- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by thing
- Sep 26, 2005, 04:13 PMQuoteYour 16 year old is a fake. "interesting responses," yes indeed liar.
Quote...non adult responses based on cultural acquaintance...Assume nothing.
I never assume people on the net are just who and what they say they are... But.
Could be a kid. Could be a smart kid.
When I was 16, I was literate and (reasonably) well read.
I know young people who are perfectly capable of writing with good grammer and without "non adult" cultural references.
Posted by responder
- Sep 26, 2005, 01:38 AMQuote from: innocence_faded on Sep 08, 2005, 02:47 AMInteresting responses. Polyfool you had a few questions regarding the test, possibly intended to prove me wrong, but in any case I will answer them.
Your 16 year old is a fake. "interesting responses," yes indeed liar. Your pathetic writing of trying to fill the responses of a 16 year old is very comical. For one you should have thrown off your grammar a bit, for two, used non adult responses based on cultural acquaintance LOL, and three, played dumb. You remind me of a look alike Saddam, or Bin Laden with a bad nose. Nice try, gotta give ya dibs as you did fool professionals in a field with your fiction writing. What can be said here is if fiction can fool you, certainly breathing manipulation and mental concentration is more than enough! Posted by retcopper
- Sep 09, 2005, 05:50 PMDrew:
You have it backwards. The question should be what lesson did the juvenile learn not the parents. You talk about putting the cart before the horse.
You have it backwards. The question should be what lesson did the juvenile learn not the parents. You talk about putting the cart before the horse.
Posted by EosJupiter
- Sep 09, 2005, 05:07 AMQuote from: darkcobra2005 on Sep 07, 2005, 07:28 PMEosJupiter,
I have conducted polygraph examinations on persons with IQ's over 120, a couple did use countermeasures and did admit to their use.
Your reply to nonombre regarding sharks? Are you a shark that can defeat polygraph testing? Is that what you refer to as a shark? Just wanted some clarification before going further.
Well Cobra,
It works like this, with intellect comes audacity, Plain and simple. If you got some smart folks who copped to using countermeasures, then what happens to them is their problem. They didn't have the courage or tenacity to keep with the plan. After SERE's training and counter-interrogation courses. I know who is in charge in the polygraph chair. I knew long ago that the polygraph is nothing more than a pressure tool. The game is and always will be how the polygrapher preps the subject. If he can get the subject to buy into the machine being infalliable then it will be. Knowlege is power, and most polygraphers are praying they get someone who is naive and believe that this interrogation is going to be fair for all involved. Which it is not, as any interrogator relies on gile, and lies to get the information they want.
The goal is not to allow that to happen. ANd every poly I have taken ... well we know who won the game :-)
EJ ..... Facts, Their is no substitute !!!
Posted by Drew Richardson
- Sep 08, 2005, 10:34 AMinnocence_faded,
In recent years, the only serious debate about polygraph countermeasures has been, not whether properly applied ones are detectable by experienced polygraphers (they're not), but whether some minimal personalized training and time spent with a polygraph or other recording instrument is necessary to successfully produce them. I have largely been willing to concede uncontested the necessity for some personalized training because it hasn't really mattered. The costs associated with a few minutes of personalized training are far outweighed by a lifetime of benefits (lifetime out of jail, a lifetime of one's chosen employment, etc) associated with passing a CQT polygraph exam. And so the forces of cost and benefit clearly lead to the motivation for the necessary training. Further augmenting this motivation is the recognition by innocent examinees of the very real danger of a false positive result. I have known for a long time that a bright young person of your age or less (my own son at age 10 could easily recognize relevant and comparison questions and demonstrate with a polygraph instrument the production of score-able responses to the latter type of question) was capable of successfully manipulating polygraph tracings. Your tale, albeit singular and anecdotal, would suggest that personalized training and time spent with a recording instrument might not be necessary (at least for a bright 16 year old with access to accurate information). To that extent you may have meaningfully contributed to a discussion larger than your own personal habits and one whose impact touches more than your own family life. Let me end on a personal note. As has been pointed out by others, your level of discourse and logic would suggest intellect beyond that of your age group peers. Hopefully that intellect will soon be coupled with the maturity not to disparage the thinking of those with a perceived lesser intellect and to realize that the nature of a true or feigned foundation for trust will have impact on the duration of that trust and the personal interactions stemming from that trust. I know—sometimes easier said than done, but time is on your side. Peace
In recent years, the only serious debate about polygraph countermeasures has been, not whether properly applied ones are detectable by experienced polygraphers (they're not), but whether some minimal personalized training and time spent with a polygraph or other recording instrument is necessary to successfully produce them. I have largely been willing to concede uncontested the necessity for some personalized training because it hasn't really mattered. The costs associated with a few minutes of personalized training are far outweighed by a lifetime of benefits (lifetime out of jail, a lifetime of one's chosen employment, etc) associated with passing a CQT polygraph exam. And so the forces of cost and benefit clearly lead to the motivation for the necessary training. Further augmenting this motivation is the recognition by innocent examinees of the very real danger of a false positive result. I have known for a long time that a bright young person of your age or less (my own son at age 10 could easily recognize relevant and comparison questions and demonstrate with a polygraph instrument the production of score-able responses to the latter type of question) was capable of successfully manipulating polygraph tracings. Your tale, albeit singular and anecdotal, would suggest that personalized training and time spent with a recording instrument might not be necessary (at least for a bright 16 year old with access to accurate information). To that extent you may have meaningfully contributed to a discussion larger than your own personal habits and one whose impact touches more than your own family life. Let me end on a personal note. As has been pointed out by others, your level of discourse and logic would suggest intellect beyond that of your age group peers. Hopefully that intellect will soon be coupled with the maturity not to disparage the thinking of those with a perceived lesser intellect and to realize that the nature of a true or feigned foundation for trust will have impact on the duration of that trust and the personal interactions stemming from that trust. I know—sometimes easier said than done, but time is on your side. Peace
Posted by innocence_faded
- Sep 08, 2005, 02:47 AMInteresting responses. Polyfool you had a few questions regarding the test, possibly intended to prove me wrong, but in any case I will answer them.
As far as parents coming down hard on me, you're absolutely right. My parents are the type that set big consequences, so you would think that I would be fearful. I was slightly nervous, because I could be facing a week of grounding or lose my car for awhile, but that's no big deal at all compared to your life's career being at stake. And another reason why I was not nervous is because I prepared well for the test, so I was confident that I could pass.
I have a question about your 35 second break between sets of questions during your test--how did you know the amount of time that had elapsed? Did your examiner time exactly 35 seconds between sets and tell you he was doing that?
After each set, he said "you are now finished this phase of the set, please refrain from moving for the next 35 seconds." After the 35 seconds we would move on to the next set of questions.
Also, even though your technique seems to have worked like a charm, wouldn't it have been better to concentrate on augmenting your responses to the control questions, instead of focusing so much on trying to change your reactions to the relevants? I've never heard advice such as yours. If you spent hours reading this site, what made you decide to come up with your own technique?
Well if you read my original post, you will see that I did, infact, augment my responses to the control questions. And trying to calm my reactions to the relevant questions just seems like common sense, right? So I wouldn't really consider that my own technique. The whole thing about counting backwards by seven's I read in TLBTLD on page 148. Whats funny about it though is he recommends the counting to augment the response to control questions, but I actually found that it helped more to calm my reactions. So I used it for the opposite effect, but it still worked very effectively.
You sound like one gutsy kid, I'm surprised you didn't have the nerve to stand up to your parents and tell them the truth about your experience with alcohol and drugs.
If I did that, then I would never be able to say that I beat the polygraph. I liked the challange.
And speaking of your parents, didn't they know that you only got one hour of sleep the night before the test? That would seem like a dead give away that you had something to hide from them. For someone who wasn't worried about the test, that's not a lot of sleep.
No, they did not know that I stayed up the night before. I spent the night reviewing TLBTLD, and also defrosting my freezer. (Not that that really matters)
Innocence faded--seems a very interesting name choice for a sixteen year old kid. You seem so bright and your language skills mature--I'm surprised that someone as wise as you would have given into peer pressure regarding drug and alcohol use. You seem way too smart for that.
Well, Innocence Faded is actually the name of a favorite Dream Theater song of mine. I don't let peer pressure affect me, I make choices on my own. I made the choice to use drugs and alcohol, and I made the choice to stop. Sure, I enjoy a few beers every now and then, but I keep it under control. And I haven't touched marijuana in months.
It kind of seems like parents who would go to all that trouble and expense for a poly, would go to that trouble and expense for a pee test or hair sample or a personal possession search.
Well my parents are quite dumb. They have never given me a drug test in my life. They did, however, purchase a breathalyzer right before the polygraph.
What exactly is it you won? The right to screw up your life?
My parents feel like they can trust me, and that makes them happy. The months before the polygraph, my relationship with my parents was crap. We would rarely talk about anything, and when we did talk it was just an argument. They would always accuse me of stuff even when they had no evidence. It was just a bad situation. Now, my relationship with my parents has never been better. They trust me, and they actually hold conversations with me, instead of making accusations. I think the results of the polygraph have helped me and my family quite a bit, and now I have a great story to tell people.
As far as parents coming down hard on me, you're absolutely right. My parents are the type that set big consequences, so you would think that I would be fearful. I was slightly nervous, because I could be facing a week of grounding or lose my car for awhile, but that's no big deal at all compared to your life's career being at stake. And another reason why I was not nervous is because I prepared well for the test, so I was confident that I could pass.
I have a question about your 35 second break between sets of questions during your test--how did you know the amount of time that had elapsed? Did your examiner time exactly 35 seconds between sets and tell you he was doing that?
After each set, he said "you are now finished this phase of the set, please refrain from moving for the next 35 seconds." After the 35 seconds we would move on to the next set of questions.
Also, even though your technique seems to have worked like a charm, wouldn't it have been better to concentrate on augmenting your responses to the control questions, instead of focusing so much on trying to change your reactions to the relevants? I've never heard advice such as yours. If you spent hours reading this site, what made you decide to come up with your own technique?
Well if you read my original post, you will see that I did, infact, augment my responses to the control questions. And trying to calm my reactions to the relevant questions just seems like common sense, right? So I wouldn't really consider that my own technique. The whole thing about counting backwards by seven's I read in TLBTLD on page 148. Whats funny about it though is he recommends the counting to augment the response to control questions, but I actually found that it helped more to calm my reactions. So I used it for the opposite effect, but it still worked very effectively.
You sound like one gutsy kid, I'm surprised you didn't have the nerve to stand up to your parents and tell them the truth about your experience with alcohol and drugs.
If I did that, then I would never be able to say that I beat the polygraph. I liked the challange.
And speaking of your parents, didn't they know that you only got one hour of sleep the night before the test? That would seem like a dead give away that you had something to hide from them. For someone who wasn't worried about the test, that's not a lot of sleep.
No, they did not know that I stayed up the night before. I spent the night reviewing TLBTLD, and also defrosting my freezer. (Not that that really matters)
Innocence faded--seems a very interesting name choice for a sixteen year old kid. You seem so bright and your language skills mature--I'm surprised that someone as wise as you would have given into peer pressure regarding drug and alcohol use. You seem way too smart for that.
Well, Innocence Faded is actually the name of a favorite Dream Theater song of mine. I don't let peer pressure affect me, I make choices on my own. I made the choice to use drugs and alcohol, and I made the choice to stop. Sure, I enjoy a few beers every now and then, but I keep it under control. And I haven't touched marijuana in months.
It kind of seems like parents who would go to all that trouble and expense for a poly, would go to that trouble and expense for a pee test or hair sample or a personal possession search.
Well my parents are quite dumb. They have never given me a drug test in my life. They did, however, purchase a breathalyzer right before the polygraph.
What exactly is it you won? The right to screw up your life?
My parents feel like they can trust me, and that makes them happy. The months before the polygraph, my relationship with my parents was crap. We would rarely talk about anything, and when we did talk it was just an argument. They would always accuse me of stuff even when they had no evidence. It was just a bad situation. Now, my relationship with my parents has never been better. They trust me, and they actually hold conversations with me, instead of making accusations. I think the results of the polygraph have helped me and my family quite a bit, and now I have a great story to tell people.
Posted by magic-cat
- Sep 07, 2005, 11:56 PMIt kind of seems like parents who would go to all that trouble and expense for a poly, would go to that trouble and expense for a pee test or hair sample or a personal possession search.
But in any case, I guess you won, huh. Now you get to smoke, drink and use drugs all you want without anyone having proof--this roundb.
What exactly is it you won? The right to screw up your life?
But in any case, I guess you won, huh. Now you get to smoke, drink and use drugs all you want without anyone having proof--this roundb.
What exactly is it you won? The right to screw up your life?
Posted by polyfool
- Sep 07, 2005, 10:37 PMQuote from: innocence_faded on Sep 07, 2005, 03:18 AMwell I am the original poster, and everything I said is absolutley true. I have no reason to lie about it. To be honest, the biggest reason why I passed is because I didn't really care if I failed, so I wasn't too nervous.
As far as the counting back from 7's, I did that on and off throughout the test, and I could tell it was working. I could feel that my body was giving absolutley no signs at all. And I was right about that, because he said there were zero signs of deception.
I might also add that I only got an hour of sleep the night before, I don't know if that had any influence on the results.
It's not surprising to me that a 16 year old can defeat the test no problem while adults seem to have a hard time with it, because the adult is obviously much more fearful of failing the test, because it could mean their career. For me, it's really not all that bad if I fail, so its easy to stay relaxed. I think that most poeple know when their body is giving off signs of deception, they just have to figure out whatever method works best for them to reduce or eliminate those signs.
And not that it matters, but Im not a regular drug user, I just have a history involving drugs and alcohol that my parents don't know about.
Innocence Faded:
You didn't care if you failed the test because you had nothing to fear like losing a job? I would think that parents who would go to the trouble of scheduling a polygraph for their sixteen year old and drive an hour away for it to be administered might be expected to come down pretty hard on you had you failed your test. I can't believe that you weren't a bit nervous. Wasn't your freedom at stake? Weren't you afraid of being grounded? Parents can be really strict when it comes to drugs and alcohol. If it wouldn't have been that bad if you had failed, why not just come clean with the folks?
I have a question about your 35 second break between sets of questions during your test--how did you know the amount of time that had elapsed? Did your examiner time exactly 35 seconds between sets and tell you he was doing that?
Also, even though your technique seems to have worked like a charm,
wouldn't it have been better to concentrate on augmenting your responses to the control questions, instead of focusing so much on trying to change your reactions to the relevants? I've never heard advice such as yours. If you spent hours reading this site, what made you decide to come up with your own technique? You sound like one gutsy kid, I'm surprised you didn't have the nerve to stand up to your parents and tell them the truth about your experience with alcohol and drugs.
And speaking of your parents, didn't they know that you only got one hour of sleep the night before the test? That would seem like a dead give away that you had something to hide from them. For someone who wasn't worried about the test, that's not a lot of sleep.
Innocence faded--seems a very interesting name choice for a sixteen year old kid. You seem so bright and your language skills mature--I'm surprised that someone as wise as you would have given into peer pressure regarding drug and alcohol use. You seem way too smart for that.
Posted by Drew Richardson
- Sep 07, 2005, 08:25 PMRetcopper,
The lesson for his parents and any other parents seeking truth about any issue is to absolutely never have anything to do with a CQT polygraph exam. These exams have no validity in the absence of countermeasures, and as the tale of our 16 year old poster would tend to indicate, can be successfully manipulated at will by almost anyone with little training and insight.
The lesson for his parents and any other parents seeking truth about any issue is to absolutely never have anything to do with a CQT polygraph exam. These exams have no validity in the absence of countermeasures, and as the tale of our 16 year old poster would tend to indicate, can be successfully manipulated at will by almost anyone with little training and insight.
Posted by retcopper
- Sep 07, 2005, 06:03 PMDR. Richardson:
Maybe the question should be. Do you feel better? I'm sure his parents would like to know. Now he has their complete trust.
Maybe the question should be. Do you feel better? I'm sure his parents would like to know. Now he has their complete trust.
Posted by EosJupiter
- Sep 07, 2005, 03:37 AMTo all;
The analyst in me tells me this post is too good to be true. As it plays well in this arena. But for the sake of little other evidence, then we take it at face value. Now for our examiners reading this thread, well, all I can say is, if a 16 year old can hammer you, imagine what an experienced adult, who has nothing to lose will be able to do. Especially anyone who has been through SERES training, or some other major mental discipline and survival training. Now add an adult with an IQ of over 120+, and I firmly believe that the polygraph examiner doesn't stand a chance in hell of detecting anything. Now for you Nonombre, you caught 5 wanna be cops. Hmmm now that sounds extremely suspicious to me. Maybe in your dreams, and if they were that weak and stupid to cough up the info, then they got what they deserved for being idiots. Because I am willing to bet that someone with a greater intellect and self control would shut you down, and not even break a sweat. But if you can prove the 5, it would definately lend some weight to your arguments ... but then again its strictly hear-say isn't it Nonombre ..... but then again most of the folks you may have caught probably had minimal IQ's all together. Easy fish to catch .... Next time try a shark, who has some teeth.
EJ Facts.... Their is no substitute !!!!
The analyst in me tells me this post is too good to be true. As it plays well in this arena. But for the sake of little other evidence, then we take it at face value. Now for our examiners reading this thread, well, all I can say is, if a 16 year old can hammer you, imagine what an experienced adult, who has nothing to lose will be able to do. Especially anyone who has been through SERES training, or some other major mental discipline and survival training. Now add an adult with an IQ of over 120+, and I firmly believe that the polygraph examiner doesn't stand a chance in hell of detecting anything. Now for you Nonombre, you caught 5 wanna be cops. Hmmm now that sounds extremely suspicious to me. Maybe in your dreams, and if they were that weak and stupid to cough up the info, then they got what they deserved for being idiots. Because I am willing to bet that someone with a greater intellect and self control would shut you down, and not even break a sweat. But if you can prove the 5, it would definately lend some weight to your arguments ... but then again its strictly hear-say isn't it Nonombre ..... but then again most of the folks you may have caught probably had minimal IQ's all together. Easy fish to catch .... Next time try a shark, who has some teeth.
EJ Facts.... Their is no substitute !!!!
Posted by innocence_faded
- Sep 07, 2005, 03:18 AMwell I am the original poster, and everything I said is absolutley true. I have no reason to lie about it. To be honest, the biggest reason why I passed is because I didn't really care if I failed, so I wasn't too nervous.
As far as the counting back from 7's, I did that on and off throughout the test, and I could tell it was working. I could feel that my body was giving absolutley no signs at all. And I was right about that, because he said there were zero signs of deception.
I might also add that I only got an hour of sleep the night before, I don't know if that had any influence on the results.
It's not surprising to me that a 16 year old can defeat the test no problem while adults seem to have a hard time with it, because the adult is obviously much more fearful of failing the test, because it could mean their career. For me, it's really not all that bad if I fail, so its easy to stay relaxed. I think that most poeple know when their body is giving off signs of deception, they just have to figure out whatever method works best for them to reduce or eliminate those signs.
And not that it matters, but Im not a regular drug user, I just have a history involving drugs and alcohol that my parents don't know about.
As far as the counting back from 7's, I did that on and off throughout the test, and I could tell it was working. I could feel that my body was giving absolutley no signs at all. And I was right about that, because he said there were zero signs of deception.
I might also add that I only got an hour of sleep the night before, I don't know if that had any influence on the results.
It's not surprising to me that a 16 year old can defeat the test no problem while adults seem to have a hard time with it, because the adult is obviously much more fearful of failing the test, because it could mean their career. For me, it's really not all that bad if I fail, so its easy to stay relaxed. I think that most poeple know when their body is giving off signs of deception, they just have to figure out whatever method works best for them to reduce or eliminate those signs.
And not that it matters, but Im not a regular drug user, I just have a history involving drugs and alcohol that my parents don't know about.
Posted by Drew Richardson
- Sep 07, 2005, 02:54 AMDarkcobra2005,
I agree with your assessment of the probability of there being some truth to this story. With regard to his counting back by 7s, if it were important, it would not be because he could successfully do so in the midst of a polygraph exam, but that he was mentally occupied during the exercise whether successful or not. Actually, if he was successful in his overall countermeasure application as claimed, my guess would be that this exercise and its intended impact on relevant question response had absolutely nothing to do with it, but that his manipulations involving control/comparison questions were the source of his success. Also, because he only refers to the counting back by 7s manipulation in connection with the (prior to the) stim test, perhaps he saved himself the possible interference in his otherwise successful control question manipulations by ommitting the counting back exercise during the substantive tests.
I agree with your assessment of the probability of there being some truth to this story. With regard to his counting back by 7s, if it were important, it would not be because he could successfully do so in the midst of a polygraph exam, but that he was mentally occupied during the exercise whether successful or not. Actually, if he was successful in his overall countermeasure application as claimed, my guess would be that this exercise and its intended impact on relevant question response had absolutely nothing to do with it, but that his manipulations involving control/comparison questions were the source of his success. Also, because he only refers to the counting back by 7s manipulation in connection with the (prior to the) stim test, perhaps he saved himself the possible interference in his otherwise successful control question manipulations by ommitting the counting back exercise during the substantive tests.
Posted by Drew Richardson
- Sep 07, 2005, 02:41 AMNonombre,
I am completely convinced that you and your colleagues are wildly guessing regarding properly administered countermeasures. With such in mind, I find it quite conceivable that both the barely initiated and largely untrained (e.g., our sixteen year old self-alleged drug user) can be successful in his attempts and that you and others can, at the same time through the badgering of and wrongful accusation involving large numbers of innocent and completely flabbergasted examinees, find even less bright examinees who will admit to countermeasure use. Absent such admissions, I maintain that you and your colleagues are completely lost and your counter-countermeasure efforts are merely a bungle in the jungle. I will only be convinced otherwise when the challenge has been successfully answered.
I am completely convinced that you and your colleagues are wildly guessing regarding properly administered countermeasures. With such in mind, I find it quite conceivable that both the barely initiated and largely untrained (e.g., our sixteen year old self-alleged drug user) can be successful in his attempts and that you and others can, at the same time through the badgering of and wrongful accusation involving large numbers of innocent and completely flabbergasted examinees, find even less bright examinees who will admit to countermeasure use. Absent such admissions, I maintain that you and your colleagues are completely lost and your counter-countermeasure efforts are merely a bungle in the jungle. I will only be convinced otherwise when the challenge has been successfully answered.
Posted by Jeffery
- Sep 07, 2005, 01:20 AMNonombre:
So you caught 6 people using CM's and all admited to using them from this site?
Did you catch anybody else using CM's?
Did you accuse anybody else of using CM's?
I'm actually glad you caught them. Since those people were STUPID enough to admit to using CM's after learning about them on this site, they were obviously too dumb and "thin skinned" to be good cops.
But I'd really like to know how many peopel you accused of using CM's originially, never admited to it and what the results were (i.e. did they eventually "pass")?
So you caught 6 people using CM's and all admited to using them from this site?
Did you catch anybody else using CM's?
Did you accuse anybody else of using CM's?
I'm actually glad you caught them. Since those people were STUPID enough to admit to using CM's after learning about them on this site, they were obviously too dumb and "thin skinned" to be good cops.
But I'd really like to know how many peopel you accused of using CM's originially, never admited to it and what the results were (i.e. did they eventually "pass")?