- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by fender85
- Jan 24, 2007, 05:56 AMEastwood, your all built on lies...Once again trying to scare us with your lying tactics... You guys are so silly... I am thinking about giving you guys copies of pinochio!
Posted by Jeffery
- Sep 24, 2005, 10:59 AMQuote from: Eastwood on Sep 24, 2005, 01:22 AMThanks for the info - think we've identified you - expect a call back for a second session dudeBecause, we all know the polygraph sucks, and even though you "passed" the first time, we (the polygraph community) now realize we may have messed up, so we need to have another shot at you...
Posted by Eastwood
- Sep 24, 2005, 01:22 AMThanks for the info - think we've identified you - expect a call back for a second session dude
Posted by Drastikmesurz
- Sep 19, 2005, 02:36 PMMike,
I am in no way questioning if you did or did not have the qualifications for the position nor am I questioning that your lies were indeed the truth and that is why you have passed.
What I am questioning is your little experiment and why you felt you had to do it in the first place. The only thing you direct this question to is that you had "nothing to loose". But yet you explained you were up till 2:00 am reading this book that you called a "bible".
Usually a good explanation would be explained as skepticism? Either way you're a really deep skeptic of poly graph exams then.
In the last paragraph you said that you have conquered your fear of polygraph exams perhaps this is your main reason for doing your experiment. But you said you had them before. If you never had anything to lie about why fear them? And how could "counter measuring" (which in fact is true deception) make you even more relaxed than telling the truth?
I am well aware of the procedures in security and law enforcement applicants. You said you were applying for a position in a private sector. They don't call it "private" for nothing. Actually they take it very seriously and you go through a grulling process to obtain security clearances! Not just a regular job application and a polygraph exam.
I don't understand why you would have chose this position to do your experiment if what you want is to eventually get back into law enforcement. What if your experiment didn't work and you would have failed?
The DSS and the NSA would know this sometime down the line and suspect something. Not that you would need clearances for a law enforcement position if you would be a cop but anything beyond that it would be possible that you would have to obtain clearances since 9/11/01.
And they don't put out money for polygraph examines if they aren't serious about their security. Actually it's the last process in hiring someone. So it's just natural the first process would be to grill someone on the application along with any background checks required including past employers. And if it is a high security position, like you said they probably did checks you had NO clue about. They can find out if you ever had a speeding ticket.
My only point is that if a person like me, and average "joe" could find the inconsistencies in your statements, a qualified educated examiner should.
A false positive occurs when a truthful examinee is reported as being deceptive, a false negative when a deceptive examinee is reported as truthful. Some research indicates that false negatives occur more frequently than false positives, other research studies show the opposite conclusion.
Maybe you want to change your 2nd to last paragraph
or check your "bible" on that one.
I am in no way questioning if you did or did not have the qualifications for the position nor am I questioning that your lies were indeed the truth and that is why you have passed.
What I am questioning is your little experiment and why you felt you had to do it in the first place. The only thing you direct this question to is that you had "nothing to loose". But yet you explained you were up till 2:00 am reading this book that you called a "bible".
Usually a good explanation would be explained as skepticism? Either way you're a really deep skeptic of poly graph exams then.
In the last paragraph you said that you have conquered your fear of polygraph exams perhaps this is your main reason for doing your experiment. But you said you had them before. If you never had anything to lie about why fear them? And how could "counter measuring" (which in fact is true deception) make you even more relaxed than telling the truth?
I am well aware of the procedures in security and law enforcement applicants. You said you were applying for a position in a private sector. They don't call it "private" for nothing. Actually they take it very seriously and you go through a grulling process to obtain security clearances! Not just a regular job application and a polygraph exam.
I don't understand why you would have chose this position to do your experiment if what you want is to eventually get back into law enforcement. What if your experiment didn't work and you would have failed?
The DSS and the NSA would know this sometime down the line and suspect something. Not that you would need clearances for a law enforcement position if you would be a cop but anything beyond that it would be possible that you would have to obtain clearances since 9/11/01.
And they don't put out money for polygraph examines if they aren't serious about their security. Actually it's the last process in hiring someone. So it's just natural the first process would be to grill someone on the application along with any background checks required including past employers. And if it is a high security position, like you said they probably did checks you had NO clue about. They can find out if you ever had a speeding ticket.
My only point is that if a person like me, and average "joe" could find the inconsistencies in your statements, a qualified educated examiner should.
A false positive occurs when a truthful examinee is reported as being deceptive, a false negative when a deceptive examinee is reported as truthful. Some research indicates that false negatives occur more frequently than false positives, other research studies show the opposite conclusion.
Maybe you want to change your 2nd to last paragraph
or check your "bible" on that one.
Posted by polyscam
- Sep 19, 2005, 05:39 AMNot to answer for Mike C., but,
Control questions usually cover topics which everyone has done. They are very broad and wide ranging. A relevant question can be distinquigshed by the importance of the subject matter. Example of a control: Have you ever abused the trust of a loved one? Example of a relevant: Other than what we have discussed have you used drugs? Example of an irrelevant question: Are the lights on in this room?
Control questions usually cover topics which everyone has done. They are very broad and wide ranging. A relevant question can be distinquigshed by the importance of the subject matter. Example of a control: Have you ever abused the trust of a loved one? Example of a relevant: Other than what we have discussed have you used drugs? Example of an irrelevant question: Are the lights on in this room?
Posted by robert_marr72
- Sep 18, 2005, 08:17 PMHi mike_C,
Great writeup and an interesting read. I just discovered this site today as I am writing a paper for a high school class. I have a quick question for you. I've read alot of threads and the FAQ's here on this site, and they say to do what you did with biting your tongue in order to set a baseline for control questions. But how did you know which were the control questions? Did you just bite your tongque or stimulate your nerves when you heard a question that sounded irrelevant?
Regards,
Robert.
Great writeup and an interesting read. I just discovered this site today as I am writing a paper for a high school class. I have a quick question for you. I've read alot of threads and the FAQ's here on this site, and they say to do what you did with biting your tongue in order to set a baseline for control questions. But how did you know which were the control questions? Did you just bite your tongque or stimulate your nerves when you heard a question that sounded irrelevant?
Regards,
Robert.
Posted by gelb disliker
- Sep 18, 2005, 03:01 AMProps to Mike_C, for lying to the liars! You just played the same game they all try to play on everyone else!
Posted by mike_C.
- Sep 16, 2005, 03:50 AMDrastikmesurz,
Although I welcome any responses from all points of view, I'm certainly not going waste my time in defending my own credibility in regards as to whether or not it was a truthful story. That's not the concern of my response over yours. After all, this is a free country. You believe what you want.
I will say, however, in response to your post, the questions in relation to my application were not the same type of questions on the polygraph examination. That goes for most applications in the private sector as well as in any law enforcement screening process. For example, the job application was more or less a typical generic job/background form. That was just one stage of the hiring process to try and get the job.
The real grilling questions came later on the pre-polygraph questionaire. Read my post again, the seventh paragraph explains that. I also suggest you reread paragraphs fifteen, sixteen and nineteen, as I clearly point out where and why I decided to lie.
As for any past criminal wrongdoing: Again, I suggest you reread my post, as I have nothing in my background which would preclude me from obtaining a high level security position of this nature.
And to fully answer your question, yes, I did choose to lie, for the obvious reasons I explained in my original post. Obviously not on all of the pre-polygraph questions, but to be more specific, on what I consider to be some of the less relevent concerns. Read the first paragraph again, where I make reference to, and discourage anyone with a criminal past or with criminal intent from learning my applied technique.
Oh, and forgive me if I sound somewhat facitious, but you suggested I perhaps had "one dumb unqualified (polygraph) examiner" when being polygraphed? Well, without the risk of sounding somewhat arrogant, again, I ask that you read over paragraph seventeen, as I explain why I feel I was superior to his level of expertise in law enforcement in comparison to mine.
But do you want to know what the real irony was about my original post?.......I didn't get the job. I was passed over for someone whom they said was "more qualified for the position." Nevertheless, it was a learning experience and well worth the effort put forth. I have gained greater confidence in dealing with polygraph issues thanks to the proprietors of this site.
Regards,
Mike_C.
Although I welcome any responses from all points of view, I'm certainly not going waste my time in defending my own credibility in regards as to whether or not it was a truthful story. That's not the concern of my response over yours. After all, this is a free country. You believe what you want.
I will say, however, in response to your post, the questions in relation to my application were not the same type of questions on the polygraph examination. That goes for most applications in the private sector as well as in any law enforcement screening process. For example, the job application was more or less a typical generic job/background form. That was just one stage of the hiring process to try and get the job.
The real grilling questions came later on the pre-polygraph questionaire. Read my post again, the seventh paragraph explains that. I also suggest you reread paragraphs fifteen, sixteen and nineteen, as I clearly point out where and why I decided to lie.
As for any past criminal wrongdoing: Again, I suggest you reread my post, as I have nothing in my background which would preclude me from obtaining a high level security position of this nature.
And to fully answer your question, yes, I did choose to lie, for the obvious reasons I explained in my original post. Obviously not on all of the pre-polygraph questions, but to be more specific, on what I consider to be some of the less relevent concerns. Read the first paragraph again, where I make reference to, and discourage anyone with a criminal past or with criminal intent from learning my applied technique.
Oh, and forgive me if I sound somewhat facitious, but you suggested I perhaps had "one dumb unqualified (polygraph) examiner" when being polygraphed? Well, without the risk of sounding somewhat arrogant, again, I ask that you read over paragraph seventeen, as I explain why I feel I was superior to his level of expertise in law enforcement in comparison to mine.
But do you want to know what the real irony was about my original post?.......I didn't get the job. I was passed over for someone whom they said was "more qualified for the position." Nevertheless, it was a learning experience and well worth the effort put forth. I have gained greater confidence in dealing with polygraph issues thanks to the proprietors of this site.
Regards,
Mike_C.
Posted by Drastikmesurz
- Sep 14, 2005, 01:38 PMI find it quite odd that you could keep you "fake" lies and your "truths" straight on a few hours of sleep when you couldn't even keep your story straight posting!
For example you say:
"I recently applied for a job in the private sector, to do with a high-level security position, related to contract government work. I won't say where, and I won't say exactly what type of job it is, as it is unimportant."
and.........
"I know it wouldn't have disqualified me from getting a security job in the private sector"
You did fill out a job application correct? The examiner reviewed your application, correct? On the application you answered many of the same questions the examiner asked, correct? Did you lie on those too.? Or did you answer truthfully?
If you answered truthfully then the examiner could have compared notes and easily seen you were lying on your questionarrie even before the test began.
If you did indeed lie on your application you forgot to mention it here.
Either you had one dumb, unqualified examiner or your story is a bunch of sh#+!
For example you say:
"I recently applied for a job in the private sector, to do with a high-level security position, related to contract government work. I won't say where, and I won't say exactly what type of job it is, as it is unimportant."
and.........
"I know it wouldn't have disqualified me from getting a security job in the private sector"
You did fill out a job application correct? The examiner reviewed your application, correct? On the application you answered many of the same questions the examiner asked, correct? Did you lie on those too.? Or did you answer truthfully?
If you answered truthfully then the examiner could have compared notes and easily seen you were lying on your questionarrie even before the test began.
If you did indeed lie on your application you forgot to mention it here.
Either you had one dumb, unqualified examiner or your story is a bunch of sh#+!
Posted by mike_C.
- Aug 05, 2005, 09:20 AMI recently beat the polygraph test and am living, breathing proof it can be done. Before I explain, If you have something serious to hide from a polygraph examiner or background investigator, then this thread (or this site) is defintely not for you.
Having said that, for whatever reason, I was always extremely nervous about polygraph tests. I guess it was really a case of having fear of the unknown. Ignorance on my own part as to what they might find out. In the past, I have taken polygraph tests, and was even told I had failed, but I won't go into detail as I want to stick to the issue at hand here. okay, sure, I'm no angel when it comes to doing stupid things as a teenager, but nothing I would consider truly serious enough from preventing me in achieving a well-deserved law enforcement career. I am not new to investigative techniques or how they're applied.
I recently applied for a job in the private sector, to do with a high-level security position, related to contract government work. I won't say where, and I won't say exactly what type of job it is, as it is unimportant. What is important, are the facts about which I'm going to state here. Though I will say it's in California, and although the 1988 Polygraph Employee Protection Act is in effect, I was asked to sign a few waiver and "release of liability" forms allowing a private investigator to give me a polygraph test as part of the pre-employment processing phase.
Prior to the test, I filled out a pre-polygraph questionaire at the main office and was scheduled to take the polygraph test in three days from the application date. Having read TLBTLD many times over, (and posting on a few threads) I had become familair with the techniques the examiner uses and the trickery involved.
The polygraphist was a retired FBI agent, or so he says. I say, "or so he says," because I have learned now, to take everything with a grain of salt. And although it sounds very cynical on my part to take everything at face value, it's because of what I've learned over the years about polygraphists being trained interviewers and expert liars. Yes, we live in a world where there is so much deception, mainly on the part of the examiners side. Sorry, but that's how I feel. I certainly don't mean any disrespect to the many polygraphists who will read this post, as insults are certainly not my intent.
The examiner greeted me with a warm smile and a firm handshake. I could see the sincerity in his approach, and even believed it to a point. Yet, all the while, I had to keep in mind, he's got a job to to and he's not there to assist me getting the position. He just wants me to admit to certain things I may have done in my past, that I normally wouldn't say to anyone else. In other words, he wants results which are going to benefit him and reassure himself he's still a good investigator.
The pre-polygraph questionaire was filled with questions relating to the usual stuff-arson, gambling, forgery, theft from previous employers, theft in general, assault, embezzelment, robbery, undisclosed misdemeanor or felony convictions either here or outside the US, terrorism, sleep deprivation, health questions, reasons as to why (if any) I should be concerned about this test, financial problems, attempting to deceive the polygraph test, etc.
The night before the test, I must have stayed up until 2:00 am reading and rereading chapters three and four of TLBTLD. This was my bible. So naturally, knowing I had to get up at 6:00 am the next morning, I didn't get enough sleep. The next day I was prepared, driving to the location, going over the possible "control" questions and the countermeasure techniques in my mind and practising sphincter muscle control. ( I realize the new edition of TLBTLD doesn't recommend this particular technique, but I took the chance anyway)
At the private investigator's office, I was calm and confident. After all, I had nothing to lose in the sense that I was aware I wasn't applying for a law enforcement position anyway, so I wouldn't be overly concerned about failing, as I realized this testing now will only help me in the very near future when I decide to get back into law enforcement.
While looking over my resume and job application, the polygraphist nodded repeatedly and made admiring comments regarding my training, education and previous law enforcement experience, so answering "yes" to the narcotic questions ("Have you ever possessed drugs?") were obviously related to the job I did, meaning "possessed" the confiscated drugs during a search and arrest prior to booking the suspect, along with the evidence. So basically, he knew he wasn't dealing with a idiot off the street, or some naive teenage kid with no life experience. He assured me because of my past law enforcement career, he knew I was aware of what's up. And he was right. I was.
I also admitted I was familiar with polygrapgh testing to a point, and how it's administered, (while very carefully not admitting to having acquired any knowledge whatsoever of the existence of the book TLBTLD or it's related web site) because of certain techniques used to successfully catch many hardened criminals in lies during interview and interrogation techniques at the police department where I once worked.
The examiner began by telling me all about himself, about his years in law enforcement and about his many years as a private investigator who's "seen and heard it all" when administering the polygraph tests. He also told me of the many stories he's heard where people "claim" they have found ways to beat the polygraph test and how certain people will just-about try anything from losing a complete nights' sleep, to inducing certain drugs just to trick the lie detector.
He was very adament that it couldn't be done. Upon hearing this, I slightly smiled to myself, while at the same time remembering reading in Chapter Three of TLBTLD where it actually points out about the polygraphist who will try to convince the examinee just how clever he (the examiner) is. He also told me the polygraph machine is advanced science and is continuously being updated with improved scientific technology to perfect the procedure one hundred percent.
Again, I smiled to myself and this time, he stared hard at me for a few seconds. Yes, at this moment, he probably did know what I was thinking, but without any admission about anything, I know he can't prove it. I also know he is just human, he is a polygraphist who's trained to make you think he knows what you're thinking, and being able to penetrate and read another person's mind hasn't been perfected yet, at least not in our lifetime. I was also aware of my own mental ability, in the sense that I was the one who was going to be in control of this interview, not him.
This is where I lied: I was eager to test this out for myself. I decided to put TLBTLD techniques to good use and have a little fun with it. I was determined to make it work for me. For instance, I told the examiner I was married once. I lied, I was married twice. It was an irrevelant question I know, and answering it truthfully had no bearing on whether or not I was going to get the job. But I thought I'd lie about this anyway and see what happens.
He asked me a question about gambling, and I told him I once lost $6,000 in a poker game in Las Vegas. I lied again. I didn't lose $6,000 in any poker game, or any game involving gambling, for the simple reason I don't know how to play poker. I rarely ever visit Las Vegas and I don't gamble. I don't even play the California lottery.
I also told the examiner I was not under any prescribed medication. I lied. I was under a doctor's prescribed medication for a prior minor back injury. I told the examiner I had never, ever taken any drugs-ever. Again, I lied through my teeth. I had, once or twice in the past. But it would be up to him to prove it, and an admission from me to an ex-law enorcement official with absolutely no street experience at all, wasn't going to get me to cave in to where I knew I had the upper hand in street knowledge and training when he was probably assigned to some desk job somewhere in the Mid-West pushing a piece of paper around an office all day.
It is assumed everyone has at some point taken some type of narcotic, especially if you live in California. As pointed out to the polygraphist, it would have been twenty times easier for me, and certainly a lot more credible on my part to admit to doing marijuana at least maybe two or three times in the past, (which in fact is the true case) where I know it wouldn't have disqualified me from getting a security job in the private sector, but I figured, I want to see how far I can "push" the lie, see how effective the techniques I employ are, when used properly.
The examiner asked if I was polygraphed by my previous police agency about the "absolutely never" answer to the drug use. I told him ,"Yes." I lied. Prior to being employed by this police agency, I admitted to doing a very small amount of marijuana while in college as a teenager. This part was true, but again, I was determined to test out the techniques for myself.
In fact, I told the polygraphist that because I had stated to my prior law enforcement agency I had never done any drugs, including marijauna, at any time, they polygraphed me for a second time, having trouble accepting that any applicant has never done dope. I lied again, regarding going through a second polygraph test to seek truth. He told me that was "common and normal procedure" to be given a second polygraph, based on my "never" statement.
During the pre-polygraph interview I was asked about the amount of sleep I got the night previous. I said, "About eight hours sleep. " I lied. I was up half the night reading TLBTLD and practising the techniques mentioned. I even answered "Yes" to once filing for bankruptcy in another state. I lied about that too. I have never filed for bankruptcy, whether here in California, or anywhere else.
I was also asked about any recent near serious injury, any major surgeries, or anything that might have warranted immediate medical care, or emergency hospital visits within the last five years. I said, "No." Again, I lied. About three years ago, I was rear ended by a drunk driver on the freeway, which subsequently sent me by ambulance to hospital resulting in being kept overnight for observation, with a back injury.
I realize these might be classed as "little white lies," and considered trivial, and by answering "yes" to any of these was in no way going to disqualify me from the processing. But by now you can imagine the concern I had to at least satisfy my own curiosity regarding the polygraph testing and how it's trick methods are routinely employed.
The examiner hooked me up to the machine and told me based on my prior police background, this was more or less a "formality." He asked me a series of questions on from the polygraph questionaire and I answered them the way I wanted to. Meaning, I had to remember which question I had chosen to "lie" about. Then he said, "Okay, that was just a test. I am now going to switch on the machine." (Yeah, right!) As the book pointed out, the machine was already switched on. He was bluffing. He asked me the questions twice, once when the machine was supposedly switched "off," and again, when the machine was switched on.
I was asked to stare straight ahead and just answer "yes" or "no." to the questions. I remembered the mental arithmetic approach and the tongue biting, along with the regulated trained fifteen-second regulated breathing, which I'd practised for hours on end in front of a mirror. I certainly don't mean this to be in humor, but while contracting the sphincter muscle, I was afraid I might suddenly flagellate, which would alert the examiner to attempted deception on my part.
Certain questions like the drug questions, the DUI and the medication questions were repeated. But I continuously went over the trained countermeasure techniques and math questions in my head and thought of frightening thoughts during the control questions. At this point, I began biting down so hard on the side of my tongue, I thought I was going to draw blood. I even had to switch sides and continue the tongue biting by switching to the other side of the tongue for pain relief. I was also careful when answering the questions so as not to alert the examiner to any countermeasures used, that I quickly released the tongue bite when answeing "yes," or "no."
Now the moment of "truth." (Forgive the pun!) I remembered postings from this site where you are advised to never ask the polygraphist if you've "passed" or "failed." I expected him to tell me I'd be notified in the mail. But he didn't. Instead, he released all the contraptions from around my body, sat behind me and studied the charts for a few minutes. Then he told me I passed. He said he knew I would. (Hah! If only he knew.)
I'm not proud of any applied trickery on my part or being deceptive, but as has been pointed out many times on this board, there is the concern for "false possitive." The methods and techniques applied have worked for me. And when I decide to go for the "real thing" in the very near future, meaning get back into law enforcement, I know I will have conquered the fear of polygraphy.
In conclusion, whether I eventually achieve my desired goal or not, I think all recognition and gratitude should be said for the authors of this site and the book, TLBTLD, George W. Maschke and Gino J. Scalabrini. Without them, most of us would still live in fear of the unknown.
Regards,
mike_C.
Having said that, for whatever reason, I was always extremely nervous about polygraph tests. I guess it was really a case of having fear of the unknown. Ignorance on my own part as to what they might find out. In the past, I have taken polygraph tests, and was even told I had failed, but I won't go into detail as I want to stick to the issue at hand here. okay, sure, I'm no angel when it comes to doing stupid things as a teenager, but nothing I would consider truly serious enough from preventing me in achieving a well-deserved law enforcement career. I am not new to investigative techniques or how they're applied.
I recently applied for a job in the private sector, to do with a high-level security position, related to contract government work. I won't say where, and I won't say exactly what type of job it is, as it is unimportant. What is important, are the facts about which I'm going to state here. Though I will say it's in California, and although the 1988 Polygraph Employee Protection Act is in effect, I was asked to sign a few waiver and "release of liability" forms allowing a private investigator to give me a polygraph test as part of the pre-employment processing phase.
Prior to the test, I filled out a pre-polygraph questionaire at the main office and was scheduled to take the polygraph test in three days from the application date. Having read TLBTLD many times over, (and posting on a few threads) I had become familair with the techniques the examiner uses and the trickery involved.
The polygraphist was a retired FBI agent, or so he says. I say, "or so he says," because I have learned now, to take everything with a grain of salt. And although it sounds very cynical on my part to take everything at face value, it's because of what I've learned over the years about polygraphists being trained interviewers and expert liars. Yes, we live in a world where there is so much deception, mainly on the part of the examiners side. Sorry, but that's how I feel. I certainly don't mean any disrespect to the many polygraphists who will read this post, as insults are certainly not my intent.
The examiner greeted me with a warm smile and a firm handshake. I could see the sincerity in his approach, and even believed it to a point. Yet, all the while, I had to keep in mind, he's got a job to to and he's not there to assist me getting the position. He just wants me to admit to certain things I may have done in my past, that I normally wouldn't say to anyone else. In other words, he wants results which are going to benefit him and reassure himself he's still a good investigator.
The pre-polygraph questionaire was filled with questions relating to the usual stuff-arson, gambling, forgery, theft from previous employers, theft in general, assault, embezzelment, robbery, undisclosed misdemeanor or felony convictions either here or outside the US, terrorism, sleep deprivation, health questions, reasons as to why (if any) I should be concerned about this test, financial problems, attempting to deceive the polygraph test, etc.
The night before the test, I must have stayed up until 2:00 am reading and rereading chapters three and four of TLBTLD. This was my bible. So naturally, knowing I had to get up at 6:00 am the next morning, I didn't get enough sleep. The next day I was prepared, driving to the location, going over the possible "control" questions and the countermeasure techniques in my mind and practising sphincter muscle control. ( I realize the new edition of TLBTLD doesn't recommend this particular technique, but I took the chance anyway)
At the private investigator's office, I was calm and confident. After all, I had nothing to lose in the sense that I was aware I wasn't applying for a law enforcement position anyway, so I wouldn't be overly concerned about failing, as I realized this testing now will only help me in the very near future when I decide to get back into law enforcement.
While looking over my resume and job application, the polygraphist nodded repeatedly and made admiring comments regarding my training, education and previous law enforcement experience, so answering "yes" to the narcotic questions ("Have you ever possessed drugs?") were obviously related to the job I did, meaning "possessed" the confiscated drugs during a search and arrest prior to booking the suspect, along with the evidence. So basically, he knew he wasn't dealing with a idiot off the street, or some naive teenage kid with no life experience. He assured me because of my past law enforcement career, he knew I was aware of what's up. And he was right. I was.
I also admitted I was familiar with polygrapgh testing to a point, and how it's administered, (while very carefully not admitting to having acquired any knowledge whatsoever of the existence of the book TLBTLD or it's related web site) because of certain techniques used to successfully catch many hardened criminals in lies during interview and interrogation techniques at the police department where I once worked.
The examiner began by telling me all about himself, about his years in law enforcement and about his many years as a private investigator who's "seen and heard it all" when administering the polygraph tests. He also told me of the many stories he's heard where people "claim" they have found ways to beat the polygraph test and how certain people will just-about try anything from losing a complete nights' sleep, to inducing certain drugs just to trick the lie detector.
He was very adament that it couldn't be done. Upon hearing this, I slightly smiled to myself, while at the same time remembering reading in Chapter Three of TLBTLD where it actually points out about the polygraphist who will try to convince the examinee just how clever he (the examiner) is. He also told me the polygraph machine is advanced science and is continuously being updated with improved scientific technology to perfect the procedure one hundred percent.
Again, I smiled to myself and this time, he stared hard at me for a few seconds. Yes, at this moment, he probably did know what I was thinking, but without any admission about anything, I know he can't prove it. I also know he is just human, he is a polygraphist who's trained to make you think he knows what you're thinking, and being able to penetrate and read another person's mind hasn't been perfected yet, at least not in our lifetime. I was also aware of my own mental ability, in the sense that I was the one who was going to be in control of this interview, not him.
This is where I lied: I was eager to test this out for myself. I decided to put TLBTLD techniques to good use and have a little fun with it. I was determined to make it work for me. For instance, I told the examiner I was married once. I lied, I was married twice. It was an irrevelant question I know, and answering it truthfully had no bearing on whether or not I was going to get the job. But I thought I'd lie about this anyway and see what happens.
He asked me a question about gambling, and I told him I once lost $6,000 in a poker game in Las Vegas. I lied again. I didn't lose $6,000 in any poker game, or any game involving gambling, for the simple reason I don't know how to play poker. I rarely ever visit Las Vegas and I don't gamble. I don't even play the California lottery.
I also told the examiner I was not under any prescribed medication. I lied. I was under a doctor's prescribed medication for a prior minor back injury. I told the examiner I had never, ever taken any drugs-ever. Again, I lied through my teeth. I had, once or twice in the past. But it would be up to him to prove it, and an admission from me to an ex-law enorcement official with absolutely no street experience at all, wasn't going to get me to cave in to where I knew I had the upper hand in street knowledge and training when he was probably assigned to some desk job somewhere in the Mid-West pushing a piece of paper around an office all day.
It is assumed everyone has at some point taken some type of narcotic, especially if you live in California. As pointed out to the polygraphist, it would have been twenty times easier for me, and certainly a lot more credible on my part to admit to doing marijuana at least maybe two or three times in the past, (which in fact is the true case) where I know it wouldn't have disqualified me from getting a security job in the private sector, but I figured, I want to see how far I can "push" the lie, see how effective the techniques I employ are, when used properly.
The examiner asked if I was polygraphed by my previous police agency about the "absolutely never" answer to the drug use. I told him ,"Yes." I lied. Prior to being employed by this police agency, I admitted to doing a very small amount of marijuana while in college as a teenager. This part was true, but again, I was determined to test out the techniques for myself.
In fact, I told the polygraphist that because I had stated to my prior law enforcement agency I had never done any drugs, including marijauna, at any time, they polygraphed me for a second time, having trouble accepting that any applicant has never done dope. I lied again, regarding going through a second polygraph test to seek truth. He told me that was "common and normal procedure" to be given a second polygraph, based on my "never" statement.
During the pre-polygraph interview I was asked about the amount of sleep I got the night previous. I said, "About eight hours sleep. " I lied. I was up half the night reading TLBTLD and practising the techniques mentioned. I even answered "Yes" to once filing for bankruptcy in another state. I lied about that too. I have never filed for bankruptcy, whether here in California, or anywhere else.
I was also asked about any recent near serious injury, any major surgeries, or anything that might have warranted immediate medical care, or emergency hospital visits within the last five years. I said, "No." Again, I lied. About three years ago, I was rear ended by a drunk driver on the freeway, which subsequently sent me by ambulance to hospital resulting in being kept overnight for observation, with a back injury.
I realize these might be classed as "little white lies," and considered trivial, and by answering "yes" to any of these was in no way going to disqualify me from the processing. But by now you can imagine the concern I had to at least satisfy my own curiosity regarding the polygraph testing and how it's trick methods are routinely employed.
The examiner hooked me up to the machine and told me based on my prior police background, this was more or less a "formality." He asked me a series of questions on from the polygraph questionaire and I answered them the way I wanted to. Meaning, I had to remember which question I had chosen to "lie" about. Then he said, "Okay, that was just a test. I am now going to switch on the machine." (Yeah, right!) As the book pointed out, the machine was already switched on. He was bluffing. He asked me the questions twice, once when the machine was supposedly switched "off," and again, when the machine was switched on.
I was asked to stare straight ahead and just answer "yes" or "no." to the questions. I remembered the mental arithmetic approach and the tongue biting, along with the regulated trained fifteen-second regulated breathing, which I'd practised for hours on end in front of a mirror. I certainly don't mean this to be in humor, but while contracting the sphincter muscle, I was afraid I might suddenly flagellate, which would alert the examiner to attempted deception on my part.
Certain questions like the drug questions, the DUI and the medication questions were repeated. But I continuously went over the trained countermeasure techniques and math questions in my head and thought of frightening thoughts during the control questions. At this point, I began biting down so hard on the side of my tongue, I thought I was going to draw blood. I even had to switch sides and continue the tongue biting by switching to the other side of the tongue for pain relief. I was also careful when answering the questions so as not to alert the examiner to any countermeasures used, that I quickly released the tongue bite when answeing "yes," or "no."
Now the moment of "truth." (Forgive the pun!) I remembered postings from this site where you are advised to never ask the polygraphist if you've "passed" or "failed." I expected him to tell me I'd be notified in the mail. But he didn't. Instead, he released all the contraptions from around my body, sat behind me and studied the charts for a few minutes. Then he told me I passed. He said he knew I would. (Hah! If only he knew.)
I'm not proud of any applied trickery on my part or being deceptive, but as has been pointed out many times on this board, there is the concern for "false possitive." The methods and techniques applied have worked for me. And when I decide to go for the "real thing" in the very near future, meaning get back into law enforcement, I know I will have conquered the fear of polygraphy.
In conclusion, whether I eventually achieve my desired goal or not, I think all recognition and gratitude should be said for the authors of this site and the book, TLBTLD, George W. Maschke and Gino J. Scalabrini. Without them, most of us would still live in fear of the unknown.
Regards,
mike_C.