AntiPolygraph.org Message Board

has any one read "how to sting the polygragh"? is it worth the 50 buks?
or is it enough to read the book published on this site?

They both suck

then what do you suggest? i have a polygraph soon. need some good advice on countermeasures.

Just read the free one first and then if you feel like you need more consider paying for the other one.

And then ask the numbskulls on this site for advice.  Great idea.

i have read the book on this site. it seems pretty informative. is it enough?
how many of you can actually tel me thaey used countermeasures and passed? id like to get intouch with one of you (by e mail or MSN) to talk about this issue.
i have a polygraph coming up and i MUST pass it.

Wombat,

Yes, the book here is very informative, if you PRACTICE, it should enough to get you through the exam. I have used CM's 3 times and smoked all 3.

You can email me here.

Thanks,
PK

I'm not going to advise you on CMs one way or another.  And I've only read the free book.

But I failed a recent exam despite being honest and having nothing to hide.  In retrospect, I think it would have been preferable for me personally to have attempted CMs and failed than to just get shafted.

other than fed up fed, who else has used CM's and passed??
any one have good advice on how to keep a constant baseline breathing through out the poly? (exept for when they ask control questions, of course).

You would be better off to just give it up.  You sound like you're too stupid to pull it off.

Wombat,

You need to study The Lie Behind The Lie Detector . It is a FREE publication here at AP.org. If you take the time to review it and practice what you read about countermeasures your results can be positive.

The choice to use countermeasures is for you to decide. You will be in a better situation going into your "test" by knowing what will occur during the "test" and what the polygrapher will do to trick you into not believing in yourself. That is the information The Lie Behind The Lie Detector provides you and your polygrapher doesn't want you to know.


Good Luck

Fred F. ;)

Yes and you get FREE advice from Fred Flintstone too!!!
How could you beat it?

once again i ask, how many of you have ACTUALY used CM's and passed?? (whether to beon the safe side or as "liars").
wuzzafuzz- you dont know who i am or what i do, so please dont judge me.
has any one ACTUALY read doug's book? any one??

Wombat,

I am a co-author of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector (http://antipolygraph.org/pubs.shtml). The countermeasure information included therein is not based on my or my co-author, Gino Scalabrini's, personal experience, but rather on the available polygraph literature, including peer-reviewed studies by Professor Charles R. Honts and collaborators and Department of Defense Polygraph Institute documentation.

I have read the 1996 version of Doug Williams' pamphlet, "How to Sting the Polygraph," which you will find cited along with other sources in the bibliography of TLBTLD. I believe that overall, TLBTLD is better researched, better documented, more informative, and better written than "How to Sting the Polygraph."

Key differences include:

1) Williams suggests breathing countermeasures and the anal sphincter contraction only, while TLBTLD also describes mental countermeasures and tongue biting;

2) Williams suggests that exhaling and briefly holding one's breath (blocking) is the least preferable breathing countermeasure; we have found no documentation to substantiate this notion, however. On the contrary, blocking is one of the Department of Defense's twelve scorable breathing reactions, and it may well be the most commonly occurring one. We see no reason not to use it.

3) Williams blurs the distinction between "control" and irrelevant questions; I think TLBTLD does a much better job explaining "control" questions and how to recognize them;

4) I understand that in the most recent version of Williams' manual (which I have not yet read), Williams suggests using breathing countermeasures and the anal pucker combined during the first chart collection, then just the anal pucker the second, then no countermeasures at all in any third chart collection. I don't think that Williams' suggestion of gradually diminishing countermeasures is necessarily well-advised, however, since it leaves open the possibility that one might show stronger reactions to the relevant questions than to the "control" questions. TLBTLD makes no such suggestion.

George you really are banging your own drum and tooting your own horn today.  What a blowhard!  But how about answering the question posed instead of bragging about how great your book is?  Have you used countermeasures and passed?

The fact of the matter is you don't know what does or does not work and your advice is simply a guess based on the biased information you have read.

george, thanx for the long relpy.
how many people do you know that used CM's and failed? (i am not refering to those that admited to extras).
people that did what you say to do in the book and failed. any one out there?

One major difference with Williams is that he instructs to use countermeasuers for irrelevant questions as well as control questions. When I took one of my several polygraphs I tried to employ these countermeasures on irrelevant questions and it raised the flag to the examiner who had tested me before.

Then key is to understand the way a polygraph is scored and what is measured and compared. Although Williams book is informative, I would suggest following TTBTLD. I did and passsed just fine. Practice with a friend or get a tape recorder, and you'll be ok.

Hey, let's all gang up on Williams.  As a matter of fact, let's rename this site ANTIANYTHINGBUTGEORGE.ORG

Quote from: Human Subject on Jun 04, 2003, 05:33 PMI'm not going to advise you on CMs one way or another.  And I've only read the free book.

But I failed a recent exam despite being honest and having nothing to hide.  In retrospect, I think it would have been preferable for me personally to have attempted CMs and failed than to just get shafted.

Dear Wombat,

I think this quote says it all.  I was completely honest during my first polygraph with no knowledge of "countermeasures" and was inconclusive.  I was completely honest with no knowledge of countermeasures during my second exam and was confirmed as "absolutely trying to beat the test" and failed.  On appeal, I passed my third polygraph exam with knowledge of the NAS report and TLBHTLD with no use of countermeasures.  The whole use of it in FBI pre-screening is like the roll of the dice regardless of countermeasure knowledge and use.  

I did find the information regarding polygraph procedure in the site book to be very accurate in its description of what occured during my three exams.  I obviously do not think there is  any sure fire way of detecting countermeasures since I was accused and absolutely was not using any.   I believe a certain percentage of applicants are failed more on a "hunch" than any known concrete "countermeasure knowledge" by polygraph examiners.

It is a flawed test that I do not believe in but the reality is that the agencies believe in it.  Its use does not reflect well on the agencies that place so much emphasis on it instead of background checks.  The FBI does not go to background unless the polygraph "test" is passed and there is no reasonable way to appeal decisions.   It is a very long and time consuming process.

On Doug Williams,  if this test is so important to you to pass, buy his book and judge for yourself.  I have heard that he will call you and coach you and this might be exactly what you are looking for.

I do not stand in judgement of those who decide to use countermeasures but I personally do not like using a negative to counter a negative.  The problem just seems to compound the agencies' shell games and gives false comfort that the system is working properly.

Regards.

Quote from: Fair Chance on Jun 05, 2003, 02:35 PM
I did find the information regarding polygraph procedure in the site book to be very accurate in its description of what occured during my three exams.

Agreed.  If you read the book you'll probably find yourself trying not to smile when the examiner delivers a canned speech on their research on people who lie to their families, the polygraph technology, and so on.  Or when they tell you "you can relax now" while sensors are still in place.  Or when you are sitting alone in the room for extended periods of time with a camera trained on you.  The theatrics of the whole process are amusing.

Quote from: Fair Chance on Jun 05, 2003, 02:35 PMIt is a flawed test that I do not believe in but the reality is that the agencies believe in it.  Its use does not reflect well on the agencies that place so much emphasis on it instead of background checks.

Again, ditto.  I went in thinking the FBI is above this, and there is some ingenious ulterior purpose to their reliance on the polygraph.  Now, sadly, I think a lot of people over there must really believe in this stuff.  (Which makes some sense, because all of them passed it one way or the other.  So to them it works -- and the people who got in despite lying, or by using countermeasures, aren't about to say otherwise.)

What I don't understand (regarding application procedures) is why not use the polygraph earlier in the process?  Seems cheaper than flying applicants to test sessions and structured interviews.  Use the cheap screening mechanisms first.  Seems like it would save a lot of time and money.  It's not as if the polygraph questions are really based on anything in your application -- they are pretty generic.

Hello...

I have used countermeasures on two polygraphs and passed both.

On both, I made sure I didn't allow my breathing pattern to change after answering the relevant questions (used a slight deep breath after some controls,  slight increase in breathing rate after other controls..very subtle and not overexaggerated by any means).  

I used the tac in the shoe trick on one polygraph (removed the inside removable padding from my dress shoe and stuck a tac through facing up just past my big toe so that when I was being hooked up to the machine I was able to plant my foot and force my foot in to position over the tack/place big toe over tac....then pressed down with increasig pressure as soon as recognized control question and held for 3-5 seconds).

On the other I used the tongue biting technique on controls, held for 3-5 seconds with gradually increasing pressure (both tac and tongue bite used until I felt a level of slight uncompfort, then held at that level).

Key is to act like you are up to absolutely nothing during your trip to take the poly..

Even go as far as using behavioral countermeasures during the interview (for instance,  when asked about control question information I manipulatively acted all nervous and took a deep breath and moved my eyes to one side to make the examiner think that was my behavioral tendancy when lying).

You need to go in there and remember that those sons of bitces are going to be the ones that might cost you your job.

Look them straight in the face and lie to them,  and then fuck them on the poly...

Peace

There you go George.  He did it all by himself.  And I really think his post contains much better writing and his material is much better than anything in your book.  Looks like when you brag too much it always happens - someone comes along and does you one better.  

Quote from: wuzafuzz on Jun 06, 2003, 01:03 AMThere you go George.  He did it all by himself.  And I really think his post contains much better writing and his material is much better than anything in your book.  Looks like when you brag too much it always happens - someone comes along and does you one better.  

I see the mentality of our pro-polygraph hecklers remains at a solid 2nd-grade average (with apologies to actual 2nd graders out there...).

Skeptic

Quote from: wombat on Jun 05, 2003, 01:13 PMgeorge, thanx for the long relpy.
how many people do you know that used CM's and failed? (i am not refering to those that admited to extras).
people that did what you say to do in the book and failed. any one out there?

I am familiar with several such cases. See, for example, Dimas' post, Taking One for the Team Part Two (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=206.msg859#msg859). (For relevant background, see his earlier post, Taking one for the team (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=195.msg824#msg824).)

As you read about the various experiences posted here, bear in mind that the great majority of the people who have downloaded The Lie Behind the Lie Detector (close to 80,000 downloads) have not posted on this message board.

Quote from: Skeptic on Jun 06, 2003, 02:34 AM

I see the mentality of our pro-polygraph hecklers remains at a solid 2nd-grade average (with apologies to actual 2nd graders out there...).

Skeptic

Skeptic,

If one is to support polygraphy -- despite the overwhelming scientific evidence against it -- it helps to have underdeveloped critical thinking skills.

;)

Quote from: wombat on Jun 04, 2003, 09:28 AMi have read the book on this site. it seems pretty informative. is it enough?
how many of you can actually tel me thaey used countermeasures and passed? id like to get intouch with one of you (by e mail or MSN) to talk about this issue.
i have a polygraph coming up and i MUST pass it.

Mr. Wombat,

I read both How To Sting The Polygraph and The Lie Behind The Lie Detector (http://antipolygraph.org/lie-behind-the-lie-detector.pdf) prior to deciding whether or not to employ countermeasures on my polygraph interrogation. I DID employ both behavioral, mental, and physical countermeasures whilst being interrogated and hooked up, and my polygrapher never had a clue-- in fact he commended me on my honesty. I was in fact truthful on all aspects of my pre-test and interrogation except for (obviously) the paranoid line of questioning about whether or not I knew anything about their Black Art. Now, the polygraphers here are quick to point out in this case that the polygraph 'worked', as I was being honest, but they fail to consider that from the moment I was hooked up till the moment the machine was switched off, I was regulating my breathing and spiking my physiological responses to the Control Questions, and of course my reactions to the ridiculous, insulting Stim Test.

I was interrogated by a polygrapher who claimed advanced training, including countermeasure detection, and who by his own account had polygraphed thousands of people. Trust me when I say, when applied properly, they don't-- indeed they cannot-- have a friggin clue that you're not the naive rube they need in order for the 'test' to 'work'. Once you know the Big Lie, all the little smaller lies your polygrapher tells you during the course of the interrogation reinforces your confidence that the entire process is morally bankrupt and of zero scientific accuracy-- just like both publications you list mentions in detail. And, just to cement your confidence in countermeasure use, I was hooked up to the latest and greatest electronic/computer polygraph device (a Lafayette Instruments POS (http://www.licmef.com/polygraphcomputerized.htm) with all the 'sensor' pads) (http://www.licmef.com/accessor.htm)...

In retrospect, all the information you need in order to pass a polygraph interrogation is contained in George and Gino's free book.  Good luck... I look forward to the temper tantrums and outbursts this post will generate,

Dave

Quote from: beech trees on Jun 06, 2003, 11:29 AM

...Trust me when I say, when applied properly, they don't-- indeed they cannot-- have a friggin clue that you're not the naive rube they need in order for the 'test' to 'work'. Once you know the Big Lie, all the little smaller lies your polygrapher tells you during the course of the interrogation reinforces your confidence that the entire process is morally bankrupt and of zero scientific accuracy-- just like both publications you list mentions in detail....

Beech trees,

Well-said...I read your post, it makes me think of my own experiences and they were all similar to yours...and I just smile.  ;D

Poly-screening...what a sad, sick joke.

PK

Beech Trees
Well done, of course you have ignored my request for proof of agency, but it does not matter.  Also, one who is complimented for honesty, would not be subject to "interrogation" perhaps you would use more accurate terms especially since you spend so much time on this topic.
I actually found a way for you to be of value the other day.  A sister agency had an applicant that was believed to be using countermeasures. A re-test was administered and I suggested a follow up GKT using three charts of information as contained on this site.  One key was your site name.  So Maestro, ask Lykken what the statistical odds are in scoring 6 to such a GKT?
This applicant finally admitted to using CM's AND lying on the application.  The idea that CM use is a noble, thinking, self protective act is to deny reality.  Part of the lie this applicant told was just that, he only wanted to protect against a false positive.  The polygrapher did not buy it due to reactions on the charts in the relevant areas.  Of course this story is general and I wont be specific, so dont ask.  It happened, will continue to happen, and the advice presented here will continue to cause failure.
But BT, my hysterical under employed friend, you have done your part to prevent an unsuitable applicant from joining a good agency.  I look forward to your continued participation in applicant screening.

Breeze,

Assuming there is some truth to your recently posted story addressed to Beech, all you have demonstrated in its telling is something about the value of concealed information examinations.  If these examinations were all that were administered by polygraph examiners, innocent examinees would have no reason/need to utiilize countermeasures in the first place.  This is the take home message u should be sharing...

I have a question.  If you have nothing to hide and you intend to use countermeasures, how do you know your countermeasures are what got you over the hump as opposed to your truthful responses to the relevant questions?

Saidme,

There is really no way to be certain.

Quote from: Saidme on Jun 11, 2003, 03:38 PMI have a question.  If you have nothing to hide and you intend to use countermeasures, how do you know your countermeasures are what got you over the hump as opposed to your truthful responses to the relevant questions?

You don't, of course.  However, since the polygraph has not demonstrated scientific validity at "honesty" detection, it's not reasonable to conclude that truthful responses "got you over the hump", either.  The credit belongs to whatever produced stronger physiological changes during the control questions as opposed to relevant ones.

The issue I believe Beech Trees was discussing before was whether countermeasures are detectable.  Many polygraphers seem to regard countermeasure attempts as indicative of deception; therefore, we can conclude that it is highly likely the polygrapher who administered Beech Trees' polygraph did not detect them.

Skeptic

Thanks

Quote from: The_Breeze on Jun 11, 2003, 02:59 PMBeech Trees
Well done, of course you have ignored my request for proof of agency, but it does not matter.  Also, one who is complimented for honesty, would not be subject to "interrogation" perhaps you would use more accurate terms especially since you spend so much time on this topic.

I think that the entire polygraph session meets the dictionary definition of an "interrogation".  However, I suppose it's a matter of professional semantics -- not being a professional in this area, I will defer to your opinion on the matter as to whether the polygraph is described as an "interrogation" by those who investigate professionally.

QuoteI actually found a way for you to be of value the other day.  A sister agency had an applicant that was believed to be using countermeasures. A re-test was administered and I suggested a follow up GKT using three charts of information as contained on this site.  One key was your site name.  So Maestro, ask Lykken what the statistical odds are in scoring 6 to such a GKT?

And, of course, if you used only GKTs, we wouldn't have a disagreement in the first place.

Just one more reason why I won't work for any agency or company that uses the polygraph.

Skeptic

Skeptic

You seem to be validating polygraph theory.

 "The credit belongs to whatever produced stronger physiological changes during the control questions as opposed to relevant ones."

If the examiner did his/her job than obviously the control questions would be more meaningful to the truthful examinee.  

If Beech trees was truthful during his/her examination and used countermeasures, whose to say it wasn't truthful responses that produced a passing examination.  Of course that's going in with the belief Beech Trees had nothing to hide regarding the relevant issues.

Here's a question for the crowd:  Are countermeasures easier to detect when used by deceitful examinee as opposed to a truthful examinee (regarding relevant questions)

My belief is countermeasures are easier to detect on a deceitful/guilty person because of the psychological issues involved in the testing process.  

Saidme,

It's meaningless to speak of countermeasures by deceptive vs. truthful subjects being "easier to detect" considering that no polygrapher has demonstrated any capability to detect countermeasures. ;)

I'll bite.  Having been an examiner for some time now I can tell you with certainty that most countermeasures are detectable.  It's not really a matter of how well you (examinee) employ them, it's more how close the examiner is watching for them.  Most federal examiners are well versed in countermeasures and do a pretty good job ferreting them out.  Do some get by, probably, but the majority do not.  For the guilty examinee I say good luck, to the truthful person I say tell the truth and avoid these types of websites.  They'll do you more harm than good.  In my experiences and knowledge of other examiners in the field, we detect countermeasures daily.  Tell Drew to turn off his clock. ;)

Saidme,

I don't doubt that by observation, a polygraph examiner might detect such crude countermeasure attempts as coughing, fidgeting, or muscle-flexing. But the available peer-reviewed research suggests that even experienced polygraph examiners cannot detect the kinds of countermeasures described in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector (http://antipolygraph.org/pubs.shtml) at better-than-chance levels of accuracy.

Countermeasure "detection" at this stage seems to be little more than guesswork and badgering a subject for an admission.

In the field, polygraph examiners have no way of knowing what percentage of countermeasures employed they are "detecting."

You ask me to tell Drew to turn off the countermeasure clock (which will otherwise roll to 500 days tomorrow!). Does this mean that you've accepted his polygraph countermeasure challenge (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=418.msg1942#msg1942)? :)

Having first hand experience, I know our detection efforts detect more than the crude CM's you describe.  As for Drew's clock, he can run it until hell freezes over.  I don't know how any examiner could ever meet his challenge.  Running a mock polygraph examination is quite different than a true specific issue test.  However, if he's ever falsely accused of a crime I would be happy to either clear him (if innocent) or take his written confession (if guilty) during the post-test.  

Saidme,

I'll accept that you honestly believe that you can detect sophisticated countermeasures. But what evidence can you provide others that you have any such ability?

If countermeasures can genuinely be detected under field conditions, then it should be possible to detect them under laboratory conditions, too, no? If not, why not?

Completely different frame of mind (examinee & examiner) between field conditions and laboratory.  There is no proper psychological frame of mind in a laboratory setting.  In fact, I've observed many people effectively use CM's in a laboratory setting.  The proof you seek is in the field amongst hundreds of polygraph examiners who daily collect polygraph data.  I know many examiners who run across CM's regularly and regularly obtain confessions to the relevant issues and then turn around and confess to CM's.  So I guess to answer your question, no you cannot duplicate the polygraph in a laboratory setting.

Quote from: Saidme on Jun 11, 2003, 04:21 PMSkeptic

You seem to be validating polygraph theory.

"The credit belongs to whatever produced stronger physiological changes during the control questions as opposed to relevant ones."

Hardly.  Clearly, polygraph theory is meaningless without ascribing a consistent cause for the mentioned physiological changes.  It is this assumption of cause that has not been validated and is demonstrably wrong in many cases.

QuoteIf the examiner did his/her job than obviously the control questions would be more meaningful to the truthful examinee.

 

Then you're willing to hold polygraphers to a higher standard than I.  I don't believe it is reasonable to assume anyone should be able to discern truth from lies based upon the polygraph, nor force reactions on the polygraph that necessarily conform to those predicted by polygraph theory.

Polygraphers can sometimes influence an unwitting subject's reactions through suggestion, but that's not the same thing.

Skeptic

Quote from: Saidme on Jun 11, 2003, 05:45 PMCompletely different frame of mind (examinee & examiner) between field conditions and laboratory.  There is no proper psychological frame of mind in a laboratory setting.  In fact, I've observed many people effectively use CM's in a laboratory setting.  The proof you seek is in the field amongst hundreds of polygraph examiners who daily collect polygraph data.  I know many examiners who run across CM's regularly and regularly obtain confessions to the relevant issues and then turn around and confess to CM's.  So I guess to answer your question, no you cannot duplicate the polygraph in a laboratory setting.

You know, I'd settle for scientifically-controlled field observations, as well.  Unfortunately, as the National Academy of Sciences recently found in their exhaustive review of polygraph literature, the scientific backing for polygraph validity is quite lacking.

Skeptic

Saidme,

You are quite likely correct that no polygrapher can meet my challenge.... but your reasoning is quite faulty--it is not that the stated conditions are unfair, but that the outcome of accepting such a challenge will likely lead to the end of control question test polygraphy.  With regard to the conditions (simulated crime/mock crime scenario), you must realize that largely the only evidence put forward by polygraph proponents for any validity of control question test (CQT) polygraphy comes from simulated crime studies.  You would hardly suggest that such a study would be the basis for drawing conclusions regarding validity in the absence of countermeasures, but would not be suitable for examining countermeasure efficacy would you??  I would argue that, in fact, it (a simulated crime study) is much more suitable for the latter than the former--the reason being roughly as follows:  I believe the operative principle of CQT testing is what I have previously referred to as fear of consequences (not the same as and independent of any fear of detection) .  These consequences that are to be feared are largely associated with relevant question material.  I would argue that the lack of any meaningful consequences in many simulated studies would render this sort of validity study largely useless and would likely lead to an underestimation of the level of false positive results that would be expected in real field cases.  The reason I believe a simulated crime study has meaning as outlined with my challenge is that, although suffering from the same lack of consequences, at least this condition is balanced over those trials for which countermeasures are employed and those for which none are employed.  Again, at the risk of repeating myself, the simulated study paradigm that I have outlined in broad principle is likely considerably more meaningful for a countermeasure study than a validity study.  Even if that were not the case (both of similar value) one could hardly look to a simulated crime study for answers to validity issues and then question its use for similar insight into issues related to countermeasures.

 Playing at DoDPI and/or demonstrating to yourself in your own polygraph suite that if you know to look for countermeasure "x' that you can see it on a polygram is not the same as demonstrating that you can reliably detect countermeasures as applied by a knowledgeable examinee with a large arsenal of readily available countermeasures and one who further will apply such with stealth and motivation and with you not knowing in advance that such will be applied.  I am sorry, but there is nothing but either reasoned retreat or cowardice associated with the absence of a response to the countermeasure challenge.  Although I have nothing to do with the running of the clock associated with this site, the challenge most certainly remains in effect.

Quote from: Drew Richardson on Jun 11, 2003, 06:13 PMSaidme,

You are quite likely correct that no polygrapher can meet my challenge.... but your reasoning is quite faulty--it is not that the stated conditions are unfair, but that the outcome of accepting such a challenge will likely lead to the end of control question polygraphy.  With regard to the conditions (simulated crime/mock crime scenario), you must realize that largely the only evidence put forward by polygraph proponents for any validity of control question test (CQT) polygraphy comes from simulated crime studies.  You would hardly suggest that such a study would be the basis for drawing conclusions regarding validity in the absence of countermeasures, but would not be suitable for examining countermeasure efficacy would you??  I would argue that, in fact, it (a simulated crime study) is much more suitable for the latter than the former--the reason being roughly as follows:  I believe the operative principle of CQT testing is what I have previously referred to as fear of consequences (not the same as and independent of any fear of detection) .  These consequences that are to be feared are largely associated with relevant question material.  I would argue that the lack of any meaningful consequences in many simulated studies would render this sort of validity study largely useless and would likely lead to an underestimation of the level of false positive results that would be expected in real field cases.  The reason I believe a simulated crime study has meaning as outlined with my challenge is that, although suffering from the same lack of consequences, at least this condition is balanced over those trials for which countermeasures are employed and those for which none are employed.  Again, at the risk of repeating myself, the simulated study paradigm that I have outlined in broad principle is likely considerably more meaningful for a countermeasure study than a validity study.  Even if that were not the case (both of similar value) one could hardly look to a simulated crime study for answers to validity issues and then question its use for similar insight into issues related to countermeasures.

Drew,
Although I agree with your assessment of the appropriateness of test conditions considering the likely mechanism of polygraph functionality (if any can be clearly defined as overriding), I think it would be more appropriate to assess such test conditions on the basis of prevailing polygraph theory instead: namely, "fear of detection".  And it seems to me that using the assumptions of that theory should lead to the conclusion that a "simulated crime" scenario should be perfectly adequate to evaluate the validity of the polygraph and efficacy of countermeasures, as long as actual lies are involved.

Skeptic

Drew

As I stated before, if you're currently under investigation for a specific criminal issue I would be happy to either exonerate you or include you in the offense at hand.  Laboratory conditions and field conditions are apples and oranges.  They're just not the same.  You can't compare the two.  Let's examine a military readiness exercise (which we can call a lab).  All the players are using blank ammunition.  They go through their training scenarios and everyone is shooting at each other.  At the end of the day they evaluate their training.  Can they effectively evaluate their readiness?  The answer is no.  They can make some assumptions, but until the real ammo's flying (field conditions) no one will no for sure how effective they will be.    

Skeptic

Fear of detection is the operative phrase.  No fear, no real effective examination. :P

Saidme,

I believe you have now offered to assist me on two occasions should I ever be falsely accused in some matter and need assistance.  Although I very much appreciate the offer, unless you are well versed in and solely practicing concealed information testing at the time, I would have to decline such an offer.  I hope that you and any other would be defenders of my good name would be so prepared should the occasion arise.  Best Wishes, Drew Richardson

Quote from: Saidme on Jun 11, 2003, 06:34 PMDrew

Skeptic

Fear of detection is the operative phrase.  No fear, no real effective examination. :P

Saidme,
You're absolutely correct, which is actually one of the problems with polygraph theory, as I see it -- the assumption that there is fear of detection involved with telling a lie, and that fear is what causes any physiological changes noted.  Drew's assertion -- that the issue is more accurately defined as one of consequences (with which you seem to agree) -- most likely is more correct.  Unfortunately for the polygraph, it also implies numerous scenarios in which something other than the act of lying would result in physiological changes concurrent with the asking of a question.  Why should the fear of negative consequences be limited to the discovery of a lie?  The simple threat of being seen as a criminal, losing a job, etc. could be causing the changes noted.

Skeptic

Saidme,
i found your posts on the "how to sting..." very interesting.
id like to ask you a question if you dont mind.
what i could understand from what you wrote is that you can easily dettect the CM's presented on this site and many others.
but, that they are not dettected sometimes when the poly's operator does not look for them (or by random chance). correct?
then how do you explain the following fact:
to my knowledge, NO one susspected of spying (that turned out to be a spy) in the US and in several other countries i know of has ever been cought on the poly?? they are always "caught" by making a confession or survailance. how is this?? im sure that when these people were poley'd the guy checking they had "all eyes" so to speek open looking out for CM's.
Markus Klingberg (head of the biology institute, israel) was suspected of spying for the KGB for 20 years!! he was pol'd several times. NEVER was he caught. only after 20 years did they find evidence that he was a colonel in the KGB. how is this????
aldrich ames???
any many many more. how on earth is this possible???
and you knwo what?? all this talk about "fear of concequences". these people did not fear losing a job or going to jail for a couple of years. LIFE in jail. or DEATH!!!!
how do you explain this?
even if you assume that ALL the people on this site who say they passed the polly on CM's are liars you cant say the spy stories are lies. too many publications but official sources.
PLEASE explain to me these FACTS.
if you ask me....all this proves is that with the proper training CM's will fool the most senior and alert polygraphers. no?

Wombat

I can only provide you with my personal experiences regarding polygraphs and CM's.  I can't account for the last 50 years of lie detection.  A properly trained examiner can, will, and does detect CM's.  Keep in mind, polygraph is a tool not a magic wand.  Like anything else, it has it's drawbacks.  When used properly, polygraph is an excellent tool at getting to the issue at hand.  

Regarding some of those espionage cases, I'm not sure a polygraph examination is or was their answer in some of those cases.  There are several ways to skin a cat. ;)

Quote from: Saidme on Jun 11, 2003, 11:20 PMWombat

I can only provide you with my personal experiences regarding polygraphs and CM's.  I can't account for the last 50 years of lie detection.  A properly trained examiner can, will, and does detect CM's.

How?

Quote from: Saidme on Jun 11, 2003, 05:45 PM I know many examiners who run across CM's regularly and regularly obtain confessions to the relevant issues and then turn around and confess to CM's.

So how many people have you caught using countermeasures that didn't tell you they were using them?  By caught I mean a conclusive demonstration that would pass scientific muster.

Quote from: Saidme on Jun 11, 2003, 11:20 PMWombat

I can only provide you with my personal experiences regarding polygraphs and CM's.  I can't account for the last 50 years of lie detection.  A properly trained examiner can, will, and does detect CM's.  Keep in mind, polygraph is a tool not a magic wand.  Like anything else, it has it's drawbacks.  When used properly, polygraph is an excellent tool at getting to the issue at hand.  

Regarding some of those espionage cases, I'm not sure a polygraph examination is or was their answer in some of those cases.  There are several ways to skin a cat. ;)

Saidme,
Regardless of whether we agree or disagree, let me compliment you on the civility of this debate.  That's been in short supply here, especially since the NAS report.

Skeptic

Saidme,

I understand the argument made by some, including Prof. Charles Honts, that successfully employing countermeasures may be more difficult under field conditions than in a laboratory setting, based on the assumption that the fear of detection/consequences will be greater in the field than in the laboratory, perhaps leading to stronger reactions to the relevant questions.

But I don't see how this would affect a polygraph examiner's ability to detect countermeasures (quite apart from the question of countermeasure success rates). Why would a polygrapher be able to detect countermeasures in a field setting, but not in a laboratory setting? Your analogy comparing blank-fire military exercises with combat does not explain this.

The reason it is easier to detect CM's in a polygraph setting (my perspective) is because there is no substitute for a real specific issue polygraph examination.  I believe that once an examinee is placed in that scenario, much of what they read about, practiced, learned, etc... goes right out the window.  No examinee can prepare for those psychological conditions.  What allows the examiners the ability (my perspective) to see CM's are the stakes involved.  Once the examinee enters the examination, they're now playing for real.  Many times the examinees will overcompensate allowing the examiner to easily see their CM's or they may not do enough allowing the relevant issues to shine brightly.  I'll even take it a step further.  I truly believe CM's enhance the examiner's success rate.  Lets face it; the majority of those employing CM's have problems (guilty) with the relevant issues.  I agree CM's cause physiological changes during an examination, and I agree that some guilty folks have probably successfully gotten past an examiner.  I believe those cases are the exception and not the rule.  So I guess to sum it up, an examinee that wishes to use CM's can digest all the information they want (your book or others) but in the end it will be them, the examiner, and the relevant issue.  A truly innocent examinee who wishes to employ CM's is definitely hurting their chances on passing an examination. ;)

Onesimus

None that I'm aware of.  Those whom I've suspected of CM's have confirmed my suspicions by telling me where they obtained their information and what CM's they were employing.  I don't believe it's an examiner's job to pass "scientific muster" when it comes to identifying CM's.  

Saidme,

You write in your last post (as many in your profession have):

Quote...A truly innocent examinee who wishes to employ CM's is definitely hurting their chances on passing an examination....

Until you are willing to accept the challenge, all who read this will realize that such a comment coming from one in your position is nothing but defensive bluff and bluster.  I can readily appreciate your plight, wanting to avoid the public embarrassment that would be associated with accepting the challenge and to be shown to be wildly guessing...falsely accusing some examinees and missing the countermeasures employed by others...but that, my friend, is where you are.  Perhaps the more palatable alternative for you would be to start exclusively doing concealed information tests, tests for which there would be no need for innocent examinees to employ countermeasures.  As long as you (and others) continue to use and employ formats and applications that are invalid in the absence of countermeasures, innocent examinees who read of the horror that has been inflicted on other innocent examinees will most certainly be justified in considering and utilizing countermeasures to protect themselves.  Although I truly believe that you and others have no motivation and intent to wreak such havoc, the testing paradigms that you now employ are so faulty, that you have little ability to protect examinees from such error.  You can hardly expect them to place their fates exclusively in your hands under the circumstances...

If I recall correctly the challenge was to demonstrate the ability to detect countermeasures.  That's been accomplished.  If I were only able to allow you to peek at the many law enforcement reports that detail this information.  Or better yet to observe an examination that ends with the examinee confessing to the relevant issue and the CM's.  

You make quite an assumption with this following statement:

"It happeAs long as you (and others) continue to use and employ formats and applications that are invalid in the absence of countermeasures, innocent examinees who read of the horror that has been inflicted on other innocent examinees will most certainly be justified in considering and utilizing countermeasures to protect themselves.ns all the time."

You make the faulty assumption that all who sign-on and write on this website are "innocent."  I think that's a pretty big leap of faith.

Saidme,
so what you are saying is this:
IF, a person were to walk into a poly exam, act 100% cool, keep an absoloutly constant normal breathing patern during the ENTIRE time hooked up to the poly, detect ALL the control questions (in such a test), change his breath for the 5-20 secs after being asked one, do a slight anal pucker (in a manner that would be undetectable to sensors that may be in his seat), think wild thoughs and hence raise his bodys reactions, and during relevant questions keep his breath totaly constant and within the "normal range". and LIE on say one issue. he would pass?

Saidme,

I wrote:

Quote...As long as you (and others) continue to use and employ formats and applications that are invalid in the absence of countermeasures, innocent examinees who read of the horror that has been inflicted on other innocent examinees will most certainly be justified in considering and utilizing countermeasures to protect themselves...

You then quote as follows:

Quote..."It happeAs long as you (and others) continue to use and employ formats and applications that are invalid in the absence of countermeasures, innocent examinees who read of the horror that has been inflicted on other innocent examinees will most certainly be justified in considering and utilizing countermeasures to protect themselves.ns all the time."...

I am happy to be quoted but please do so more accurately in the future.  I make enough spelling and other errors that I don't need to be further assisted by others in augmenting such.

If you will review that which you have attempted to quote, you will notice that nowhere did I indicate anything about all who post here.  I can tell you that in the last decade I have been contacted by hundreds of individuals who would otherwise have had no reason to come to me (in fact, during a portion of that time a reason to avoid coming to me...I was employed by an agency that utilized polygraphy) and told me of the error and subsequent problems associated with polygraph exam results.  For a number of reasons, e.g., these individuals' willingness and desire to have background investigations focus on issues raised by polygraph exams, their willingness to tell their stories in the media, before Congress, and to be cross examined under oath would lead me to believe that there is fire with this smoke.  There is little question in my mind that many of the examinee reports of false positive polygraph results as posted on this site are in fact true and accurate representations.

Quote from: Saidme on Jun 12, 2003, 11:18 AM.  A truly innocent examinee who wishes to employ CM’s is definitely hurting their chances on passing an examination. ;)

Dear Saidme,

What about the truly innocent examinee who is completely truthful, does not use any form of countermeasures, and is accused of countermeasures and failed?  There is not much recourse in the FBI.  You are guilty until proven innocent and you can not prove yourself innocent because they refuse to go to background if you "failed" (and thus might shoot themselves in the foot when nothing is found).  In my case this happened and I can assure you that I used no countermeasures.  I only wish I could get hold of my charts just to see what this guy was talking about.

I have used CMs and passed not 1, not 2, but THREE polys. Saidme, like most poly-screeners, is blowing smoke. It's easy, on an anti-poly site, where people are coming everyday to educate themselves on this scam, to say "don't do this or you'll be caught". If I were in danger of losing the dark cloud of mystery and deceit on which my career hinged, I'd probably do what I could to slow it down too.

Nice try Saidme, kudos for the effort.  8)

Do you have any plans for your next career? Going back to school? The local fast food restaurant? Bartending?

Just curious,
PK

Such anger

Let me respond to you guys one at a time.  

Drew, with regards to the spelling.  I cut and pasted.  Apparently the cut and pasting was not catching all your text.  

Wombat, I've yet to see a 100% cool calm customer walk into a polygraph examination.  It just doesn't happen.  The very thought of going through the process cause anxiety.  Examinee's may not show their anxiety, but I assure you, it's there.  So to answer your question, probably so.  But that would be the exception, not the rule.

Poly-Killer (how dramatic), I don't know the circumstances surrounding your polygraph examination (specific issue, screening, CSP) so I can't really comment on your alleged feat.  What was the relevant issue that caused you to use CM's?  Was it criminal activity, serious crime, drugs?  I would like to hear about the relevant issue which you needed to overcome to get through your polygraph test.  I would be curious to know.  If you didn't have any problems with the relevant questions and used CM's just to assist yourself, how do you know it wasn't your truthful responses that got you through the test?  I think George stated earlier that there really is no way to distinguish the difference.  

Saidme,

Onesimus asked you:

QuoteSo how many people have you caught using countermeasures that didn't tell you they were using them?  By caught I mean a conclusive demonstration that would pass scientific muster.

to which you replied:

QuoteNone that I?m aware of.  Those whom I?ve suspected of CM?s have confirmed my suspicions by telling me where they obtained their information and what CM?s they were employing.  I don?t believe it?s an examiner?s job to pass ?scientific muster? when it comes to identifying CM?s.  

So then, the only countermeasures you have "detected" are those by subjects who were dumb enough to admit it...

Saidme,

You can read all about my experiences in my initial post in...    "Polygraph and CVSA Forums / Share Your Polygraph or CVSA Experience / Re: TO read or not to read the the truth behind poly.  May 1st, 2003, 10:14pm"  

You can feel free to respond with all the moral bs and how I shouldn't have lied...yada yada yada...but before you do, I've heard it all before...so I have a healthy backlog of retorts to any issue of "integrity" you might raise.  8)

Nonetheless, I have effectively laid to waste 3 "tests" and 3 different examiners. Granted, I did have a little "inside help", but it was, for the most part, EXACTLY the kind CM's that are described in TLBTLD, that I used on all my "tests" with the exception of a little "hands-on" experience before my first test. They were not the specific-issue format, they were screening "tests".

The fact is, once the shroud of mystery is lifted and poly-screening is exposed for the fraud that it is, it just becomes a sick joke for anyone who educates themselves on your "lie-detector tests" and there is a huge "reversal of fortune", so to speak. Because now the examiner is the one duped into thinking he/she is in control. I am thoroughly, 100% convinced that properly applied CMs cannot be detected with any kind of real "accuracy". Sure, you may take a shot and arbitrarily accuse someone of CMs, or catch someone applying them improperly or at improper times, but that is not a true measure of the ability to detect countermeasures, you only catch people who screw them up, hell...my 11-year-old could be taught to do that.

After all, the ones who have properly applied the CMs have very likely slipped right in under your radar, and you were none the wiser. ;)

What state are you in? Maybe you're one of the examiners I stuck it to. I'll make it easy for you, Im in Arizona, a state whose law REQUIRES a polygraph for all LEOs.  ::)




Best,
PK

Quote from: Saidme on Jun 12, 2003, 09:34 PMI've yet to see a 100% cool calm customer walk into a polygraph examination.  It just doesn't happen.  The very thought of going through the process cause anxiety.  Examinee's may not show their anxiety, but I assure you, it's there.  So to answer your question, probably so.  But that would be the exception, not the rule.

The fully enlightened polygraph examinee knows that you expect this, saidme, and thus uses not only physical and/or physiological countermeasures, but also behavioral countermeasures.

On another note, it's rather sad that even the totally honest, earnest folks who must pass through your doors get jacked up 'wondering' what they did wrong and whether they will pass your subjective, unscientific test. I see it's quite a point of pride with you, so I won't belabour that point however.

Geoge

Unfortunately those "dumb enough to admit it" are your clients (for lack of a better word).  

Poly-Killer

I don't really have the time to research all the drivel that's has taken place on this site and I'm not going to preach any "integrity bs" to you either.  You must be proud of yourself.  No, I'm not in Arizona but I did sleep at a Holiday Inn Express.

Beech Trees

Those innocents that come through the door are entering a profession that places alot of stress on their daily lives.  If they can't deal with a simple polygraph examination then they should seriously reconsider the profession they've chose.  A polygraph examination will be the least of their problems as their careers progress.

Saidme,

I observed:

QuoteSo then, the only countermeasures you have "detected" are those by subjects who were dumb enough to admit it...

to which you replied:

QuoteUnfortunately those "dumb enough to admit it" are your clients (for lack of a better word).

No doubt, people of varying intelligence read the information available on AntiPolygraph.org. The more intelligent ones would follow our recommendation (in Chapter 4 of TLBTLD) to refuse to submit to a polygraph interrogation regarding any criminal matter. But the point I was trying to make is that if the only countermeasures you "detect" are those performed by subjects who admit to countermeasure use, then you're not really "detecting" countermeasures at all.

Saidme,

You were the one who asked for the info surrounding my "alleged feats", so I provided it. For someone who lacks time to do research, you seem to post here with regularity lately. Besides, not having time is a poor excuse for something that would only require a couple mouse clicks, I gave you directions that even a polygrapher could follow...very simple. I don't blame you, you would probably find it very troubling, I wouldn't want to read it either if I were you.

By the way, I'm not "proud" that I had to be dishonest, unlike polygraphers, it doesn't come second-nature to me, and there are times I regret having lied. It was a means to an end, and it was well worth it. I'd do it over in again in a heart beat.

I've never stayed at a Holiday Inn Express...not my style.  8)

Best,
PK

Poly Killer

I took the time to read your amazing feats.  Congratulations.  During your police career in Arizona, have you had the opportunity to make any drug arrests of youngsters between the ages of 17-20?  If not, do you turn your head when you come across those who are "young and dumb"?  I smell hypocrisy.

What I did was in no way "amazing"...I was simply lucky enough to be "informed".

"Hypocrisy?"...I NEVER said I was "justified", that smoking pot should be legal, there's nothing wrong with it, etc. I knew it was illegal and that was a chance I took. I was fortunate enough to have not gotten caught, if I had, there would have been no one to blame but myself. The difference is, I WISED UP, I decided I wanted more out of my life than that. Honestly, I think I am a better cop today because of my experiences.

Besides, just so you know, it's not like we're talking about daily, or even weekly marijuana use, more like once a month or less, over a period of about 3 - 4 years. I have never purchased it, it was more a matter of a young man simply wanting to be like his peers, doing what I thought, at the time, was cool.

As far as my drug arrests go, I operate FULLY within the confines of the law. Where the totality of the circumstances permit, and where I believe it will do more good, I may simply have a "youngster" flush his "stash" down the toilet. You can call it hypocrisy, but I don't get off on charging youths with criminal offenses that may haunt them forever, just because they have a joint...that's the way it is in the real world, like it or not.  That's NOT why I became a Police Officer.

Besides, the judges wouldn't like me if I started putting the most minor offenses in front of them on a daily basis because it is counter-productive. Unfortunately, there are more pressing issues in our society today than marijuana use.

Like I said...I've heard it all before...next...?

PK

Quote from: Saidme on Jun 13, 2003, 01:26 PMPoly Killer

I took the time to read your amazing feats.  Congratulations.  During your police career in Arizona, have you had the opportunity to make any drug arrests of youngsters between the ages of 17-20?  If not, do you turn your head when you come across those who are "young and dumb"?  I smell hypocrisy.

As someone who used countermeasures during two NSA polygraphs without detection and with some success, I take issue with the idea that their use constitutes an "amazing feat" (and no, I'm not working there now -- I didn't relish the idea of going through the emotional hell of a polygraph every five years or so).  Countermeasures are not difficult, and evidently they're not detectable by the (presumably) best-trained and best-informed polygraphers anywhere.

Skeptic

Quote from: Saidme on Jun 13, 2003, 11:36 AM
Those innocents that come through the door are entering a profession that places alot of stress on their daily lives.  If they can't deal with a simple polygraph examination then they should seriously reconsider the profession they've chose.  A polygraph examination will be the least of their problems as their careers progress.

Have you ever taken a polygraph, Saidme?

Skeptic

Saidme,

Suggesting that the polygraph is some kind of test to determine whether or not an officer/agent can handle the stress of the actual job is quite ridiculous.

The idea that you place any value in that type of determination further undermines your position and credibility.  

Should they polygraph surgeons to see if the can handle the stress of surgery?  What about air traffic controllers, stock brokers, teachers, construction workers...

What else can the magical polygraph do?-  slice vegetables?

Looking at your posts a reader can clearly deduce that it's simply a confession machine!!

 I know I could never be a polygrapher because I couldn't stomach accusing everyone, just to be right some of the time.

There is a reason that sharpshooters have very accurate weapons, and strict rules of engagement.

I picture polygraphers as wannabe swat guys on the roof, banging away at a crowd with a shotgun.  You get excited when you get a couple of bad guys and the innocents, that get it in the process, are just shrugged off as the price of doing business.

Not caring about what happens to the greater community is the sign of someone who should not be in law enforcement!  


 

Quote from: Saidme on Jun 13, 2003, 01:26 PM...I smell hypocrisy.

I just thought about something (OK, Im slow today)...Is it just me, or does anyone else find it ironic that a person who MAKES A LIVING BY LYING talks about HYPOCRISY?  :o

Saidme,

You ever hear the saying "Those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones"? In terms of hypocrisy, your house is made of EXTREMELY thin glass.

PK

Quote from: suethem on Jun 13, 2003, 03:44 PMSaidme,

Suggesting that the polygraph is some kind of test to determine whether or not an officer/agent can handle the stress of the actual job is quite ridiculous.

The idea that you place any value in that type of determination further undermines your position and credibility.  

Should they polygraph surgeons to see if the can handle the stress of surgery?  What about air traffic controllers, stock brokers, teachers, construction workers...

What else can the magical polygraph do?-  slice vegetables?

Looking at your posts a reader can clearly deduce that it's simply a confession machine!!

I know I could never be a polygrapher because I couldn't stomach accusing everyone, just to be right some of the time.

There is a reason that sharpshooters have very accurate weapons, and strict rules of engagement.

I picture polygraphers as wannabe swat guys on the roof, banging away at a crowd with a shotgun.  You get excited when you get a couple of bad guys and the innocents, that get it in the process, are just shrugged off as the price of doing business.

Not caring about what happens to the greater community is the sign of someone who should not be in law enforcement!

This whole post is gold.

Skeptic

Don't waste your time on Saidme. He's all bluff and bluster but when the going gets tough, he'll cut and run. Probably why he's a polygrapher and not a uniformed patrol officer.

I sense some thin skins out there.  Wow!  One at a time please!

Poly-Killer, I concur the courts should not be clogged up with minor usage cases.  But I don't think it's your job to determine which cases go before the courts.

Skeptic, don't you know sarcasm when you hear it.

Suethem, I never suggested a polygraph is designed to test someones stress level.  My point was, if they can't deal with a polygraph maybe they should reconsider their chosen profession.

Orolan, I have nothing for you.

Just out of curiosity, do you guys all live together? ;)

Saidme,
My point exactly. When presented with a valid argument you resort to name-calling and choose to "have nothing for you". What's the matter? Can't refute the arguments but don't want to admit it? Seems to me you are the hypocrite with a thin skin.

Orolan

You've not presented a valid argument.  If you do I'll let you know. 8)

Saidme,
Not valid? I don't think so. The points I made are very valid. You can't refute them, so you choose to ignore them.

Saidme,

"can't deal with a polygraph maybe they should reconsider their chosen profession..."

It not that people can't handle the polygraph- meaning that its some kind of test of strength, intelligence or wisdom that a weak applicant can't overcome.

It's that the polygraph is not a valid test.  It's based on deception and  asumed responses to certain questions.  

It is not a dynamic filter or sorting mechanism.  Its a way to frighten people into making confessions.  

Do you care that honest people get black balled by what you do for a living?

Suethem

Maybe you (and others on this site) should direct your efforts toward a better product.  And I concede, some are.  Polygraph has, and continues, to work quite well in the law enforcement community. To arbitrarily throw it out is crazy.

There appears to be some intelligent people on this website.  Unfortunately, I think they're wasting their efforts on this cause.  Polygraph is here to stay until a better method/technique is available.  

Skeptic

Sorry I'm late on this.  Yes, I've taken polygraphs.  On another topic you posted.  Are you implying that Pete Townsend was out surfing the internet trying to hunt down child molestors?  Wow, what a leap.  You must be an attorney.

Quote from: Saidme on Jun 13, 2003, 05:47 PMSkeptic

Sorry I'm late on this.  Yes, I've taken polygraphs.  On another topic you posted.  Are you implying that Pete Townsend was out surfing the internet trying to hunt down child molestors?  Wow, what a leap.  You must be an attorney.

Actually, I believe that was his public claim when he was recently arrested in Britain on child pornography charges (a claim backed up by the circumstantial evidence, from what I understand).

Skeptic

Skeptic

Do you buy that?

QuoteActually, I believe that was his public claim when he was recently arrested in Britain on child pornography charges (a claim backed up by the circumstantial evidence, from what I understand).

Not possible, Skeptic. According to Saidme, nobody does that except police detectives. And since Saidme never heard of this, it never happened ;)

Quote from: Saidme on Jun 13, 2003, 06:13 PMSkeptic

Do you buy that?

Which part?  That he claimed he was doing research or that he actually was?

I assume you're talking about the latter, in which case I'll say I'm skeptical (big surprise, huh), but won't rule it out, especially since others have vouched that he is a bit of a crusader against child pornography.

Having a background in psychology, I am quite sure that there are people who do honest research on this stuff (there would likely be more, if the law weren't quite so ferocious and made exceptions for scientific research so we'd know how big a problem child pornography really is), and others who get it into their heads that playing vigilante is a good idea.  

The trouble, of course, is sorting out these people from those who exploit children.  Most people don't seem to want to draw a distinction (understandable I think -- the whole topic is pretty awful).

Skeptic

saidme,

I disagree that polygraphs work well.  Innocent people are being labled by LE as dishonest and untrustworthy.  A government that knowingly falsely accuses it's citizens can not be said to be just.

When LE comes to the homes of honest applicants (their families and friends) looking for information about crimes in the community, do not be surprised by slammed doors.

The stones are smooth and the view is good, but it's never a good idea to shit in the well.

I think that the negative results of polygraph tests outweigh the confessions.

I think that the real issue here is money.  Companies sell their products and need markets.  Polygraphers are the companies way in.  

You didn't answer my question.

Do you feel bad about all the honest people you DQ'd?

suethem

I don't do screening polygraph exams.  So to answer your question, no.  Have I ever called an innocent person guilty?  Not to my knowledge.  

Skeptic

I'm hearing some rationalizations creeping into your answers, watch it! ;)

saidme,

Have you ever done pre-screening poly test?

Quote from: Saidme on Jun 13, 2003, 06:44 PMsuethem

I don't do screening polygraph exams.  So to answer your question, no.  Have I ever called an innocent person guilty?  Not to my knowledge.  

Skeptic

I'm hearing some rationalizations creeping into your answers, watch it! ;)

I'm not sure to which part of what I wrote you're referring.

If Townsend downloaded child porn with exploitation in mind, he should have been nailed to the wall (note that he's been released without being charged).  But yes, I do believe some people hate pedophiles enough to play vigilante online, just as some people foolishly try to play vigilante with drug dealers.  I'm not saying it's a good or smart thing to do, particularly because it's likely  impossible (from a legal standpoint) to determine who's heart is in the right place without letting nasty people off the hook.  Clearly, crying "research" or "vigilante" is a pretty easy defense.

However, I don't believe acknowledging that some people's heart is in the right place (even if their actions are foolish) is a rationalization; it's simply being fair (or attempting to).

Skeptic

Skeptic

I don't know if you remember my post of a long while back, where I stated that my daughter was raped at gun point and the cops wouldn't even arrest the bastard. This was many uears ago. Well, I had to saddle up and ride the vigilante trail. If some pervert ever sends me any child porn, I will saddle up and ride again because I can't trust LE to act. I have received unwanted adult porn and LE says there is nothing they can do about it. Is there a "freedom of adult porn act"? After the first to or three I was able to recognize the lead-in and delete it without opening it. Child porn is a different thing. The first one those that I receive will require another ride.

Twoblock,
Have to agree with you there. If anybody does such a thing with one of my daughters, they better damn well hope the police get them safely inside the jail before I get to them. I don't have the porn problem, but that's because I delete everything that comes in that isn't from somebody I know. And when the name is the same, usually you can tell by the subject.

Saidme,

Kudos to you for catching 100% of those who confessed to using countermeasures, and no-one who has not.

Quote from: Saidme on Jun 13, 2003, 06:44 PMHave I ever called an innocent person guilty?  Not to my knowledge.  

How many people have you accused of lying that did not give you a confession and were later found to be guilty in a court of law?  

Given the about quote I can assume that there is no-one that you have accused of lying that was not found guilty in a court of law right?  

I can't give you an exact number but many.  And you're right, they we're all found guilty.   ;)

Saidme,

have you ever done pre-screening polygraphs?

Why is it that, throughout this thread, many of saidme's responses or vague, elusive or fail altogether to answer questions asked?

On the other hand, most others here respond directly to issues raised by saidme in a straight-forward manner.  ???

Could it be that this  examiner is being "less than honest"?

Just curious,
PK

saidme,
do you belive that if YOU were given a poly that you could lie on one or more issues and pass using CM's ect?

Wombat

I wouldn't have any need to use CM's.   ;)

Saidme,
you dident answer my question.
i asked IF you had to lie. would you pass the poly on that issue?

Saidme,

This is the third time I have asked this question only to get no response from you:


Have you ever given pre-screening polygraph exams?

Quote from: suethem on Jun 15, 2003, 07:56 PMSaidme,

This is the third time I have asked this question only to get no response from you:


Have you ever given pre-screening polygraph exams?

You probably missed this post (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=1107.msg8401#msg8401), suethem, in which 'saidme' writes:

I don't do screening polygraph exams.  So to answer your question, no.  Have I ever called an innocent person guilty?  Not to my knowledge.  

Beech trees,

I ask if Saidme had EVER done pre-sreening polygraphs

He responded that he doesn't do them (as is currently).

But I want to know if he EVER did give them.

I guess I find it hard to believe that a polygrapher would only do one type.  It may be common, but I want to hear it from him.  

So if Saidme will respond- I will drop it like a brick.

Saidme, have you EVER given pre-screening polygraphs?

Wombat

If I HAD (as you put it) to lie and the examination was conducted by a competent examiner, I doubt I would pass.  I describe a competent examiner as one who conducts an ethical examination and at the same time is observant for CM's.  

Suethem

I don't do pre-employment polygraph examinations, I've never done pre-employment polygraph examinations, and I'll never do pre-employment polygraph examinations.  Hope that answers your question.   ;)

Quote from: Saidme on Jun 11, 2003, 03:38 PMI have a question.  If you have nothing to hide and you intend to use countermeasures, how do you know your countermeasures are what got you over the hump as opposed to your truthful responses to the relevant questions?

Sorry, I'm only now seeing this post.

Saidme, the bottom line is that I consciously controlled my breathing, bp, and heart rate the entire time I was hooked up, including during the ridiculous stim test, and the polygrapher not only did not detect it, he did not detect my artificially augmented responses to the Control Questions. Your question is moot.

We'll just call you Spock from now on. ;)

Quote from: Saidme on Jun 22, 2003, 08:51 PMWe'll just call you Spock from now on. ;)

Ahhhhh...Saidme must be a "trekkie"...that explains alot. But which of the characters would be his equivalent? Perhaps a klingon

PK

Followers of CM lore:
George said on the 13th that:

"So then, the only countermeasures you have "detected" are those by subjects who were dumb enough to admit it... "

I love this kind of logic because its so simple and hard to argue....something like: If a subject does not admit it, you cant be 100% sure you are not seeing the real thing, therefore how can you really know?  When a applicant attempts countermeasures, and 2 have with my agency in the past 6 tests, are confronted with this accusation does'nt this mean detection has taken place?  Since a very small percentage of applicants would be questioned in this way, the polygrapher is reacting to specific clues as contained in the charts.  George, you seem to think that any CM detection is random luck, blind chance or the result of a botched attempt by a half witted numbskull that could not follow directions.  Not everyone with jogging shoes does a 4 minute mile, so you will have to accept that your readers will follow advice with varying levels of skill.
Our last two attempts were college educated, articulate and had passed thier backgrounds.  They also admitted to numerous omissions once they confessed to attempting to manipulating the test.  Somebody called Onesimus asked how many CM users have been caught in a way that would pass scientific muster.  I think I spoke of the GKT test administered previously, that showed conclusively that not only had the applicant used information that only someone who had logged on to this site would know, but such applicants had much to hide beyond the stated fear of a false positive.

The fact that Drew, George and the master of sophisticated CM's did not respond is because they cant.
You all know the statistical impossibility of failing a CIT using information that you have made available here.  We will continue to use it, your readers will keep failing, and you cannot stop it.  We will also write them out of future processes permanantly.

And enough about this silly CM challenge.  I have told you that polygraphers are answering the "challenge" daily and there is no need for spectacle.  Does a homicide investigator submit to some kind of mock crime scene creation, and under the watchful eye of an academic (who conducted a few tests Im told rather poorly) go about his investigation hoping to be graded and recieve affirmation from a group who wants only failure? I think polygraphers are less interested in your attention grabbing attempt than getting to the difficult issue of factfinding.
Drew thinks that doing poorly on this challenge would mean the end of CQ polygraph.  Thats alot like saying that the next time a doctor leaves a sponge in a patient medicine will end as we know it.  Even if some polygrapher was bored enough to accept entry into your circus, then did poorly, it would prove that that polygrapher did poorly that day...thats it.
I liked Drew's baiting comment about the reasons including cowardice that an examiner would not participate. I've got a few more:
They recognize a media circus
They have lives, cases, and responsibilities
Contempt for the premise in light of thier experiences
Mild disinterest

You get the idea, keep it running if it amuses you.  Staple it to a pole next to your campus posters.
And finally Anonymous and Skeptic, you both had the same idea that GKT was not the problem etc. etc. Your take home message is that the subject had already failed (a CQ format), used CM's and the CIT was to prove the CM use beyond doubt, not serve as a substitute.  This has worked very well.

what does CIT stand for?

To thebreeze:

I read your two posts and have to wonder the following?  If this sites, and the "sting the poly" sites, mention or disclosing of CM's to beat the poly is actually helping you to detect and uncover applicants using them why would you open your mouth and state so???  

Would it not be intelligent to keep quiet and possibly unanomously support these sites and their beliefs that countermeasures are undetectable?  According to your posts, the use of CM's has resulted in their infalliable detection by you and subsoquent admissions which is really all you can take to the bank anyways.

By coming on this forum and stating to all that George, et al are actually helping you do your job seems to raise red flags in my eyes.  Your feeble attempts to "scare" the readers here in to continuing to use CM's, because you think you can detect them, reeks of a grade three attempt at reverse psycology.

If my post rings true, why are you not supplying applicants with copies of Georges book with every application you hand out?  It would only seem to reason that doing so would bolster your chances of weeding out the deceptive applicants.  At the very least it might add to the scare tactics you require to stay in a job.  If you provide applicants with the book and then corner them before your test and "convince" them you can detect CM's you should better your stats. I think you are fishing here.  We all know the poly only really works on the uninformed to gain disqualifying admissions.  Once the word is out (it is coming slowly but surely) that your job and existence are nothing but snake oil sales you will need books like Georges to help regain the mystique the poly once had.  You will have to claim that you can indeed detect CM's just like you now claim that you can detect deception and hope that the majority of the appliacnts are indeed using them.  "Hmmm..  the charts are showing that you employed countermeasures... I'm sorry you failed unless you tell me the truth now before this gets blown out of proportion" and hope you get your admissions that way.

On a separate note.  Do you truley believe that altered human physiological responses when detected simultaneously with the asking of certain questions is proof of deception?  What is your background?  It can't be in science, human physiology, or psycology.  My guess is business with a major in sales.

Breeze,

Quote from: The_Breeze on Jun 24, 2003, 07:25 PM
.... Your take home message is that the subject had already failed (a CQ format), used CM's and the CIT was to prove the CM use beyond doubt, not serve as a substitute.  This has worked very well.

Ah, yes.  The CIT (aka GKT and CKT). If this site accomplishes anything, getting the polygraph community more familar with these potentially  more reliable techniques would rank as an accomplishment. I am confused about one thing though. You are equating knowledge of polygraph technique and the secret of the control questions, the concealing of which the CIT can be applied, to an intended deception on the CQT itself. Do you intend that interpretation or am I missing something?  I would expect most people with a modicum of curiousity and an ISP to investigate (and be astonished at) the inner workings of the polygraph. Is knowledge a disqualifier? Are the affected agencies really willing to cull applicants showing even this minimal initiative?  Guess it depends on the job.

-Marty

Quote from: Marty on Jun 24, 2003, 09:02 PMI would expect most people with a modicum of curiousity and an ISP to investigate (and be astonished at) the inner workings of the polygraph. Is knowledge a disqualifier? Are the affected agencies really willing to cull applicants showing even this minimal initiative?  Guess it depends on the job.

-Marty

Dear Marty,

What a thought!  The government needs the best and brightest for the future survival of our country yet we expect those very competitive applicants to stick their heads in the sand and completely ignore the information which is easily obtained on the internet or library.  The government needs people who are capable of "thinking outside the box" for new and fresh innovations to existing problems.  The "cream of the crop", multiple degree candidates with many years of private sector experience (and survival techniques) are expected to leave all the traits which have helped them get to where they are and "just trust us" as they apply to the government.  I wonder if we in the civil service are just trying to deceive ourselves in this matter.

I have always advocated honesty of all applicants but the agencies involved must also display integrity as well.

Regards.

Breeze,

You write:

QuoteWhen a applicant attempts countermeasures, and 2 have with my agency in the past 6 tests, are confronted with this accusation does'nt this mean detection has taken place?

No, it doesn't, because there is no known valid methodology for countermeasure detection. All that has happened in your example is that you have made an unscientific inference (a guess) that the subject has attempted countermeasures. This is so even if the polygraph operator "is reacting to specific [perceived] clues as contained in the charts."

Similarly, when a person "fails" a CQT polygraph examination, deception has not been "detected" because CQT polygraphy has no scientific basis (http://antipolygraph.org/articles/article-018.shtml). Unless confirmed by a corroborated confession, the polygrapher's conclusion (based on polygraph test data analysis) that a subject was deceptive is merely a guess.

QuoteI think I spoke of the GKT test administered previously, that showed conclusively that not only had the applicant used information that only someone who had logged on to this site would know, but such applicants had much to hide beyond the stated fear of a false positive.

Although a subject might make admissions to such, a GKT itself cannot "show conclusively" that a test subject actually used information that only someone who visited AntiPolygraph.org would know. It can only show that a person is likely to have knowledge of such information.

Note that in constructing a GKT, it is important that the person stating the choices for each question be ignorant as to which ones are the "correct" ones. Otherwise, it is possible that the questioner's demeanor or tone of voice might provide unintended clues as to which items are the "correct" ones, resulting in reactions to them from those who in fact have no knowledge of them. David Lykken explains this in The Body on the Stairs: A Pedagogical Detective Story (http://antipolygraph.org/articles/article-037.pdf) (Chapter 21 of the 1st edition of A Tremor in the Blood: Uses and Abuses of the Lie Detector).

For the GKT you have suggested, it would not be proper for you, or anyone else who is familiar with AntiPolygraph.org, to speak the items to be used in the test. Instead, you might make a tape recording as someone who is unfamiliar with AntiPolygraph.org -- and with polygraph matters in general -- reads the items in a monotone at appropriate intervals, and  then "test the test" by administering it to people known to have visited AntiPolygraph.org and on people unlikely to have ever done so.

Did you follow these procedures before you started administering your "countermeasures GKT?"

By the way, is not your resorting to a GKT a tacit admission that you know you don't actually have any reliable methodology of countermeasure detection?

Is mere knowledge of polygraph procedure, or having visited AntiPolygraph.org, to be made a ground for disqualifying an applicant for life? If not, then how is your agency going to deal with applicants who adopt the "complete honesty" approach and admit up front that they know "the lie behind the lie detector?"

Lucky me, i dont live in the USA. there is ZERO awareness here to the polygraph issue. once in a blue moon you hear about its validity. and there are no sites on the net from my country regarding the issue.
so hopefully when i get to my test i wont even get a lecture about CM's.

To our Candadian Guest

You mention:  "I read your two posts and have to wonder the following?  If this sites, and the "sting the poly" sites, mention or disclosing of CM's to beat the poly is actually helping you to detect and uncover applicants using them why would you open your mouth and state so."  

Everyone we polygraph is not guilty of a crime.  Those  who choose to come on to these sites and make a conscious descision to "help themselves" place themselves in jeopardy.  For those conducting pre-employment exams, if they see CM's they'll most likely address the issue.  If discovered; bye bye job.  At the very least the examiner will be suspicious causing the examinee undue hardship (further testing and interviews).  For the criminal specific examinee whose not involved in the matter at hand, they now jeopardize placing themselves in the cross-hairs as well as dragging out a criminal investigation that might be solved in a shorter period of time.  

Of course, most people undergoing a criminal specific issue polygraph test who visit this site have reasons to visit this site. ;)

Saidme,

You write:

Quote...Of course, most people undergoing a criminal specific issue polygraph test who visit this site have reasons to visit this site....

Actually all people who visit this site have reason to do so....those who have committed crimes, those who have not, and those who know both groups....the American and international public needs to know what a fraud polygraphy is as a diagnostic instrument and how it likely affects all these groups and society in general.

North of the border friend and others:
How is that gun confiscation going? I hear its a bit over budget and suffers from non compliance-fix it so I can come up and slay a moose.

Why write here? thats actually your best point.  Its hard to explain.  Maybe a strange fascination with so much wasted talent giving such jaded advice, maybe to make an applicant think twice before doing something he will not do very well and wreck a career. I dunno.
Your premise is wrong of course but I understand you.  My livlihood in no way depends on polygraph, should they be banned tomorrow, Im still working. I would rather have one of our applicants stand on thier merits rather than attempting some sort of artificial augmentation as they hide part of their background.  We ask if an applicant has recieved advice or conducted research, not because its disqualifying, (its not) but because the advice may be very badly flawed.  It also shows an applicant that the examiner is "current" and understands the issue.  Personally, I would like to see an applicant do all the research he has time for in order to make an informed choice.  It would not be confined to polygraph, help is there for those wishing to confuse urinalysis and psychological testing as well.  Call it feeble if you want to, but I can promise you that the applicant who follows advice as presented here, fails, uses CM's, is called on it, and finally confesses feels the process was anything but.
You may not want to believe this, but we want our applicants to pass.  So I post on occasion to provide some type of balance, you do not have to believe anything I say.
Marty, I hope that answers your question about research.  You see, logging on to a site and becoming informed cannot impact an applicant.  Using techniques to attempt to mask an omission will.
And finally George.  LE work is filled with unscientific methods, as you know-you just focus on one of the tools that has offended you. To continue to throw up "lack of scientific method" at the end of all your arguements is weak.  Because something cannot be proved to your satisfaction in a lab does not mean it is without merit!
For something like polygraph that lacks a scientific basis it sure does get to the right answer an overwhelming percentage of times (in my experience)  You do not have to accept this, but then again, you have never seen the tool used, and your experience base is primarily from the testimony of others.  Our applicants almost without fail will admit disqualifying information after failing an exam, and it will be specific to the area in which they failed.  However this usually takes about 20 minutes of wading through denials.  Sorry, ive just seen it too much to believe its random chance.
And please explain to me how a follow up exam, done for the purpose of verifying use of CM is an admission that detection is unreliable?  Its simply additional evidence.  Follow up exams are standard practice as things come into focus.  The fact that very few people would be subjected to such a test I have already explained in a previous post.  And as I explained to marty, knowledge is not and never will be a problem, augmentation is.

The breeze,

you make some valid points.  thanks for the reply.  I suppose if I were in your shoes I would be taking the same stance as you regarding the poly.  I just fail to see the science in the poly and have very well been tainted to taking the anti poly stance due to a bad poly experience.

As for the gun registry we up here in Canada have to laugh too.  It is th precusor to gun confiscation.  The liberal thieves with their fearless leader Chretien have managed to spend approximately 1 billion dollars on a registry that was only supposed to cost around 2 million.  It has yet to prove it has decreased gun crime by 0.1%.  A complete and total waster of tax payers dollars.  If Alberta were to vote for separation I would do it in a second.  Next choice would be to join you guys down there!

Breeze,

Quote from: The_Breeze on Jul 03, 2003, 01:43 PM
We ask if an applicant has recieved advice or conducted research, not because its disqualifying, (its not) but because the advice may be very badly flawed.

Fair enough but it doesn't address the basic issue. An accurately* informed examinee cannot be easily given a CQT. Perhaps compliance psychological techniques can be sufficiently powerful to create the required dissonance on the control Q's but it is pretty obvious that an accurately informed individual who makes the ethical choice not to use countermeasures will be more likely to render a false positive in a CQT.

QuoteIt also shows an applicant that the examiner is "current" and understands the issue.  Personally, I would like to see an applicant do all the research he has time for in order to make an informed choice.

That is difficult to align with the secrecy of the CQT. Why not just use the DLT with everyone if you desired examinees to be accurately informed?

Quote
It would not be confined to polygraph, help is there for those wishing to confuse urinalysis and psychological testing as well.

False positives for metabolic byproducts are rare, but then these are more easily quantified. OTOH, drug users that can't abstain long enough to pass a piss test shouldn't be hired for dog catcher. LE should use hair samples taken at time of application and occasionally through the hiring process. A lot more reliable and can't be gotten around by short term abstention.

QuoteCall it feeble if you want to, but I can promise you that the applicant who follows advice as presented here, fails, uses CM's, is called on it, and finally confesses feels the process was anything but.

There is no advice presented here that I've found that includes the examinee confessing.  That said, I do believe CM's can be done poorly. One of the thing's I've been ruminating over is CM detection methodologies. I am of the belief that some types of CM's can be detected - in particular, when an examinee claims to not know about CQT's and CM's, and then uses them they become susceptible to the specific incident polygraph techniques (such as the GKT), which has more scientific basis than CQT or other screening techniques.

QuoteYou may not want to believe this, but we want]our applicants to pass.

I believe you want examinees who are not deceptive on the R's  to pass. Why would anyone think otherwise?

QuoteMarty, I hope that answers your question about research.  You see, logging on to a site and becoming informed cannot impact an applicant.

If that were only the case. If knowledgeable candidates were not problematic then polygraphers wouldn't be misleading examinees on the controls to start with. The theory is (as you well know) that selection and presentation of well chosen controls is crucial to minimizing false positives.

-Marty

Marty,
Your latest post causes me to wonder once again why polygraphers have to "know" what a lie looks like on the chart before they can find another one.
If the premise were correct that a lie will cause a significantly "taller" spike than a truth, why not establish a baseline using a series of questions the examiner knows the true answers to, ie "Is today Friday?", "Is your name Marty?", etc. With this baseline established, responses that were significantly stronger would be scored as lies.
What about it, polygraphers?

Quote from: orolan on Jul 04, 2003, 11:41 PMMarty,
Your latest post causes me to wonder once again why polygraphers have to "know" what a lie looks like on the chart before they can find another one.
If the premise were correct that a lie will cause a significantly "taller" spike than a truth, why not establish a baseline using a series of questions the examiner knows the true answers to, ie "Is today Friday?", "Is your name Marty?", etc. With this baseline established, responses that were significantly stronger would be scored as lies.
What about it, polygraphers?

Orolan,

Assuming you aren't just baiting polygraphers, the main reason polygraphy migrated from the RI to CQT is that what is detected is not lies or truth, but fear of detection (or as Drew says somewhat more accurately, fear of consequences). The chatter about lies producing distinct responses per se is a conditioning technique designed to make the CQT more accurate and create more concern (and response) on the controls than the relevants*. The risk is that exceptionally honest individuals may not be swayed into lying on the controls.

*[edited] Assumes examinee is innocent. For a deceptive examinee, the intent is to create greater response on both Q's, the assumption being that the relevant Q will elicit a greater response even though the examinee is deceptive on both.

-Marty

Breeze,

You write:

QuoteAnd finally George.  LE work is filled with unscientific methods, as you know-you just focus on one of the tools that has offended you. To continue to throw up "lack of scientific method" at the end of all your arguements is weak.  Because something cannot be proved to your satisfaction in a lab does not mean it is without merit!
For something like polygraph that lacks a scientific basis it sure does get to the right answer an overwhelming percentage of times (in my experience)  You do not have to accept this, but then again, you have never seen the tool used, and your experience base is primarily from the testimony of others.  Our applicants almost without fail will admit disqualifying information after failing an exam, and it will be specific to the area in which they failed.  However this usually takes about 20 minutes of wading through denials.  Sorry, ive just seen it too much to believe its random chance.
And please explain to me how a follow up exam, done for the purpose of verifying use of CM is an admission that detection is unreliable?  Its simply additional evidence.  Follow up exams are standard practice as things come into focus.  The fact that very few people would be subjected to such a test I have already explained in a previous post.  And as I explained to marty, knowledge is not and never will be a problem, augmentation is.

No doubt, law enforcement properly uses investigatory techniques that are not science-based diagnostic tests, such as interviews and interrogations. But the polygraph community presents polygraphy to the public as a highly reliable, scientifically-sound diagnostic test for deception. (No such claims are typically made with regard to interviews or interrogations.) DoDPI and the American Polygraph Association have even taken to calling polygraphy the "psychophysiological detection of deception" or "forensic psychophysiology."

It is hardly "weak" of me to point out that claims that CQT polygraphy is a science-based diagnostic test are patently false.

I agree with you that the fact that a purported diagnostic technique cannot be proven to my satisfaction (or to the National Academy of Sciences,' or the the vast majority of scientists') does not mean that it is entirely without merit. CQT polygraphy does have some utility to the extent that it encourages some subjects to be more candid than they would be absent the polygraph. But I think you confuse utility with validity.

You note that, "[your] applicants almost without fail will admit disqualifying information after failing an exam, and it will be specific to the area in which they failed." It is hardly surprising that applicants who ultimately admit to disqualifying information would do so specifically with regard to the area in which they "failed," because it is precisely regarding that area that they will be interrogated in the "post-test" phase.

You asked me to "explain...how a follow up exam, done for the purpose of verifying use of CM is an admission that detection is unreliable?" First, as I pointed out in my post of 25 June, a GKT itself cannot "show conclusively" that a test subject actually used information that only someone who visited AntiPolygraph.org would know. It can only show that a person is likely to have knowledge of such information. If you could reliably detect countermeasures, there would be little point in running a follow-up GKT that cannot show that a subject used countermeasures.

Note that the polygrapher who suspects a subject of having employed countermeasures is the wrong person to administer a follow-up GKT in an attempt to determine whether a subject has knowledge that only someone who has visited AntiPolygraph.org would possess. The polygrapher will have a bias toward confirming his suspicions that could very well influence the outcome of the procedure.

Finally, you wrote to Marty, "Personally, I would like to see an applicant do all the research he has time for in order to make an informed choice." If that's the case, then why not refer all applicants to AntiPolygraph.org before their polygraph examinations?

Marty,
So the rationale goes something like this: Since the examinee "lied" on the control but did not "know" he was lying, it was a "little lie" that would show a small response due to the examinee's lack of "fear". On a subsequent relevant question, a "lie" would show as a stronger response due to the fact that the examinee "knows" he is lying and "fears" the consequences of being caught in his lie?
And no, I'm not baiting the polygraphers. Just trying to understand. BTW, anybody heard from the Caped Crusader lately?

Quote from: orolan on Jul 05, 2003, 06:32 PMMarty,
So the rationale goes something like this: Since the examinee "lied" on the control but did not "know" he was lying, it was a "little lie" that would show a small response due to the examinee's lack of "fear". On a subsequent relevant question, a "lie" would show as a stronger response due to the fact that the examinee "knows" he is lying and "fears" the consequences of being caught in his lie?
And no, I'm not baiting the polygraphers. Just trying to understand. BTW, anybody heard from the Caped Crusader lately?

Let me provide a scenario to clarify this. Imagine the following two people who both smoked dope every other weekend in their senior year of HS but had been clean since. Imagine one had, together with a friend, stolen a neighbor's high end stereo and TV and pawned them but were never caught.

Typically, one of the "controls" is a broad question about stealing when you were young while a "relevant" might be a more specific instance of stealing > $200 from an employer. And of course the drug questions would also be "relevants."

It is highly likely that the person who stole and pawned the electronic equipment would be more reactive to the theft question than the drug question and would therefor be the one more likely to be hired by LE, other factors being equal. OTOH, a third person who had never been involved with drugs at all, perhaps as a result of knowing someone that OD'ed but had also never stolen even a candy bar would likley react more to the "relevant" drug question, even if completely innocent, just from being accused since he would be completely comfortable he had never stolen anything while the examiner is *assuming* otherwise.

It should be clear from this just how difficult it is to establish the validity of the polygraph when used in a CQT, and how, in some cases, a CQT may be biased against an innocent person.

-Marty

I have had to take the polygraph test every six months since 2011 I am an ex-felon and if you think that I would tell the truth on every single question that I'm asked you have got to have something wrong upstairs ! I can honestly tell you that Doug Williams how to sting the polygraph truly does work ! And I can honestly tell you that more than half of the questions I'm asked each time is definitely not the truth ! Why would you tell the truth to an individual who is going to relay absolutely everything you say to him to a fraudulent entity that murdered and killed over 188 people in order to become a placing agency yes I'm talking about the feds ! How utterly stupid what a person have to be to tell anything truthful to the feds !

Yes how to sting the polygraph truly works !

To the individual inquiring about the booklet " how to sting the polygraph " the individual that says they both suck has either got to be a polygraph operator or a cop or possibly even a Fed !

I can honestly tell you that this technique does work ! I have been using it for the past four years having to take a polygraph test every six months because of the federal control that I have on me ! I am an ex-federal con and if you think an ex-con would tell the truth to his PO or a therapist that he is forced to have to see and talk to you got another thing coming.! Get real after having been screwed by the federal system and still being screwed by the federal system you come to a new reality, a new way of thinking. Yes be very afraid of the polygraph for it is not a lie detector it can no more detect whether a person is lying or telling the truth then you have the ability to go to heaven until God that you are taking over ! How absolutely absurd is that !

Yes definitely get the book ! From someone who is been using these techniques for four years a total of eight now going on nine polygraph tests which I have passed with flying colors I can definitely tell you the polygraph is most emphatically a farce, a fraud, an absolute lie in and of itself ! The inventor Dr. William Nelson a NASA scientist who developed it said he was only creating a party gig to be used against his brother-in-law to be. The feds stole the patent and turned this device into what is now the biggest lying piece of hardware damages people's lives that the feds could have ever hoped for. Don't let the polygraph interrogator have the upper hand !

" Get the book "

QuoteThe inventor Dr. William Nelson a NASA scientist who developed it said he was only creating a party gig to be used against his brother-in-law to be.

Say what?

Ark,

When you compare the account that you quoted with the reality of Marston and Wonder Woman, you have a very good example of truth being stranger than an admittedly pretty strange fiction...

Indeed, Marston was more of a vaudevillian. In my book, Cesare Lombroso was more of a true visionary.