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:
Shortcuts: ALT+S post or ALT+P preview

Topic summary

Posted by antipolygraphrso
 - Apr 16, 2011, 04:17 PM
Quote from: George_Maschke on Mar 04, 2011, 09:59 AMI note that the WikiHow.org article, "How to Cheat a Polygraph Test (Lie Detector)" that was the original topic of this thread has now been viewed some 1,186,762 times:

http://www.wikihow.com/Cheat-a-Polygraph-Test-(Lie-Detector)

Good. Keep it rolling. Might just add your site to my FB and be done with it.
Posted by George W. Maschke
 - Mar 04, 2011, 09:59 AM
I note that the WikiHow.org article, "How to Cheat a Polygraph Test (Lie Detector)" that was the original topic of this thread has now been viewed some 1,186,762 times:

http://www.wikihow.com/Cheat-a-Polygraph-Test-(Lie-Detector)
Posted by T.M. Cullen
 - Oct 22, 2008, 12:12 AM
The above article is the most concise ,yet thorough advice I've seen on how to survive a polygraph.  Everyone having to take a polygraph should study it.

TC
Posted by George W. Maschke
 - Oct 15, 2008, 04:39 AM
I note that the WikiHow.org article, "How to Cheat a Polygraph Test (Lie Detector)" that was the original topic of this thread has now been viewed some 612,293 times:

http://www.wikihow.com/Cheat-a-Polygraph-Test-(Lie-Detector)
Posted by Fair Chance
 - Nov 29, 2006, 12:00 AM
Posters,

I am a senior user.  I try and be truthful in evey post.  My integrity was accused, tried, and judged by one person who had complete faith in the results of his polygraph exam.

It is a life altering experience for someone who has faith in his country and the American way to be convicted by polygraph.

Every time I see this awful situation repeated year after year, it saddens me.

I do not stay here to be important.

I stay here to encourage those who are falsely accused to believe in themselves.

Regards.
Posted by digithead
 - Nov 28, 2006, 06:22 AM
Quote from: LieBabyCryBaby on Aug 09, 2006, 12:33 PM
One thing that continually amuses me is how the "Very Senior" users and "Especially Senior" users have posted on this site hundreds of times--enough that they should have bored themselves to tears--yet they still hang around this site as if the whole world actually pays attention to them.  That's the funny thing about internet forums, whether they be polygraph forums, religious forums, teen forums, game forums, etc.--the people who hang around those forums voicing their opinions devote so much of their own time and energy to the forum that they over-inflate the importance of the forum, thinking that the rest of the world is as focused on their daily drivel as they are.  The fact is that the vast majority of examinees who undergo polygraph screening exams--suprise, surprise--PASS the exam.  Compared to the number who pass the exam, the few disgruntled polygraph failures who pose as experts on this site are a TINY minority.

LBCB, congratulations on hanging around long enough to be promoted to "senior user" on the forum...
Posted by EosJupiter
 - Oct 16, 2006, 10:45 PM
To all,

I checked the link and the number of hits to this expose on anti-polygraph:

http://www.wikihow.com/Cheat-a-Polygraph-Test-%28-Lie-Detector-%29  

text:

This page has been accessed 252,770 times. This page was last modified 12:32, 12 October 2006.


It is now up to over 250 K. And growing daily.  Lets see,  what are the derivations and permutations on 250K ?   Actually to huge to even bother calculating. So it appears as the polygraph use increases so does the number of people who research it.  Quite cool actually.
And they will end up here eventually too.

Regards ...
Posted by EosJupiter
 - Sep 08, 2006, 09:27 PM
Quote from: quickfix on Aug 15, 2006, 05:22 PM I also find it strange that you advocate the abolishment of polygraph screening, but support its use in the criminal arena.  Why does it work in one discipline, but not the other?  Perhaps you could enlighten us on your theory.

Regards

Quickfix,

It took me awhile to ponder your question and come up with a sufficient responce. A good question equally deserves this attention.

1- Criminal investigations are just that, dealing with criminals. Most criminals in my opinion are lower mental life forms and are easily fooled into the aura of the polygraph being a true lie detector. When in fact its a great prop for extracting a confession. Putting the screws to a criminal is not a problem for me. This sharply contrasts its use in the employment arena, where there is definately more protections to a suspect, then to a job candidate. Also the consequences of a confession in the venue carries a much stiffer penalty. Again the suspect can always use his rights, request a lawyer and refuse any more questioning. Without any consequences.

2-Potential employees should never be treated as criminals, or even at a minimum treated as suspect until judged worthy. No one should have their honor or integrity challeged based on a test that is inherently flawed. The reason the polygraph is used this way is because its  cheaper and easier to disqualify someone.
And in some cases the penalty for failure is grotesque, and haunts this person the rest of their lives. The FBI being the most henious offender of these agencies in that they keep the record on file for life. There is no recourse, no rights to remove this file, no way to counter the findings. Where its better to spend the time and money neccessary in a background investigation, and prove or disprove the subjects honesty. The polygraph also insulates bureaucrats should something bad happen, it allows them denial,  this person passed a polygraph and its not their fault this person went bad. Numerous heads rolled in the fallout of the Ames Case. All of them saw this and now want to protect their sorry butts.  And since this website exists and expands the public knowlege on the polygraph, more and more people know it can be beaten. Real spys know this too, and do not fear it, and the polygraph makes it easier for a real spy to slip through, because its possible to be defeated and the US relies on this device.

3-The polygraph is a culling tool used by the FEDS and LE to weed out what they deem as not desireable employees. Potential employees should be weeded out based on true proven facts, not the result of electronic rubber hose confessionals, or because one person (the polygrapher) believes this person to be less than honest. And like any employer they want the best available. To this point I do not have a problem, but let it be based on facts from real research. Proof over opinion in all cases.


Regards ....
Posted by EosJupiter
 - Aug 16, 2006, 03:34 AM
Quote from: quickfix on Aug 15, 2006, 05:22 PMNothing has changed.  My optimism remains the same for this profession (high), and my opinion remains the same that your assertions that polygraph screening is invalid and should be discontinued is baseless.  You speak the words of a scientist, but offer little in the way of proof (no disrespect intended).  It would explain why the Dep't of Energy went forward with their polygraph program, despite your advice to them not to.  I also find it strange that you advocate the abolishment of polygraph screening, but support its use in the criminal arena.  Why does it work in one discipline, but not the other?  Perhaps you could enlighten us on your theory.

Regards

Quickfix,

By all accounts from individuals that were there, is that Intel folks put extreme pressure on the DOE to not get rid of the polygraph. As it would have set an example that certain agencies couldn't handle. Let alone the largest customer to the polygraph manufactures losing all that business. And to make that kind of decision would have taken someone with audacity and courage. Something that is sorely lacking by most civilian bureaucrats in the country. DOE lost many first rate scientists and engineers because of that decision. Two of the scientists that left were friends of mine and their loss was extreme  on some very neccessary projects. Which to this day are still unfinished. Most of the Engineering and Scientific community members that I have talked to are fully ready to refuse the polygraph on any level. See how far all these agencies get or are able to work without its science and engineering staff. A complete refusal by the engineers and scientists will definately get congresses attention. But this for now is a pipe dream as most who work for the government will not risk there pensions and job security. But a few have and the number keeps growing.

Regards ...
Posted by quickfix
 - Aug 15, 2006, 05:22 PM
Nothing has changed.  My optimism remains the same for this profession (high), and my opinion remains the same that your assertions that polygraph screening is invalid and should be discontinued is baseless.  You speak the words of a scientist, but offer little in the way of proof (no disrespect intended).  It would explain why the Dep't of Energy went forward with their polygraph program, despite your advice to them not to.  I also find it strange that you advocate the abolishment of polygraph screening, but support its use in the criminal arena.  Why does it work in one discipline, but not the other?  Perhaps you could enlighten us on your theory.

Regards
Posted by Drew Richardson
 - Aug 15, 2006, 12:38 PM
Quickfix,

Once again, you know not of which you speak.  I wouldn't even address the subject except to clarify for the good sergeant who commented on your assertion.  My testimony before the U.S. Senate was not in a hearing dealing specifically with polygraphy (in fact of the members of four testifying panels, my testimony was the only which related to polygraph screening).  The hearing in which I was subpoenaed to testify dealt with various whistleblower issues.  That which others and I testified to (i.e., bureaucrats not listening to subject matter experts) has been born out again and again since the time of that hearing.  Apparently my testimony was sufficiently compelling as to lead to the committee chairman (Charles Grassley) and the ranking member (Dick Durbin) both to write me personal letters of thanks and congratulations.  In fact the testimony regarding polygraphy was again sufficiently convincing as to lead to a request by the Senate to the then Assistant Director of the FBI's Laboratory Division to explain the Bureau's polygraph procedures in light of my testimony.  The fact that the Bureau did not abandon its polygraph program at the time is no reflection on the concerns rightfully held by members of the Senate regarding that program.  

What you and many readers undoubtedly do not know is that Louis Freeh (the Director of the FBI at the time and the Director who implemented the polygraph screening program for applicants) has since had a change of heart about that decision and later (2001) instructed his National Press Office to have me give interviews with the media expressing the views that I have consistently expressed regarding polygraphy.

Perhaps now, you might care to address the subject of my previous post and response to you:

Quote
...Absolutely none of the dependent variable measures you mention nor the computerized data acquisition and various scoring algorithms are worth a tinker's damn as long as the basic application is flawed.  The relationship between relevant and control/comparison question responses has no similarity to analyte and control in an assay with true scientific control.  No tinkering with dependent variables, data transformations, scoring algorithms, etc. will improve the state of things until major (to include basic theoretical understanding) advances occur with the independent variable (basic paradigm) side of the equation....

Regards...
Posted by quickfix
 - Aug 15, 2006, 11:25 AM
Generally, I would agree with you;  however, in this case I believe they were correct.
Posted by Sergeant1107
 - Aug 15, 2006, 05:07 AM
Quote from: quickfix on Aug 12, 2006, 07:50 PMOn the same grounds that the US Senate dismissed his arguments in Sep 1997...
This post seems to suggest that the U.S. Senate only makes well-reasoned, nonpartisan decisions that are well grounded in logic and science, which is why (in your opinion) they dismissed Drew's arguments.

Is the decision-making ability of the Senate really the horse you want to hitch your wagon to?
Posted by George W. Maschke
 - Aug 15, 2006, 04:59 AM
Quote from: retcopper on Aug 14, 2006, 04:29 PMDigithead

I want to remind you that Brandeis wrote the "minority" opinion.  Tell the surviviors of 911 that "the intrusion was in aid of law enforcement"  I think you will find that they all support the tools at our disposal to fight terrorism. I forget which judge wrote the minorty opinion in Miranda but just like your minority opinion, so what.

retcopper,

Our government's reliance on such quackery as polygraphy (and voice stress analysis) for counterterrorism purposes should outrage all who know the truth about lie detectors.

The first World Trade Center bombing might well have been prevented had not the FBI, relying in part on polygraph chart readings, decided to terminate a confidential informant named Emad Salem who had penetrated the group that eventually carried out the 1993 bombing. See the message thread, FBI Polygraphing of Confidential Informants for more on this.

Moreover, America's jihadist adversaries know that the lie detector is a sham, as is made clear in a relevant section of the Encyclopedia of Jihad and a jihadist article titled, "The Myth of the Lie Detector."
Posted by digithead
 - Aug 14, 2006, 06:02 PM
Quote from: retcopper on Aug 14, 2006, 04:29 PMDigithead

I want to remind you that Brandeis wrote the "minority" opinion.  Tell the surviviors of 911 that "the intrusion was in aid of law enforcement"  I think you will find that they all support the tools at our disposal to fight terrorism. I forget which judge wrote the minorty opinion in Miranda but just like your minority opinion, so what.

I guess you missed where I said "Brandeis' dissenting Olmstead decision", i.e, a dissenting opinion is done by the minority...

I support all the legal tools for law enforcement that are based on science and evidence. Otherwise, let's just become fascist or totalitarian...

As for survivors of 9/11, you're appealing to emotion rather than logic and logic tells us that one of the major reasons for 9/11 was the territorialism that existed (and still exists) between our various law enforcement and intelligence agencies. All the tools in the world can't overcome basic human error and hubris, including your own. The terrorists are well aware of it and rely on it...

So if you can figure out how to get LE to share information rather than engaging in territorial pissings, you'd go a long way to making the world safer...

And from this board, there certainly seems to be plenty of hubris from the polygraph community...