Post reply

The message has the following error or errors that must be corrected before continuing:
Warning: this topic has not been posted in for at least 120 days.
Unless you're sure you want to reply, please consider starting a new topic.
Attachments: (Clear attachments)
Restrictions: 4 per post (4 remaining), maximum total size 192 KB, maximum individual size 64.00 MB
Uncheck the attachments you no longer want attached
Click or drag files here to attach them.
(Clear attachments)
Other options
Verification:
Please leave this box empty:
Type the letters shown in the picture
Listen to the letters / Request another image

Type the letters shown in the picture:
Type the last letter of the word, "America.":
Shortcuts: ALT+S post or ALT+P preview

Topic summary

Posted by Sergeant1107
 - Jul 14, 2005, 11:04 AM
I think it is easy to see how a truthful person "failing" a polygraph could come away from the experience with feelings of betrayal and anger.  Especially if you didn't know anything about the polygraph before you started, you almost certainly went into the test with the belief that if it was part of the process to get hired by law enforcement then it must be a fair and impartial test.  To tell the truth in such a test and be falsely labeled as deceptive is a shocking, iconoclastic thing to have happen.

Perhaps we could show a little understanding rather than making jokes.
Posted by importscout
 - Jul 14, 2005, 04:02 AM
Oh that's right!!  Polygraphers are there to help you through the process, yes?  And they are just there to make sure only good, truth-telling applicants get through.

ignorance is bliss..  or is it...?

Did you read the ebook?  Calling me paranoid is hardly constructive to the conversation, is it?  

I'll be paranoid, and you'll be ignorant, I'll live with that.
Posted by nonombre
 - Jul 14, 2005, 12:44 AM
Quote from: importscout on Jul 13, 2005, 03:58 AMI too, failed my first poly  1. because I did not practice enough, and 2. because I wasn't sure which were controls or irrelevants.  My LASD poly did not use any 'known-lie' controls, so I was waiting for those and failed to employ countermeasures for the other controls.

...You may have been flunked prematurely due to body language, or it was 'that time of the month' for the polygrapher....

After reading the eBook on this site I was shocked to find out how random polygraphers are with failing people.  If you're late, you're failed!  If you don't wash your hands, you're failed!  If they don't like your face or tone of voice - failed!  If they don't fail some people, they're not doing their job.  

My polygrapher called me that morning of my test to tell me he needed me there an hour earlier than expected.  This could have been a test as well.

"I'm not paranoid.  That is just an ugly rumor started by all those damed people who are out to get me."


Posted by importscout
 - Jul 13, 2005, 03:58 AM
I too, failed my first poly  1. because I did not practice enough, and 2. because I wasn't sure which were controls or irrelevants.  My LASD poly did not use any 'known-lie' controls, so I was waiting for those and failed to employ countermeasures for the other controls.

PolyReject,  you still have no evidence that your polygrapher was not bluffing.  You may have been flunked prematurely due to body language, or it was 'that time of the month' for the polygrapher.  My polygrapher accused me of controlling my breathing,  I appologized and said that I was just trying to relax.  I then continued breathing exactly as before and he never said boo about it again.

After reading the eBook on this site I was shocked to find out how random polygraphers are with failing people.  If you're late, you're failed!  If you don't wash your hands, you're failed!  If they don't like your face or tone of voice - failed!  If they don't fail some people, they're not doing their job.  

My polygrapher called me that morning of my test to tell me he needed me there an hour earlier than expected.  This could have been a test as well.
Posted by Jeffery
 - Jun 14, 2005, 01:15 AM
Quote from: seascapes on Jun 13, 2005, 03:27 PMOMG, a truthful person comes forward and admits that CM's dont work and all the you permanent fixtures come out of the woodwrok and loose your minds.
Geeee... maybe its possible someone out there was hurt by your BS.
Maybe and more likely definately many inocent people have been re victimized by the guilty people who come to this site in hopes of eluding detection of the crimes they have committed.
Truthful people dont need to use counter measures.

Unfortunately one will never know the truth until seated in the polygraph chair.  By then it's too late.  Too bad for the polygraphers -- this site is forcing them back into the "woodwrok" since polygraphics is the one field where the "light of day" causes concern to those that practice it.

The truth shall set you free?  If you're a polygrapher, the cliche that applies the most is "the truth hurts."

Have a nice life.
Posted by Bill Crider
 - Jun 13, 2005, 04:00 PM
thats not necessarily true. I did not use CMs, was truthful and failed 4 straight tests. a review of my charts shoed that the questions I failed were different each time. on some tests I passed some questions, and failed on others, but never managed to pass them all at the same time. so the idea that a truthful person will always pass is not accurate
Posted by seascapes
 - Jun 13, 2005, 03:27 PM
OMG, a truthful person comes forward and admits that CM's dont work and all the you permanent fixtures come out of the woodwrok and loose your minds.
Geeee... maybe its possible someone out there was hurt by your BS.
Maybe and more likely definately many inocent people have been re victimized by the guilty people who come to this site in hopes of eluding detection of the crimes they have committed.
Truthful people dont need to use counter measures.
Posted by Drew Richardson
 - Jun 09, 2005, 02:22 PM
Sergeant1107,

You write:  

Quote

I think that once we remember that a polygraph "test" is essentially an interrogation it's easier to see that an examiner would accuse someone of using CM's.  I have loads of experience in interview and interrogation, and it's easy for me to envision this scenario:
- Polygrapher notices reactions to one or more control questions.
- Polygrapher has no idea if the subject is using CM's or not, but wants to discourage any such attempts.
- Polygrapher warns the subject about using countermeasures and maybe even displays an anger reaction to intimidate the subject.
- Polygrapher then asks the control questions again to see if there are different reactions.

It's common during the interview of a criminal suspect to imply that I have more knowledge than I actually do.  I might have a folder on the desk with names on it that the subject will recognize as potential witnesses or accomplices, just to make him think I've already talked to them.  Or I may have one of my officers "accidentally" interrupt the statement to tell me he's obtained the security video or the photos off a witness's camera-phone.  If it makes the suspect admit to whatever he did, great.  If it doesn't than I'm no worse off than if I didn't try any of that.  It's easy for me to believe that polygraph examiners (who are, in fact, trained interrogators) use the same tactics during a polygraph "test."

That which you suggest is not at all unreasonable.  The appropriate examinee response UNDER ANY AND ALL CIRCUMSTANCES is to deny countermeasure use when so accused.  I can not say strongly enough--an examinee should expect it to be a fairly high probability event that he or she will be accused of countermeasure use regardless of whether they were employed or not (in view of the fact that examiners can not reliably detect them and as you (Sergeant) say they (polygraphers) have very little to lose with their accusations) and UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES should an examinee ever admit to countermeasure use....UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES should an examinee ever admit to countermeasure usage....UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES should an examinee ever admit to countermeasure usage---anything you don't under stand about UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES??


p.s. Sergeant, I should point out that your analogies between what occurs in the interrogation room and the polygraph suite fall apart in one regard.  In the case of the former, only  the interrogator knows for sure what is in the folder or what the accidental interruption has really added to the process.  In the polygraph suite, it is only the examinee who knows for sure whether countermeasures have been employed.  Regards....
Posted by Sergeant1107
 - Jun 09, 2005, 11:43 AM
I think that once we remember that a polygraph "test" is essentially an interrogation it's easier to see that an examiner would accuse someone of using CM's.  I have loads of experience in interview and interrogation, and it's easy for me to envision this scenario:
 - Polygrapher notices reactions to one or more control questions.
 - Polygrapher has no idea if the subject is using CM's or not, but wants to discourage any such attempts.
 - Polygrapher warns the subject about using countermeasures and maybe even displays an anger reaction to intimidate the subject.
 - Polygrapher then asks the control questions again to see if there are different reactions.

It's common during the interview of a criminal suspect to imply that I have more knowledge than I actually do.  I might have a folder on the desk with names on it that the subject will recognize as potential witnesses or accomplices, just to make him think I've already talked to them.  Or I may have one of my officers "accidentally" interrupt the statement to tell me he's obtained the security video or the photos off a witness's camera-phone.  If it makes the suspect admit to whatever he did, great.  If it doesn't than I'm no worse off than if I didn't try any of that.  It's easy for me to believe that polygraph examiners (who are, in fact, trained interrogators) use the same tactics during a polygraph "test."
Posted by George W. Maschke
 - Jun 05, 2005, 04:51 PM
Quote from: xusmico on Jun 05, 2005, 04:29 PM1st mistake was using CM's.  Only a very few are actually taught effective CM's.  They are tier 1 national clandestine or NOC assets.  The actual training is TS/SCI but involves stressors targeting the sym and parasym nervous system, biofeed back...

Could you please explain more about these countermeasures of which you speak?
Posted by xusmico
 - Jun 05, 2005, 04:29 PM
1st mistake was using CM's.  Only a very few are actually taught effective CM's.  They are tier 1 national clandestine or NOC assets.  The actual training is TS/SCI but involves stressors targeting the sym and parasym nervous system, biofeed back.  This training is is intensive. Unless you are  pathalogical, the commerical CM's won't work.  If you are pathalogical, you won't need them.   SOP is if CM's are detected, you are guilty/hidding something.  If your PW cat is high enough, SECDEF has some very unplesant suprizes for you.
Posted by George W. Maschke
 - May 10, 2005, 10:06 AM
Quote from: Polyreject on May 09, 2005, 03:16 PM
George and others:

My intuition tells me that this polygrapher and maybe others suspect CM use when there is a significant reaction to control questions.  But let me ask you all this:

What is the reaction difference between a normal lie on a control, and a control manipulated by a CM?  (Let's say the anal CM)

It seems that there is no obvious difference between reactions that result from anxiety associated with the asking of a question and those produced by other means, such as cognitive activity or tongue-biting. Again, in the available peer-reviewed research (by Honts et al.; see abstracts in the bibliography of TLBTLD), even experienced polygraphers were unable to detect countermeasures at better-than-chance levels of accuracy.

QuoteIf there is a substantial difference between the two, then I can't imagine the polygrapher having too difficult of the time distinguishing between them.  On this point, if I were a polygrapher, which I'm not (and I know some of you think that I am) why would I answer Dr. Richardson's challenge and give away my secret???

Dr. Richardson's polygraph countermeasure challenge does not require the polygrapher to disclose how he or she detects countermeasures. It merely requires that he or she do so.

QuoteI have a hard time accepting the notion that polygraphers randomly accuse people of using CMs. (I'm sure it has happened, but it does not make sense for this practice to be the norm)

If random CM accusations are given by polygraphers then I would imagine they would be intended to elicit a confession of CM use.  (This idea would be especially true, if examiners really cannot detect CMs, which I'm not so sure about).

However, if no such confession is rendered then it seems counter-intuitive for the sake of the agency's hiring practice to label the person as using CMs nonetheless and dismiss their application.

Having worked for the fed gov't in the past, I know that it is far from perfect.  But to suggest that CM accusations are randomly made, when the polygrapher truly cannot detect CM use, and applicants are subsequently disqualified even without making a confession, then that is essentially saying that the agencies adhere to a level of conspiratorial behavior that is so far-fetched it is nearly unbelievable.

I don't suppose that accusations of countermeasure use are being made on a random basis. Rather, I suspect DoDPI has established some guidelines for such decisions. However, such guidelines have not been published either by DoDPI or by any polygraph association. In any event, the mere existence of any such guidelines does not necessarily entail that polygraphers are actually detecting countermeasures at better-than-chance levels.

With regard to ethics, note that federal, state, and local agencies are branding applicants and employees as liars, even without admissions, based on a procedure (polygraph screening) that the National Academy of Sciences has concluded is completely invalid. It is no great ethical leap for agencies relying on polygraph screening to further make "determinations" that such persons have employed countermeasures, even without an admission.

The Lie Behind the Lie Detector is presently being downloaded from this site at a sustained rate of about 1,000 times per week. If just five percent of those who download it are using the countermeasures discussed in Chapter 4, that would be about 50 persons weekly, or some 2,500 per year. But in the four and a half years AntiPolygraph.org has been on-line, we have heard from only a handful of people stating that they used countermeasures but nonetheless failed to pass. As noted above, several of those turned out to be polygraphers in disguise. I should add here that I am confident, after our private correspondence, that you are not in this category. But if polygraphers were genuinely able to detect countermeasures, I would expect that we'd be receiving more frequent reports like yours.

QuoteHow do I retrieve my file via FOIA?  Who do I write to and what do I ask for?

You'll find tips on how to file a Privacy Act request in Chapter 5 of TLBTLD.

QuoteAlso, if I get my chart, will you post it on this website?

Absolutely.
Posted by Polyreject
 - May 09, 2005, 03:20 PM
George:

How do I retrieve my file via FOIA?  Who do I write to and what do I ask for?

Also, if I get my chart, will you post it on this website?

I have no other reason for wanting to re-live this miserable experience unless it can really benefit another in the future.
Posted by Polyreject
 - May 09, 2005, 03:16 PM

George and others:

My intuition tells me that this polygrapher and maybe others suspect CM use when there is a significant reaction to control questions.  But let me ask you all this:

What is the reaction difference between a normal lie on a control, and a control manipulated by a CM?  (Let's say the anal CM)

If there is a substantial difference between the two, then I can't imagine the polygrapher having too difficult of the time distinguishing between them.  On this point, if I were a polygrapher, which I'm not (and I know some of you think that I am) why would I answer Dr. Richardson's challenge and give away my secret???

I have a hard time accepting the notion that polygraphers randomly accuse people of using CMs. (I'm sure it has happened, but it does not make sense for this practice to be the norm)

If random CM accusations are given by polygraphers then I would imagine they would be intended to elicit a confession of CM use.  (This idea would be especially true, if examiners really cannot detect CMs, which I'm not so sure about).

However, if no such confession is rendered then it seems counter-intuitive for the sake of the agency's hiring practice to label the person as using CMs nonetheless and dismiss their application.

Having worked for the fed gov't in the past, I know that it is far from perfect.  But to suggest that CM accusations are randomly made, when the polygrapher truly cannot detect CM use, and applicants are subsequently disqualified even without making a confession, then that is essentially saying that the agencies adhere to a level of conspiratorial behavior that is so far-fetched it is nearly unbelievable.

Posted by polyfool
 - May 09, 2005, 12:07 PM
Polyreject:

The TLBTLD does make reference to over tightening the anal muscle. If I recall correctly, I believe it says something like "a little goes a long way," and warns not to overdo it. I was indirectly accused of "trying to manipulate" my first test and I knew absolutely nothing about countermeasures or the polygraph's inaccuracy. In the second test, I was directly accused of countermeasure use and then told I was still "having trouble" with the drug questions. The point is, polygraph examiners do not know when one is employing countermeasures, they're just bluffing. Thanks for answering  all my questions.