- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by underlyingtruth
- Jun 29, 2006, 09:24 PMWell, it's hard to resist taking a jab at a polygrapher... god knows they wouldn't pass up the opportunity.
Posted by someone
- Jun 29, 2006, 10:00 AMSorry, not my intention. That is why I hate e-mail or communicating on boards. If I had said that while in your presence, I would have been smileing. 
Posted by underlyingtruth
- Jun 29, 2006, 03:02 AMOkay someone, I understand not wanting to give details, but if you do decide to, I would be most intrested in them.
I have failed many polygraphs while being COMPLETELY honest and I have passed others (before I knew about CMs) when I was not.
I'm just curious, no need to be nasty and start insulting me with harsh comparisons.
I have failed many polygraphs while being COMPLETELY honest and I have passed others (before I knew about CMs) when I was not.
I'm just curious, no need to be nasty and start insulting me with harsh comparisons.
Posted by someone
- Jun 28, 2006, 11:39 PMYou have to read between the lines. I am starting to think you are a polygrapher. 
You ask questions like an investigator. 
Ask me no questions, I will tell you no lies. 
As I have mentioned in previous posts, I know someone who is squeaky clean, and he failed. I didn't want to take that chance. I read, I believed, I used.
You ask questions like an investigator. Ask me no questions, I will tell you no lies. As I have mentioned in previous posts, I know someone who is squeaky clean, and he failed. I didn't want to take that chance. I read, I believed, I used.Posted by underlyingtruth
- Jun 28, 2006, 09:41 PMQuote from: someone on Jun 28, 2006, 09:16 PM
I didn't lie, and I didn't fail, but I proved that George is right on. TLBTLD is right on cue, and that has to piss you off. Your whole entire professional life has depended on the belief of this machine. I can tell you, that it can be manipulated. Continue to use it as an investigative tool for confessions, but for straight usage as a lie detector, is a LIE.
I'm not trying to be contrary, but how did you prove that George is right unless you used CMs or influenced the test some other way? Are you willing to give us more details about what you did to influence the test results? Saying that you told the truth and passed is exactly what polygraphers claim will happen.
Posted by EosJupiter
- Jun 28, 2006, 02:07 AMQuote from: someone on Jun 26, 2006, 09:03 PMJust an update, last week I took and passed my POLY. Everything in the TLBTLD was right on. The interview, the CQ's and the tester coming into the room and telling me about his concern about one question. It was about credibility. Seemed to me he was grasping for his last straw to get me to reveal something. He was a nice guy through the whole test. Not like some of the stories about them I have read. There wasn't any pad on the chair, but there was a camera to my rear left that seemed to be pointed at my face at a 45-degree angle. I guess that was their CCM device. I gave him an answer about his credibility question concern. He asked me what I was thinking about during the question, I told him I didn't know, I thought of a thousand things during the test. The one thing that disturbed me though was his closing statement. He accepted my answer for his concern, and then he said, "Okay, I will pass you". He will pass me?I thought he was supposed to read the results from the machine and that was the pass/fail, not his intirpitation or his liking or not liking my answer. George, a big THANKS for this site. I will recommend this site to anyone I know that will have to SUBMITT to a polygraph.
P.S. For some reason, all the CQ's were right up front, and then all the remaining questions (RQ's) followed. He also omitted some of the questions on the second time through.
Someone,
Job well done .... another testimonial of truth !!! It really made a difference being prepared didn't it !!
Regards ....
Posted by underlyingtruth
- Jun 26, 2006, 11:27 PMDid you use CMs? Why or why not? If so, which ones did you use?
Posted by underlyingtruth
- Jun 23, 2006, 02:58 PMRight, the peccadillo would have to be, in this example, common childhood disobedience without crossing the line of being prosecutable by law.
I wonder, though, would a lie told on purpose be as effective? You would, in your own mind, essentially make it okay to lie, which could minimize the reaction.
I wonder, though, would a lie told on purpose be as effective? You would, in your own mind, essentially make it okay to lie, which could minimize the reaction.
Posted by cesium_133
- Jun 23, 2006, 05:13 AMQuote from: underlyingtruth on Jun 23, 2006, 04:09 AMI wonder how the results would be affected if someone went as far as to make up stories (about lying to your mother or whatever the CQ might be).
You suggest creating the provocation of a CQ based upon an untruth that you "admit" to. Pretty deep
I think it could work. Your false tale would probably have to be of a minor peccadillo, though, and somehow you would have to tailor it so that it would hard to absorb by a broad-sweep control question. If you could do that...
You would have likely created a new CM technique. Lying within lying; a fib answered by a fib, both of which the interrogator perceives as truth. Lies stacked upon and within each other, like an iterated integral.
I like it. If anyone can pull it off, you would in effect have had the polygrapher feed you your own CM. That would be funny...
Posted by underlyingtruth
- Jun 23, 2006, 04:09 AMWe've had a few discussions about being overly honest on the CQ's, but I couldn't find any discussion about blatantly lying on CQ's. I wonder how the results would be affected if someone went as far as to make up stories (about lying to your mother or whatever the CQ might be). Would that be an effective CM?
Posted by cesium_133
- Jun 19, 2006, 09:12 PMMy second test, I p-o'ed the interrogator. I knew too much, told him too much about his work, and that threw everything out of whack. He thought I was being a smart ass. And the guy I had was no hack polygrapher in their community, say no more...
I passed, though... but I would never go against what the polygrapher told me to do. I think they would just fail you... the next time, I clammed up and did much better. I didn't bait him or anything, did as George suggests in here and in TLBTLD, and all was ok...
I passed, though... but I would never go against what the polygrapher told me to do. I think they would just fail you... the next time, I clammed up and did much better. I didn't bait him or anything, did as George suggests in here and in TLBTLD, and all was ok...
Posted by underlyingtruth
- Jun 19, 2006, 08:19 PMThat IS quite interesting. I never would have thought to combine those two ideas.
I once tried answering yes to all the CQ's... we went round and round for nearly two hours until (in frustration) the polygrapher told me that if I couldn't think of anymore specific examples (so that he could say "other than what you told me") then I had to answer "No."
During the test, I changed my answer to "yes" again. He was VERY upset with me. 
I explained that I thought of another example. 
He said I was being uncooperative and if I changed my answer again, we'd just have to continue another day - at my expense 
- after I had time to think about all my examples.
I once tried answering yes to all the CQ's... we went round and round for nearly two hours until (in frustration) the polygrapher told me that if I couldn't think of anymore specific examples (so that he could say "other than what you told me") then I had to answer "No."
During the test, I changed my answer to "yes" again.
He was VERY upset with me. I explained that I thought of another example. He said I was being uncooperative and if I changed my answer again, we'd just have to continue another day - at my expense - after I had time to think about all my examples. Posted by Marty
- Jun 19, 2006, 05:21 AMQuote from: cesium_133 on Jun 19, 2006, 01:25 AMQuestion: if you "just say yes" to all the CQ's, admit to all the trite little peccadilloes, would that not in the end foul up the polygrapher?
Interesting question and one I once wonderer about. It has been addressed by Matte in his book "Forensic Psychophysiology using the Polygraph." He states that on rare occasions he was unable to coax a lie on a control question and that he simply scored the poly as if the examinee answered "NO" instead of "YES" to the control, believing that it still produced as usable a reaction. He does not explain why he believes that.
A polygrapher on polyplace suggested that an informed examinee let the examiner "guide" the examinee to a "NO" on the controls.
Posted by cesium_133
- Jun 19, 2006, 01:25 AMI want to extend someone's (the poster ) question to a slightly more advanced level:
I have taken follygraphs, er, polygraphs before. I endeavour to tell the truth- not out of some loyalty to the interrogator, but just because I feel it makes me better than he and HIS lies are. This includes answering the CQ's honestly, both pre-test and in-test.
Scenario: he reviews the CQ's with you pre-test: lied to your mother, driven drunk, taken something from the office, etc. You 'fess up to everything with a general response:
"Yes, sure, I have done that. Everyone has, I guess." You keep it open-ended, as open as the interrogator does, and continue to do so as he tries to confine your responses.
"How many times did you lie to your mother?" "A fair number of times." "More than 10 (20, 50, 75) times?" "If you count every white lie, probably >100 times. I dunno, but a bunch." And so on.
Question: if you "just say yes" to all the CQ's, admit to all the trite little peccadilloes, would that not in the end foul up the polygrapher? Even if he's really looking at the CQ's juxtaposed to the relevants for levels of BFB, isn't that going to give him pause based on (1) your obviously abnormal response pattern and (2) your unfailing candidness? Which leads to...
Question 2: What if you employed CM's- say, mental math- while answering these CQ's honestly? I have never seen this scenario discussed on here, and I would like to very much.
The conclusion I reach is that if you did as in #2, you'd create a situation where you would be admitting to that which the polygrapher expects and wants you to lie about... which everyone has supposedly done... and setting the machine off (as in a lie) in your truthful admissions thereto. Would the polygrapher be confounded, think that he has someone with a confidence problem in the chair who otherwise is Christ-pure, what?
I picture myself as the interrogator, thinking:
"Dang, this guy is admitting to every venial sin I throw at him, even to leaving skid marks in his drawers I can't pin him down. And yet this machine is saying he's lying, that he never did any of these things [aside: that's the effects of the CM's]. His R traces are relatively normal... wow. I guess he passes; his CQ traces -are- of greater amplitude... but I have walking anti-matter here."
I know you want to get a greater response to the CQ's; is this, the idea I have posited, just another, novel way to do so?
George and the other vets, your comments are welcome and requested...
) question to a slightly more advanced level:I have taken follygraphs, er, polygraphs before. I endeavour to tell the truth- not out of some loyalty to the interrogator, but just because I feel it makes me better than he and HIS lies are. This includes answering the CQ's honestly, both pre-test and in-test.
Scenario: he reviews the CQ's with you pre-test: lied to your mother, driven drunk, taken something from the office, etc. You 'fess up to everything with a general response:
"Yes, sure, I have done that. Everyone has, I guess." You keep it open-ended, as open as the interrogator does, and continue to do so as he tries to confine your responses.
"How many times did you lie to your mother?" "A fair number of times." "More than 10 (20, 50, 75) times?" "If you count every white lie, probably >100 times. I dunno, but a bunch." And so on.
Question: if you "just say yes" to all the CQ's, admit to all the trite little peccadilloes, would that not in the end foul up the polygrapher? Even if he's really looking at the CQ's juxtaposed to the relevants for levels of BFB, isn't that going to give him pause based on (1) your obviously abnormal response pattern and (2) your unfailing candidness? Which leads to...
Question 2: What if you employed CM's- say, mental math- while answering these CQ's honestly? I have never seen this scenario discussed on here, and I would like to very much.
The conclusion I reach is that if you did as in #2, you'd create a situation where you would be admitting to that which the polygrapher expects and wants you to lie about... which everyone has supposedly done... and setting the machine off (as in a lie) in your truthful admissions thereto. Would the polygrapher be confounded, think that he has someone with a confidence problem in the chair who otherwise is Christ-pure, what?
I picture myself as the interrogator, thinking:
"Dang, this guy is admitting to every venial sin I throw at him, even to leaving skid marks in his drawers
I can't pin him down. And yet this machine is saying he's lying, that he never did any of these things [aside: that's the effects of the CM's]. His R traces are relatively normal... wow. I guess he passes; his CQ traces -are- of greater amplitude... but I have walking anti-matter here."I know you want to get a greater response to the CQ's; is this, the idea I have posited, just another, novel way to do so?
George and the other vets, your comments are welcome and requested...
Posted by someone
- Jun 06, 2006, 07:02 PMThanks for everyones feedback, I didn't say I was going to lie nor did I say I was going to use CM's. My concern is the lack of truthfullness of the machine and what it can do. I don't have any issues that I need to worry about, I have had a successful 20 years in the Military and my shit is wired tight and I made it to the top of the elisted ranks. But, if this machine is determining my future, I want all the information I can get. Unlike civilians, we plan before taking on the unknowns and jumping into the shit. George thanks for your service, and like most government jobs, they can't get or keep the best canidates. I have seen a lot of talent walk out the door in the last twenty years.
George thanks for your service, and like most government jobs, they can't get or keep the best canidates. I have seen a lot of talent walk out the door in the last twenty years.