- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by MissionPoly-ban
- Nov 14, 2001, 06:16 PMThanks for the response.....
The interview under head title "polygraph procedures"/subtitle
"An Interview w/a Poygrapher(vampire)" is an interview in which a polygraph examiner is confronted with this insight.
His response to this insight is that the reason they use counter-countermeasures is to "get and accurate test reading" and to make sure the graph doesn't come up inconclusive.
Last time I checked reality--though I could be wrong, the fact was that when someone is caught using countermeasures they are AUTOMATICALLY FAILED, as they rightfully should be.
If the person is caught in the act they are failed on the spot.
If the case is that graphers could so "easily" detect the countermeasures on paper, how would this BEEE ANYYY DIFFERRENTTTT? Based on the claims of most examiners, they could then simply FAIL them based on the countermeasures detected on the charts. Is it just me or is this such a simple and logical point that destroys polygraphers claims?
What this leads me to believe is that it is not easy by any means to distinguish countermeasures simply based on the graph itself.
As far as his idea that the polygrapher doesn't want an inconclusive reading, why would they care if it was an inconclusive test if the KNEW the person was using countermeasures? They would simply fail them and bring closure right then and there while looking at the charts.
Moreover, what I derive from this polygrapher's response to my question is that this may be the case:
When used improperly by someone who doesn't know how to accurately distinguish control questions (or uses the countemeasure the whole way through the test by accident), the test will come up inconclusive, which probably happens A LOT. However, if the countermeasure is used at the appropriate time, then the person has helped themself potentially pass the test. I think this is the information that most polygraphers fear to express--the idea that if the countermeasures are used at the RIGHT TIME, then the person may have swung the reactions enough to come up "NDI"/passing. I come to this conclusion based on the fact that this particular examiner doesn't even consider the idea of being able to beat the test, yet admits that countermeasures will cause an inconclusive. I believe the inconclusives that popularly come up are the result of not knowing when to use the countermeasure.
The interview under head title "polygraph procedures"/subtitle
"An Interview w/a Poygrapher(vampire)" is an interview in which a polygraph examiner is confronted with this insight.
His response to this insight is that the reason they use counter-countermeasures is to "get and accurate test reading" and to make sure the graph doesn't come up inconclusive.
Last time I checked reality--though I could be wrong, the fact was that when someone is caught using countermeasures they are AUTOMATICALLY FAILED, as they rightfully should be.
If the person is caught in the act they are failed on the spot.
If the case is that graphers could so "easily" detect the countermeasures on paper, how would this BEEE ANYYY DIFFERRENTTTT? Based on the claims of most examiners, they could then simply FAIL them based on the countermeasures detected on the charts. Is it just me or is this such a simple and logical point that destroys polygraphers claims?
What this leads me to believe is that it is not easy by any means to distinguish countermeasures simply based on the graph itself.
As far as his idea that the polygrapher doesn't want an inconclusive reading, why would they care if it was an inconclusive test if the KNEW the person was using countermeasures? They would simply fail them and bring closure right then and there while looking at the charts.
Moreover, what I derive from this polygrapher's response to my question is that this may be the case:
When used improperly by someone who doesn't know how to accurately distinguish control questions (or uses the countemeasure the whole way through the test by accident), the test will come up inconclusive, which probably happens A LOT. However, if the countermeasure is used at the appropriate time, then the person has helped themself potentially pass the test. I think this is the information that most polygraphers fear to express--the idea that if the countermeasures are used at the RIGHT TIME, then the person may have swung the reactions enough to come up "NDI"/passing. I come to this conclusion based on the fact that this particular examiner doesn't even consider the idea of being able to beat the test, yet admits that countermeasures will cause an inconclusive. I believe the inconclusives that popularly come up are the result of not knowing when to use the countermeasure.
Posted by G Scalabr
- Nov 14, 2001, 03:33 PMI agree with George. You have some very valid points. If polygraphers could actually determine attempts at countermeasures via chartgazing as easily as they claim, there would be no need for these additional techniques, considering their dubious effectiveness...
Let's take a look at them...
Nobody is saying that polygraphers cannot detect any countermeasures. They certainly can detect things like coughing, arm flexing, gross movements, etc. Bear in mind that only a fool would attempt these things in this day and age.
Let's take a look at them...
QuoteWiping a persons fingers clean before attaching GSR readersUseless against sophisticated countermeasures. Covering one's fingertips with crazy glue, antiperspirant, etc is strictly bush league.
QuotePutting sensors in the chair to detect unusual movement and pressureA waste of time against anyone that has practiced using muscle contractions while sitting on their hand. Only gross movements are detected.
QuoteReviewing a taped video of the examinee taking the test to look for countermeasures such as unusual jaw movementSince it is easy to bite one's tongue without it even being visible in the mirror, I doubt the low resolution image of VHS will detect this technique.
QuoteAsking an examinee to remove their shoes before taking the testWe specifically advise examinees not to use this technique because it can be detected.
Nobody is saying that polygraphers cannot detect any countermeasures. They certainly can detect things like coughing, arm flexing, gross movements, etc. Bear in mind that only a fool would attempt these things in this day and age.
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Nov 13, 2001, 04:17 PMAnon,
You've made an astute observation. Were polygraphers truly able to detect the kinds of countermeasures described in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector by gazing into the polygraph charts, then they wouldn't need to employ any counter-countermeasures at all, would they? Indeed, there would be no need to discourage countermeasure attempts. Polygraphers could just fail all the cheats they caught trying to beat the polygraph.
Your observation reminds me of an observation we made in the chapter on polygraph countermeasures in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector. At a Department of Energy public hearing on polygraph policy in 1999, Dr. Gordon Barland, then chief of countermeasures instruction and research at DoDPI, tried to mislead top-notch atomic scientists and engineers into believing that DoDPI had developed a reliable method for detecting countermeasures. But if such were actually the case, wouldn't it make much better sense from a counterintelligence standpoint to keep mum and let those who might dare (which would presumably incude any spies, saboteurs, and terrorists) attempt to beat the polygraph and then subject them to vigorous scrutiny?
Dr. Barland played a similar game on this message board, trying to convince readers that polygraphers had devised a method of detecting the kind of countermeasures described in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector. (See the message thread, "Countermeasure considerations for the innocent.") I'll let you draw your own conclusions regarding the convincingness of Dr. Barland's arguments.
You've made an astute observation. Were polygraphers truly able to detect the kinds of countermeasures described in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector by gazing into the polygraph charts, then they wouldn't need to employ any counter-countermeasures at all, would they? Indeed, there would be no need to discourage countermeasure attempts. Polygraphers could just fail all the cheats they caught trying to beat the polygraph.
Your observation reminds me of an observation we made in the chapter on polygraph countermeasures in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector. At a Department of Energy public hearing on polygraph policy in 1999, Dr. Gordon Barland, then chief of countermeasures instruction and research at DoDPI, tried to mislead top-notch atomic scientists and engineers into believing that DoDPI had developed a reliable method for detecting countermeasures. But if such were actually the case, wouldn't it make much better sense from a counterintelligence standpoint to keep mum and let those who might dare (which would presumably incude any spies, saboteurs, and terrorists) attempt to beat the polygraph and then subject them to vigorous scrutiny?
Dr. Barland played a similar game on this message board, trying to convince readers that polygraphers had devised a method of detecting the kind of countermeasures described in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector. (See the message thread, "Countermeasure considerations for the innocent.") I'll let you draw your own conclusions regarding the convincingness of Dr. Barland's arguments.
Posted by Anon (Guest)
- Nov 13, 2001, 03:41 PMThank you Very much for the response!
Here is some food for thought that crossed my mind the other day:
Doesn't the fact that more and more polygraphers (or any polygrapher, for that matter) are using counter-countermeasures such as:
-Wiping a persons fingers clean before attaching GSR readers
-Putting sensors in the chair to detect unusual movement
and pressure
-Reviewing a taped video of the examinee taking the test
to look for countermeasures such as unsual jaw movement
-Asking an examinee to remove their shoes before taking the
test
Prove the fact that if anything, it is nearly impossible to detect countermeasures based on INTERPRETTING THE CHARTS? If it were the case that tracings were so utterly obvious when compared to normal anxiety reactions on a polygraph chart, there would be ABSOLUTELY NO NEED to use such counter-countermeasures, or even use the pathetic threat of them in verabal interaction during the test, or in literature (or, for that matter, to even look for them during the test!). If detecting countermeasures on paper were truly an easy task, wouldn't a Polygrapher's jobs be so much easier in the sense that they could simply administer the test, truly care less about catching examinees using countermeasures in the act, and then just simply nail them by "simply" noticing the use of countermeasures on the charts as they all say they can so easily do? I think this insight helps further prove the point that even the polygraphers truly beleive the lies they are taught to tell...? Any thoughts....?
Here is some food for thought that crossed my mind the other day:
Doesn't the fact that more and more polygraphers (or any polygrapher, for that matter) are using counter-countermeasures such as:
-Wiping a persons fingers clean before attaching GSR readers
-Putting sensors in the chair to detect unusual movement
and pressure
-Reviewing a taped video of the examinee taking the test
to look for countermeasures such as unsual jaw movement
-Asking an examinee to remove their shoes before taking the
test
Prove the fact that if anything, it is nearly impossible to detect countermeasures based on INTERPRETTING THE CHARTS? If it were the case that tracings were so utterly obvious when compared to normal anxiety reactions on a polygraph chart, there would be ABSOLUTELY NO NEED to use such counter-countermeasures, or even use the pathetic threat of them in verabal interaction during the test, or in literature (or, for that matter, to even look for them during the test!). If detecting countermeasures on paper were truly an easy task, wouldn't a Polygrapher's jobs be so much easier in the sense that they could simply administer the test, truly care less about catching examinees using countermeasures in the act, and then just simply nail them by "simply" noticing the use of countermeasures on the charts as they all say they can so easily do? I think this insight helps further prove the point that even the polygraphers truly beleive the lies they are taught to tell...? Any thoughts....?
Posted by G Scalabr
- Nov 13, 2001, 08:23 AMAnon,
Thanks for posting.
Note that polygraph examiners often make (unsupported) accusations of countermeasures because of an examinee's baseline breathing pattern. If you were conscious of your breathing during the baseline, you might as well have attempted to employ breathing patterns during the controls as well. Obviously you did it well if you were not accused of attempting to "beat the box." The key thing to remember here (both with baseline and when mimicking a reaction) is to create a gradual transition between each inhale/exhale/inhale. Think of making the slightest pause each time, like when making a "California Stop" is a vehicle. With this technique, one comes to a slight pause, but not a full enough pause to rock the vehicle on its suspension. Combined with a relatively rapid breathing rate, your polygrapher will be none the wiser.
Anon, if polygraphers admitted the truth with regard to countermeasures, their days of making $250/hr with a high school diploma and eight weeks of training would be over. Even if polygraphy were accurate (which it isn't), the fact that it is easily defeated by anyone is truly an Achilles' heel. Polygraphers have provided absolutely no support for this type of claim. A peer-reviewed scientific study conducted with experienced examiners showed that polygraphers have no ability to detect the type of countermeasures we teach in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector better than chance. Furthermore, Drs. Charles Honts and Drew C. Richardson, both PhD. scientists and polygraphers, have stated before the National Academy of Sciences polygraph review that examiners cannot reliably detect sophisticated countermeasures.
If detecting countermeasures were "easy," why does the Department of Defense Polygraph Institute have a full continuing education course for advanced examiners on the topic? Furthermore, why is everything in the course classified (probably because the techniques consist of bluffing the examinee into admission)? Both with government examiners and private ones, when asked to support their claims of being able to detect countermeasures (namely, HOW IS IT DONE), refuse to talk claiming that "it's a secret." I'm sorry, but "it's a secret," especially from examiners not in the government employ, just does not cut it.
Thanks for posting.
QuoteOn the relevants I simply tried to breath nice and rounded breaths and kept calm and collected (I basically kept a nice rounded breathing pattern the whole way through, not allowing myself to change pattern significantly anywhere in the test as I thought my breathing changes might give me away).
Note that polygraph examiners often make (unsupported) accusations of countermeasures because of an examinee's baseline breathing pattern. If you were conscious of your breathing during the baseline, you might as well have attempted to employ breathing patterns during the controls as well. Obviously you did it well if you were not accused of attempting to "beat the box." The key thing to remember here (both with baseline and when mimicking a reaction) is to create a gradual transition between each inhale/exhale/inhale. Think of making the slightest pause each time, like when making a "California Stop" is a vehicle. With this technique, one comes to a slight pause, but not a full enough pause to rock the vehicle on its suspension. Combined with a relatively rapid breathing rate, your polygrapher will be none the wiser.
QuoteNearly all (99.9%) of the examiners I have talked to also feel that it is IMPOSSIBLE to pass the test using countermeasures.
Anon, if polygraphers admitted the truth with regard to countermeasures, their days of making $250/hr with a high school diploma and eight weeks of training would be over. Even if polygraphy were accurate (which it isn't), the fact that it is easily defeated by anyone is truly an Achilles' heel. Polygraphers have provided absolutely no support for this type of claim. A peer-reviewed scientific study conducted with experienced examiners showed that polygraphers have no ability to detect the type of countermeasures we teach in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector better than chance. Furthermore, Drs. Charles Honts and Drew C. Richardson, both PhD. scientists and polygraphers, have stated before the National Academy of Sciences polygraph review that examiners cannot reliably detect sophisticated countermeasures.
If detecting countermeasures were "easy," why does the Department of Defense Polygraph Institute have a full continuing education course for advanced examiners on the topic? Furthermore, why is everything in the course classified (probably because the techniques consist of bluffing the examinee into admission)? Both with government examiners and private ones, when asked to support their claims of being able to detect countermeasures (namely, HOW IS IT DONE), refuse to talk claiming that "it's a secret." I'm sorry, but "it's a secret," especially from examiners not in the government employ, just does not cut it.
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Nov 13, 2001, 05:03 AMAnon,
If (as I assume based on your account) you were not subjected to a "post-test" interrogation, then you very likely passed. I further expect that the self-induced pain caused by the tack indeed resulted in "significant responses" on the "control" questions.
Anon, I note that you decided to lie about a matter that you say would have automatically disqualified you for the law enforcement job for which you are applying. While it is not AntiPolygraph.org's purpose to help liars beat the polygraph, as you appear to have successfully done, I'm nonetheless willing to answer your questions because 1) the answers are of general interest and 2) your experience, which you've been candid enough to share, helps to illustrate the folly of placing any reliance on polygraph chart readings.
Whatever it is in your background that you lied about, it is unlikely to be discovered in a background investigation now that you've (apparently) been given the polygraph seal of approval. I hope you'll consider posting an update on your polygraph situation after you get a definitive answer.
If (as I assume based on your account) you were not subjected to a "post-test" interrogation, then you very likely passed. I further expect that the self-induced pain caused by the tack indeed resulted in "significant responses" on the "control" questions.
Anon, I note that you decided to lie about a matter that you say would have automatically disqualified you for the law enforcement job for which you are applying. While it is not AntiPolygraph.org's purpose to help liars beat the polygraph, as you appear to have successfully done, I'm nonetheless willing to answer your questions because 1) the answers are of general interest and 2) your experience, which you've been candid enough to share, helps to illustrate the folly of placing any reliance on polygraph chart readings.
Whatever it is in your background that you lied about, it is unlikely to be discovered in a background investigation now that you've (apparently) been given the polygraph seal of approval. I hope you'll consider posting an update on your polygraph situation after you get a definitive answer.
Posted by Anon (Guest)
- Nov 13, 2001, 04:37 AMThank you extremely George...it's nice to receive a response so quickly.
So considering I wasn't caught in the act or confronted, what do you think the chances are that I passed ( I know this is a questions that isn't easily answered....)? I accurately--as in 100%--distinguished the control questions (there were three:
"Besides who you told me, was there anyone else that you lied to before the age of 18," for example) and subtly pressed my big toe into the tac as soon as I recognized the obvious control questions...pressed it into the tac hard enough to really feel it but I kept my face nice and calm and showed no sign of strain. I held the pressure on the tac through answering "no" and then released pressure after about 5-7 seconds. On the relevants I simply tried to breath nice and rounded breaths and kept calm and collected (I basically kept a nice rounded breathing pattern the whole way through, not allowing myself to change pattern significantly anywhere in the test as I thought my breathing changes might give me away).
Do you feel I did a decent job at using countermeasures, and do you think the prick of the tac will have affected the GSR and cardio enough to heighted those two areas?
Thanks again, sincerely Anon
So considering I wasn't caught in the act or confronted, what do you think the chances are that I passed ( I know this is a questions that isn't easily answered....)? I accurately--as in 100%--distinguished the control questions (there were three:
"Besides who you told me, was there anyone else that you lied to before the age of 18," for example) and subtly pressed my big toe into the tac as soon as I recognized the obvious control questions...pressed it into the tac hard enough to really feel it but I kept my face nice and calm and showed no sign of strain. I held the pressure on the tac through answering "no" and then released pressure after about 5-7 seconds. On the relevants I simply tried to breath nice and rounded breaths and kept calm and collected (I basically kept a nice rounded breathing pattern the whole way through, not allowing myself to change pattern significantly anywhere in the test as I thought my breathing changes might give me away).
Do you feel I did a decent job at using countermeasures, and do you think the prick of the tac will have affected the GSR and cardio enough to heighted those two areas?
Thanks again, sincerely Anon
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Nov 13, 2001, 03:50 AMAnon,
You asked:
Yes, a person can pass a probable-lie "control" question "test" with the only significant physiological responses being on the cardio and electrodermal (galvanic skin response) channels of the polygraph instrument.
You also asked:
The claim that the patterns created by the countermeasures described on this site "don't cohere to normal nervous system reactions" is untrue, although the polygraphers with whom you spoke may sincerely believe it. It seems this doctrinaire belief that the polygraph cannot be beaten is inculcated into them in polygraph school (and it must be comforting for them to believe this).
I suggest you try this: ask any polygrapher who claims the polygraph cannot be beaten to direct you to any published articles that explain how a polygrapher can reliably recognize countermeasures attempts through the examination of polygraph charts. The American Polygraph Association quarterly, Polygraph, has not published a single such article in its 30-year history!
Finally, you asked:
You are indeed being misled by the polygraph "professionals."
Had your polygrapher suspected you were using countermeasures, he/she would no doubt have confronted you about it and sought a confession.
However, note regarding the tack-in-the-shoe technique that your polygrapher could have gotten wind of it had your polygraph chair had a strain guage attached to it. In addition, had your polygrapher instructed you to remove your shoes, you would not have been able to use this technique. And had your polygrapher actually inspected your shoes, your attempt would likely have been discovered.
You asked:
QuoteCan a person pass this type of test with only significant changes taking place in Cardio and Resistance? Or is it a must to have significant differences in breathing? I've not been able to find a good answer to this.
Yes, a person can pass a probable-lie "control" question "test" with the only significant physiological responses being on the cardio and electrodermal (galvanic skin response) channels of the polygraph instrument.
You also asked:
QuoteI haven't got the results back yet, and in my post test anxiety I have verbally interrogated polygraph examiners over aol instant messanger and email telling them I'm doing a senior thesis on polygraphs and the growing problem of criminals using countermeasures. In conversing with them, they tell me that the countermeasures popularly discussed on this site are EASILY EASILY recognized on the charts, because the patterns don't cohere to normal nervous system reactions. Nearly all (99.9%) of the examiners I have talked to also feel that it is IMPOSSIBLE to pass the test using countermeasures.
I have gotton really worked up and concerned after talking to theses examiners/reading their responses. Is it probable that they are required to defend their test since it is their job? Do you feel that this is the type of response I should expect from talking to one of the bastards that gives this test?
The claim that the patterns created by the countermeasures described on this site "don't cohere to normal nervous system reactions" is untrue, although the polygraphers with whom you spoke may sincerely believe it. It seems this doctrinaire belief that the polygraph cannot be beaten is inculcated into them in polygraph school (and it must be comforting for them to believe this).
I suggest you try this: ask any polygrapher who claims the polygraph cannot be beaten to direct you to any published articles that explain how a polygrapher can reliably recognize countermeasures attempts through the examination of polygraph charts. The American Polygraph Association quarterly, Polygraph, has not published a single such article in its 30-year history!
Finally, you asked:
QuoteShould I be as upset as I am about this, or have I been further misled by the polygraph examiners?
You are indeed being misled by the polygraph "professionals."
Had your polygrapher suspected you were using countermeasures, he/she would no doubt have confronted you about it and sought a confession.
However, note regarding the tack-in-the-shoe technique that your polygrapher could have gotten wind of it had your polygraph chair had a strain guage attached to it. In addition, had your polygrapher instructed you to remove your shoes, you would not have been able to use this technique. And had your polygrapher actually inspected your shoes, your attempt would likely have been discovered.
Posted by Anon (Guest)
- Nov 13, 2001, 01:52 AMHello...I was wondering if someone could answer some questions for me. I took a pre-employment polygraph for a job in Law-Enforcement and was forced to lie because the truth itself would have eliminated me automatically. I used the tac-in-the-shoe trick (I placed the tac through the inside removable padding of my shoe just past my big toe, so I was able to walk perfectly fine. When I sat down in the chair to take the test and the examiner was attaching the equipment to me, I subtly moved my toe over the tac. When the test was over, I pulled my foot back away from the tac) to create heightened responses to the control questions, which I was able to easily distinguish from the rest. As SOON as I recognized a control question, I would press my big toe down on the tac and I held it there for 5-7 seconds and made sure I stopped before the next question. However, I did not use any type of beathing countermeasures. I just made sure I breathed somewhat relaxed throughout the test, also making sure I didn't allow myself to breathe differently (faster/deeper/ec.) on the relevant questions. I believe the test was a zone of comparisons test, and it was carried out like this:
Pre-test interview
TEST FORMAT (run two times and order wasn't mixed up really at all):
1.Irrelevant
2.Irrelevant
3.Relevant
4.Control
5.Relevant
6.Control
7.Irrelevant
8.Relevant
9.Control
10.Relevant
And that was it
This is not exactly how it was, but nearly exactly (order).
Here are some observations and questions I have:
??Can a person pass this type of test with only significant changes taking place in Cardio and Resistance? Or is it a must to have significant differences in breathing? I've not been able to find a good answer to this.
The reason I ask is because on the test I took I am positive the tac-in-shoe trick affected the cardio and GSR (I actually got a glimpse at the chart for a split second and saw nice inclines where I performed the countermeasures), but my breathing definitely did not show significant change, as I did not allow it to.
The reason I did the tac trick instead of breathing measures is because I believe the breathing measures could easily be recognized since I am inexperienced at it.
The reason I didn't do the biting tongue trick is because jaw movement is totally obvious to anyone looking at your face, and there is a camera right on your face while taking the test.
The reason I didn't do the anal pucker is because in practicing it I found it hard to breath steady or in any designed manner while trying to make sure the anal pucker is tightened.
I haven't got the results back yet, and in my post test anxiety I have verbally interrogated polygraph examiners over aol instant messanger and email telling them I'm doing a senior thesis on polygraphs and the growing problem of criminals using countermeasures. In conversing with them, they tell me that the countermeasures popularly discussed on this site are EASILY EASILY recognized on the charts, because the patterns don't cohere to normal nervous system reactions. Nearly all (99.9%) of the examiners I have talked to also feel that it is IMPOSSIBLE to pass the test using countermeasures.
I have gotton really worked up and concerned after talking to theses examiners/reading their responses. Is it probable that they are required to defend their test since it is their job? Do you feel that this is the type of response I should expect from talking to one of the bastards that gives this test?
The main thing I am concerned about after talking to them is how many of them say it is VERY EASY to recognize countermeasures on the charts, even raises in blood pressure/gsr resulting from self-induced pain, and even if it is timed right.
Should I be as upset as I am about this, or have I been further misled by the polygraph examiners?
Pre-test interview
TEST FORMAT (run two times and order wasn't mixed up really at all):
1.Irrelevant
2.Irrelevant
3.Relevant
4.Control
5.Relevant
6.Control
7.Irrelevant
8.Relevant
9.Control
10.Relevant
And that was it
This is not exactly how it was, but nearly exactly (order).
Here are some observations and questions I have:
??Can a person pass this type of test with only significant changes taking place in Cardio and Resistance? Or is it a must to have significant differences in breathing? I've not been able to find a good answer to this. The reason I ask is because on the test I took I am positive the tac-in-shoe trick affected the cardio and GSR (I actually got a glimpse at the chart for a split second and saw nice inclines where I performed the countermeasures), but my breathing definitely did not show significant change, as I did not allow it to.
The reason I did the tac trick instead of breathing measures is because I believe the breathing measures could easily be recognized since I am inexperienced at it.
The reason I didn't do the biting tongue trick is because jaw movement is totally obvious to anyone looking at your face, and there is a camera right on your face while taking the test.
The reason I didn't do the anal pucker is because in practicing it I found it hard to breath steady or in any designed manner while trying to make sure the anal pucker is tightened.
I haven't got the results back yet, and in my post test anxiety I have verbally interrogated polygraph examiners over aol instant messanger and email telling them I'm doing a senior thesis on polygraphs and the growing problem of criminals using countermeasures. In conversing with them, they tell me that the countermeasures popularly discussed on this site are EASILY EASILY recognized on the charts, because the patterns don't cohere to normal nervous system reactions. Nearly all (99.9%) of the examiners I have talked to also feel that it is IMPOSSIBLE to pass the test using countermeasures.
I have gotton really worked up and concerned after talking to theses examiners/reading their responses. Is it probable that they are required to defend their test since it is their job? Do you feel that this is the type of response I should expect from talking to one of the bastards that gives this test?
The main thing I am concerned about after talking to them is how many of them say it is VERY EASY to recognize countermeasures on the charts, even raises in blood pressure/gsr resulting from self-induced pain, and even if it is timed right.
Should I be as upset as I am about this, or have I been further misled by the polygraph examiners?