I have a poly test coming up for a local law enforcement agency and i wanted to know if there is anyone who has used the countermeasures and is certain that they work, and when you used them were you suspected of using them at all? i want to be sure i pass my polygraph test so any responses would really help.
I used countermeasures for a federal polygraph. I did pass and was not accused of using countermeasures. I used the "blocking" breathing method along with mental arithmetic. Would I have passed without using them? Not sure but I had failed a job screening poly for a different prospective employer previously (not using countermeasures).
You do have to make sure you use them on the appropriate questions and not on the relevant questions. Also, carefully read the section on how a truthful subject should act. I formed a good honest raport with the examiner when I passed using countermeasures.
I take a polygraph every year and I use CMs every time.
I have never been suspected of using CMs and I have always passed.
I recently took one and even made a couple of mistakes. The questions were more difficult than usual and it seemed more like a R/IR test. I used a CM on a Relevant question during one of the charts. I was questioned about it, gave a benign answer, and still passed. CMs work without a doubt.
polycrap,
I used polygraph countermeasures and was not suspected at all by the polygraph examiner during the exam. The examiner showed me the charts afterwards, and told me he did not note any problems with any of the questions, and he ran three sets of charts on me consisting of approximately 10 to 12 questions per chart.
Bottom line, the technique as described and explained in "TLBTLD" works fine if followed properly.
There is no guarantee that the techniques will result in a successful polygraph exam... however, Telling the truth is no guarantee of passing either.
Knowledge is power. Educate yourself on how polygraph testing works, and then you can make an informed decision on what you should or should not do. My advice to you would be to simply tell the truth. Although, I also must advise you that telling the truth may result in a false-positive result, thus failing the polygraph exam you hope to pass.
Good luck with whatever decision you make.
triple x
Thanks for the feed back guys, this will really help and i wanted t ask underlyingtruth something,
what CM's have you used for you exams?
Quote from: polycrap32123 on May 23, 2007, 09:15 PMThanks for the feed back guys, this will really help and i wanted t ask underlyingtruth something,
what CM's have you used for you exams?
One wonders why no repsonse to your innocent question.
Perhaps UT has to firstly learn a few..........................
There are some 20 odd CM's that you can use to skew the p/g
examination.
You will be told by hte Examiner to 'breathe normally' - how odd?
So, without making a theatrical production about it - regulate your
breathing to your desired 'norm'
He will review the questions with you. Usually - he is supposed to review
the CQ's last - you will recognise them as being unrelated to the present
and focussing on previous in life honesty issues.
when you answer to the CQ's, your next 3 breaths after answering NO,
should be shorter and shallower than your norm.....................
At the same time visualise in your mind a knife flying through the air
towards your eye.
When you recognise the RQ's - after you answer NO, make your next 3
breaths longer and deeper than your norm. At the same time, visualise
in your mind, a calm blue ocean, viewed form a hilltop.
worst case scenario - Incon.
Quote from: 1904 on May 25, 2007, 10:50 AM
When you recognise the RQ's - after you answer NO, make your next 3
breaths longer and deeper than your norm. At the same time, visualise
in your mind, a calm blue ocean, viewed form a hilltop.
This advice (which you have repeated elsewhere on this forum) is terribly ill-conceived, as it will ensure that one produces a scorable reaction to the relevant question on the pneumo channel (thus decreasing one's chances of passing). Instead, when relevant questions are asked one should simply return to one's baseline breathing pattern.
Quote from: George W. Maschke on May 25, 2007, 12:07 PMQuote from: 1904 on May 25, 2007, 10:50 AM
When you recognise the RQ's - after you answer NO, make your next 3
breaths longer and deeper than your norm. At the same time, visualise
in your mind, a calm blue ocean, viewed form a hilltop.
This advice (which you have repeated elsewhere on this forum) is terribly ill-conceived, as it will ensure that one produces a scorable reaction to the relevant question on the pneumo channel (thus decreasing one's chances of passing). Instead, when relevant questions are asked one should simply return to one's baseline breathing pattern.
Hi George,
I have been a p/g examiner since the early 90's. I have administered thousands of p/g examinations.
I have tried every conceivable CM on my colleagues and vice versa - so that we knew what to look
out for. Some tracings are easier to identify (the CM ) than others. The best strategy is to produce
normal (but false ) tracings so as to produce a chart that the examiner is satisfied with as being a
truthful chart.
It is also within my personal knowledge that many examiners have problems in scoring pneumos.
As you know there is STILL the debate whether small = big vs big = small.
However, most examiners correctly identify dimished pneumos (small) as a bigger response and
bigger (than norm ) pneumos as relief (truthful) breathing.
With a little practice anyone can master the art of pneumo manipulation.
A bit of mental conditioning (pitbull vs calm ocean ) will make a slight, appropriate difference
to the appropriate cardio response.
Your suggestion of tongue biting is a bit weak. All examiners know that the GSC response
is very responsive, to the point of being unreliable. I will catch you biting your tongue 9/10 times.
I know my subject George.
I'll give you even better CM's than those we have mentioned.
Go to a doctor that does not know you. Pay cash and provide false details for his records.
Tell him you started getting sever migraine at night and think that you might actually
have fainted a few times (in bed) - The doctor will assume that you are suffering from
either severe stress headache or maybe even low level epilepsy. (associated with cluster
headaches - which onset presents at night time)
The medication so prescribed (there are several) maintains homeostasis in the subject with
the result that responses are so diminished that the subject will pass, no matter what questions
are put to him/her.
When the examiner asks what meds subject may currently be taking, subject advises
that he/she WAS taking headache meds but stopped a few days back and cant remem
the name of the tab. If pushed - something he/she got from a close family member.
Next best CM is adrenal depletion - achieved by sleep deprivation and diminished food
intake. On the day before the exam - have a very light lunch. skip dinner.
Sleep 1/3 of your normal quota. No meals until after your test. Do the mental visualisation.
you will pass.
NB - IF YOU ARE A DIABETES SUFFERER DISREGARD THIS ADVICE. JUST DO THE CONTROLLED
BREATHING AND MENTAL VISUALISATIONS.
I know you have your viewpoint George - via TLBTLD - but my experiences are real life.
Quote from: 1904 on May 28, 2007, 11:45 AMHi George,
I have been a p/g examiner since the early 90's. I have administered thousands of p/g examinations.
I have tried every conceivable CM on my colleagues and vice versa - so that we knew what to look
out for. Some tracings are easier to identify (the CM ) than others. The best strategy is to produce
normal (but false ) tracings so as to produce a chart that the examiner is satisfied with as being a
truthful chart.
It is also within my personal knowledge that many examiners have problems in scoring pneumos.
As you know there is STILL the debate whether small = big vs big = small.
However, most examiners correctly identify dimished pneumos (small) as a bigger response and
bigger (than norm ) pneumos as relief (truthful) breathing.
Indeed, in 2006, the Department of Defense Polygraph Institute (recently renamed the Defense Academy for Credibility Assessment), struck the following (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=3405.msg23652#msg23652) from its list of scorable breathing reactions:
- Increase in amplitude
- Progressive increase followed by a progressive decrease
- Progressive increase in amplitude followed by a return to homeostasis
- Increase in rate
However, "Temporary increase in baseline" remains on the list, and by breathing more deeply in response to relevant questions, the examinee may risk producing this scorable reaction at the wrong point.
QuoteWith a little practice anyone can master the art of pneumo manipulation.
A bit of mental conditioning (pitbull vs calm ocean ) will make a slight, appropriate difference
to the appropriate cardio response.
Indeed, the available research suggests as much.
QuoteYour suggestion of tongue biting is a bit weak. All examiners know that the GSC response
is very responsive, to the point of being unreliable. I will catch you biting your tongue 9/10 times.
So you claim, but no polygrapher has ever demonstrated an ability to detect tongue-biting as a countermeasure. In peer-reviewed studies on the topic, even experienced polygraphers who were forewarned that tongue-biting would be used as a countermeasure were unable to detect it. (See Honts et al. 1985, 1994; citations and abstracts in the bibliography of
The Lie Behind the Lie Detector (https://antipolygraph.org/lie-behind-the-lie-detector.pdf).)I assume that by "GSC" you meant to say "GSR" (galvanic skin response)? I was not aware that "all examiners know" that it is "very responsive to the point of being unreliable." Could you provide any citations from the polygraph literature to support this assertion?
QuoteI know my subject George.
That may be so, but since anyone can anonymously make such claims on this board, please take no offense (none is intended) at being asked for evidence.
QuoteI'll give you even better CM's than those we have mentioned.
Go to a doctor that does not know you. Pay cash and provide false details for his records.
Tell him you started getting sever migraine at night and think that you might actually
have fainted a few times (in bed) - The doctor will assume that you are suffering from
either severe stress headache or maybe even low level epilepsy. (associated with cluster
headaches - which onset presents at night time)
The medication so prescribed (there are several) maintains homeostasis in the subject with
the result that responses are so diminished that the subject will pass, no matter what questions
are put to him/her.
When the examiner asks what meds subject may currently be taking, subject advises
that he/she WAS taking headache meds but stopped a few days back and cant remem
the name of the tab. If pushed - something he/she got from a close family member.
Specifically what medications do you have in mind? What are their side-effects and contraindications? And why would the subject want to mention having taken any such medication at all? Note that in the context of pre-employment screening, telling a polygrapher that one has taken prescription medicine not prescribed to oneself may lead to an unwelcome interrogation about drug use.
QuoteNext best CM is adrenal depletion - achieved by sleep deprivation and diminished food
intake. On the day before the exam - have a very light lunch. skip dinner.
Sleep 1/3 of your normal quota. No meals until after your test. Do the mental visualisation.
you will pass.
NB - IF YOU ARE A DIABETES SUFFERER DISREGARD THIS ADVICE. JUST DO THE CONTROLLED
BREATHING AND MENTAL VISUALISATIONS.
Could you direct me to any research establishing that 1) merely skipping a meal and getting 1/3 of one's normal night's sleep results in a medical condition known as "adrenal depletion" and 2) such condition systematically influences breathing, heart rate, blood pressure, and perspiration in ways that are generally beneficial to polygraph examinees? I would personally prefer to go into a polygraph interrogation well-nourished, well-rested, and mentally sharp.
QuoteI know you have your viewpoint George - via TLBTLD - but my experiences are real life.
The experiential (but scientifically unsupported) claims of the polygraph community regarding the validity of polygraphy lead me to be skeptical of anecdotal evidence (http://www.skepdic.com/testimon.html) such as that which you have presented. Any additional information would be welcome.
Hi George,
Your reply ended with a strange assumption. Nowhere was I claiming validity
for polygraphy. I was claiming it's invalidity.
As I did say - my experiences with the practice of CM's is related to in-house
experience - because I did not believe the BS that the APA et al puts out.
Pneumos: There has to be a pneumogram. No examiner will administer a test
without pneumos attached. now interestingly- you quote APA related research
data iro pneumograms. George - it is all BS. Pneumos are a bitch. In many
association meetings and at 'ongoing education workshops' it has come to my
attention that most examiners are confused by pneumograms. (note: I say that
p/g is BS )
I must be quite a bit older than you, because I remember the days when GSR was
still referred to as GSC (Conductance) - old habits die hard. The latter day p/g prophets
now refer to Control Q's as Comparison Q's but -- old habits - I still say 'Control'
(bite me )
Meds etc. I did say got to a doctor - so that any possible contra-indications are considered
when a prescription is written for the subject. Better to say that you have taken something
in case a drug question is included - then one does not have to lie. Prescribed meds are not
what examiners have in mind when they test for drugs -- come on George. No cheap shots.
In any decent polygraph school (possibly not Marston Academy) the Instructor will teach candidate
examiners about the effects of adrenal depletion. Like most useful and effective CM's - you wont
find much literature about the subject - it is a well kept secret. In our firm we tried the Adrenal
Depletion technique. It works. The object is not to impress the examiner on how preppy, bright
eyed and bushy tailed you are - but to pass the test.
I invite any openminded and unbiased p/g examiners out there to pass comment iro George
and 1904's viewpoints.
1904,
I didn't mean to suggest that you were supporting the validity of polygraphy. Rather, my point was that just as I'm skeptical of anecdotal claims by polygraph proponents in support of the validity of polygraphy, I'm also skeptical of anecdotal claims regarding the efficacy of undocumented countermeasures. Anecdotal claims (on both sides) may be sincere, but they can also be sincerely mistaken. So when an anonymous claim based on personal experience is made about a novel countermeasure approach, I'd be interested to see more evidence.
Regarding pneumo tubes, I didn't quote APA research, but rather DoDPI's (or, nowadays, DACA's) scoring criteria. Whether polygraphers are confused by pneumo tracings or not, it seems to me based on the current scoring criteria that increasing one's breathing rate or depth when the relevant questions are asked creates the risk of producing a scorable reaction. I don't see the advantage of doing this over simply returning to a baseline breathing pattern that won't produce a scorable reaction.
Regarding GSC, it seems my assumption that you had made an error was premature. Some polygraph instruments do indeed measure conductance rather than resistance. But GSR (galvanic skin response) or, interchangeably, EDR (electrodermal response) are the more commonly used terms.
I don't think that seeking a prescription for a medication one cannot name is well-advised. My observation that telling a polygrapher one has taken a prescription drug without a prescription can lead to an unwelcome interrogation about drug use was not intended as a cheap shot. Such has indeed happened, and abuse of prescription drugs may be grounds for disqualification.
Thanks also for your additional explanation regarding "adrenal depletion," though I must say I don't find it particularly convincing.
Quote from: George W. Maschke on May 29, 2007, 11:10 AM1904,
I didn't mean to suggest that you were supporting the validity of polygraphy. Rather, my point was that just as I'm skeptical of anecdotal claims by polygraph proponents in support of the validity of polygraphy, I'm also skeptical of anecdotal claims regarding the efficacy of undocumented countermeasures. Anecdotal claims (on both sides) may be sincere, but they can also be sincerely mistaken. So when an anonymous claim based on personal experience is made about a novel countermeasure approach, I'd be interested to see more evidence.
George,
You're good at this. Some 4000 debates later - I would not have expected any less.
Somebody pissed you off big time. You've obviously devoted a chunk of your life to
reading research on polygraph, but I gather that you've never actually been an examiner.
I'm not saying this in a derogatory manner. I just admire your dedication to the subject as
a non-examiner.
If more examiners knew their subject as well as you did, there would be fewer examiners.
And that would not be a bad thing. P/G should be used as an investigation aid only. No hard
and fast decisions should be made on the result of a p/g test.
I have been waiting for somebody on this site to ask me why I'm a hypocrite, because I believe that
p/g is not science and can be beaten easily by anyone with half a brain. So then why do I
continue to train examiners?
PS: I tell them " This is not science. It is an investigative aid, to be used only when a physical investigation has stalled. The p/g has no Aritificial Intelligence. It is a dumb instrument.
The quality of the output relies on the quality of the input. ie- Examiner Skill.
Remember: shit in = shit out"
Have you ever met the p/g fraternity en masse? Viewing a crowd of them at an association meeting
is like watching lemmings preparing to leap into the unknown. I have been seriously unimpressed.
The association abounds with egomaniacs and bullshi**ers. They remind me of rodeo riders.
Always competing with each others war stories. Contributing massively to Global Warming.
What is your 9-5 George ?
Aloha
1904
1904
Maybe most posters are like me. Leary of jumping in because I can't figure out where you're going with your posts and don't want to look like an ass. And I used used to be a rodeo rider for a very short time. Four attempts at bulls and never stayed on one more than 4 seconds. Retired quickly. I was more successful as the clown because I could RUN.
If you are being truthful (no reason to not believe) I admire you for posting your convictions. I believe as you that it is nothing more than an investigative tool. However, when a polygrapher lies and tells a subject that he failed (when he actually passed) in an attempt to gain a confession is wrong and the polygrapher should be banned from the practice.
1904,
I am indeed impressed that your willing to share your knowlege. And in all honesty have enjoyed the postings. I am sure some of our local polygraphers who are not so happy your posting. But one has to ask why ? This answer carries alot of weight in regards to your stock on this board. As with all things here, it is taken with a grain of salt and some analysis. I look forward to your response !!
Regards ...
Quote from: Twoblock on May 29, 2007, 12:21 PM1904
Maybe most posters are like me. Leary of jumping in because I can't figure out where you're going with your posts and don't want to look like an ass. And I used used to be a rodeo rider for a very short time. Four attempts at bulls and never stayed on one more than 4 seconds. Retired quickly. I was more successful as the clown because I could RUN.
If you are being truthful (no reason to not believe) I admire you for posting your convictions. I believe as you that it is nothing more than an investigative tool. However, when a polygrapher lies and tells a subject that he failed (when he actually passed) in an attempt to gain a confession is wrong and the polygrapher should be banned from the practice.
Twoblock - I am sincere. I have no faith in something I have dabbled in for many years.
What a double standard!! However, I have never ever engaged in that BS manouevre of
telling an examinee that he has failed (when actually NDI or INC ) - not for any reason.
I agree with you that to do so should incur strict censure.
Thankfully, I am able to change my future - getting out of the business
Quote from: EosJupiter on May 29, 2007, 07:59 PM1904,
I am indeed impressed that your willing to share your knowlege. And in all honesty have enjoyed the postings. I am sure some of our local polygraphers who are not so happy your posting. But one has to ask why ? This answer carries alot of weight in regards to your stock on this board. As with all things here, it is taken with a grain of salt and some analysis. I look forward to your response !!
Regards ...
Hi - Lets say it's a cleansing ritual. I have spent many years and loads of cash undergoing
basic p/g training, advanced training, refreshers etc in addition to acquiring several other DOD
technologies and techniques.
I have often been engaged in fierce argument with other p/g examiners when disputing their calls and then made it my personal quest to prove my findings - if they were different and often they were.
Too many p/g examiners sell their souls in order to get repeat business or to satisfy someone else's
suspicions. I never sold results and I pissed off a lot of people in doing so.
EG: " Please test these four subjects. We know that subject A did it, but we 'need to prove it' "
That type of statement is enough to motivate many p/g examiners to turn in a DI result notwithstanding
the scores achieved.
Since 1995, whenever I have administered an apparatus test (p/g or cvsa ) I have presented the
apparatus to convince the subject that the computer wizadry is finding him/her DI if that was the
result of my Statement and Kinesic Analysis. I have proven to myself, that SA and Kinesics is
the most powerful DOD tool. SA is also not a verifiable science, because it relies ultimately on a
confession or conviction to notch up accuracy points, but every time I have been involved in a
major fraud investigation, SA has led to a high rate of conviction. The fact is that it is not easy to lie
and subjects own words give them away. SA is wonderful stuff.
How's my stock doin ?
1904,
Stock market says value is going up. Welcome to the board, your opinions should make for some very stimulating
messages. QuickFix, Lienot, Palerider, or any of our other lurking polygraphers, I do believe they will find you most entertaining, if not annoying.
And as I suspected long ago, the use of SA & KA seems to be a common use tactic by most of the polygraphers. Both subjects worthy of study
and counterable. Walters book on the subject is worth reading. I would have prefered to see a more basic reason for you posting
as revenge or payback. But cleansing works for me. The way you worded your response says it all.
Regards ....
Quote from: polycrap32123 on May 23, 2007, 09:15 PMThanks for the feed back guys, this will really help and i wanted t ask underlyingtruth something,
what CM's have you used for you exams?
Sorry it took me so long to respond. I've been on vacation and I don't tend to visit here as much as I did in the past. Selfishly, since I have had success in using CMs multiple times, it's become a non-issue for me and has lost my interest.
I prefer to use tongue biting, but I'm always prepared to use sphincter contractions if both sides of my face are visible, or mental CM if there is a sensor pad. Some of my previous posts talk specifically about CMs that I have used in the past.
I would not tell anybody to use breathing CMs unless they have some experience in breath control, as I do. I lock in a pattern of rate and depth before the chart begins, and I stick with it until the test is completely done. I actually count 1-mississippi, 2, 3, 4 in, and 1, 2, 3, 4 out. When I answer Yes or No, the pattern is naturally interrupted and I resume it from the point I left off. If it is a CQ, I stop counting, answer the question, and resume after an appropriate amount of time – depending on the pace of the test 5-20 seconds.
My goal is not to use a breathing CM, but rather to make it a negligible point by being precisely consistent. I don't know for certain that THIS method of breathing has any impact on the outcome at all, but my personal experience says it works for me.
Again, I have used tongue biting every time, have never been accused of it, and have always passed.
Quote from: 1904 on May 30, 2007, 11:02 AM
Twoblock - I am sincere. I have no faith in something I have dabbled in for many years.
What a double standard!! However, I have never ever engaged in that BS manouevre of
telling an examinee that he has failed (when actually NDI or INC ) - not for any reason.
I agree with you that to do so should incur strict censure.
Thankfully, I am able to change my future - getting out of the business
I look forward to reading more of your posts, though it may be with some scrutiny since antipolygraph posts from an examiner are unusual. Don't take it personally though, I don't think anybody on here explicitly trust any single poster - otherwise we wouldn't be here.
Quote from: EosJupiter on May 30, 2007, 01:07 PM1904,
Stock market says value is going up. Welcome to the board, your opinions should make for some very stimulating
messages. QuickFix, Lienot, Palerider, or any of our other lurking polygraphers, I do believe they will find you most entertaining, if not annoying.
And as I suspected long ago, the use of SA & KA seems to be a common use tactic by most of the polygraphers. Both subjects worthy of study
and counterable. Walters book on the subject is worth reading. I would have prefered to see a more basic reason for you posting
as revenge or payback. But cleansing works for me. The way you worded your response says it all.
Regards ....
Mmm. I attended a lecture of Stan Walters. Have 3 of his books I think. Plus his little pocketbook guide. Stan is a showman. Knowledgeable, but just a tad too OTT. But, as you said, a worthwhile read. I am an avaricious (?) reader of any DOD material. It is amazing how much there is out there. A lot of interesting material but also a lot of BS - I'm trying to remember a large, hard bound coffee table size book i bought on SA - by some clown - it was total utter crap. Too lazy to walk to my study right now - think he was a Wendell somebody. What a plonker. Tried to reinvent SA (CBCA) with a dash of KA. Dont buy it, unless you're short of a paperweight.
Quote from: underlyingtruth on May 30, 2007, 02:13 PMQuote from: 1904 on May 30, 2007, 11:02 AM
Twoblock - I am sincere. I have no faith in something I have dabbled in for many years.
What a double standard!! However, I have never ever engaged in that BS manouevre of
telling an examinee that he has failed (when actually NDI or INC ) - not for any reason.
I agree with you that to do so should incur strict censure.
Thankfully, I am able to change my future - getting out of the business
I look forward to reading more of your posts, though it may be with some scrutiny since antipolygraph posts from an examiner are unusual. Don't take it personally though, I don't think anybody on here explicitly trust any single poster - otherwise we wouldn't be here.
Yip. I noticed that I am viewed with some suspicion. But take a step back and look again.
I dont need to have a hidden agenda because I have no intention of revealing my identity
to this forum - maybe to one person that I think I might have met before - but otherwise we're
all just 'usernames' on a board. Better that way.
Fact: I have been in the DOD industry a long long time. I have alienated myself from many of my peers because I told them that we are dabbling in smoke and mirrors bullshit and that too many (not all) of them have sold their souls.
Fact: I instruct but have not tested for real issues a coupla years now. It depresses me.
I tell students clearly, "Most of the people that you will test, over 95%, should be NDI. Your
function is not to try and be a hangman. Use your skill to help subjects to pass. The process is
unnatural, intimidating and designed to prejudice mere mortals. The guilty do not need any assistance from you. They will, if guilty, fail all by themselves. They do not need your assistance to fail.
When you get Incon's - and you will get plenty - give the subject the benefit of doubt. The entire
subject of CM's is a mindf***. Dont go there. There are so many undetectable CM's - let it go.
We are not dealing with science. You will have VF's and when you do, hope to GOD that you have
erred on the right side. If you ruin an innocent persons life, you have your own to live with. Use this
technology with extreme care. "
Quote from: 1904 on May 30, 2007, 03:47 PMQuote from: underlyingtruth on May 30, 2007, 02:13 PMQuote from: 1904 on May 30, 2007, 11:02 AM
Twoblock - I am sincere. I have no faith in something I have dabbled in for many years....Fact: I have been in the DOD industry a long long time. I have alienated myself from many of my peers because I told them that we are dabbling in smoke and mirrors bullshit and that too many (not all) of them have sold their souls.
1904,
You seem a bit "disgruntled." Have you considered a different line of work?? :-/
Regards,
Nonombre
Nonombre
What a novel idea! Still the profound thinker, HUH?
You or any of your government peers care to debate 1904? However, be careful. He seems to be as sharp as Eosjupiter. You remember him, don't you.
I love his defining signature and even you "can be a legend in your lunch time"
TwoBlock,
Thanks for the compliment. !! I do believe that some of our resident polygraphers may be a little upset that "1904" has decided to really live up to the "Dedicated to Truth" motto. About time we get someone with the knowlege and Huevos Grande to tell it like it is. It beats hiding behind a message board that only polygraphers get to view and comment. To this end I am impressed.
Regards ....
Quote from: nonombre on May 30, 2007, 09:11 PMQuote from: 1904 on May 30, 2007, 03:47 PMQuote from: underlyingtruth on May 30, 2007, 02:13 PMQuote from: 1904 on May 30, 2007, 11:02 AM
Twoblock - I am sincere. I have no faith in something I have dabbled in for many years....Fact: I have been in the DOD industry a long long time. I have alienated myself from many of my peers because I told them that we are dabbling in smoke and mirrors bullshit and that too many (not all) of them have sold their souls.
1904,
You seem a bit "disgruntled." Have you considered a different line of work?? :-/
Regards,
Nonombre
NONOMBRE - HI
If you dig up some of my earlier posts you will read that I AM exiting the ignoble and unprofessional
polygraph and cvsa industry. I started up a totally different business several years ago, with the intention of baling out of p/g. At last I am free of the Lies Of The Lie Detector.
Are you still stuck in that deceitful rut............?????
Break Free .... you know you want to... :)
1904,
Although I do not have any current plans to "break free" of my chosen profession, your post does interest me. What calling have you now chosen to pursue (if you don't mind me asking?)
Nonombre
Quote from: underlyingtruth on May 30, 2007, 01:33 PMQuote from: polycrap32123 on May 23, 2007, 09:15 PMThanks for the feed back guys, this will really help and i wanted t ask underlyingtruth something,
what CM's have you used for you exams?
I would not tell anybody to use breathing CMs unless they have some experience in breath control, as I do. I lock in a pattern of rate and depth before the chart begins, and I stick with it until the test is completely done. I actually count 1-mississippi, 2, 3, 4 in, and 1, 2, 3, 4 out. When I answer Yes or No, the pattern is naturally interrupted and I resume it from the point I left off. If it is a CQ, I stop counting, answer the question, and resume after an appropriate amount of time – depending on the pace of the test 5-20 seconds.
My goal is not to use a breathing CM, but rather to make it a negligible point by being precisely consistent. I don't know for certain that THIS method of breathing has any impact on the outcome at all, but my personal experience says it works for me.
Again, I have used tongue biting every time, have never been accused of it, and have always passed.
Sorry,
I glossed over this part the first time. I think that your breathing CM should work fairly well and if you have it down pat - then well done. I would assume that this would work better with people who breathe shallow - ie slight built and not athletic. Because even if you are controlling the timing, are you controlling the depth...? If a subject of mine was breathing regular and fairly deep, I would be suspicious
and would break that cycle, by telling them to take DEEP breaths - 3 breaths after scoring cycles.
I think my breathing CM is possibly better..ie - breathe 'normally' but produce reactions on the CQ's and reflief on the RQ's........but that's just one mans opinion. whatever works for you shouldn't be meddled with.
Keep on keeping on.......
Quote from: nonombre on May 31, 2007, 06:27 PM1904,
Although I do not have any current plans to "break free" of my chosen profession, your post does interest me. What calling have you now chosen to pursue (if you don't mind me asking?)
Nonombre
Hi There,
In my spare time I write poetry. Some of my poetry has been published over the years.
I am busy writing books at the mo - without giving away too much - one is about how we inherit
more than just physical dna but also psychological dna - it would be classified as fiction with
a good splodge of humour.
The other is a work of satire - lampooning politicians.
I bought into properties years back - a good investment that has produced rewards.
Are you pvt or fed ..?
1904
Nonombre has a history of not answering questions. Ask Eosjupitor. If he does, it is with another question. He has stated that he's not a fed. BUT?? He sure knew all about George's FBI poly. He likes to gather infomation but is extremely reluctant about revealing any. His replies are mostly attacks. Doesn't have the ability to debate.
If I don't know enough to intelligently debate a subject, I will immediately say so and back out of the debate and will only re-enter when the attacks begin.
If you don't mind, I will pvt/message you about your book writing. I can write a motion picture script (with POV's, etc.)but have much trouble putting the story in book form and the book should come first.
Quote from: 1904 on Jun 01, 2007, 10:04 AMQuote from: nonombre on May 31, 2007, 06:27 PM1904,
Although I do not have any current plans to "break free" of my chosen profession, your post does interest me. What calling have you now chosen to pursue (if you don't mind me asking?)
Nonombre
Hi There,
In my spare time I write poetry. Some of my poetry has been published over the years.
I am busy writing books at the mo - without giving away too much - one is about how we inherit
more than just physical dna but also psychological dna - it would be classified as fiction with
a good splodge of humour.
The other is a work of satire - lampooning politicians.
I bought into properties years back - a good investment that has produced rewards.
Are you pvt or fed ..?
1904,
I have been a law enforcement examiner for awhile now. I conduct pre-employment and criminal specific issue polygraph exams. Truly the most fun I have had since kicking down doors on the drug team (in my much younger days).
I am sorry that polygraph turned out to not work out for you. I truly hope your future efforts are fruitful and make sure to let us know about your book(s) once they are published.
Regards,
Nonombre 8-)
Nonombre,
Thanks for your good wishes. I am going to try and do a deal with amazon
iro sole distribution rights and see if they will absorb some of the
printing / publishing costs, base don sales of my previous book.
I wrote a book previously. It sold well. Thought I would use the same avenue
again as the % split was very fair. But, the old crowd changed hands and so
I have to start knocking on doors all over again.
This time around I want to go for a bigger market.
I think that door kicking must have made you a HBP patient.
Shit. every next time you kick a door it could be your last time.
Your family must have been very pleased when you gave that one up.
If you post from your work place and your Identity is known there, then I would understand
that you cannot answer my next question with sincerity.
Q: Dont you often admit to yourself that this technology has less than desirable accuracy..?
If you dont answer.....no sweat.
Quote from: 1904 on Jun 04, 2007, 09:28 AMIf you post from your work place and your Identity is known there, then I would understand that you cannot answer my next question with sincerity.
Q: Dont you often admit to yourself that this technology has less than desirable accuracy..?
If you dont answer.....no sweat.
Actually I don't mind answering. You see I am actually a fairly simple guy and I see the "accuracy" of my work this way: I do two kinds of tests, screening and specific issue. In the case of screening, I have found that the vast majority of the folks who fail subsequently give up disqualifying information which would preclude them from becoming police officers in the first place.
In the case of specific issue tests, even MORE of those folks who fail, subsequently confess to the crime and in many cases give me information or evidence only the guilty party would have known, in other words a "confirmed" confession.
Now I am no scientist, and don't know a whole lot about research, but as far as I am concerned, those numbers speak for the accuracy of what I do. I have lost track of the number of good, solid, cases that would have never been made had it not been for polygraph...
But I will admit that polygraph is certainly a contraversial line of work. There are times I wish I did something more accepted by others....
Maybe politics?
Regards,
Nonombre 8-)
Nonombre,
You can polygraph politicians !! Not only would I openly support you, I would even donate money for that, but I do believe you would have open support from all sides on this debate. When politicians and lawyers lips are moving they are lying. So on that premise, it could be a win-win for all concerned. Just a thought !! ;)
Regards !!!
Quote from: nonombre on Jun 04, 2007, 10:17 PMQuote from: 1904 on Jun 04, 2007, 09:28 AMIf you post from your work place and your Identity is known there, then I would understand that you cannot answer my next question with sincerity.
Q: Dont you often admit to yourself that this technology has less than desirable accuracy..?
If you dont answer.....no sweat.
Now I am no scientist, and don't know a whole lot about research, but as far as I am concerned, those numbers speak for the accuracy of what I do. I have lost track of the number of good, solid, cases that would have never been made had it not been for polygraph...
Hi,
But you didn't actually quote any numbers (stats). I also scored many confessions in my time. however I agree with the viewpoint of others that DOD technology is really used to elicit confessions and cannot distinguish truth from deception with scientifically validated certainty. And therefore it is not science and should never be touted as such.
Its an investigation / interrogation tool. Nothing more. Nothing less.
Politics. ha. I always think of Arnie when I think of politicians. I can imagine him kicking down doors for votes. He should be tested to verify where his support truly lies. ?????
yea... so... I didnt really follow most of the procedures explained... however i was able to use the tack in the shoe trick. To say the least my test came back inconclusive, and the examiner said it was more on the truthful side than deceptive. Basically he went through the same questionare of 10 questions about 5 times. He went the through the first set and what I didnt was push on the tack to keep my heart elavated and tried to keep a steady breating rate, completely concious of my breating rate... I kept it slow and steady. Next he the stim test i believe is what it was called.... it was the numbers test... He told me to pick a number between 2 - 9. I picked 7, he told me lie on that number. So when he went thru the numbers I let off the tack at numbers 2-6, when he wanted me to lie on number 7 I pushed on the tack to make my heart rate go up, let off the tack on numbers 8-9. After that he did the 10 question set questionare. In which what I was hoping, I provided a false "lie" on his chart (when i pressed on the tack on the number 7 during the stim test). I proceeded to Press on the tack the whole time during the questionare, when I answered the question I let off the tack. I mixed it u a little as I really wasnt sure what I was doing... So afterawhile I just pressed on the tack trying to raise my heartrate DURING when the question was asked, I answered then let off tack. I stepped on the tack... and raised my heartrate as soon as he begin the next question. All the while I kept my breathing rate steady. I think it worked as he said my results were inconclusive and more on the truthful side. What do you guys think? Did I do it right? Well I know it worked... but I would like to perfect it more... as I may have more polygraphs latter.... In fact I think the polygrapher was mad, cuz he was like and I quote, " You'll probably be seeing me later down the road."
I wouldn't classify an inconclusive result as a win. I've never tried the tack in the shoe CM because it seems too difficult for me to employ. What was the purpose of this exam? Seems to me that he meant you will be retaking a poly in the near future due to the inconclusive result.
I think the 'tack in shoe' tactic is about the dumbest ever.
I mean, what is the examiner supposed to think when subjects come limping into
the examination room. If the tack isnt making contact when they walk, then they
basically have no chance to make it work later in the test - any subject doing the
'foot jive' would automatically give themselves away.
Control and selective manipulation of breathing, coupled with distracted focus
is the way to go....but one does need a fair amount of IQ to get it right.
I wonder if there's a market for an 'anti-poly wonder tack'.
Works by remote control of a switch linked to the sphincter.
Activating yr sphincter creates 1 CM response while the electric tack shocks the
hell out of you - sending your GSR soaring.
Just a thought. Use it. Dont use it.
Quote from: 1904 on Jun 11, 2007, 11:48 AMI think the 'tack in shoe' tactic is about the dumbest ever.
I mean, what is the examiner supposed to think when subjects come limping into
the examination room. If the tack isnt making contact when they walk, then they
basically have no chance to make it work later in the test - any subject doing the
'foot jive' would automatically give themselves away.
You took the words right out of my mouth, but I was trying to be... (wait for it)... TACTFUL! LOL
Quote from: underlyingtruth on Jun 12, 2007, 02:43 AMQuote from: 1904 on Jun 11, 2007, 11:48 AM
You took the words right out of my mouth, but I was trying to be... (wait for it)... TACTFUL! LOL
Good One..!!!!
Damn. I wish I had said that.
On a different tack however..(haha) I am somewhat amused by the crop of of people visiting this site,
that have dodgy backgrounds ( " I did some stuff, but i'm law abiding now" ) and whom want to become
law enforcement officers...? Go figure.
I wonder if anyone has ever undertaken any psychological research into why people (to differing degrees) with criminal history become so hell bent on becoming Cops. Do you think that they have
a different perception of what the uniform stands for - as compared to normal people?
Do they perceive the uniform as a means to commit criminal acts without the usual fear of being apprehended ?
Do they perceive cops as being criminals with sponsored clothing ?
Reading world news, it seems to be a common thread running through many societies.
Time to muse.
Quote from: 1904 on Jun 13, 2007, 10:34 AM
On a different tack however..(haha) I am somewhat amused by the crop of of people visiting this site,
that have dodgy backgrounds ( " I did some stuff, but i'm law abiding now" ) and whom want to become
law enforcement officers...? Go figure.
I wonder if anyone has ever undertaken any psychological research into why people (to differing degrees) with criminal history become so hell bent on becoming Cops. Do you think that they have
a different perception of what the uniform stands for - as compared to normal people?
Do they perceive the uniform as a means to commit criminal acts without the usual fear of being apprehended ?
Do they perceive cops as being criminals with sponsored clothing ?
Reading world news, it seems to be a common thread running through many societies.
Time to muse.
I think it is likely that many people today do whatever they like the majority of the time, especially younger people. They don't give much thought to what is legal or illegal, only to what their friends are doing and what seems like fun.
Fast forward a couple of years and they decide they'd like to pursue a career that tends not to hire people who behaved irresponsibly over an extended period of time, or showed a very significant lack of judgment a limited number of times, or even a single time.
Many of these people feel completely comfortable decrying the unfairness and the illogic of disqualifying police applicants for activities many of their friends engaged in regularly. They have a very difficult time recognizing their past behavior as irresponsible and lacking in good judgment because they and all of their friends engaged in it regularly. Their barometer is off; they see such behavior as normal and don't understand that other people, even in their teen-age years, were able to recognize hallucinogen usage as wrong, and were able to recognize shoplifting as wrong, and were able to recognize selling their parent's prescriptions was wrong, etc...
I don't believe children are born with any sort of moral compass. It must be instilled in them by their parents.
When it is not, they become used to doing whatever they want and whatever feels good. When they are later told that their past behavior is unacceptable they become indignant.
Hi, I more or less agree with your viewpoint. It is a subject that a few people could debate, with only slightly differing viewpoints, yet for hours on end.
I come from a dysfunctional family background. My father was a rogue.
looking back, i am convinced that he was a sociopath. He defied rules ans
laws; lived by his own credo and pretty much justified eveything that he
did.
Which makes me an exception to the rule. I had no positive role models.
We used to move home at midnight. Not just changing neighbourhoods -
we used to move hundreds of miles at a time.
I was poorly educated, until I left home at age 16 and went my own way.
I put myself through college. Held down decent jobs. Attended further learning
courses. Opened my own businesses, made profit, sold and moved on.
I found my niche in investigation - I guess I always had an innate knack to
'read' people. Fraud investigation led me to the DOD industry. Some years
back I invested with a property club and can now indulge myself somewhat.
My father really led a miserable life. He married a woman that gave him back
all his BS in spades.
And now I have 2 spoiled brats that pretty much fit your story.
Fun, isn't it...?