- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by G Scalabr
- May 19, 2002, 04:08 PMQuoteMy third Poly I went to take, the tester sent me home to get an EKG - he said that I must have a heart problem, because my heart rate was all over the place on his machine.
I had an EKG the next day and my doc (the police doc) said I was completely healthy, and my heart was strong and fine.
I always get a good laugh when I hear that polygraph examiners are diagnosing medical conditions. Someone with no college education and an eight-week training course has absolutely no business advising others on the status of their health.
Posted by FormerOfficer
- May 19, 2002, 01:10 PMI'll agree that poly's can detect physiological changes in the body, but not only when lying....
My third Poly I went to take, the tester sent me home to get an EKG - he said that I must have a heart problem, because my heart rate was all over the place on his machine.
I had an EKG the next day and my doc (the police doc) said I was completly healthy, and my heart was strong and fine.
I was nervous because of the last poly, although I was honest about everything to my BG investigator, and he was the one who wrote the questions, so I knew I would pass...
Weird it was.
I have to agree with the rest of the folks - for criminal investigations - I say interrogate away.
For pre-employment I think it needs to be banned.
Batman,
Thanks for taking a second, more "objective" look at the poly. Read the data collected and I think you'll see our point a little clearer.
I'm not out to protect criminals, but I'm not one, and don't want to be treated like one.
Regards,
FormerOfficer
My third Poly I went to take, the tester sent me home to get an EKG - he said that I must have a heart problem, because my heart rate was all over the place on his machine.
I had an EKG the next day and my doc (the police doc) said I was completly healthy, and my heart was strong and fine.
I was nervous because of the last poly, although I was honest about everything to my BG investigator, and he was the one who wrote the questions, so I knew I would pass...
Weird it was.
I have to agree with the rest of the folks - for criminal investigations - I say interrogate away.
For pre-employment I think it needs to be banned.
Batman,
Thanks for taking a second, more "objective" look at the poly. Read the data collected and I think you'll see our point a little clearer.
I'm not out to protect criminals, but I'm not one, and don't want to be treated like one.
Regards,
FormerOfficer
Posted by George W. Maschke
- May 19, 2002, 06:25 AMBatman,
You should be aware then, that polygraph "testing" is fundamentally dependent upon the polygrapher lying to and otherwise deceiving the person being "tested." In addition, it depends on the secret assumption that the examinee's answers to the so-called "control" questions will be less than truthful. Indeed, the more honestly one answers the so-called "control" questions, and as a consequence experiences less anxiety when answering them, the more likely one is to "fail" the "test." (If any of this is news to you, you'll find it explained at Chapter 3 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector.) Those who demand honesty from others (e.g., government agencies) are setting a miserable example with their reliance on the pseudoscientific fraud that is polygraphy.
QuoteIn the mean time, my heart, mind, and experiences continue to lead me to believe, regardless of the status of something like polygraph, that basic honesty and truthfulness at all levels, though at times it may be uncomfortable and even painful, is in the long run where we should all strive to be, not only on the organizational level, but on the individual level as well; for it is the individual(s) who ultimately makes up any organization be it private or government, and that organization ultimately reflects the individual.
You should be aware then, that polygraph "testing" is fundamentally dependent upon the polygrapher lying to and otherwise deceiving the person being "tested." In addition, it depends on the secret assumption that the examinee's answers to the so-called "control" questions will be less than truthful. Indeed, the more honestly one answers the so-called "control" questions, and as a consequence experiences less anxiety when answering them, the more likely one is to "fail" the "test." (If any of this is news to you, you'll find it explained at Chapter 3 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector.) Those who demand honesty from others (e.g., government agencies) are setting a miserable example with their reliance on the pseudoscientific fraud that is polygraphy.
Posted by Batman (Guest)
- May 19, 2002, 06:08 AMMr. M,
I took a quick look at the document you reference, The Lie Behind The Lie Detector. It's pretty extensive, it'll take a while to absorb it, but I want to do that and will return.
In the mean time, my heart, mind, and experiences continue to lead me to believe, regardless of the status of something like polygraph, that basic honesty and truthfulness at all levels, though at times it may be uncomfortable and even painful, is in the long run where we should all strive to be, not only on the organizational level, but on the individual level as well; for it is the individual(s) who ultimately makes up any organization be it private or government, and that organization ultimately reflects the individual.
Until then,
Batman
I took a quick look at the document you reference, The Lie Behind The Lie Detector. It's pretty extensive, it'll take a while to absorb it, but I want to do that and will return.
In the mean time, my heart, mind, and experiences continue to lead me to believe, regardless of the status of something like polygraph, that basic honesty and truthfulness at all levels, though at times it may be uncomfortable and even painful, is in the long run where we should all strive to be, not only on the organizational level, but on the individual level as well; for it is the individual(s) who ultimately makes up any organization be it private or government, and that organization ultimately reflects the individual.
Until then,
Batman
Posted by George W. Maschke
- May 19, 2002, 04:43 AMQuote from: sd on May 19, 2002, 01:15 AM
someone asked a ? about the directed-lie ?'s are you suppose to use countermeasures when they ask you to lie. And everyone on this board talks about gov. stuff. I need to know what kind of test are given for fire department test. If any one has taken one for fd please let me know. also how is the drug ? relevant if 90% of the population have used drugs at one time or another
Fire departments are likely to use a probable-lie "control" question "test." To learn about the different polygraph formats as well as countermeasures, see Chapters 3 and 4 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector. With regard to illegal drug use, most agencies will accept applicants who admit to limited use of illegal drugs in the past, but will reject those found to have used them beyond a certain limit.
Posted by George W. Maschke
- May 19, 2002, 04:36 AMBatman wrote in part:
I am aware of no scientific research supporting the notion that people exhibit any characteristic physiological response measurable by a polygraph instrument when lying, even at the individual level.
Regarding the scientific status of polygraphy, see Chapter 1 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector and the sources cited there.
QuoteBy "characteristic physiological response" I assume both Iocono and Lykken are referring to a "Pinoccio" (sp?) response, wherein there is no single type response common to all people that can be identified as a response to lying. Or are they saying that no reaction, specific to deception, can be identified even at the individual level (identifiable to that one person)? This appear to possibly be the case, if I interpret your reference to Lykken's Tremer... propely. He appears to be saying there is no difference simply because an individual can provide the same type response both when lying and when telling the truth. Or is he saying that any differences would not be valid because they could look similar?
I appreciate the references, and they certinaly provide good information for discussion, however I'm curious to know what you think about the possibility a peron undergos changes in their physiology when they lie, and the possibility of accurately recording those changes in some way. Thoughts?
I am aware of no scientific research supporting the notion that people exhibit any characteristic physiological response measurable by a polygraph instrument when lying, even at the individual level.
Regarding the scientific status of polygraphy, see Chapter 1 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector and the sources cited there.
Posted by sd
- May 19, 2002, 01:15 AMsomeone asked a ? about the directed-lie ?'s are you suppose to use countermeasures when they ask you to lie. And everyone on this board talks about gov. stuff. I need to know what kind of test are given for fire department test. If any one has taken one for fd please let me know. also how is the drug ? relevant if 90% of the population have used drugs at one time or another
Posted by Batman (Guest)
- May 18, 2002, 09:40 PMThanks Mr. M. I must admit I am not as well researched as yourself so at this time I'll only be able to go off the quotes you provided.
By "characteristic physiological response" I assume both Iocono and Lykken are referring to a "Pinoccio" (sp?) response, wherein there is no single type response common to all people that can be identified as a response to lying. Or are they saying that no reaction, specific to deception, can be identified even at the individual level (identifiable to that one person)? This appear to possibly be the case, if I interpret your reference to Lykken's Tremer... propely. He appears to be saying there is no difference simply because an individual can provide the same type response both when lying and when telling the truth. Or is he saying that any differences would not be valid because they could look similar?
I appreciate the references, and they certinaly provide good information for discussion, however I'm curious to know what you think about the possibility a peron undergos changes in their physiology when they lie, and the possibility of accurately recording those changes in some way. Thoughts?
Anyone else want to weigh in regarding this initial question?
Batman
By "characteristic physiological response" I assume both Iocono and Lykken are referring to a "Pinoccio" (sp?) response, wherein there is no single type response common to all people that can be identified as a response to lying. Or are they saying that no reaction, specific to deception, can be identified even at the individual level (identifiable to that one person)? This appear to possibly be the case, if I interpret your reference to Lykken's Tremer... propely. He appears to be saying there is no difference simply because an individual can provide the same type response both when lying and when telling the truth. Or is he saying that any differences would not be valid because they could look similar?
I appreciate the references, and they certinaly provide good information for discussion, however I'm curious to know what you think about the possibility a peron undergos changes in their physiology when they lie, and the possibility of accurately recording those changes in some way. Thoughts?
Anyone else want to weigh in regarding this initial question?
Batman
Posted by George W. Maschke
- May 18, 2002, 09:09 PMBatman wrote:
An individual may or may not undergo physiological changes measurable by a polygraph instrument when telling a falsehood. In any event, no reaction specific to deception has been identified. As Professor William G. Iacono notes in his article, "Forensic 'Lie Detection': Procedures Without Scientific Basis":
In the above-referenced article, Prof. Iacono goes on to explain the scientific shortcomings of the Relevant/Irrelevant "Test" and the "Control" Question "Test," techniques which attempt to circumvent this fundamental shortcoming.
In addition, as Professor David T. Lykken observed in A Tremor in the Blood: Uses and Abuses of the Lie Detector, any reaction that a person exhibits when telling a falsehood, he may also exhibit another time, when telling the truth.
QuoteI'll start; would anyone like to comment on whether there is any basis for the concept that an individual undergoes some types of changes in their physiology when they are not telling the truth? And then a follow-on: If there is a basis for this concept, then is it possible to accurately record those changes?
An individual may or may not undergo physiological changes measurable by a polygraph instrument when telling a falsehood. In any event, no reaction specific to deception has been identified. As Professor William G. Iacono notes in his article, "Forensic 'Lie Detection': Procedures Without Scientific Basis":
QuoteBecause there is no characteristic physiological response associated with lying, it is not possible to ask a person to answer a relevant question about an alleged misdeed (e.g., "Did you stab John?"), record nervous system reactions, and make a determination of truthfulness.
In the above-referenced article, Prof. Iacono goes on to explain the scientific shortcomings of the Relevant/Irrelevant "Test" and the "Control" Question "Test," techniques which attempt to circumvent this fundamental shortcoming.
In addition, as Professor David T. Lykken observed in A Tremor in the Blood: Uses and Abuses of the Lie Detector, any reaction that a person exhibits when telling a falsehood, he may also exhibit another time, when telling the truth.
Posted by Batman (Guest)
- May 18, 2002, 09:09 PMOk, Eisenmann has weighed in with "...the human body can show recordable signs of stress when lying...the polygraph is able to detect and record changes in the physiology of the human body."
I agree, and on the surface it appears to be a pretty basic premise; any other inputs from some of the folks I have been bantering with, Former Officer, Mr. M, or Mr. S? (Gentlemen, I'd spell your names out each time, however I am a poor typist and would end up butchering them, sorry, do disrepect intended, it just makes it a little easier for me.) I'd really like to have some more opinions other than Eisenmann's and mine before moving on. Thanks!
Batman
I agree, and on the surface it appears to be a pretty basic premise; any other inputs from some of the folks I have been bantering with, Former Officer, Mr. M, or Mr. S? (Gentlemen, I'd spell your names out each time, however I am a poor typist and would end up butchering them, sorry, do disrepect intended, it just makes it a little easier for me.) I'd really like to have some more opinions other than Eisenmann's and mine before moving on. Thanks!
Batman
Posted by eisenmann372002
- May 18, 2002, 08:24 PMOkay, I'm up for something like this, and I will do my best to keep my personal experiences out and my mind open. Understand, however, that I have told the truth on a polygraph and failed, and have also lied on a polygraph and passed. I would certainly hope it is understandable that THESE particular experiences do nothing to increase my confidence in polygraphy as a whole.
Yes; I agree that the human body can show recordable signs of stress when lying. And, of course, I have no doubt that the polygraph is able to detect and record changes in the physiology of the human body.
Just because stress registers, though, is in no way indicative that the person is lying. Would you agree that a person comfortable with lying may *not* show any signs of stress or changes in their physiology while being questioned? Frankly, it is my humble opinion that a person comfortable with lying is the kind of person the polygrapher (and society as a whole) would like to catch in a lie. My assumption would be that the polygraph came into existence BECAUSE of people like this. It seems ironic that it will pass people comfortable with lying (and again, it's these people that the polygraph is SUPPOSED to catch), but register stress by law-abiding citizens and may end up with them accused of lying.
Polygraphs have no place in pre-employment screening, period. That's what drug tests, background checks, and personal references are for. In most areas throughout the country, from what I'm told and from research on my own, there is fierce competition for jobs with a fire department (I can only assume the same is true for law enforcement jobs). In my area, an average sized fire department can expect to have over 500 applicants for only five positions. For the (very conservative estimate) 350 who make it through the written tests, physical agility, medical scenarios, interviews, and background investigations, the polygraph and medical examination by a physician are the only two things standing between them and a job. The polygraph becomes little more than a lottery machine. When you've had two years of paramedic schooling and six months of basic firefighting while holding down a full-time job, and most fire departments MAY hire once a year, it's a pretty f*&(ed up situation when you tell the entire truth and get failed for lying. Then, most departments take you off their eligibility list for up to two years. Not a pleasant experience, I can assure you.
I've said over and over that I believe the polygraph can be effective as an interrogation tool for the guilty, but it simply doesn't belong as a pre-employment requirement because it is flawed. There is just too much reliance on it as a screening tool.
Yes; I agree that the human body can show recordable signs of stress when lying. And, of course, I have no doubt that the polygraph is able to detect and record changes in the physiology of the human body.
Just because stress registers, though, is in no way indicative that the person is lying. Would you agree that a person comfortable with lying may *not* show any signs of stress or changes in their physiology while being questioned? Frankly, it is my humble opinion that a person comfortable with lying is the kind of person the polygrapher (and society as a whole) would like to catch in a lie. My assumption would be that the polygraph came into existence BECAUSE of people like this. It seems ironic that it will pass people comfortable with lying (and again, it's these people that the polygraph is SUPPOSED to catch), but register stress by law-abiding citizens and may end up with them accused of lying.
Polygraphs have no place in pre-employment screening, period. That's what drug tests, background checks, and personal references are for. In most areas throughout the country, from what I'm told and from research on my own, there is fierce competition for jobs with a fire department (I can only assume the same is true for law enforcement jobs). In my area, an average sized fire department can expect to have over 500 applicants for only five positions. For the (very conservative estimate) 350 who make it through the written tests, physical agility, medical scenarios, interviews, and background investigations, the polygraph and medical examination by a physician are the only two things standing between them and a job. The polygraph becomes little more than a lottery machine. When you've had two years of paramedic schooling and six months of basic firefighting while holding down a full-time job, and most fire departments MAY hire once a year, it's a pretty f*&(ed up situation when you tell the entire truth and get failed for lying. Then, most departments take you off their eligibility list for up to two years. Not a pleasant experience, I can assure you.
I've said over and over that I believe the polygraph can be effective as an interrogation tool for the guilty, but it simply doesn't belong as a pre-employment requirement because it is flawed. There is just too much reliance on it as a screening tool.
Posted by Batman (Guest)
- May 18, 2002, 07:49 PMOk,
Now that we have all gotten to know each other lets enter into a legitimate discussion on the merits of polygraph, however I will ask that an open attitude be maintained, regardless of our personnel experiences, or differences of opinion.
I'd like to start with the very basics if you folks don't mind. It may seem somewhat elementary, but it is the best place to begin any discussion.
I'll start; would anyone like to comment on whether there is any basis for the concept that an individual undergoes some types of changes in their physiology when they are not telling the truth? And then a follow-on: If there is a basis for this concept, then is it possible to accurately record those changes?
Again I know this is very basic, but it will help in establishing a foundation for any further discussion. I'm being legit here folks, no more smart remarks or sarcasim on my part.
Please note: I am not playng whatever game this "Boy Wonder" is engaging in. Frankly, when I saw his first posting I thought that maybe I had a "kindred spirit" out there, however I am not into making up information, at any level! So Boy Wonder, if you see this posting and want to take part in a legitimate discussion please do, but not as two different people, even if you use different IP addresses. Thanks!
Batman
Now that we have all gotten to know each other lets enter into a legitimate discussion on the merits of polygraph, however I will ask that an open attitude be maintained, regardless of our personnel experiences, or differences of opinion.
I'd like to start with the very basics if you folks don't mind. It may seem somewhat elementary, but it is the best place to begin any discussion.
I'll start; would anyone like to comment on whether there is any basis for the concept that an individual undergoes some types of changes in their physiology when they are not telling the truth? And then a follow-on: If there is a basis for this concept, then is it possible to accurately record those changes?
Again I know this is very basic, but it will help in establishing a foundation for any further discussion. I'm being legit here folks, no more smart remarks or sarcasim on my part.
Please note: I am not playng whatever game this "Boy Wonder" is engaging in. Frankly, when I saw his first posting I thought that maybe I had a "kindred spirit" out there, however I am not into making up information, at any level! So Boy Wonder, if you see this posting and want to take part in a legitimate discussion please do, but not as two different people, even if you use different IP addresses. Thanks!
Batman
Posted by G Scalabr
- May 18, 2002, 06:44 AMBatman,
As George suggested, perhaps you could provide some specific criticisms directing us toward any false or misleading information on the site. So far, all you've done is level personal attacks at various posters.
Agreed with you 100%. The site has definitely brought out the worst in the angry polygraph examiners who see the trickery behind their abusive and deceitful trade being exposed in front of more people each day.
As readers of this site know, the potential employers that you refer to are foisting deceit onto applicants through the use of polygraph "tests." Yes, it is true that some independent thinkers may choose to "fight fire with fire" rather than take a substantial risk at having lifelong career aspirations go down the drain.
This site provides emotional support for the large number of individuals who are being falsely accused by polygraphers as drug users, drug dealers, spies, and other criminals. I believe that this is anything but unhealthy.
We do not deny that the polygraph is an effective interrogation prop when used on those ignorant of the trickery on which it depends. Nonetheless, any reliance on polygraph "test" results is truly foolhardy.
As George suggested, perhaps you could provide some specific criticisms directing us toward any false or misleading information on the site. So far, all you've done is level personal attacks at various posters.
QuoteAll this site appears to have accomplished is to bring out the worst in people.
Agreed with you 100%. The site has definitely brought out the worst in the angry polygraph examiners who see the trickery behind their abusive and deceitful trade being exposed in front of more people each day.
QuoteIt plays upon their fears and attempts to convince them that in order to overcome those fears they must be deceitful in their dealings with potential employers and various other organizations to include law enforcement agencies.
As readers of this site know, the potential employers that you refer to are foisting deceit onto applicants through the use of polygraph "tests." Yes, it is true that some independent thinkers may choose to "fight fire with fire" rather than take a substantial risk at having lifelong career aspirations go down the drain.
QuoteI'm simply an individual who believes that web sites such as this do more harm than good because they promote an unhealthy approach toward life.
This site provides emotional support for the large number of individuals who are being falsely accused by polygraphers as drug users, drug dealers, spies, and other criminals. I believe that this is anything but unhealthy.
QuoteDo you think I am a tester or pro-polygraph simply because I am willing to keep the door open to the potential usefulness of the polygraph as an aid to investigations.
We do not deny that the polygraph is an effective interrogation prop when used on those ignorant of the trickery on which it depends. Nonetheless, any reliance on polygraph "test" results is truly foolhardy.
Posted by FormerOfficer
- May 18, 2002, 04:02 AMQuote from: Batman on May 17, 2002, 06:33 PM
Former Officer:
I take almost as much offense at your assumption that I am a "tester" as you do to my assumption you have had "non-official" invovlement with illegal drugs.
I'm simply an individual who believes that web sites such as this do more harm than good because they promote an unhealthy approach toward life. Do you think I am a tester or pro-polygraph simply because I am willing to keep the door open to the potential usefulness of the polygraph as an aid to investigations. Maybe I have had some exposure to the technique wherein it was of tremendous assistance. Maybe I'm just willing to entertain both sides of the issue. Maybe I just like to get folks like you all fired up, kind of like kicking an ant hill. Or, God forbid, maybe I am a POLYGRAPH EXAMINER, run away, run away!!!!
Come on, lighten up, have some fun with it. Enjoy the good give and take of a message board such as this. Polygraph is the least of our worries. I'm just a caped crusader for honesty.
By the way, why are you a "former officer"? Didn't get BUSTED did ya?
Batman
I take almost as much offense at your assumption that I am a "tester" as you do to my assumption you have had "non-official" invovlement with illegal drugs.
You're correct, I was making an assumption by your attitude towards me. If me calling you a tester offends you, I sincerly apoligise.
I'm simply an individual who believes that web sites such as this do more harm than good because they promote an unhealthy approach toward life.
Is the glass half empty, or is it half full? It simply is all a matter of perception. I believed in the poly until the first time I told the truth and failed the question..... Upon doing a little research into the validity of the test I cam upon this site.... Thank the Lord. This is the MOST informative site out there, and in MHO speaks the truth! if you can't handle the truth, stick you head in the sand.... aka - "Ostrich syndrome".
Do you think I am a tester or pro-polygraph simply because I am willing to keep the door open to the potential usefulness of the polygraph as an aid to investigations. Maybe I have had some exposure to the technique wherein it was of tremendous assistance. Maybe I'm just willing to entertain both sides of the issue. Maybe I just like to get folks like you all fired up, kind of like kicking an ant hill. Or, God forbid, maybe I am a POLYGRAPH EXAMINER, run away, run away!!!!
Well, you act as if you have an obvious stake in the matter..... What concern is it of yours - i.e.- my background? Maybe you're just a nosy bas#### who gets his jollies off of screwing people over too.... Only you can answer that question about YOUR character. But to JUDGE mine by a single post SHOWS your narrow-mindness....
Come on, lighten up, have some fun with it. Enjoy the good give and take of a message board such as this. Polygraph is the least of our worries. I'm just a caped crusader for honesty.
I don't think there is ANYTHING funnly about ruining perfectly good peoples career intentions based off of a junk science/machine test/interrogation.... We have bigger fish to fry than to be concerned with how many joints someone smoked in college, or what his/her political views are....
You claim to be a "caped crusader for honesty" - well I challenge you to "crusade" the "honesty" presented by the author of the site - i.e.- Polygraphs are NOT lie detectors........
By the way, why are you a "former officer"? Didn't get BUSTED did ya?
I should expect no less an unprofessional comment by you..... But I'll entertain it..... Actually, we were renting in one city and paying a mortgage in another city and decided that we did not want to sell our home, so we moved (out of state). I'm in the final background check with a local department here, and should be back in the saddle again, as getting a LE job sometimes takes more than a year. So until I get another commission, I'm a former -officer. If I were to return to my former department, I'd be re-hired in an instant. My record is impeccable. So much for your slander...
Posted by George W. Maschke
- May 18, 2002, 02:06 AMQuote from: Batman on May 17, 2002, 01:41 PM
Eisenmann:
I really don't know how worthwhile any debate on this topic would be. It is apparent, based on Mr. M's posting, that the great majority of the folks who post on this site are "zealots" against the use of polygraph, and proponents of living the lie.
There are no perfect tools in any trade, however to say so definitively and/or use such narrow language as
- "no logical inference may be drawn..."
- "there is no way to differentiate between..."
- "it has no scientific basis, no validity..."
- "it is easily circumvented..."
leaves little room for debate.
Words and phrases like "no way", "it is", and "has no", display absolutely no room for give and take. Mr. M obviously believes he has been seriously harmed in some by the use of polygraph and is now willing to throw the baby out with the bath water.
How about this for an analogy. A man undergos a medical procedure, however during this procedure he feels more pain than he expected. As a result, the man decides that all medical procedures are bad and must be banned. The man is not a medical doctor, he is not a surgeon. He simply does a tremendous amount of document research and then proclaims himself to be some level of expert in the science of medicine and surgery. He starts a web site, much like this one, and proceeds to deride the practice of medicine and all those affiliated with it. He provides medical "guidance" to anyone and everyone who will listen. He is educated, and articulate therefore those to whom he gives this guidance believe he must be an "expert" in his field; when in fact he has no pratical experience, and his only real world exposure to what he rails against is the pain he felt during his medical procedure.
I'm not sure this is a healthy foundation for debate on any topic, expecially one as controversial as the use and validity of polygraph. All this site appears to have accomplished is to bring out the worst in people. It plays upon their fears and attempts to convince them that in order to overcome those fears they must be deceitful in their dealings with potential employers and various other organizations to include law enforcement agencies.
I'll leave you all with this last thought, the next individual you encourage to employ countermeasures, and to practice deceipt, may be the one who abuses your child, rapes your wife, breaks into your house, steals your car, murders your neighbor, or engages in an act of espionage or terrorism against your country.
Batman, Over & Out!
Batman,
If you believe that I have written anything about polygraphy that is untrue or otherwise misleading, why not share that with readers here, rather than arguing ad hominem?