- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by nopolycop
- Dec 22, 2007, 09:26 AMQuote from: Jesper on Dec 22, 2007, 07:43 AMit is a fact of life and I am not perfect, nor is polygraph.
But, at least you are honest, which is refreshing and a step forward. Thank-you for your comments.
Posted by Hunter
- Dec 22, 2007, 07:43 AMNopoly
One can train to defeat polygraph, however, a seasoned examiner in most cases will detect the countermeasure. I am well aware of the group on this site that constantly repeats the adage that we are unable to detect countermeasures. Regarding mental counter measures, yes SOME are detectable, others I'm not so sure about.
Regarding induced reactions, I am speaking about both mental and physical countermeasures. To what degree do you cause a reaction to occur, is that your normal? Anything out of the normal range is suspicious to me. Second part of the answer, I look at the relevant question to see if there is any reaction, should not be any of consequence, so yes it is an overall totality of the charts, not just one place on a chart that I look at. I am sure other examiners have differing opinions.
Have I ever missed when someone used countermeasures? I'm sure I have and I don't have a problem with that, it is a fact of life and I am not perfect, nor is polygraph.
One can train to defeat polygraph, however, a seasoned examiner in most cases will detect the countermeasure. I am well aware of the group on this site that constantly repeats the adage that we are unable to detect countermeasures. Regarding mental counter measures, yes SOME are detectable, others I'm not so sure about.
Regarding induced reactions, I am speaking about both mental and physical countermeasures. To what degree do you cause a reaction to occur, is that your normal? Anything out of the normal range is suspicious to me. Second part of the answer, I look at the relevant question to see if there is any reaction, should not be any of consequence, so yes it is an overall totality of the charts, not just one place on a chart that I look at. I am sure other examiners have differing opinions.
Have I ever missed when someone used countermeasures? I'm sure I have and I don't have a problem with that, it is a fact of life and I am not perfect, nor is polygraph.
Posted by raymond.nelson
- Dec 20, 2007, 01:37 PMQuote from: Jesper on Dec 20, 2007, 12:24 PMJP
We know that innocent people have been wrongly accused of deception. It happens. It's not a perfect system. I'll admit to that. My beef is not about using the CM. It's how or why there using it. I've got a big problem with someone lying on there SF-86, and wanting information to deceive the investigator willingly, and knowingly. Again, if I were to take a test, and was accused of being deceptive, and have had the oppurtunity to clear my name during a post test interview, or interrogation. Such person will be relying on alot more then said squiggly lines. The machine is part of the test, I guarantee a compentent examiner is looking at the totality of the situation, before making their final determination.
Please, someone (preferrably a polygrapher) correct me again if I'm over stepping my bounderies, or if I'm wrong.
Good points nomegusto.
To clarify or extend a couple of things. Final judgments are always made using the totality of available information. Policies and standards of practice are increasingly clear about that. Also, the adjudicators about someone's job status, filing status, guilty status, are most often not the polygraph examiner. This is a reflection of the use and meaning of test data. In psychological testing, an MMPI result itself is never enough to warrant a clinical diagnosis, nor is an IQ test score enough to pronounce someone retarded. People have criticized polygraphy for both sides of the discussion - basing results on test scores, or using extrapolygraphic information - they simply want to criticize. Tests simply give information. Decisions and diagnostic opinions are made by professionals - who sometimes use test results and other information.
I know that some readers of this site would prefer to oversimplify things and reduce the matter to "squiggly lines." But people will fail to learn anything if we leave it at that. Remember. Tests simply give information. In the case of polygraph, that information pertains to how well an individual's test result fits a known model or models, for deceptive or truthful persons. For another example, take a 7th grade spelling test. What we're interested in is how well each student's test score fits our known model for 7th grade spelling scores. So, while test results are a matter of how well a persons responses fit a known model, final grades are often a matter of a lot more information than a single test.
r
Posted by nomegusto
- Dec 20, 2007, 12:24 PMJP
We know that innocent people have been wrongly accused of deception. It happens. It's not a perfect system. I'll admit to that. My beef is not about using the CM. It's how or why there using it. I've got a big problem with someone lying on there SF-86, and wanting information to deceive the investigator willingly, and knowingly. Again, if I were to take a test, and was accused of being deceptive, and have had the oppurtunity to clear my name during a post test interview, or interrogation. Such person will be relying on alot more then said squiggly lines. The machine is part of the test, I guarantee a compentent examiner is looking at the totality of the situation, before making their final determination.
Please, someone (preferrably a polygrapher) correct me again if I'm over stepping my bounderies, or if I'm wrong.
We know that innocent people have been wrongly accused of deception. It happens. It's not a perfect system. I'll admit to that. My beef is not about using the CM. It's how or why there using it. I've got a big problem with someone lying on there SF-86, and wanting information to deceive the investigator willingly, and knowingly. Again, if I were to take a test, and was accused of being deceptive, and have had the oppurtunity to clear my name during a post test interview, or interrogation. Such person will be relying on alot more then said squiggly lines. The machine is part of the test, I guarantee a compentent examiner is looking at the totality of the situation, before making their final determination.
Please, someone (preferrably a polygrapher) correct me again if I'm over stepping my bounderies, or if I'm wrong.
Posted by nopolycop
- Dec 20, 2007, 11:47 AMQuote from: Jesper on Dec 20, 2007, 11:19 AM
It appears we are looking for more information regarding countermeasures. Any induced reaction has some specific markers. Creating pain generally causes an exaggerated response. For one to gain the ability to use these types of countermeasures would require practice on an actual polygraph.
The use of a motion sensor "butt pad" confirms without question that you are using the anal contraction counter measure.
It appears from your remarks that one can train himself to successfully use countermeasures if they practice on a polygraph. Is this true?
You also say that "induced reactions have some specific markers". But isn't that exactly what a polygrapher is doing when he questions, inducing reactions" Perhaps you meant inducing reactions by physical means, please clarify.
So far though, you have limited yourself to commenting on physical countermeasures. What about mental countermeasures? Do these also have "specific markers"?
For example, all it takes for me to raise my pulse rate and blood pressure is to visualize standing on a high bridge (fear of heights) or getting a blood test, (fear of needles).
Posted by raymond.nelson
- Dec 20, 2007, 11:42 AMQuote from: Jesper on Dec 20, 2007, 10:20 AM
Sir,
Thank you for your support. I was also thinking that if the examinee was over nervous during the test and passed some wind, that would probably activate the detection pad and a truthful person could be accused of cheating because of a natural emission of gas.
Respectfully,
JP
I would suspect that their might be some extrapolygraphic confirmatory evidence to alert the examiner of the anomaly.
r
Posted by Jesper Paten
- Dec 20, 2007, 11:35 AMSir Hunter,
You are deceiving us.
Please explain what this specific markers looks like and how is they different to normal markers.
The polygrapf is very basic equipment. It cannot read minds or make determinations. it does not know the differents between data inputs. It can only record from basic electric (digital) signals.
There is not one signal (electric current ) for a fahrt and another for pinching buttocks. There is no differents at all between input signals
for fear or pain.
There iss no additional Muscle movement of tongue biting when it is done at same time as closing the mouth after speaking.
You will not respond to me because you can not do so. You have shot past the target and missed.
The polygrapf belongs in a museum to wasted endeavors.
Respectfully,
JP
You are deceiving us.
Please explain what this specific markers looks like and how is they different to normal markers.
The polygrapf is very basic equipment. It cannot read minds or make determinations. it does not know the differents between data inputs. It can only record from basic electric (digital) signals.
There is not one signal (electric current ) for a fahrt and another for pinching buttocks. There is no differents at all between input signals
for fear or pain.
There iss no additional Muscle movement of tongue biting when it is done at same time as closing the mouth after speaking.
You will not respond to me because you can not do so. You have shot past the target and missed.
The polygrapf belongs in a museum to wasted endeavors.
Respectfully,
JP
Posted by Hunter
- Dec 20, 2007, 11:19 AMWhy was it necessary, then, to invent and implement the anal sphincter muscle squeeze detection pad? Seems like it can't get much more artificial than that.
It appears we are looking for more information regarding countermeasures. Any induced reaction has some specific markers. Creating pain generally causes an exaggerated response. For one to gain the ability to use these types of countermeasures would require practice on an actual polygraph.
The use of a motion sensor "butt pad" confirms without question that you are using the anal contraction counter measure.
Camera's on the face confirm tongue biting because of muscle movement.
We could go on and on with this, however it would not be convincing to you IMHO and therefore a waste of time for all reading the posts here.
I don't respond to JP for a reason, and I do not enjoy baiting.
It appears we are looking for more information regarding countermeasures. Any induced reaction has some specific markers. Creating pain generally causes an exaggerated response. For one to gain the ability to use these types of countermeasures would require practice on an actual polygraph.
The use of a motion sensor "butt pad" confirms without question that you are using the anal contraction counter measure.
Camera's on the face confirm tongue biting because of muscle movement.
We could go on and on with this, however it would not be convincing to you IMHO and therefore a waste of time for all reading the posts here.
I don't respond to JP for a reason, and I do not enjoy baiting.
Posted by nopolycop
- Dec 20, 2007, 11:06 AMQuote from: Jesper on Dec 20, 2007, 10:43 AM
A research project such as this would require peer review, and in order to gain that, he would have to attend a 10 week trade school and purchase a Ph.d on line. Then the project would have some semblance of validity.
Posted by EJohnson
- Dec 20, 2007, 10:43 AMQuoteSir,
Thank you for your support. I was also thinking that if the examinee was over nervous during the test and passed some wind, that would probably activate the detection pad and a truthful person could be accused of cheating because of a natural emission of gas.
Respectfully,
JP
I think you have stumbled upon a great research project JP. You should "spear-head" such a project---and start with experiments on yourself.
You impress me more and more with that insight of yours.
E
Posted by nopolycop
- Dec 20, 2007, 10:42 AMDon't get me wrong, JP, I was not supporting you., although if my question bolstered your argument, then perhaps that is a benefical result.
I was asking an honest question. If it is so easy for a poly examiner to tell the difference between natural reactions and artificially induced reactions, then there was no need to develop this piece of hardware, was there?
Third, you might consider implementing a natural gas emmision butt plug, that is designed to release slowly when a certain amount of pressure builds up. That way, you would not risk a false positive countermeasure detection opinion.
Lastly, don't make any assumptions as to my gender, please.
I was asking an honest question. If it is so easy for a poly examiner to tell the difference between natural reactions and artificially induced reactions, then there was no need to develop this piece of hardware, was there?
Third, you might consider implementing a natural gas emmision butt plug, that is designed to release slowly when a certain amount of pressure builds up. That way, you would not risk a false positive countermeasure detection opinion.
Lastly, don't make any assumptions as to my gender, please.
Posted by Jesper Paten
- Dec 20, 2007, 10:20 AMQuote from: Jesper on Dec 20, 2007, 10:16 AMQuote from: EJohnson on Dec 20, 2007, 09:50 AM
The down side to artificial reactions, they are noticeably different from a normal reaction observed on a polygraph chart, therefore detectable as a countermeasure by a seasoned and educated examiner. We look for those types of false reactions on all charts and in opposition to posters that claim they are not detectable, they are very obvious.
Why was it necessary, then, to invent and implement the anal sphincter muscle squeeze detection pad? Seems like it can't get much more artificial than that.
Sir,
Thank you for your support. I was also thinking that if the examinee was over nervous during the test and passed some wind, that would probably activate the detection pad and a truthful person could be accused of cheating because of a natural emission of gas.
Respectfully,
JP
Posted by nopolycop
- Dec 20, 2007, 10:16 AMQuote from: EJohnson on Dec 20, 2007, 09:50 AM
The down side to artificial reactions, they are noticeably different from a normal reaction observed on a polygraph chart, therefore detectable as a countermeasure by a seasoned and educated examiner. We look for those types of false reactions on all charts and in opposition to posters that claim they are not detectable, they are very obvious.
Why was it necessary, then, to invent and implement the anal sphincter muscle squeeze detection pad? Seems like it can't get much more artificial than that.
Posted by Jesper Paten
- Dec 20, 2007, 10:13 AMQuote from: EJohnson on Dec 20, 2007, 09:50 AMso can somebody please explain how biting the tongue causes a reation on their graph? what it does physically to your body to cause such a reaction?
To address your previous question, when you create pain in your body, your body responds by increasing blood pressure, increase in sweat gland activity and there will be a change in breathing.
The down side to artificial reactions, they are noticeably different from a normal reaction observed on a polygraph chart, therefore detectable as a countermeasure by a seasoned and educated examiner. We look for those types of false reactions on all charts and in opposition to posters that claim they are not detectable, they are very obvious.
Sir,
If somebody else pricked the examinee, would the examiner be able to tell whether the pain reaction was caused by the examinee or the other person?
Do you contendt that humans experience different types of pain caused by same stimulus at same site ?
If I bite my tongeu, or prick my tongue, or my friend pricked my tongue - are you sure that you can decide from your chartings which one was the cause of the pain ?
Of course you cannot. This fable that polygrapf witches can tell the difference between psycho-pain and physical-pain reactions is the falsehood of the century. As false as Mr Martins PhD.
Respectfully,
JP
Posted by Jesper Paten
- Dec 20, 2007, 09:58 AMQuote from: EJohnson on Dec 20, 2007, 09:47 AMJP,
Of course you are assuming that TLBTLD is an ace. I wholeheartedly disagree. I think it is tragic to mistake a joker for an ace. I wager that far more good candidates with too large of an ego to admit some petty BS from teen years ruin their opportunities by virtue of bad advice---than do these alleged gentle fawns who are victims of error rates.
Beezy, let me guess----you went a period of time experimenting with a little cocaine and an occasional mushroom. Woopty do. You think good candidates don't have such sf86 adjustments at the 11th hour? Of course they do.
Sir Johnson,
I do believe that more innocent and truthful people will pass the polygrapf test after reading the TLBTLD than if they did not.
It iss distressful that innocents and truthful people need a form of protection from the cursed test.
In Europe, some drivers use the Road Angel gps device. Statistiks prove that drivers using roadangel device are having 70% less accidents. They did not ever start their journeys to have accidents, but with protection like the roadangel they had a 70% better chance of 'passing' or not having an accident.
The TLBTLD is like the roadangel. It will give you a 70% better chance to pass the polygrapf test.
Respectfully,
JP