Anal pucker
Exciting thoughts
tounge/lip biting
tack in the shoe (though not recommended)
Breathing countermeasures
What othercounter measures can one use to effect control questions?
Sweat countermeasures?
What about taking St. John's Wart or Kava Kava to help "mellow" a person out before the test to keep the nerviousness down?
Any thoughts or advise on countermeasures not listed in "The Lie Behind the Lie Detector"
Scopolamine (http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/sci/A0844088.html), an anticholinergic drug used in anti-nausea preparations for motion sickness, can suppress reactions on the electrodermal channel. It is conceivable that this might be helpful as a countermeasure to the Relevant/Irrelevant technique, to inhibit reactions to the relevant questions. But it might not be as helpful with the much more commonly used "Control Question Test."
I don't know about St. John's Wort or Kava Kava, but see the message thread meds to alter reactions (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=860.msg5772#msg5772) for more on pharmaceutical countermeasures.
George, is there no end to the vast amount of knowledge you profess to have about countermeasures? That is especially amazing when you consider you have never used these countermeasures, and you have failed every question on every polygraph test you have ever taken. What a pile of BULLSHIT!!
LOL!!!!
Another satisfied customer!!!
No, BS is no another "satisfied customer". No doubt just another dissatisfied polygrapher, upset that one day he/she won't be able to use their own BS on unsuspecting victims.
Quote from: BSDETECTOR on May 17, 2003, 04:56 PMGeorge, is there no end to the vast amount of knowledge you profess to have about countermeasures? That is especially amazing when you consider you have never used these countermeasures, and you have failed every question on every polygraph test you have ever taken. What a pile of BULLSHIT!!
Since BS detector demands primary sources, I'll step in and reiterate that I used the behavioral, mental, and physical countermeasures as described in The Lie Behind The Lie Detector (http://antipolygraph.org/lie-behind-the-lie-detector.pdf). My polygrapher (who by his own account was a luminary in the field of 'forensic psycho-physiological detection of deception', or some similar gibberish) never knew what hit him-- just like any of these other bitter, bitter men who occassionally storm onto the boards declaiming everything here.
bsdetector,
You wrote:
QuoteGeorge, is there no end to the vast amount of knowledge you profess to have about countermeasures? That is especially amazing when you consider you have never used these countermeasures, and you have failed every question on every polygraph test you have ever taken. What a pile of BULLSHIT!!
What precisely do you consider to be bullshit? Does it trouble you that George has significantly educated himself {possibly better than many DODPI trained polygraph examiners} on polygraph testing to include polygraph countermeasures? This is specifically what PhDs are supposed to do.
If this is the best independent assumption that you can come-up with, you should reconsider your position and attempt to refer us to your supporting reference materiel as George does consistently.
Simply because George has never employed polygraph countermeasures certainly does not preclude him from possessing extensive knowledgeable with regard to polygraph testing and countermeasures. This obviously does disturb many polygraphers on this board; however, I understand their displeasure.
Polygraph testing is flawed, unreliable, unethical and misleading. The methodology supporting polygraph testing as taught at DODPI School is riddled with deceit and trickery. Polygraph testing is without question vulnerable and susceptible to a vast array of polygraph countermeasures.
Like it or not, TLBTLD is accurately written, referenced and supported with irrefutable reference materiel one can research on their own.
Knowledge is power. The public has a right to know when they are being misled, tricked and scammed. This is without question, one of {if not the biggest} public flimflammery allowed and condoned by our very own government.
Polygraph testing should be stopped. Eventually, it will be.
triple x
I was reading about Kava Kava and it is said to be a natural stress and anxiety reliever. Do you think that will have a positive or negitive effect on a control question type polygraph? I am preparing for a polygraph test that I will have to take in the next month or so. I have read TLBTLD and anything else I can find on the internet.
treetop,
I wouldn't expect a sedative to have much of an effect on the outcome of a CQT polygraph examination because it wouldn't be expected to differentially affect reactions to "control" versus relevant questions.
By the way, the fact that a substance is "natural" does not necessarily mean that it is either safe or effective. You might want to visit HerbalWatch.com (http://www.herbalwatch.com) and review the entries for Kava Kava (http://www.herbalwatch.com/Alerts/herbal_kava.html) and St. John's Wort (http://www.herbalwatch.com/Alerts/herbal_stjohnswort.html) (note spelling).
Quote from: BSDETECTOR on May 17, 2003, 04:56 PMGeorge, is there no end to the vast amount of knowledge you profess to have about countermeasures? That is especially amazing when you consider you have never used these countermeasures, and you have failed every question on every polygraph test you have ever taken. What a pile of BULLSHIT!!
I have never claimed to possess unlimited knowledge about polygraph countermeasures. The knowledge I do have is based primarily on the open source polygraph literature (cited in the bibliography of
The Lie Behind the Lie Detector (http://antipolygraph.org/pubs.shtml)), and not on any personal experience employing them.
Please tell me precisely what I have said or written regarding polygraph countermeasures that you believe to be "a pile of bullshit."
George, you say, "I have never claimed to possess unlimited knowledge about polygraph countermeasures. The knowledge I do have is based primarily on the open source polygraph literature (cited in the bibliography of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector), and not on any personal experience employing them. "
So basically you are just giving your version of what you have read. Why don't you cite your sources on your posts instead of acting like you have some sort of expertise of your own? You really do try to mislead people into thinking you know much more than you do. You demand honesty from the likes of Gelb, but you don't hold yourself to the same standard. You are as much a fraud as he is. Just another example of the arrogance that was probably one of the things that got you DQ'd from the FBI. You really are a pompous ass. It's a good thing they didn't give you a badge and a gun.
Relax... countermeasures don't work anyway so quit worrying about who came up with them.
"BSDETECTOR,"
I haven't attempted to mislead anyone about the extent of my knowledge, or how I have learned what I know. I do not think it is necessary to provide a source citation with every post I make on this message board (though I often do so).
Los Angeles polygraph operator Edward I Gelb claims to have a Ph.D. in psychology (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=910.msg6419#msg6419), although it seems that his degree is from an unaccredited diploma mill whose owner was sent to federal prison for fraud. I have made no such claim to credentials that I do not possess.
Again, please tell me precisely what I have said or written regarding polygraph countermeasures that you believe to be "a pile of bullshit."
Quote from: no_sugar_coating on May 18, 2003, 09:37 PMRelax... countermeasures don't work anyway so quit worrying about who came up with them.
If countermeasures don't work, then why has Paul M. Menges, who teaches the countermeasures course for polygraphers at the Department of Defense Polygraph Institute, suggested that it should be a crime to make information about polygraph countermeasures publicly available (http://antipolygraph.org/articles/article-029.shtml)?
No_Sugar,
I have to disagree with your statement about CM's not working, I used them, lied, and passed ALL of my polys without a problem. I am somewhat confused, you say you aren't a Polygraphist, yet you defend the poly. Just ask yourself "Why does the NAS (Probably some of the brightest scientific minds on the planet) say the polygraph is not a scientifically sound instrument for detecting lies?"
I would think a Police Officer would be more concerned with gathering facts before forming an opinion.
If you are not a polygraphist, why are you so concerned with defending it?
Just curious,
PK
As I said earlier, I will be taking the polygraph in a couple months. I will have to lie in order to not be disqualified and I will have to use countermeasures in order to get away with these lies. I was no angel growing up and I made stupid decisions, however, I will not get the job if I tell the truth; I might get the job if I lie. I would rather take my chances with the "might get the job" then to throw in the towel and tell the truth. If countermeasures work, I will post it here. If they do not work, I will post it here. But, for those of you how say countermeasures do not work, if I pass the test, then your arguement will be proven wrong. If I fail the test, then you were right or I did the countermeasures wrong. As for me, I will keep reading about the polygraph and let time run its course.
Ah, another honest lier about to set forth on a career journey.
Tree Top, your parents must be proud!
Well, when all else fails, lie baby lie! Don't forget to teach that same philosophy to your kids. You certainly wouldn't want them to be truthful with you if they didn't like the expected outcome. After all, if it worked for daddy.....
Batman
Batman,
Kids are not dumb. If Americas best scientists say that the polygraph is BS, then why should anyone believe you when you say that it is not?
Is all science wrong now?
Is smoking good for you? Is the world flat?
The real message is quite clear:
No, the polygraph is not scientifically sound, but LE likes to use it anyway.
What a great lesson to teach the kids-
Lie on cue (control question)- your a good citizen.
Lie when we dont want you to- your a bad citizen.
Quote from: Batman on May 19, 2003, 08:02 PM Don't forget to teach that same philosophy to your kids. You certainly wouldn't want them to be truthful with you if they didn't like the expected outcome. After all, if it worked for daddy.....
Does anyone else get a completely uneasy feeling in their stomach reading the hypocrisy of Batman? I seriously want to puke when I see you, of all people, Batman, talking about "doing the right thing" and "being honest." What gives you the right to take the moral high ground? Your blind faith in that unproven test on a misused machine gives you no authority to be a moral judge. You ruin lives on a daily basis, justify it as "just doing your job" and "using only the results of the machine," and then put your head on your pillow at night with a clear conscience. How you can do that is well beyond me, but if you can live with yourself, Batman, fine, do it. But please stop the hypocrisy. Your spewing words of morality is truly sickening. Practice what you preach, Batman -- tell the truth the next time you administer a test, and see what results you get.
Treetop,
As much as I hate the polygraph system, I must say that your intent to circumvent the hiring standards of the agency with which you wish to be employed is appalling. I personally am not in favor of the use of countermeasures; I would rather have the polygraph gone instead.
But what gives you the right, Treetop, to make your own standards for this job you want? What gives you the right to decide which standard you will adhere to and which you will break? Why do you get to decide?
Countermeasures are dangerous to the polygraph system, and your intended misuse of them is the main reason the polygraph should be done away with in total.
You can't erase them pro-poly types, countermeasures are here to stay. How the polygraph test can be considered accurate is beyond me. But, you can't prove a negative, so the damned system must work, right?
I'm so happy the best and brightest in law enforcement have faith in the poly. It just gives me a warm feeling inside. In my stomach. Like the one that I get when I read about Batman administering moral judgement.
Chris
Chris:
While I agree that Treetop is incredibly erroneous in attempting to gain employement through fraud and deceit, I find it difficult to swallow most of your other assertions.
You state that use of countermeasures alone is the main reason to discontinue the use of the polygraph. I tend to believe that the main reasons that polygraph use should be terminated are because, first, it is scientifically invalid. Second, it has a horrific rate of accuracy. Third, the very real threat to our national security based upon such fallible results alone demands immediate halt of this voodoo. Fourth, we are a nation who prides itself on justice, and this silliness is unjust. Fifth, in being the greatest nation globally, I prefer to have the best and brightest, and most beneficial members of my society in law enforcement/intelligence agencies. To that end, when some toy with the accuracy of Batboy's tea leaves and dysfuncional Magic 8 Ball determined who these cherished individuals will be, something is incredibly WRONG. Countermeasure use is just so low-raking as cause for polygraph banishment in my humble opinion.
I cannot ever suggest that a person use countermeasures to conceal deceit. However, I do not live in a bubble either, and I know that for every good tool or technology here, someone will develop a way to turn its purpose and utility against itself for the gain of negative results. My difficulty comes in finding there to be enough utility in the use of the polygraph to even constitute it as a good tool. I still have suspect feelings about the Brain Wave technology, and wonder if ever there comes a chance for things like countermeasures, administrator error, or other malfunction. Where there exists human input, a margin of error surely must exist.
I also would never condemn or advise against a person using countermeasures when that person is indeed truthful in their answers. This seems like a paradox, but it isn't. When you go to take the SATs or other standardized tests that measure your ability, do you not, if you are wise, practice, take sample tests, improve your TEST TAKING skills? Are you being dishonest then if you do in fact do these preparatory steps? I see the polygraph no differently. It is a "test" used to measure your fitness for a job, your level of character, your trustworthyness. Now, just as the SAT cannot possibly measure your true academic ability, neither can the polygraph measure your veracity.
I would have to believe that use of countermeasures would be the norm from intelligent, dilligent and devoted applicants.
Regards,
Seeker
"I would have to believe that use of countermeasures would be the norm from intelligent, dilligent and devoted applicants." Seeker, 20 May 2003
You forgot to add liars to your list!
Sorry, couldn't help myself. I'm such a bad boy!
Batman
Quote from: Batman on May 20, 2003, 03:41 PM"I would have to believe that use of countermeasures would be the norm from intelligent, dilligent and devoted applicants." Seeker, 20 May 2003
You forgot to add liars to your list!
This from a
professional liar. I guess it takes one to know one.
Quote from: Batman on May 20, 2003, 03:41 PM"I would have to believe that use of countermeasures would be the norm from intelligent, dilligent and devoted applicants." Seeker, 20 May 2003
You forgot to add liars to your list!
Sorry, couldn't help myself. I'm such a bad boy!
Batshit,
If you keep up the hypocritical bull, I will have puked on my keyboard so much it will become inoperable. Then I won't be able to entertain the masses of antipolygraph.org with my humor and wit. Now who will benefit if that happens, hmmm?
Seriously, you really need to step back and see how stupid your comments on "telling the truth" are. Your profession is despicable, at least have the courtesy to keep your mouth shut on the subject. But if you want to continue to destroy what little credibility you have, go right ahead and make your statements. But let me ask this El Guano, is that why guys like you and Torpedo have to keep signing up on here with different screen names? Destroy the credibility of one name and come back as somebody new? You are so pathetic . . . .
And Seeker,
As you know, I am no fan of the polygraph. There are many reasons for the polygraph system to be eradicated. But in my mind, the only way to get through to the thick skulled believers in the polygraph is with cold fact. Sure the polygraph is inaccurate, but they won't believe it. Some scientists debunk the poly, while others laud it. And they believe it is no threat to national security because it provides results. Of course, we will never know how well the polygraph actually does providing those results, because, as we all know, you can't prove a negative. So thick-headed, results-oriented, bureaucratic morons won't change, because even though all the aforementioned info is damaging to the polygraph, it isn't enough to take it down.
The only way to eradicate the entire polygraph system, in my opinion, is to uncover a major flaw. A flaw so damaging that the system is rendered useless. Countermeasures are that flaw. With enough exposure, countermeasures can destroy the entire polygraph system.
And Seeker, I am discouraged by your comment that even El Guano had to write about it -- "use of countermeasures would be the norm from intelligent, dilligent and devoted applicants." I once was a diligent, devoted applicant (the intelligent portion is still open for discussion), and it was not the norm for me to learn about countermeasures. I had complete faith in my government and the fair treatment I would get in the applicatiopn process. I was completely unaware that I was about to be betrayed.
I never knew that I would have to be decietful, whether for noble or evil purpose, to pass a polygraph. In fact deceit is the last thing an uassuming individual thinks about when taking a poly. YOu say prepping for a poly should be like prepping for the SAT. See, an SAT is a test of learned information, information that can be reviewed prior to the test in order to improve your score. The polygraph "test" covers your life experiences, how do you prepare for that? Sit around a campfire and tell stories? Does Kaplan offer an polygraph "test" review course? It is tough to compare a scholastic knowledge test to a life experience test.
So I have to disagree with your comments on the devoted applicant. Unless you think I wasn't devoted enough, then I guess you may be right. But I sure felt devoted, giving 8 months of my life in preparation for Quantico, only to have them wasted by a misguided polygrapher . . .
Chris
Chris
Your right to make the point about CM use not being part and parcel of an applicants bag of pre employment tricks. To some, this is an archaic concept- personal ethics are more important than possibly prevailing while committing an ethical violation.
We have disagreed in our view of the plygraphs utility. I have seen it work many times when the facts would not have been discovered any other way, and you have had a bad result during an applicant process.
Your message on ethics is still intact, and it sets you apart from the average poster here.
Chris,
I thought you and I were starting to become friends. I'm hurt by your personal attacks, and shocked by your referencing me as "Batshit". How crude, you should be ashamed, however, keep it up, you're almost in my league for crassness. I'm proud of your progress.
However, since my very first post on this site, as a guest, I have always used 'Batman'. I have never posted as anyone else, or under any other name. Now I know that as a polygrapher I am considered a professional liar, low life, scum, etc..., but I have only, always, and will continue to be......
Batman
All,
There are times on this site when I feel like an island. I feel like my views are just so different from everyone else's. But one thing I do know is that my views are my views, and they are not going to change on anyone's behalf. So if you don't like what I say, ignore me.
Breeze,
Good to see you back into the discussion! As you know, I do believe that there is good that can be done with the poly. The GKT is a proven test, and it should be used as part of the complete investigative process. Having said that, the PLCQT is an utter joke of a "test," which is completely susceptible to corruption due to countermeasures.
So my views on the polygraph may not be as biased as you think. I will have you know that if given the chance to sit for another polygraph, I would NOT use countermeasures. I had and continue to have nothing to hide. However, I would feel guilty as all hell during the test, because of my knowledge of the secrets behind the PLCQT. After having read the pro-polygraph propoganda posted by some here, I am forced to feeling guilt for my knowledge, like I know secrets that I shouldn't know, and that these secrets are just as damaging as countermeasures themselves. Knowing these secrets is a mental countermeasure, and that is enough to change the outcome of the test. As crazy as it sounds, I would feel guilty sitting for another polygraph because my knowledge would be a countermeasure in itself -- no puckering needed. But I thank you for your kind words regarding my ethics. I know I am not alone in my view about pre-polygraph research -- I felt no need to prepare for the polygraph.
I was just leaving the Army, a government job, looking to go to the FBI. In the Army, it doesn't take long before you realize how the system is set up. Basically, men can make all the mistakes they want, because there are 47,000 regulations and codes to govern and correct any problems that they may make. It is good, in a way, because there is a sense of security, because even though you feel like some people might be out to harm you, somewhere, buried deep in codes and regulations, is protection. It gave each worker a comforting sense of security in their government and the Army (and on a bad note, made it nearly impossible to discharge a bad apple). But having this sense of security in the Army, I thought that I might find the same in another government agency, the FBI. When I was told that all I had to do for my polygraph was sit down and tell the truth, I believed it. And if something went wrong, I felt I would have 29,000 methods of recourse. Never once did I think the FBI would betray me, blacklist me, and hang me out to dry. But the safety and security that I felt with the Army wasn't there with the FBI. Not only did I have no recourse, but I also was admonished for my post-test words of displeasure.
Today, I no longer have the faith in the government that I once had. Had I lost that faith prior to my polygraph, I might have researched the poly and learned about it's flaws. But would I have felt guilty for having known the polygraph's dirty little secret prior to taking one? Who knows . . . .
And to you, El Guano,
Friends? You thought we were freinds? I wouldn't say that we are drinking buddies. Too much beer makes me puke on my own, with you there, I'd have permanent peristalsis.
I think we gained a mutual respect for each other. True, we don't see eye to eye, but we are not as diametrically opposed as you are with ohters on this site (see my above response to The Breeze on how I feel the poly should be used).
Having said all that, I did give you, El Guano, fair warning, that your comments were unappreciated. I have a distaste for all things polygraph, even though I do believe there may be a use for it. My personal experience with the polygraph has made me distrust its operators. I certainly know I was lied to by my polygrapher during my "test."
So I attacked you because your comments were, in my eyes, hypocritical. I would hope that, if you do have more respect or view me differently than others on this site, you might take my words to heart.
Chris
PS -- And El Guano, I don't think you ever changed your screen name, but I know your good buddy Torpedo has done it on occasion. Haven't heard from Torpedo of late, who is he now?
Quote from: The_Breeze on May 21, 2003, 02:10 PMChris
Your right to make the point about CM use not being part and parcel of an applicants bag of pre employment tricks. To some, this is an archaic concept- personal ethics are more important than possibly prevailing while committing an ethical violation.
We have disagreed in our view of the plygraphs utility. I have seen it work many times when the facts would not have been discovered any other way, and you have had a bad result during an applicant process.
Your message on ethics is still intact, and it sets you apart from the average poster here.
The_Breeze
Yes, Chris Stein's integrity and ethics are indeed refreshing, even if a bit misguided. Law enforcement/intelligence agents should indeed be morally accountable, ethical, and have high integrity. Should they also be flat out stupid in there along with that higher ground?
Look, I won't even argue on utility. An officer wants a poly to use in an investigation, and I am right there behind him/her in pushing for it. However, pre-employment screening is simply harmful, as well as useless, as it requires a validity that simply DOES NOT exist.
Now, having said that, how would it be anything but practical and wise to further one's interviewing skills by employing countermeasures? Just HOW is it an ethical violation to use countermeasures if you are indeed that intelligent, moral, ethical, and honest person? You seem to equate it to CHEATING. That is simply unrealistic and unfair. It would be cheating if you were being dishonest in your responses.
I find this amusing, since the King of misinformation, dishonest, deception, and unethical practices is the polygraph!
Funny, we sit and nod and high five the polygraph examiner for lying to manipulate an examinee to illicit a confession, claim it is ethical to do such by rationalizing that the examanee is a criminal, but never once sit back and see the disgusting ugly side of those actions used to gain that confession.
An applicant comes in and gets a false positive, and of course, the justification is that they were hiding something, that they were somehow unfit for the job. Best case stituations, a concession is made that the machine is not always right, and once in a very very blue moon, we allow the applicant to withstand another abusive exam, maybe even three if they seem to be the masochist types.
Tell me The_Breeze, Sir, with all respect, how, HOW is this ethical? How does this fit into the standard of integrity and morality? How does this fit into your assertion that use of countermeasures somehow are "unethical"?
Regards,
Seeker
Dear Seeker,
Ouch! A couple of those OO shotgun ball bearings nipped me in the rear-end (and I hope it was friendly fire and they were made of stainless steel, even game cannot be shot with lead anymore!). I cannot speak for Chris but after reading many of his postings, I think he would go through ten more exams if given the chance to win against this flawed system.
You know I do not like the polygraph but I do understand Chris's intent and motivation.
I have withstood almost twelve hours of polygraph exams over three exams. I am not a crazy person, just determined to not allow a flawed system to claim me as a victim.
I type very quickly and do not sweat my grammer on this website but I consider myself fairly educated after taking over 240 college credit hours in biology, physics, chemistry, electronics, and electrical courses over my lifetime so far (with more to come).
Not only did I not use countermeasures during any of my exams, I specifically discussed the NAS report with my examiner before the third exam.
I will answer all applicant questions truthfully to the best of my ability and then I will hold the agency to the fire and insist that they do their best to ensure that I am treated fairly. If I feel I am being wronged, I will appeal it until I get a satisfactory answer (even if it takes years). I am not rich but this method has worked well for me over my life-time.
I have found that the best way to try and change a flawed system is to exert constant pressure over a long period of time. I have rarely changed the course more than a few degrees but the larger the ship, the longer it takes.
The best military and law enforcement officers are unwaivering in there perception of right and wrong. Any deviation from these personal beliefs normally leads to the path of the "Dark Side of the Force". I believe that Chris's perception of "the right thing to do" agrees with mine. Are we "smart"? Maybe not as far as passing a polygraph pre-screening test, but it is a value system we have lived by and most probably will die by.
Regards
Fair Chance
Indeed the eco heroes have reduced the use of lead in waterfowling, but we traditionalists are still free to return lead to the earth in upland bird hunting! (no one will eat duck twice anyway)
That correction aside, I hope you are doing well. Like you, I find seekers attitude quite cynical. It is always hard for someone outside this field to understand the prevaling mentality of law enforcement officers. Taking CS to task for being idealistic illustrates this completely. I dare say that was me when I originally applied for federal service (a long time ago) and probably you as well.
Im glad I believed, and there is no doubt in my mind that its preferable to being a cynic. Ask yourself seeker, why would a young person volunteer for hazardous duty, get to clean up barf in the back of thier unit, enter homes when someone is trying to kill them, get punctured with needles during a search, or a dozen other unpleasantries: except for the fact that they are idealistic and unquestioning in some regards. Without that quality, which you seem to find pathetic, the job would not get done.
Same goes for soldiers making nothing financially. You should be glad such a mindset exists, and I guess I support your misguided attempt to belittle those that think this way.
And Seeker, just how many polygraphs have you witnessed, or does your information only come from these pages? I could show you dozens of applicants that have completed backgrounds, that have lied on thier applications, failed specific areas of the polygraph test that you are certain does not work, and then make specific, provable admissions. What exactly can you show me, except a strong belief system without
direct knowledge?
Lets talk about countermeasures. I have asked that people on this board demonstrate thier convictions and prove the assertion that someone with 30 minutes of instruction can wreak destruction on a polygraph test. I am mildly amused at a clock on the homepage. A clock should run next to it showing the amount of time spent dancing around the topic without proving that anti-polygraph agents can do this at will at an agency of thier choosing. I say applicants are caught routinely, and know this to be true from seeing the charts and witnessing the confrontation. What exactly have you witnessed?
And I believe CM's are unethical (and I know you think ethics are a quaint, far off notion) because an applicant should be judged on overall merit. Its not the same as dressing nice as one idiot posted a while back, its an attempt to place data into an application process that does not exist. I consider that no different than trying to produce a different pathology, leaving off jobs from an application where you stole from your employer, or getting a phony degree. As far as the abuses and lying thats alleged on these pages, I can only say this: NOT AT MY AGENCY.
Quote from: The_Breeze on May 22, 2003, 01:29 PMI could show you dozens of applicants that have completed backgrounds, that have lied on thier applications, failed specific areas of the polygraph test that you are certain does not work, and then make specific, provable admissions..
Breeze,
Be careful here. I have come to learn that the typical response of these people to your statement above, is, "Okay show us your 'dozens of applicants.' We want names, dates, times, and places of exams," etc. Of course you cannot ethically or legally provide that information and they know it. So therefore from their self supported point of view, you MUST be lying and therefore their position is further reinforced.
Breeze, you will never will here. After all, that is why they call it, "Anti-polygraph.org."
Poly-Cop
QuoteIndeed the eco heroes have reduced the use of lead in waterfowling, but we traditionalists are still free to return lead to the earth in upland bird hunting! (no one will eat duck twice anyway)
I find myself agreeing with the Breeze for the first time here. I hunted waterfowl ONCE. After roasting up the day's game, I set down to enjoy a nice meal. Boy was I in for a surprise. Wild duck is downright gross. If I want duck, I'll stick to the mild Peking duck in a Chinese restaurant.
Supposedly, there is another type of shot that flies as well as lead but does not pollute. It's made of Tungsten, I believe. Only drawback is that it's EXPENSIVE as all hell.
Gino
Thanks for the endorsement of my veracity, if I was accurate in my assessment of Duck tasting like tenderloin of muskrat, perhaps everything I say should be regarded as the pillar of truth that it is!
What a perfect world that would be, huh Gino?
Polycop-thanks for the warning, but I do indeed know how the game is played around here. I have asked for proof myself numerous times which has never been produced. Its ok, like a few other posters here I know my words have the ring of truth to those that may be sitting on the fence. A diehard hater of the polygraph will never be convinced, and I really do not care to try. Have a good one-
QuoteLets talk about countermeasures. I have asked that people on this board demonstrate thier convictions and prove the assertion that someone with 30 minutes of instruction can wreak destruction on a polygraph test. I am mildly amused at a clock on the homepage. A clock should run next to it showing the amount of time spent dancing around the topic without proving that anti-polygraph agents can do this at will at an agency of thier choosing.
Although I haven't seen the programs he mentions, Doug Williams asserts that he has appeared on the following news-format tv shows and done precisely that:
CBS 60 MINUTES, NBC NIGHTLY NEWS WITH TOM BROKAW, CBS NIGHTWATCH, CNN WORLD NEWS, CNN HEADLINE NEWS, CNN WEEKEND, NBC DATELINE, FOX NEWS, MSNBC NEWS, ABC NEWS WITH SAM DONALDSON, AND NBC INSIDE EDITION.
You can view clips of some of these events here:
http://www.polygraph.com/media.html
I myself took much longer than 30 minutes to practice my countermeasures, but in retrospect it wasn't necessary. 30 minutes to one hour would suffice for anyone.
It seems that I have stirred a hornet's nest of opinions on this subject. I will do my best to address them all.
Seeker,
Up until late last year, I did have an implicit trust of my government. As I stated before, there are certain things that you just have to take for granted, and for me, it was faith in the FBI that they would treat me fairly and with respect. I learned the hard way that they don't. Sure you can tell me that hindsight is 20/20, and that I'm the fool for not researching the polygraph prior to taking it. There are others on this site who held the same beliefs I did, and learned how terribly the FBI can burn you (Fair Chance, George, . . .). It is a horrible feeling to be betrayed so, and for George and I, to not only be betrayed but also accused of espionage, an act punishable by death in the federal courts. To be spun so violently by someone you trusted is a horrible feeling - something I wish on no one else.
I don't agree with your view on what makes a good law enforcement officer. I think you are confusing a keen investigative sense with the notion of service. As many on this site have served, either in LE or Military, service people HAVE to trust implicity. I know that I had to trust the guy I shared a foxhole with. I may have met him that day, but I have to trust that he is willing to die for me as I am for him. An LE officer has to trust the his partner will be there for him no matter what.
I grew up the son of an LE officer, and I got to know each and every partner my dad had. Though some may have had their personal problems, I knew I could trust them to take care of my dad, and the partners kids knew my dad would do the same. And the LE officers knew that when they were in trouble, they could trust that the department would send back-up if requested, and never question if it was really needed. And the SWAT sniper would trust that the order to take out a target was justified, even though he may not see a reason to kill.
I argue that implicit trust is not only trained to LE and service members, it is part of who they are. You have to trust those around you -- it is how we survive.
True, my inference that the FBI could be trusted just like I trusted the Army was my downfall. But ask any service member who knows nothing about Federal LE about any of those agencies, and they will most likely tell you that they would offer the same amount of trust to them as they offer their own branch of service.
Just because an LEO trusts his agency implicitly doesn't mean he has no knack for investigation. Just the contrary -- the LEO who doesn't have to worry about watching his back because he knows his partner and his agency are watching it for him, that LEO is free to do that much more investigating, instead of covering his ass.
I know this utopia doesn't exist, but it is what our LE agencies should strive to have.
Poly-Cop,
If all of us here are so stubborn and adverse to change, why come back? Why post? Why waste your time, if we are so worthless? I'm confused . . .
Breeze,
You know where I stand with the poly. My hatred of the polygraph system lies solely in the PLCQT, the test in which countermeasures work best on. Countermeasures might be detected, or might go undetected. But no one will debate that they exist, that they are fairly easy to learn, and that they can go undetected. Given that major flaw, and the NAS report's poor marks for PLCQT accuracy, shouldn't this test's days be numbered?
Gino,
Never been bird hunting. But if you want to talk about hunting bad Bosnians, I can chime in.
Fair Chance,
I could not have said what you wrote any better myself. Bravo.
12 hours for 3 tests? I guess I was an anomoly. My one test lasted 2 days -- 5 and a half hours the first day, and then I came back for 4 more the next. I think it was an attempt by the polygrapher to continue to insult me by questioning my pariotism to the point that my blood was boiling so he would have the desired results on the chart. Just a hunch . . . Maybe blood temperature should be something recorded on the strip? (that's a joke people -- please don't send messages about 98.6 and all that, OK?)
Hope I discussed all the pertinent topics.
Chris
steincj,
I enjoyed reading your response. Trust is the real issue here. I think that because the polygraphers only work in their little box they fail to see the damage they do.
This year thousands of honest LE applicants will be told that they are liars, thieves, drug addicts.... .
Those thousands of applicants will then surve on juries, and read papers describing LE abuses and misconduct- what do you think their response will be after they were betrayed?
Polygraph tests, that result in admissions, have been cited as the reason for their use. What about the thousands of false positives?
Citizens have to trust that the authority that they have granted to LE is being used in an honorable and just fashion. In the cases where honest people are stigmatized and unfairly judged, polygraphy is more than just a loose cannon of an investigative tool, it is the shovel that undermines faith in all LE. The trust is broken.
I recently went to a LE interview. In conversation, one of the officers explained to me that an officer recently video taped beating a suspect was not from his department, like some in the public thought.
I told the pannel that it didn't matter what agency he was with. They all gave me a sharp look. I replied that every officer gets judged as the same, regardless of the patch on his arm.
I think that people join LE because they like responsibility and like being trusted and coming through for those who trust.
But I can't think of one person in LE that I have ever met who said that they wanted to be a polygrapher.
I don't want to go off on a rant, but...
I am guessing that polygrapers are LE people who did not really fit in on the streets or couldn't handle cases. Polygraphers seem very insulated, which leads me to believe that they forced themselves (or were forced) into the polygraph box, because of an inabiliity to fit in anywhere else.
The childish responses from the pro-polygraph crowd add to my suspicion that they are juvenile in their mind set and not capable of a duty that has merit.
Its that mind-set that allows them to participate in something that amounts to bully type behavior. Polygraphers don't care if thousands of applicants are unjustly accused, because, they don't care.
They love to wag the finger, they crave to judge guilty, because deep down they feel as worthless as their test.
I almost feel sorry for them... almost.. but then I am reminded of the PLCQT standard-- Lie on cue (control question) and your a good citizen.
One could learn alot about lying from the polygrapher...
Dear Suethem,
My first and third polygraph examiners in the FBI had good communciation skills in general and were probably fairly good interrogators with or without the polygraph prop. They seemed skilled enough to work just about any LE position requiring detective work.
My second polygraph examiner would have fit your description as possibly someone who was not good at communicating or interrogating. He had a chip on his shoulder and definitely seemed to be "trophy" hunting. He was very focused on impressing me with his superiority of mind and experience. He reminded me of a dog that would bark all the time with his tail wagging. His delivery did not match his message. I sensed alot of insecurity.
Regards.
My goodness..let me see where to start.......
My Dear Fair_Chance:
I hope you do know that I hold you in great respect, and that I would never ever intentionally want to give you any sensations of being nipped in the rear by some shotgun blast. ( Not only do I not own any guns, but I strongly oppose hunting and support gun control. So, please, don't everyone start going off on that subject. )
As for Chris, I think he can attest that I would never harm him either.
Let me clarify if I can. I do not consider you, Chris, or anyone else (including my friend batboy) to be stupid. An act can be a stupid one even from an intelligent person.
If I understand you correctly, your reasoning for choosing to NOT use countermeasures was a choice you made because you somehow consider the use of them to be unethical. Am I correct?
I can see how you can believe that, and how others may feel the same way. Am I automatically cynical and wrong because I do not view it the same as you do, or I disagree with your logic? I beg to argue that in fact as long as honest responses are given in a polygraph exam, there does not exist any sound reasoning to consider countermeasures to be unethical. In the end, my dear friends, only you yourself can measure what is ethical and what is not. When you lay your head down on that pillow at night, you can either know in your heart that you have spoken the truth or that you have lied.
During the Salem witch hunts, I pray some of those people quickly learned that being falsely accused came with such damning outcomes that to use "countermeasures" if you will of "gaining religion" was not only self-preservation, but in fact the right thing to do. Would we have more people be burned at the stake for the sake of calling ourselves ethical?
I simply do not agree that use of countermeasures is unethical.
The_Breeze
Oh puhlease! Cynical? My monkier is Seeker. I seek knowledge and truth. Period.
When I believe the minister who tells me that I will go to hell and burn for all eternity if I don't strap on bombs and blow up innocent people, should I belive him? Would I be cynical if I questioned things? Hell, let's accuse Abraham of being a cynic. His questioning of his community beliefs brough about the major religions of the world today. I believe your label of me to be highly incorrect.
I completely understand civil service. I find your attempt to equate that heroism to having ANY relevance to polygraph pre-screening use of countermeasures to be silly.
I made no attempt to belittle anyone. I have a different view it seems from some of the others, but it is my view and I do not condemn them for having their views. I stand on my belief that the use of CMs is NOT unethical, and that failure to educate oneself on the poly is simply a VERY POOR choice.
As for witnessing exams - I have witnessed several actually. My information DOES NOT just come from these pages. We can go tit for tat on providing examples of when the poly was accurate ( I cringe at even using that word since it is SOOOO inaccurate ), and when it was not. This game could go on for the rest of our lives, and you know that.
I have offered on this site more than once to prove that I could spend 30 minutes being taught countermeasures and pass a poly without detection of those CMs being used. Care to take me up on that? I am sure that if you would, I could easily find someone willing to teach me.
I believe ethics are the core character trait of a good person. I find your classification of the use of countermeasures against a silly faliable toy as being unethical to be absurd.
Gino
Yes, oh yes. Wild duck is absolutely horrid! Bet you never get that taste out of your memory.
Dear Chris:
I do see your side, and I do understand how it fits into who you are. I will refrain from cutting and pasting our conversation on this subject since I believe that discussion was one specific to your case and not to all who post here. I simply disagree with your level of trust, and as we know, that trust is no longer as it was. I have seen the pain of it, and I have seen what it has done to you. I would rather see someone like you use countermeasures than to ever suffer as I have seen.
As you know, I am fond of arguing with you, but in the end I believe we can appreciate our differing opinions. I wish you well, as always.
sue_them
Broken trust has such a high price, doesn't it?
Regards,
Seeker
Dear Seeker,
I certainly did not take any offense at all. I was trying to add little humor. My hide is rather thick and even if it stung at all it did not draw any blood.
I was just trying to give a reference point on why an otherwise intelligent applicant would not tend to investigate polygraph exams ahead of time.
I have never thought of you as cynical. The best discussions involve many people with passionate points of views. You have been polite in your presentations and I enjoy your input to the ongoing discussions on this site.
I do not agree with the way that the FBI is using the polygraph in their pre-screening applicant program. If the FBI is using the same "procedure" to "pre-screen" their trusted informants than I do not agree with it the same way.
I am just trying to figure out a way to improve the system within the system. Polygraphs will not be banished in the near future, sorry to say. The FBI has a surplus of applicants. Congress would rather appear to do something even if it is wrong in the name of politics (reality check). I know why you are advocating countermeasures and I would surely not say you are wrong.
I have been wronged by many people in my life but I try to counter it with a positive. I will impact the FBI with my appeals and demonstrate to them that there is fault with the system in my case. I might be a voice in the wildernes but I know I will be heard.
Regards.
As I wrote earlier, I am attempting to get hired with a couple LE agencies. I will have to lie on the polygraph in order to get hired. That means I will have to use countermeasures in order to pass the polygrpah. Well, I took the oral interview a couple days ago and I pass with flying colors. I am now filling out the background packet and soon, I will take to polygraph. I am going to post the results of the polygraph here. If I pass, then we will all know that countermeasures work. If I fail, then prehaps they do not or I did them wrong. Stay tuned and we will see the results TLBTLD. 8)
I bring forward this post as it died from the other forum and I really believe this is the truth, whatever "noble" souls justify the method / means / result that they "know" to be true.
For your reading pleasure and countermeasure ping-pong.
Aldo
Re: Polygraph is a fraud
« Reply #69 on: Aug 18th, 2003, 10:23pm » Quote Modify Remove
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I really hate to say this, but it's not cops getting jollies or protecting the street. Plain and simple, they found out there is a gold mine in internet entrapments where the "felon" knows good and well to fight it is likened to defending religious beliefs during the Salem witch trails. Shut up, do your legal "bribery" and go about your business. I know that the "city" where I was lead to has a statistically biased rate of "protecting" children from sexual predators. I am still working on the class action suite approach, but I need to wait for them to get really greedy for the almighty $$$. Current calculations from that town would indicate around 13 million US citizens are sexual predators. And by the other stats I have seen, there should be 40,000,000 missing children per year in that case.
Sad thing is the real offenders are more common sense I feel and are getting by with it while others are placed into the system to line their pockets.
Aldo
I had my polygraph today and passed it using countermeasures. The polygrapher used the CQT and I was able to identify the controls fairly easily. I had to "less than perfectly honest" on one of the relevant questions and appearently, I was not deemed deceptive. I have been waiting for this polygraph for many months now and I thank the people at www.antipolygraph.org for all the information.
treetop,
congrats on passing. did you end up using any meds in addition to the CM's?
No. I did not use any meds at all. All the advise I received suggested that I do not use them. I used the behavioral countermeasures, anal pucker, and "exciting thoughts." I had solid baseline breathing and remained calm during the relevant questions. It was a nerve-recking experience and I hope I never have to do it again. I already passed all the other steps of the hiring process so things look good. I will have to meet with the Sheriff later but I am not concerned with that.
well congrats. which department are you applying with?
Ronin,
You write to treetop:
Quote...well congrats. which department are you applying with?...
This is not a question that should be posed to a lady or anybody else who possesses at least a smidgeon of brains and who has just smoked a poly...
That is not a question I am at liberty to answer. I am not going to give details that could identfy me. Thanks for the congrats though.
Woohooo! I received a call and I was offered the job. I have my academy date scheduled for December and I signed the papers. I made it!!! Thanks everyone for all the advice. This is the greatest day of my life.
Now what are you going to do about the periodic examinations that you no doubt will be required to take...especially if you enter any foreign counterintelligence work......your deceptive world will soon close around you
I stand corrected....somehow I thougt you were seeking employment with the FBI....whew!...now some police agency will have to know that somewhere in a class beginning in December there is a dishonest person about to wear the badge and join the thin blue line...a comforting thought
If you are a good person and know that you can do that job honestly with integrity and honor, you do whatever it takes to get the job; that's no.1! The past is the past, and is noone's business and while it MAY be an indication of future behavior, it is not even close to being an absolute.
Torpedo,
No one is perfectly honest. Everyone is dishonest. You, me, them, all of us. Are you telling me that because she smoked pot more than she confessed to or did a few other drugs as a kid that she will not make a good law enforcement person? Pull your head out of your ass, Dude! Save your judgement for yourself you liberal punk. I hate people like you casting your smart ass judgement on good people. If you think all the cops out there are "honest" people that told the entire truth with reguard to their background, then you are living in a fantasy world. I know for a fact that most of the police officers out there covered something up in their background. You are a sorry Sack, Torpedo.
Quote from: this way on Nov 26, 2003, 08:54 PMTorpedo,
No one is perfectly honest. Everyone is dishonest. You, me, them, all of us. Are you telling me that because she smoked pot more than she confessed to or did a few other drugs as a kid that she will not make a good law enforcement person? Pull your head out of your ass, Dude! Save your judgement for yourself you liberal punk. I hate people like you casting your smart ass judgement on good people. If you think all the cops out there are "honest" people that told the entire truth with reguard to their background, then you are living in a fantasy world. I know for a fact that most of the police officers out there covered something up in their background. You are a sorry Sack, Torpedo.
I agree with all of that except the "liberal" part. One thing 'pedo ain't is a liberal. Liberals don't usually damn someone for having done drugs a few times :)
Skeptic
Torpedo is just upset because his voodoo machine (as well as the operator) is easily fooled.
The polygraph will soon be in a museum along-side Eli's cotton gin.....oh, excuse me.....the cotton gin was USEFUL ;D ;D ;D
You have a fine Airborne day :)
Thank you for the providing that clarification Skeptic....indeed I am NOT a liberal...and I was merely stating MY opinion, just like others are allowed to do on this site....trouble is if the anti-polyhgraph folks disagree with it, you are scum, sack, smart ass, etc....I will continue nonetheless to state my opinion....I believe that when you apply for a job that is built around the concept of honesty, that when you apply for a position, you have an obligation to tell the truth. If your transgressions exceed what the standard is,...so be it...move on to something else.....you can't help but wonder if a person would lie about his own behavior....would he or she not lie about the behavior of someone else. Keep in mind, all have the right to state their own opinion...as a long time member of the thin blue line, that is all I was doing. Have a nice day!
Move on to something else? You act like people want to be cops on a whim. When its your dream and all you want to do, you don't just "move on to something else". You do what it takes to get the job and then prove yourself once your hired.
Quote from: n0mad on Nov 28, 2003, 02:15 PMMove on to something else? You act like people want to be cops on a whim. When its your dream and all you want to do, you don't just "move on to something else". You do what it takes to get the job and then prove yourself once your hired.
I must agree with torpedo on this point. Most everyone who applies to a LE position feels they are a "good" person - regardless of what they have done. That's psych 101. If one doesn't meet the drug standards, and they typically allow for some past "experimentation", then why on earth would one apply for a LE position? Why do people feel it is OK to lie about things that LE is expected to impose on others? LE doesn't make these rules, society does. If a person joins LE by lying about activities society deems appropriate to criminalize, then exactly how honest can we expect such a cop to be when faced with putting away a "bad guy" where perhaps the evidence is thin but the opportunity to "enhance" it without getting caught exists?
I want cops to be honest and ethical when confronted with hard choices. I think this is more likely if they start out that way.
That said, one of the reasons I most dislike the polygraph is the bias it has against people that DON'T lie on the controls - and they exist. I suspect "bubba's" thread some time back demonstrates this.
-Marty
I'm referring to when you actually are an honest person but have some indiscretions in the past that are IN THE PAST. If the applicant still exhibits the same behaviors, then yes, move on, LE is not for you.
Quote from: n0mad on Nov 28, 2003, 02:47 PMI'm referring to when you actually are an honest person but have some indiscretions in the past that are IN THE PAST. If the applicant still exhibits the same behaviors, then yes, move on, LE is not for you.
Behaviors are always in the past. No one can tell what you will do in the future but actual past behavior is perhaps the best indicator extant. I'm glad you are intent on being honest but exactly how is someone else supposed to know for sure your good intentions?
-Marty
Well, you're right, only you can know. You must look within yourself and be honest with yourself. I don't want scumbags or dishonest people on the force any more than anyone else.
So if you feel you will continue your behavior, then drop out, or you may end up with more problems then its worth (getting fired, end up in civil lawsuit, being criminally prosecuted for negligent behavior, etc...)
To those with relevant issues in your background I CAN UNDERSTAND someone trying to manipulate their results on the poly. I mean they obviously WANT something that dept policy (whether right or wrong) says they are not entitled to.
HOWEVER, WHAT I HAVE A HARD TIME DIGESTING IS SOMEONE WITH NO RELEVANT ISSUES WHO IS BULLIED INTO BELIEVING THEY HAVE NO CHOICE BUT TO PERFORM COUNTERMEASURES TO 'BEAT' A POLY.
REGARDLESS OF THE 'MIS-INFORMATION', COUNTERMEASURES ARE DETECTED. NEW TRAINING AND INTEGRATED MOVEMENT SENSORS ARE A BLESSING TO THE POLYGRAPH COMMUNITY.
UNFORTUNATELY FOR SOMEONE WITH NO RELEVANT ISSUES THE FACT THE EMPLOYED COUNTERMEASURES WILL ALMOST ALWAYS RESULT IN A DISQUALIFICATION. THE DEPARTMENT IS NOT GOING TO BELIEVE THE PERSON PERFORMED COUNTERMEASURES BECAUSE THEY WERE AFRAID. THEY WILL ASSUME THEY HAVE A DEEP, DARK SECRET.
HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE HAVE SUCCESSFULLY 'PASSED' THIS TEST WITHOUT TRYING TO 'BEAT' IT.
I WILL NEVER BE SO ARROGANT TO SUGGEST THEIR ARE NOT 'FALSE POSITIVES.' HOWEVER, ALL DEPARTMENTS GIVE THE BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT TO THE EXAMINEE. THEY HAVE TOO MUCH TIME AND RESOURCES INVESTED IN THE EXAMINEE TO NOT GIVE THEM THE BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT.
UNFORTUNATELY, A SITE DEVELOPED BY A SELF-PURPORTED 'FALSE POSITIVE' IS ALSO GIVING INFORMATION TO CHILD MOLESTORS ON HOW TO ACTIVELY 'BEAT' THEIR POLYGRAPHS.
TO THOSE WHO HAVE NOTHING TO HIDE I WOULD SUGGEST YOU FOLLOW THE LEAD OF THE HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS BEFORE YOU AND AND 'PLAY ALONG' AND 'PLAY BY THE RULES.'
REGARDLESS OF SOMEONE'S FEELINGS PRO OR CON POLYGRAPH WILL NOT GO AWAY UNTIL ANOTHER TECHNOLOGY REPLACES IT.
GEORGE, YOU ARE AN INTELLIGENT AND DRIVEN INDIVIDUAL. I WISH YOU WOULD TAKE THIS DRIVE AND INSTEAD OF FOCUSING ON A CRUSADE TO END POLYGRAPH YOU SHOULD FOCUS ON A WAY TO IMPROVE IT WITH NEW TECHNOLOGY.
Quote from: Civl Servant on Dec 15, 2003, 02:50 AMHOWEVER, WHAT I HAVE A HARD TIME DIGESTING IS SOMEONE WITH NO RELEVANT ISSUES WHO IS BULLIED INTO BELIEVING THEY HAVE NO CHOICE BUT TO PERFORM COUNTERMEASURES TO 'BEAT' A POLY.
Where on here did you see bullying occur? Also, why do you believe visitors to this site are led to believe that they do not have a choice? Imho, ap.org does an excellent job of providing information to those who may have to take a polygraph test so that they can make an
informed choice for themselves as to whether or not they want to employ countermeasures.
QuoteREGARDLESS OF THE 'MIS-INFORMATION', COUNTERMEASURES ARE DETECTED. NEW TRAINING AND INTEGRATED MOVEMENT SENSORS ARE A BLESSING TO THE POLYGRAPH COMMUNITY.
::)
Prove it.
QuoteHUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE HAVE SUCCESSFULLY 'PASSED' THIS TEST WITHOUT TRYING TO 'BEAT' IT.
I WILL NEVER BE SO ARROGANT TO SUGGEST THEIR ARE NOT 'FALSE POSITIVES.' HOWEVER, ALL DEPARTMENTS GIVE THE BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT TO THE EXAMINEE. THEY HAVE TOO MUCH TIME AND RESOURCES INVESTED IN THE EXAMINEE TO NOT GIVE THEM THE BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT.
That is absolutely absurd. Many police departments will bounce applicants based solely on DI results obtained from the polygraph. I've also never heard of an applicant for a federal LE position being hired after failing a polygraph.
QuoteUNFORTUNATELY, A SITE DEVELOPED BY A SELF-PURPORTED 'FALSE POSITIVE' IS ALSO GIVING INFORMATION TO CHILD MOLESTORS ON HOW TO ACTIVELY 'BEAT' THEIR POLYGRAPHS.
What are you so worried about? Countermeasures are supposedly detectable, right?
QuoteTO THOSE WHO HAVE NOTHING TO HIDE I WOULD SUGGEST YOU FOLLOW THE LEAD OF THE HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS BEFORE YOU AND AND 'PLAY ALONG' AND 'PLAY BY THE RULES.'
You advise them to 'play by the rules' even though they may face a significant risk of becoming a false positive? That doesn't seem like very good advice.
QuoteREGARDLESS OF SOMEONE'S FEELINGS PRO OR CON POLYGRAPH WILL NOT GO AWAY UNTIL ANOTHER TECHNOLOGY REPLACES IT.
Even if that turns out to be true, it is hardly a good reason to abandon the fight to educate the general population on the inherent flaws that exist in polygraph testing.
Civil Servant
Here goes the stuck record again.
Under the present mind-set of most of the polygraph failures, you are probably correct that the polygraph is not going away. However, if every person who tells the truth, goes by your rules and still fails the poly would file individual lawsuits to make their polygraphers prove their assertians in a court of law, then there would not be time to give very many tests. From the posts that I read here, you would spend most of your time in the courtroom.
I will agree with you that are some very good sensors out there. I do not believe, though, any of them can differentiate between the anal squeeze and an uncontrolable nerve contraction.
I can greatly advance my BP and heart rate by picturing my falling from a high altitude airplane. You or no other person on God's green earth can read my mind. All you know is that you see a spike on you machine therefore, your "opinion" is countermeasure use. Unfortunately, the polygrapher's "opinion" controls. One person, one machine controlling the livelyhood of an applicant. In my "opinion" this is wrong and none of your countermeasure claims would hold up in a court of law.
If I was a polygrapher and could accurately detect countermeasures, I would tell all my examinees "If you are thinking about using countermeasures, I WILL catch this one this way and that one that way, etc., so COME ON DOWN. Don't you think that would deter the use?
As I have said before. I am for anything, polygraph, Zerox machine, water cooler. etc., that can extract a TRUE confession in a criminal case. In some cases I might even use a rubber hose.