt to spike the
contol questions would be obvious. This site is
invaluable to those that are new to polys, in order to
realize the games that go one. Polygraphs are
obviously unfair, since many truthful individuals are
branded as liers, or as being deceptive. Since most
spies are looking for financial gains, why not make
individuals, going for security clearances, turn over
financial statements ? I do have one suggestion, for
the polygraphers - try being honest with your subjects,
for once they know YOU are being deceptive, and trust
is broken, you have made your job that much harder
(the tactics do work with those that have no idea what
is going on). The tit-for-tat, that goes on here, is the
real B.S....
Bigdaddy1,
Whether you learned anything from my polygraph experience or not, will remain a mystery.
There were no relevant issues that concerned me during my polygraph exam. I decided to employ polygraph countermeasures to reduce the risk of a false positive result.
It can be debated whether or not the use of countermeasures actually disqualified me... or, was it the "too good to be true" result of my polygraph charts that actually prompted the suspicion of the FBI DC polygraph lab that inevitably lead to me being disqualified...?? You're entitled to your own personal opinion.
With respect to your question relating to the polygraph examiner winning the $5,000.00 for detecting countermeasures during my exam; perhaps you should re-read my post. The polygraph examiner did not detect any countermeasures during the first or second polygraph exam. The polygraph examiner actually told me that I did fine following my first polygraph exam, and even went as far as telling me that he did not note any problems in "any areas" during my polygraph exam. It was the FBI DC polygraph lab that suspected countermeasures, and they requested that I be re-tested.
Unfortunately, the polygraph examiner does not get the 10k you referenced, there were no polygraph countermeasures noted or detected during my re-test.
You implied that if I had not employed cm's, and had no relevant issues, that I may have passed my first polygraph exam. Perhaps this is true had I not employed the cm's. I will honestly never know for sure. There were no relevant issues that I was trying to hide, lie about, or cover up. I was simply trying to reduce the risk of a false positive result.
I'm not going to respond to your metaphor about someone getting a 98%, 100%, or a 0% on testing, cheating, etc...
[You wrote]
"Its unfortunate people who don't need to do cm's get caught up in this urban myth."
There is no myth regarding false positive results with respect to polygraph testing. If I'm not mistaken, false positive results are addressed and acknowledged by the DODPI.
[You wrote]
"Everyone has caught on George."
What is it that everyone is catching on to? Please be a little more specific.
False positive results are not uncommon. Simply telling the truth is no guarantee of passing a polygraph exam.
The truth still remains, even had I not employed polygraph countermeasures, there is still a 50/50 chance I would not have passed.
Triple x
Posted by anonymous
- Apr 05, 2004, 06:51 PMI-Smell-BS,
Well, I smell polygrapher ! It is so obvious that most
negative posts are coming from those that this site
might put out of a job. One post, of such, was even
caught coming from the DoDPI. After taking five
polys, and told that I passed (I knew not to ask), and
having taken a number of polys over the years, the
polygrapher made a very good point - the the poly
can't tell the difference between a lie, and just a
reaction, but can tell if the person has some sort of
issue with a question. After the test was over, he
asked me, if I had used counter-measures. I had
nothing to hide, and would not on moral grounds. It
obviously is up to the individual, whether or not to
use them - trying to beat a lie, or out of fear of a
false positive. If a person has been polyed a number
of times, and had previously not used
counter-measures, then any attempt to spike the
contol questions would be obvious. This site is
invaluable to those that are new to polys, in order to
realize the games that go one. Polygraphs are
obviously unfair, since many truthful individuals are
branded as liers, or as being deceptive. Since most
spies are looking for financial gains, why not make
individuals, going for security clearances, turn over
financial statements ? I do have one suggestion, for
the polygraphers - try being honest with your subjects,
for once they know YOU are being deceptive, and trust
is broken, you have made your job that much harder
(the tactics do work with those that have no idea what
is going on). The tit-for-tat, that goes on here, is the
real B.S....
Well, I smell polygrapher ! It is so obvious that most
negative posts are coming from those that this site
might put out of a job. One post, of such, was even
caught coming from the DoDPI. After taking five
polys, and told that I passed (I knew not to ask), and
having taken a number of polys over the years, the
polygrapher made a very good point - the the poly
can't tell the difference between a lie, and just a
reaction, but can tell if the person has some sort of
issue with a question. After the test was over, he
asked me, if I had used counter-measures. I had
nothing to hide, and would not on moral grounds. It
obviously is up to the individual, whether or not to
use them - trying to beat a lie, or out of fear of a
false positive. If a person has been polyed a number
of times, and had previously not used
counter-measures, then any attempt to spike the
contol questions would be obvious. This site is
invaluable to those that are new to polys, in order to
realize the games that go one. Polygraphs are
obviously unfair, since many truthful individuals are
branded as liers, or as being deceptive. Since most
spies are looking for financial gains, why not make
individuals, going for security clearances, turn over
financial statements ? I do have one suggestion, for
the polygraphers - try being honest with your subjects,
for once they know YOU are being deceptive, and trust
is broken, you have made your job that much harder
(the tactics do work with those that have no idea what
is going on). The tit-for-tat, that goes on here, is the
real B.S....
Posted by Anonymous
- Apr 05, 2004, 04:52 PMbigdaddy1:
Your post does provoke thought. Would triple_x have passed if he/she chose to not attempt polygraph countermeasures? As you said, if there were no relevant issues, it seems quite obvious.
Sadly, it is really not that cut-and-dry. I had been casually learning about polygraphy for about two years before I was even interested in law enforcement. I had visited antipolygraph.org, read TLBTLD, etc. I knew what I was getting into when I decided to persue federal law enforcement. I knew the employment suitability policies - I had NO suitability issues.
The decision to attempt countermeasures or not was a difficult one. In fact, I was still undecided when I was escorted into the "exam room." Let me tell you - given it was my first polygraph - just sitting down with the examiner scared away ALL confidence I had in attempting countermeasures. After about five seconds of steady eye contact with the examiner there was no way in hell I was going to attempt ANY type of countermeasure.
So, take this for what you will. I used no countermeasures (physical/cognitive/mental/medicinal/otherwise), had no relevant issues and was honest about understanding the polygraph. What happened? I was found deceptive and subtly "accused" of attempting countermeasures. Apparently something in the breathing area was not pleasing to the examiner and he/she asked several times that I stop doing whatever I was doing. During the "post-test interrogation," part of the questioning hinted at anything I might have done to "help" myself. As I stated, I tried nothing (and no, there was no uncontrollable "habit-like" attempt. I had never practiced or rehearsed any countermeasures; this is how unsure I was about their use).
As far as a retest - seems it is a possibility which means to me that the examiner did not actually submit his suspicion of countermeasures as part of his opinion/recommendation. We will see. However, I find it increasingly difficult to understand how tale after tale, all similar to my own, no one seems to be interested in finding out what is going on. A 50% failure rate for the FBI polygraph? Something is very wrong there. I refuse to believe that 50% of the candidates polygraphed were actually being deceptive.
In any event, your comments are welcomed. I'm interested in what you have to say.
Your post does provoke thought. Would triple_x have passed if he/she chose to not attempt polygraph countermeasures? As you said, if there were no relevant issues, it seems quite obvious.
Sadly, it is really not that cut-and-dry. I had been casually learning about polygraphy for about two years before I was even interested in law enforcement. I had visited antipolygraph.org, read TLBTLD, etc. I knew what I was getting into when I decided to persue federal law enforcement. I knew the employment suitability policies - I had NO suitability issues.
The decision to attempt countermeasures or not was a difficult one. In fact, I was still undecided when I was escorted into the "exam room." Let me tell you - given it was my first polygraph - just sitting down with the examiner scared away ALL confidence I had in attempting countermeasures. After about five seconds of steady eye contact with the examiner there was no way in hell I was going to attempt ANY type of countermeasure.
So, take this for what you will. I used no countermeasures (physical/cognitive/mental/medicinal/otherwise), had no relevant issues and was honest about understanding the polygraph. What happened? I was found deceptive and subtly "accused" of attempting countermeasures. Apparently something in the breathing area was not pleasing to the examiner and he/she asked several times that I stop doing whatever I was doing. During the "post-test interrogation," part of the questioning hinted at anything I might have done to "help" myself. As I stated, I tried nothing (and no, there was no uncontrollable "habit-like" attempt. I had never practiced or rehearsed any countermeasures; this is how unsure I was about their use).
As far as a retest - seems it is a possibility which means to me that the examiner did not actually submit his suspicion of countermeasures as part of his opinion/recommendation. We will see. However, I find it increasingly difficult to understand how tale after tale, all similar to my own, no one seems to be interested in finding out what is going on. A 50% failure rate for the FBI polygraph? Something is very wrong there. I refuse to believe that 50% of the candidates polygraphed were actually being deceptive.
In any event, your comments are welcomed. I'm interested in what you have to say.
Posted by Anonymous
- Apr 05, 2004, 04:36 PMPDD-Fed:
Although a tad bit far-fetched, I do agree with the general idea of your post. I can't say that I am very comfortable with the dissemination of the information you referred to (which COULD be used in ways you referred to) being associated with this site. I agree with the purpose of this site - I don't agree with the few defiant/radical messages packaged in with the overall message. However - I think if Usama wanted to take out a bunch of polygraph examiners and their plush offices he wouldn't need antipolygraph.org to find the targets. Wouldn't you agree?
Although a tad bit far-fetched, I do agree with the general idea of your post. I can't say that I am very comfortable with the dissemination of the information you referred to (which COULD be used in ways you referred to) being associated with this site. I agree with the purpose of this site - I don't agree with the few defiant/radical messages packaged in with the overall message. However - I think if Usama wanted to take out a bunch of polygraph examiners and their plush offices he wouldn't need antipolygraph.org to find the targets. Wouldn't you agree?
Posted by PDD-Fed
- Apr 05, 2004, 01:29 PMQuote from: George W. Maschke on Apr 05, 2004, 05:12 AMbigdaddy1,
Moreover, if the FBI HQ polygraph unit were truly confident that triple x had employed countermeasures, there would have been no point in scheduling him for a second polygraph interrogation in an attempt to get an admission: they could have simply DQed him.
George,
I have grown deeply worried about you and your cronies here on this website. Not for the reasons you might think (or hope), but because you all have become so obsessed with fighting those "evil" polygraph examiners, you have even posted links to pictures of alleged federal polygraph offices. What I am concerned about, is if this is in fact a FBI facility, by posting the address and even photos of the building on the internet, you have seriously compromised the security of the agents and staff working within. In fact these photos even look like surveillance photos taken of a target prior to a terrorist attack.
George, you even provided a map to guide the prospective terrorist right to the site. Why don't you just prove Usama with bus fare while you are at it?
George, in this day and age you have no idea who is reading your site, what their mental condition is, or what personal crusade they are on (remember the Pakastani who shot up the line of CIA employees waiting to drive onto the CIA compound?)
Remember, even though you are not expected to control the actions of what every crazy internet user may do, it does not minimize the moral responsability you assume by posting information on the net that was not previously known generally.
George, I know you could make the argument that the government provides this address to prospective employees. Nonetheless, they clearly do not make it a point of announcing publicly that there is a building full of FBI agents at that address...
You just made that very pronouncement to every terrorist on the face of the planet...
PDD-Fed
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Apr 05, 2004, 05:12 AMbigdaddy1,
Indeed, had triple x not employed countermeasures and been truthful, he might have passed. But given that the failure rate for the FBI pre-employment polygraph -- a procedure that is entirely without scientific basis -- is about 50%, there is little ground for confidence.
It is not necessarily the case that triple x was disqualified because he used countermeasures. AntiPolygraph.org has heard from numerous law enforcement applicants, including FBI applicants, who first heard of polygraph countermeasures when their polygraphers falsely accused them of employing them. Not using countermeasures is no guarantee that one will not be accused of such.
Indeed, in the available peer-reviewed research (by Honts et al., cited in the bibliography of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector) a polygrapher's determination that a subject had employed countermeasures had no correlation to actual countermeasure use.
Moreover, if the FBI HQ polygraph unit were truly confident that triple x had employed countermeasures, there would have been no point in scheduling him for a second polygraph interrogation in an attempt to get an admission: they could have simply DQed him.
The fact that no polygrapher has had the gumption to accept Dr. Richardson's long-standing polygraph countermeasure challenge is strong circumstantial evidence that the polygraph community has little confidence in its ability to reliably detect countermeasures. Note also that I am not the offeror of the $5,000 cash incentive currently in effect. (The anonymous offeror's identity and ability to pay, are known to AntiPolygraph.org.) So perhaps you would care to accept the challenge? After all, countermeasures are an urban myth, right?
You conclude your post saying, "Everyone has caught on George." Who is everyone, and what have they caught on to?
Indeed, had triple x not employed countermeasures and been truthful, he might have passed. But given that the failure rate for the FBI pre-employment polygraph -- a procedure that is entirely without scientific basis -- is about 50%, there is little ground for confidence.
It is not necessarily the case that triple x was disqualified because he used countermeasures. AntiPolygraph.org has heard from numerous law enforcement applicants, including FBI applicants, who first heard of polygraph countermeasures when their polygraphers falsely accused them of employing them. Not using countermeasures is no guarantee that one will not be accused of such.
Indeed, in the available peer-reviewed research (by Honts et al., cited in the bibliography of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector) a polygrapher's determination that a subject had employed countermeasures had no correlation to actual countermeasure use.
Moreover, if the FBI HQ polygraph unit were truly confident that triple x had employed countermeasures, there would have been no point in scheduling him for a second polygraph interrogation in an attempt to get an admission: they could have simply DQed him.
The fact that no polygrapher has had the gumption to accept Dr. Richardson's long-standing polygraph countermeasure challenge is strong circumstantial evidence that the polygraph community has little confidence in its ability to reliably detect countermeasures. Note also that I am not the offeror of the $5,000 cash incentive currently in effect. (The anonymous offeror's identity and ability to pay, are known to AntiPolygraph.org.) So perhaps you would care to accept the challenge? After all, countermeasures are an urban myth, right?
You conclude your post saying, "Everyone has caught on George." Who is everyone, and what have they caught on to?
Posted by bigdaddy1
- Apr 05, 2004, 03:21 AMSo Triple X,
What we should learn from this is that if you would not have employed countermeasures and been truthful you may have gotten your dream job. But because you went that path of countermeasures you were DQ'd.
Thats an interesting lesson! So does your examiner win the $5,000 for being the first polygrapher to detect countermeasures? Or does he win $10,000 for detecting them twice. I guess George would actually pay in Euro's.
The sad part is that unless you are holding out on us and there was a relevant issue you probably would have passed your first test.
This happens time and time again. Very little relevant response, but for some reason people feel as if they have to cheat. If someone would have gotten a 98% on a test in school without cheating but used a cheat sheet to get a 100% they would get a big fat 0% when they were caught.
Its unfortunate people who don't need to do cm's get caught up in this urban myth.
Everyone has caught on George.
What we should learn from this is that if you would not have employed countermeasures and been truthful you may have gotten your dream job. But because you went that path of countermeasures you were DQ'd.
Thats an interesting lesson! So does your examiner win the $5,000 for being the first polygrapher to detect countermeasures? Or does he win $10,000 for detecting them twice. I guess George would actually pay in Euro's.
The sad part is that unless you are holding out on us and there was a relevant issue you probably would have passed your first test.
This happens time and time again. Very little relevant response, but for some reason people feel as if they have to cheat. If someone would have gotten a 98% on a test in school without cheating but used a cheat sheet to get a 100% they would get a big fat 0% when they were caught.
Its unfortunate people who don't need to do cm's get caught up in this urban myth.
Everyone has caught on George.
Posted by triple x
- Apr 05, 2004, 02:01 AMI-Smell_BS,
Although your response and opinions on this board is encouraged, and will always be welcome, what is it specifically that you find to be so bogus within my post in which you reference?
In closing, I take comfort in knowing that one of my posts is recognized as "reigns supreme"...
PS,
Who made you the message board bogus police..??
Triple x
Although your response and opinions on this board is encouraged, and will always be welcome, what is it specifically that you find to be so bogus within my post in which you reference?
In closing, I take comfort in knowing that one of my posts is recognized as "reigns supreme"...
PS,
Who made you the message board bogus police..??
Triple x
Posted by I-Smell-BS
- Apr 05, 2004, 01:40 AMTriple X, you should change your name to Triple Bullshit.
That is the most bogus post I have seen on a site where bullshit reigns supreme.
That is the most bogus post I have seen on a site where bullshit reigns supreme.
Posted by triple x
- Apr 05, 2004, 12:39 AManyone,
I have personally taken two FBI pre-employment polygraph exams. Following the first polygraph exam, the polygraph examiner told me that I did fine, with no problems noted in any area of the polygraph.
Approximately a week following the first polygraph exam, [which I was told I passed] I was contacted by the FBI application coordinator, and told there was a "suspected" technical problem with the polygraph machine used during my polygraph exam. I was then given a date to return for a second polygraph exam [retest].
Upon returning for the retest, I was surprisingly informed by the polygraph examiner, that the FBI DC polygraph lab suspected I had used polygraph countermeasures during my first polygraph exam. The polygraph examiner told me that
I have personally taken two FBI pre-employment polygraph exams. Following the first polygraph exam, the polygraph examiner told me that I did fine, with no problems noted in any area of the polygraph.
Approximately a week following the first polygraph exam, [which I was told I passed] I was contacted by the FBI application coordinator, and told there was a "suspected" technical problem with the polygraph machine used during my polygraph exam. I was then given a date to return for a second polygraph exam [retest].
Upon returning for the retest, I was surprisingly informed by the polygraph examiner, that the FBI DC polygraph lab suspected I had used polygraph countermeasures during my first polygraph exam. The polygraph examiner told me that
Quote"I did too good to be true".
I was thoroughly questioned about polygraph countermeasures information such as; having researched polygraph countermeasures on the internet, [this site was never referenced by the polygraph examiner], asked about being coached on cm's, received any training on employing polygraph countermeasures, etc...
End result, I was deemed deceptive on my second polygraph exam, in the areas of employing polygraph countermeasures during my "first" polygraph exam.
Although I employed the exact identical polygraph countermeasures during the second polygraph exam as I employed during the first, the polygraph examiner never suspected the use of countermeasures during the second polygraph exam.
The polygraph examiner was too focused on trying to establish that I had employed polygraph countermeasures during the first polygraph exam, rather than trying to determine if I was possibly using polygraph countermeasures during the retest.
It is interesting that I was never suspected or questioned of employing polygraph countermeasures during the second polygraph exam.
In conclusion, the polygraph examiner told me that I basically "did too good to be true", and that "nobody does that good" on a polygraph exam.
Lesson to be learned from my personal experience:
Exercise caution if/when employing polygraph countermeasures during a polygraph exam, and do not "over-react" to ALL of the control questions.
In response to your question regarding a baseline-breathing rate; I think a 2/3-second in/out-breathing rate would be most desirable.
Be advised, I was personally suspected of employing polygraph countermeasures, and thus, disqualified from further consideration for employment with the agency in which I had applied. That being said, I did however successfully pass both polygraph exams, only to be "suspected" [not caught] of employing polygraph countermeasures during my first polygraph exam only, not suspected of employing polygraph countermeasures during the second polygraph exam.
When I asked the polygraph examiner specifically what it was that the DC polygraph lab "suspected" me of employing, his response was simply that "I did too good to be true" during my first polygraph exam. Bottom line, I scored too well on the polygraph charts, thus later drawing suspicion and speculation from the DC polygraph lab [not the polygraph examiner that administered the polygraph exam] that I must have employed countermeasures.
Keep in mind; this is strictly my personal opinion, based on my own personal polygraph examination experience.
False positive results are not uncommon. Simply telling the truth is no guarantee of receiving a passing result during a polygraph exam.
Knowledge is power.
Good luck.
Triple x
Posted by anyone
- Mar 31, 2004, 11:46 PMWhat methods are most popular/successful for developing a good baseline breathing rate?(I know the 15-30 breaths/minute rule) I am interested in technique(counting or mental strategies) It seems difficult to remain perfectly constant, especially over long periods of time. How perfect does the baseline have to be? I would really like to here from people who have successfuly used their technique, although all input is appreciated.