- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by Human Subject
- Jun 12, 2003, 04:54 PMYeah, I'm saying that I naievely followed Deputy Dawg's "just tell the truth" advice and failed. If I had it to do over again, I'd once again tell the truth but spike the control questions with CMs.
The controls in my case were so-called "probable lie" questions, and were easily identifiable. The ridiculous thing was that they obviously expect most people will lie about these questions, yet I honestly answered "no" to them. (I don't want to get into specifics about what the questions were, since I'm still a little nervous I could be identified.)
I suspect I would have done better on my "lie detector" test if I'd managed to convince my polygrapher that I was lying about certain questions (through CMs). What a joke.
The controls in my case were so-called "probable lie" questions, and were easily identifiable. The ridiculous thing was that they obviously expect most people will lie about these questions, yet I honestly answered "no" to them. (I don't want to get into specifics about what the questions were, since I'm still a little nervous I could be identified.)
I suspect I would have done better on my "lie detector" test if I'd managed to convince my polygrapher that I was lying about certain questions (through CMs). What a joke.
Posted by Skeptic
- Jun 12, 2003, 04:00 PMQuote from: wombat on Jun 12, 2003, 03:40 PMhuman subject,
you are living proof that CM's work or dont work? i couldent understand from your post.
and if they dident work do yhou know why?
I think he's saying just telling the truth doesn't always work.
Skeptic
Posted by wombat
- Jun 12, 2003, 03:40 PMhuman subject,
you are living proof that CM's work or dont work? i couldent understand from your post.
and if they dident work do yhou know why?
you are living proof that CM's work or dont work? i couldent understand from your post.
and if they dident work do yhou know why?
Posted by Human Subject
- Jun 11, 2003, 04:49 PMQuote from: Deputy Dawg on Jun 11, 2003, 04:22 PMI recently watched the movie "Jackass"
I really like this board because if offers great insights into the lives of polygraphers that I just can't get anywhere else.
Wombat, you can try telling the truth sans countermeasures if you're feeling lucky. I'm living proof that doesn't always work.
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Jun 11, 2003, 04:30 PMDeputy Dawg,
Unfortunately, telling the truth is no guarantee that one will pass a polygraph examination. Polygraphy has no diagnostic value. It doesn't detect lies or deception: it's a pseudoscientific fraud. Truthful persons are well-advised to practice and employ countermeasures to protect themselves against this invalid procedure.
Unfortunately, telling the truth is no guarantee that one will pass a polygraph examination. Polygraphy has no diagnostic value. It doesn't detect lies or deception: it's a pseudoscientific fraud. Truthful persons are well-advised to practice and employ countermeasures to protect themselves against this invalid procedure.
Posted by Deputy Dawg
- Jun 11, 2003, 04:22 PMWow,
This is a genius idea Wombat! If you don't pass your polygraph exam using this idea, you might have a career in the movies! I recently watched the movie "Jackass" and they gave themselves paper cuts between their fingers and toes just for kicks! Heck, go for the gusto - use a razorblade to make those cuts. You can cut deeper and feel more significant pain, thus you can produce better responses on those controls! This idea ranks right up there with not drinking any fluids to inhibit sweat gland activity. Here is a novel idea AND it's less painful than cutting yourself - try telling the truth!
This is a genius idea Wombat! If you don't pass your polygraph exam using this idea, you might have a career in the movies! I recently watched the movie "Jackass" and they gave themselves paper cuts between their fingers and toes just for kicks! Heck, go for the gusto - use a razorblade to make those cuts. You can cut deeper and feel more significant pain, thus you can produce better responses on those controls! This idea ranks right up there with not drinking any fluids to inhibit sweat gland activity. Here is a novel idea AND it's less painful than cutting yourself - try telling the truth!
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Jun 11, 2003, 02:33 PMIncorrect. Constriction of the anal sphincter muscle (an internal muscle) won't produce the kind of shift in pressure associated with moving a toe.
Posted by wombat
- Jun 11, 2003, 09:43 AMso on such chairs it would also be almost impossible to do an anal pucker. no?
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Jun 11, 2003, 03:38 AMSuch a countermeasure might produce significant responses. However, it might also lead to a change in pressure distribution on the chair in which one is seated. Some polygraph chairs are equipped with a strain guage for measuring such pressure shifts, which might clue the polygrapher to attempted countermeasures.
Posted by wombat
- Jun 10, 2003, 07:13 PMhow about this as a CM.
what if i were to make a paper cut in my big toe (right under the nail). and then during control questions just slightly rub my toes in my shoe. i belive this would cause quite a bit of pain. but completly undetectable (unlike the nail in shoe routine).
any thoughts?
what if i were to make a paper cut in my big toe (right under the nail). and then during control questions just slightly rub my toes in my shoe. i belive this would cause quite a bit of pain. but completly undetectable (unlike the nail in shoe routine).
any thoughts?