- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by CrimsonCavalier
- Jun 04, 2011, 01:50 AManyone that cares,
Polygraph knowledge is only the tip of the iceberg in learning to defeat the examiner. And its always the examiner you beat. As I explained to the famous Dr. Rovner on a few occasions the true tricks of the polygraph examiner is the selling of the machine, that it does work. Now the 47 individuals we have trained, not one has been detected as being deceptive or accused of using countermeasures. The best countermeasure of all is the subject knowing the tricks and the interrogation process. If the examiners show is not sold then the worst result is always inconclusive. And a subject so trained bests the polygraph every time.
good luck to you all - TheCorp
Polygraph knowledge is only the tip of the iceberg in learning to defeat the examiner. And its always the examiner you beat. As I explained to the famous Dr. Rovner on a few occasions the true tricks of the polygraph examiner is the selling of the machine, that it does work. Now the 47 individuals we have trained, not one has been detected as being deceptive or accused of using countermeasures. The best countermeasure of all is the subject knowing the tricks and the interrogation process. If the examiners show is not sold then the worst result is always inconclusive. And a subject so trained bests the polygraph every time.
good luck to you all - TheCorp
Posted by Sergeant1107
- Jun 03, 2011, 08:37 PMQuote from: pailryder on Jun 03, 2011, 06:53 PMQuote from: Sergeant1107 on Jun 03, 2011, 11:19 AMafter asserting I had not stolen anything from the army, I had admitted to having a few old rifle mags in a box that was shipped home from the army
So were you failed as a result of your admission or on a call of deception?
During one part of the interview, the examiner asked me if I had stolen anything from the army while I was in. I said that I hadn't.
Later on (during what was obviously the post-test interview) I was asked if any "junk" had come home with me from the army. I said that I had some tent pegs and canteens and stuff like that. The examiner specifically asked me if I had any magazines, and I said that I did. That was pretty much the end of the interview, though there was nothing said to tip me off that I had just failed.
The detective doing my background told me I had failed because I had lied; I originally said I had not stolen anything from the army, but under further questioning I had admitted to "stealing" magazines. Not "having" magazines, but "stealing" magazines, which is an outright lie on the part of the examiner. There is no way on earth I would have ever admitted to stealing magazines because that is not what happened. I think any reasonable person would call that a gross mischaracterization of what had happened.
When I went back to the same examiner for another polygraph for another agency, I asked why I had been characterized as having lied. The examiner told me that lots of people steal magazines so they can sell them in the civilian market. After I explained that magazines, tent pegs, canteens, and the like are not accountable items in the army and that anything I brought home with me was still sitting in boxes in my parents' attic because it was essentially "junk" that I never had the slightest inkling to sell or do anything else with, the examiner simply said that they now understood my position. No apologies, no "Gee, I guess I shouldn't have assumed that anyone with magazines is a thief and a liar," nothing. This time through the examiner asked me specifically if I had taken any equipment home from the army with the intent of selling it, which is something that certainly should have been asked before incorrectly labeling me a liar the first time through.
After clearing up the examiner's incorrect assumptions that were obviously due to a complete lack of knowledge of all things military, I passed that polygraph. I should have passed the previous one, too, since all of my answers were the same and I didn't lie or withhold information in either of them.
So I'm sure you can see why the idea of examiners assuming things to start off interviews is not one that sits well with me.
It certainly makes me wonder how many other veterans were "failed" by this examiner because they said they had magazines and therefore, according to this examiner's faulty logic and ignorance, they must have "stolen" them.
How many people fail when they truthfully say they have never driven drunk, or used marijuana, simply because the examiner assumes everyone has driven drunk and/or tried marijuana at least once?
Posted by pailryder
- Jun 03, 2011, 06:53 PMQuote from: Sergeant1107 on Jun 03, 2011, 11:19 AMafter asserting I had not stolen anything from the army, I had admitted to having a few old rifle mags in a box that was shipped home from the army
So were you failed as a result of your admission or on a call of deception?
Posted by Sergeant1107
- Jun 03, 2011, 11:19 AMQuote from: pailryder on Jun 03, 2011, 08:05 AMSarge
Give me a break! You are right, I don't know that everyone researches polygraph, but it's a safe assumption that most do. In your investigations you also make assumptions based on what you know about human behavior and a person's background. Those assumptions will change as additional information is developed during the jnterview/investigation, but we have to start somewhere. And one basic assumption is that these days almost everyone does computer information searches for just about everything.
I was simply pointing out the irony of a polygraph operator, supposedly an expert in the detection of deception, simply assuming the existance of facts not in evidence when they should be able to simply ask each subject, "Have you researched the polygraph?" and then be able to determine from the subject's responses if they are responding truthfully or not. The danger, of course, is that you very well may encounter a person who has not researched the polygraph and you will certainly (and incorrectly) label them, at least in your mind, as a liar when they tell you the truth at that point in the interview.
In one of my own negative polygraph experiences, the polygraph operator (incorrectly) assumed that anyone who had leftover rifle magazines from their army days had stolen them with the intention of selling them in the civilian market. That examiner failed me solely on that basis - that, after asserting I had not stolen anything from the army, I had admitted to having a few old rifle mags in a box that was shipped home from the army. It wasn't until I went back to that same examiner during the application process for another agency that I was told why I had "failed" my prior polygraph - because I had "lied" about stealing army equipment.
If that examiner had not made completely incorrect assumptions on a topic about which it was clear they were completely ignorant, they wouldn't have failed a truthful person on the polygraph. This examiner had no idea that things like tent pegs and M16 magazines are not accountable items, and apparently couldn't care less about my state of mind in this matter, which certainly lacked anything resembling mens rea and therefore should have alerted any reasonable person to the fact that no crime and no deception took place.
It is not that hard to imagine a police applicant going to one of the many forums for police applicants and police hopefuls and finding many, many posts that strongly suggest no research whatsoever be done on the polygraph, and go just "go in and tell the truth." I have seen a lot of posts that also urge people not to research the polygraph because they will be asked during the examination if they have done so and if they answer in the affirmative they will be disqualified (because "research" equals "cheating"). Now this applicant goes to the polygaph and truthfully answers that he has not researched the polygraph. Since the examiner is clearly unable to tell if the subject is lying or not, it seems likely he will simply assume that the subject is lying, since "everyone" researches the polygraph. Even if that doesn't cause the examinee to fail by itself, it seems logical that an examiner who (incorrectly) believes the subject is lying to him in the first few minutes of the interview will carry that bias through the rest of the "test" process, which will certainly have a negative effect on the subject's chances to pass.
Posted by pailryder
- Jun 03, 2011, 08:05 AMQuote from: Sergeant1107 on Jun 02, 2011, 05:19 PMtake it from what you wrote that if a person says they did not research the polygraph or do any Internet searches on it you automatically assume they are lying?Since you "know everyone googles" the polygraph.
Sarge
Give me a break! You are right, I don't know that everyone researches polygraph, but it's a safe assumption that most do. In your investigations you also make assumptions based on what you know about human behavior and a person's background. Those assumptions will change as additional information is developed during the jnterview/investigation, but we have to start somewhere. And one basic assumption is that these days almost everyone does computer information searches for just about everything.
Posted by Twoblock
- Jun 03, 2011, 02:37 AMstefano
Poluted-ticians will pay no attention to this website or letters about the polygraph. I have tried and got nary a responce and in a class action lawsuit, only lawyers come out smelling like a rose. Sueing the federal government is analogous to milking a bull.
Poluted-ticians will pay no attention to this website or letters about the polygraph. I have tried and got nary a responce and in a class action lawsuit, only lawyers come out smelling like a rose. Sueing the federal government is analogous to milking a bull.
Posted by stefano
- Jun 02, 2011, 11:20 PMQuote from: Fair_Chance on Jun 01, 2011, 09:31 PMJudging from all of the responses on this website, it is better for them to err on the side of rejecting applicants. The only problem is that the continuing rejections are taking a toll on the agencies using them.Exams cost money and failed applicants cost money. There is no proof that the cost of these test are justified considering the results.Maybe we should start a communication compaign to get every member of congress to read the accounts on this website whereby good people have been culled due to the the uncontrolled shenanigans of these charlatans. Has this ever been tried? Maybe a class action lawsuit against the federal government for squandering our tax dollars on this pseudoscience?
Posted by Bill_Brown
- Jun 02, 2011, 06:37 PMQuote from: Fair_Chance on Jun 01, 2011, 09:31 PMWe have one poster stating that a controlled mindset of fear is necessary to have a successful test. Knowledge tends to lessen fear of the unknown.
I mentioned Fear of Detection and also mentioned Cognitive Conflict. These are theory's regarding reactions on polygraph. Please don't read too much into one post on this board.
You do contribute, in many different ways, to the debates, and I am one that listens and attempts to investigate why reactions occur, I don't have a scientific answer.
Thanks
Posted by Sergeant1107
- Jun 02, 2011, 05:19 PMQuote from: pailryder on Jun 01, 2011, 12:59 PMstefanoNot to read too much into your post, but...
I assumed nothing of the sort. I simply stated the fact that examiners know everyone googles and to lie about that will tip your hand. I neither said nor assumed anything about detecting cm.
I take it from what you wrote that if a person says they did not research the polygraph or do any Internet searches on it you automatically assume they are lying? Since you "know everyone googles" the polygraph.
It would certainly lend more credibility to the polygraph if examiners did not assume what the examinee may or may not have done in their past but was instead able to discern from the examination if they were lying or telling the truth.
Posted by Fair Chance
- Jun 01, 2011, 09:31 PMWow, it must be presumptively assumed that everyone is performing web searches. I am not looking upon pailryder's statement in a negative fashion in as much as it must severely complicate the parameters in the testing room. We have one poster stating that a controlled mindset of fear is necessary to have a successful test. Knowledge tends to lessen fear of the unknown.
If you Google polygraph, this site comes up as one of the top hits. It must really add a wildcard to the situation. Passing a polygraph is even tougher because countermeasures are the wildcard. Examiners say that they can detect them so why all of the fuss unless they cannot detect them and need to pretend they can.
Judging from all of the responses on this website, it is better for them to err on the side of rejecting applicants. The only problem is that the continuing rejections are taking a toll on the agencies using them. Exams cost money and failed applicants cost money. There is no proof that the cost of these test are justified considering the results.
Just an opinion.
Regards.
If you Google polygraph, this site comes up as one of the top hits. It must really add a wildcard to the situation. Passing a polygraph is even tougher because countermeasures are the wildcard. Examiners say that they can detect them so why all of the fuss unless they cannot detect them and need to pretend they can.
Judging from all of the responses on this website, it is better for them to err on the side of rejecting applicants. The only problem is that the continuing rejections are taking a toll on the agencies using them. Exams cost money and failed applicants cost money. There is no proof that the cost of these test are justified considering the results.
Just an opinion.
Regards.
Posted by stefano
- Jun 01, 2011, 01:39 PMQuote from: pailryder on Jun 01, 2011, 12:59 PMI assumed nothing of the sort.I simply stated the fact that examiners knoweveryone googles and to lie about that will tip your hand.I neither said nor assumed anything about detecting cm.Sorry if I misunderstood. I wasn't aware that most examinees now research countermeasures before taking an exam. I am not a forensic examiner, so I am not up on that.
Posted by pailryder
- Jun 01, 2011, 12:59 PMstefano
I assumed nothing of the sort. I simply stated the fact that examiners know everyone googles and to lie about that will tip your hand. I neither said nor assumed anything about detecting cm.
I assumed nothing of the sort. I simply stated the fact that examiners know everyone googles and to lie about that will tip your hand. I neither said nor assumed anything about detecting cm.
Posted by stefano
- Jun 01, 2011, 12:33 PMQuote from: pailryder on Jun 01, 2011, 08:55 AMso if you offer a flat denial he/she will rightfully assume you are lying and you will start with one strike against you.You are assuming that an examiner can detect properly delivered countermeasures, which they cannot do.
Posted by stefano
- Jun 01, 2011, 12:27 PMQuotebegin a flame war with me stuck in the middle.Not me! I'm a harmless little fur ball.
Posted by pailryder
- Jun 01, 2011, 08:55 AMQuoteif something is going to affect my future I have to research it.
So do I, and your examiner does this as well, so if you offer a flat denial he/she will rightfully assume you are lying and you will start with one strike against you. Your best shot may be to answer yes, I evaulated the available information and decided against using any countermeasures. Then use them or not as you see fit.