AntiPolygraph.org Message Board

In a recent post (http://www.polygraphplace.com/ubb/NonCGI/Forum1/HTML/000094.html) to the PolygraphPlace.com message board, moderator Paul Woolley (user name "lielabs") recently commented with disapproval on antipolygraph websites. Since that message board, unlike AntiPolygraph.org, is censored, and polygraph critics like myself are not welcome to post messages there, I shall post a response here and e-mail a note to Mr. Woolley.

Dear Mr. Woolley,

I read your response to Duc748 on the PolygraphPlace.com message board, wherein you expressed certain negative views regarding unnamed antipolygraph websites. Since the message to which you replied had only mentioned AntiPolygraph.org, I assume that this website falls within the scope of your commentary.

In your post, you claimed, "These Anti sites create more problems for people than they ever resolve." How do you know this to be true? Please support your claim, if you can. I hope you'll take the opportunity to explain to visitors to AntiPolygraph.org precisely how this site will create more problems for them than it will ever resolve.

You also claimed, "Misinformation and paranoia is the driving force there." Please identify any misinformation you have identified on this website, and we will correct it.

With regard to countermeasures, you wrote:

QuoteMaking people beleive that a polygraph test is easy to beat (if they are lying)is a statement clearly refuted by research.
Rovner in 1986 made a booklet on how to beat a polygraph much more detailed and precise than anything available, including the lie behind the lie detector and Douggy Williams money machine. For research purposes all programmed guilty subjects were unable to beat the test simply by reading about it or discussing it. In 1994 Honts ,Raskin and Kircher reached the same conclusions simply reading or talking on the internet about ways to beat the test will not make a guilty person pass a polygraph.

Nonsense. To begin with, Rovner's research to which you refer was never accepted for publication in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. It was published instead in the American Polygraph Association's quarterly trade publication, Polygraph. Rovner's article doesn't provide the text of his article on how to beat a polygraph, nor does it provide an adequate explanation of just what information was provided to subjects and under what conditions, which makes it impossible to draw any reasonable inferences regarding the potential effects on "control" question "test" polygraphy of a subject's knowledge of polygraph procedure and countermeasures.

While Honts has claimed in court that his research indicates that simply being presented with information about countermeasures is not adequate to beat the "test," but that hands-on training is required, he has drawn a conclusion that goes well beyond the evidence of his research. His "information only" subjects received at maximum a mere 15 minutes of verbal instruction on polygraphy under conditions where they had little incentive to apply themselves to the task (jeopardy was absent). For further discussion, see my earlier post, A Criticism of Honts' Testimony on Countermeasures (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=23.msg59#msg59).

You also wrote, "The funny thing about anti sites is that if you used countermeasures and told the truth you beat the polygraph [sic]." Tell me, Mr. Woolley, where on this website (or any other antipolygraph site to which you might have been referring) is it claimed that if one used countermeasures and told the truth (and passed) one has beaten the polygraph? What? You can't find the quote? Could it be that your "funny thing" was merely a confabulation (http://skepdic.com/confab.html) on your part?

Next, you claim, "A lot of people reading how to [sic] come unstuck and ruin their chances because they fall victim to the hype." Please support this claim with specific examples. And again, please explain what you mean by "hype."

Finally, with regard to your claim, "A normal honest person will have no trouble passing a test," on what basis do you make this claim? Please be specific. There is near universal agreement in the scientific community that polygraph screening is completely invalid.

I eagerly await your reply, Mr. Woolley (if you're not afraid to defend your arguments in an uncensored arena).

Dear George,

Firstly let me say that my comments were to duc748 and were not directed at any particular site only that he had read both sides and decided that your side was helping undesireables in his opinion.

Because you seem eager to debate me and seem passionate about what you are saying I will respond to your questions .I have done this before with shropshire lad on the nopolygraph site who understood that I did not want to be insulted or attacked and the same goes here because at the end of the day no one is going to change anyones mind and I will keep it on a friendly level and will expect the same or I am not interested.

The first comment I make in regard to creating problems is in relation to the use of countermeasures. Unless someone has access to a trained examiner and polygraph to practice on their chances of pulling off a false negative are small if they are lying. They will increase their chances of being caught using them, and if they are truthful which by your comments everyone should use them because polygraph results are going to victimise innocent people most of the time.

There are a number of cases were people have been caught using countermeasures and they did create problems for themselves as a result.If they were truthful and using them and got caught even worse.

Misinformation is that innocent people are almost always called deceptive. Duc 748 is evidence that  is not true along with a few others posting to us . Polygraph accuracy is as good as chance this has also been refuted by Lykken in a letter to Raskin stateing in his opinion polygraph was 90% accurate if conducted by a competant and skilled examiner.
Iacono also admitted under cross that in his opinion polygraph results were about 75% accurate.  Lykken was also an expert witness for the admission of polygraph evidence.I only mention this because it seems that his ideas influence the scope of this site and hence misleading information.
You cannot guarantee that readers will be able to effectively use countermeasures, yet they are told it is easy to do.
Anyone who  states they pulled it off are admitting they lied on the test and that is who you helped.

You have no scientific support for countermeasures either yet
people are led to beleive they work you have no more proof than I do that they don't.  
Doug Williams does not offer a money back guarantee for his manual if it does not work, which you and I both know will not work everytime for everyone .
I read it on nopolygraph site about telling the truth and passing or stoppolygraph one of them and putting it down to countermeasure use, months ago when talking with shropshire lad and no it is not a confabulation as you put it. Fredfighter responded to the post by correctly calling it a co-measure at the time.

My definition of hype innocent people will all fail screening polygraph tests . I make the claim normal innocent people will pass a polygraph based on reports from the Doe with no false positive errors and the DOD . Since there is no peer reviewed scientific literature on screening that I am aware of  that is where I base my opinion.

I am not saying that errors do not occur they do,I am saying that the amount of errors you inferr occur are not supported by offical government reports. Screening studies conducted for Doe indicate poor detection rates and false positives are not the main problem in lab studies.

Screening polygraph tests are controversial and I have been following the NAS study with interest as I am sure you are.

All the best

Paul Woolley.


  

Quote from: lielabs on Mar 01, 2002, 10:01 AM
Dear George,

Firstly let me say that my comments were to duc748 and were not directed at any particular site only that he had read both sides and decided that your side was helping undesireables in his opinion.

And who, sir, is the final arbiter of who and who is not an 'undesirable'? You? Duc748?

QuoteBecause you seem eager to debate me and seem passionate about what you are saying I will respond to your questions .I have done this before with shropshire lad on the nopolygraph site who understood that I did not want to be insulted or attacked and the same goes here because at the end of the day no one is going to change anyones mind and I will keep it on a friendly level and will expect the same or I am not interested.

I agree, ad hominem attacks are counterproductive. This IS a debate, however, so as a participant in this Bulletin Board I will ask you to maintain the high level of classic debate. This means backing up statements purported to be fact by you with support, else all is merely gratuitous assertion and can be dismissed, or equally gratuitously denied. A classic example of a gratuitous assertion by you follows:

QuoteThe first comment I make in regard to creating problems is in relation to the use of countermeasures. Unless someone has access to a trained examiner and polygraph to practice on their chances of pulling off a false negative are small if they are lying. They will increase their chances of being caught using them...

To which I reply, "No, their chances of pulling off a 'false negative' are quite good, excellent even. My own experience disproves your assertion, as do the dozens of anecdotes related on this board.

QuoteThere are a number of cases were people have been caught using countermeasures and they did create problems for themselves as a result.If they were truthful and using them and got caught even worse.

This is almost verbatim what many polygraph interrogators say to their charges when the use of countermeasures is suspected but cannot be proven. It has the air of desperation and reeks of sophistry. Please support your vague assertions above with case evidence?

QuoteMisinformation is that innocent people are almost always called deceptive.

To my knowledge no one here is making that assertion. Why are you changing the subject of the debate and then responding to it?

lielabs and beech tree,
     I too have become interested in this debate. Although I'm no expert (he!!, calling me ignorant on the topic would be a compliment), and the polygraph test is over for me, I would like to comment on this site.
    Although there are people out there that look for this site, so they may cheat the system, or try to cheat the system, that is not all this site is used for. That, IMHO is the negative side to this site and one to which I don't subscribe.
    The positive side to this site, is that it is used by those that most likely failed their poly test, but where truely honest. A place for them to talk with others that the same thing may have happened. This is a good thing and should be applauded. And it's also something that can't be found on the polygraphpalace.com site.
     I have had a great discussion with several members of this board (in particular) therock about my philosphy with regards to the polygraph. Granted I'm the minority, if not the only here, with my view, there maybe others out there that now realize they don't have to use countermeasures, based on what I've said.
     That was my only reason for posting on this site.

With regards to beech trees comment:

QuoteThis is almost verbatim what many polygraph interrogators say to their charges when the use of countermeasures is suspected but cannot be proven. It has the air of desperation and reeks of sophistry. Please support your vague assertions above with case evidence?

I would say based on what I saw that some countermeasures would be seen on the graph...in particular the breathing. My polygrapher was very honest with me about the polygraph. He said straight out, that the polygraph was not pure science, but an instrument to measure changes in the human body. It's those changes that he reads. He took 6 poly's to basically take an average of all the questions he asked. Call it medicine man reading, voodoo, magic, or what have you. I found my polygraph pretty damn accurate.

Would I ever want to take another polygraph...no way. It's the equivalent of being hit with an emotional billyclub. I felt completely drained and naked at the end of my poly.

Beechtrees,

My comments are not limited to comments on this site as George challenged me on this or any other anti site.
Doug Williams maintains that an innocent person must protect themselves and use countermeasures and so do others on nopoly site.

The only proof you have to offer is anecdotes in relation to countermeasure effectiveness seeing you admit to lying on your exam and getting away with it anecdotes mentioned here may be hard to beleive .

I have caught people using countermeasures because they were sloppy and had read how to manuals off the internet on several occasions and some even admitted it adding support for Dr Honts argument that reading has no effect on accuracy rates.

These cases were not screening as I do not conduct many screening examinations mainly specifics. However I am a little baffled by your comment , no one is making that assertation here in relation to innocent people almost always being called deceptive on screening polygraph.  So is this site aimed at helping liars fool the examiner and generating false negative outcomes for deceptive applicants?.

Dear Paul,

Thanks for taking the time to reply and clarify your remarks. I understand that your comments were not directed at any one website in particular, but I think you made some generalizations that don't stand up to scrutiny, as I'll discuss below, among other things.

With regard to your claim that "these Anti sites create more problems for people than they ever resolve" you explained:

QuoteThe first comment I make in regard to creating problems is in relation to the use of countermeasures. Unless someone has access to a trained examiner and polygraph to practice on their chances of pulling off a false negative are small if they are lying. They will increase their chances of being caught using them, and if they are truthful which by your comments everyone should use them because polygraph results are going to victimise innocent people most of the time.

There are a number of cases were people have been caught using countermeasures and they did create problems for themselves as a result.If they were truthful and using them and got caught even worse.

The assertion that hands-on training is necessary for the successful employment of polygraph countermeasures is ridiculous (but no doubt comforting for the polygraph community to believe). Charles Honts has suggested that that his research indicates "that in order for  countermeasures to be effective the subject must receive some  specialized training in their use and that merely furnishing a subject with information about countermeasures does not appear to work." (testimony (http://truth.boisestate.edu/polygraph/honts.html) in United States v. William Galbreth).

But in Honts' research purporting to indicate that merely being furnished with information about polygraphy doesn't enable persons to defeat polygraph "testing" and that "hands-on training" is required, the "information only" subjects of his experiments were provided a maximum of 15 minutes of instruction!

Is it reasonable to suppose that anyone reading about how to pass a polygraph "test" will limit his study to 15 minutes?! If you were studying polygraph countermeasures -- whether to protect yourself from a false positive outcome or to deliberately deceive a polygraph examiner about relevant issues -- would you devote no more than a mere 15 minutes to it?

Moreover, those subjects who were given "hands-on training" in countermeasures received a maximum of 30 minutes of instruction. Graduate students read them a script teaching them about the theory of the "Control" Question "Test" and explaining how to apply either physical or mental countermeasures while answering the "control" questions. Then the volunteers practiced a bit. 30 minutes maximum.

But even this is an unrealistically short period of "training" for someone for whom the outcome of a polygraph "test" is of major importance. If  anything, Honts' research suggests that it takes little instruction and practice to learn how to defeat a polygraph "test."

So Honts et al.'s countermeasures studies are flimsy support for your assertion that, "Unless someone has access to a trained examiner and polygraph to practice on their chances of pulling off a false negative are small if they are lying."

You further assert that such persons, "will increase their chances of being caught using them." On what basis do you make this claim? In Honts et al.'s countermeasures studies, experienced polygraphers were unable to identify countermeasures attempts at better than chance levels.

When you say, "by your comments everyone should use [countermeasures] because polygraph results are going to victimise innocent people most of the time." Here, you've mischaracterized my comments. I've never claimed that polygraph results are going to victimize innocent people most of the time. But for innocent persons, there is a significant risk of a false positive outcome, and it is thus in their interest to do that which is possible to minimize that risk.

While there may be instances where persons have been accused of using countermeasures have admitted it, the truth of the matter is that the polygraph community has no reliable method for detecting the kinds of countermeasures described in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector, and the only way that the use of such countermeasures can be confirmed is if the subject admits it.

When you claimed that "these Anti sites create more problems for people than they ever resolve," you made a claim that you cannot possibly know to be true.

You also write:

QuoteMisinformation is that innocent people are almost always called deceptive. Duc 748 is evidence that  is not true along with a few others posting to us . Polygraph accuracy is as good as chance this has also been refuted by Lykken in a letter to Raskin stateing in his opinion polygraph was 90% accurate if conducted by a competant and skilled examiner.
Iacono also admitted under cross that in his opinion polygraph results were about 75% accurate.  Lykken was also an expert witness for the admission of polygraph evidence.I only mention this because it seems that his ideas influence the scope of this site and hence misleading information.

AntiPolygraph.org doesn't claim that "innocent people are almost always called deceptive," and I'm not aware of any other antipolygraph website that does. But innocent people are called deceptive often enough based on the pseudoscience of polygraphy that it is prudent for innocent people to take measures to protect themselves.

With regard to the validity of polygraphy, Lykken's and Iacono's (or anybody's) opinions regarding how often polygraph interrogators make correct decisions is no evidence whatsoever for the validity of the polygraph technique itself, which both Lykken and Iacono reject.

It remains the case that "control" question "test" polygraphy has not been proven by peer-reviewed research to work better than chance. And as explained in Chapter 1 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector and the sources cited there, no true validity is possible for CQT polygraphy because the procedure lacks both standardization and scientific control. Regarding this latter point, you may find Dr. Richardson's comments (http://antipolygraph.org/nas/richardson-transcript.shtml#control) to the National Academy of Sciences regarding scientific control and polygraphy to be instructive.

You also write:

QuoteYou cannot guarantee that readers will be able to effectively use countermeasures, yet they are told it is easy to do.

You're right. We cannot guarantee that readers will be able to effectively use countermeasures, but that doesn't change the fact that it's not terribly difficult to do. We provide readers with detailed information on polygraph countermeasures along with ample references that they can check. The choice of whether to use countermeasures or not is necessarily left to the reader.

QuoteAnyone who  states they pulled it off are admitting they lied on the test and that is who you helped.

It should be borne in mind, Paul, that in every polygraph examination, at least one person truly is deceptive: the polygraph examiner. The person who chooses to use polygraph countermeasures may or may not have lied with regard to the relevant questions. While AntiPolygraph.org's purpose is to help innocent/truthful persons protect themselves from polygraph abuse, it goes without saying that this same information could also be used by guilty/deceptive persons. This is unavoidable.

QuoteYou have no scientific support for countermeasures either yet people are led to beleive they work you have no more proof than I do that they don't.  

While polygraph countermeasures, like polygraphy itself, is not the kind of procedure for which any predictive validity can be determined, Honts et al.'s peer-reviewed countermeasures studies (abstracts are provided in the bibliography of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector) provide a reasonable basis for the belief that such countermeasures are simple to learn, likely to be effective, and that polygraphers cannot detect them.

With regard to your remark, "The funny thing about anti sites is that if you used countermeasures and told the truth you beat the polygraph [sic]" you explained:
 

QuoteI read it on nopolygraph site about telling the truth and passing or stoppolygraph one of them and putting it down to countermeasure use, months ago when talking with shropshire lad and no it is not a confabulation as you put it.

I somehow couldn't find the message to which you refer. Perhaps you could post a link? In any event, is it reasonable to characterize the arguments of not just one antipolygraph website, but all, on the basis of one message posted by a user of a single message board? All you've really done here is to raise a straw man argument. Nobody is claiming that if a truthful person successfully uses countermeasures to protect himself against a false positive outcome, he has somehow "beaten" the polygraph.

QuoteMy definition of hype innocent people will all fail screening polygraph tests .

AntiPolygraph.org doesn't make this claim, and I don't know of any reasonable person who does. More apparent confabulation on your part, Paul.

With regard to your claim that "[a] normal honest person will have no trouble passing a test," you explained:
 

QuoteI make the claim normal innocent people will pass a polygraph based on reports from the Doe with no false positive errors and the DOD . Since there is no peer reviewed scientific literature on screening that I am aware of  that is where I base my opinion.

Certainly, almost everyone who submits to a DOE or DoD counterintelligence-scope polygraph interrogation ultimately passes. But this is only because DOE and DoD polygraphers are ultimately ignoring the charts and giving a pass to those who don't make any substantive admissions, as I explained in a letter (http://antipolygraph.org/articles/article-011.shtml) to U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. In this context, it is precisely the honest person who admits all that is most likely to "fail," while the dishonest person who steadfastly denies everything will almost certainly be cleared in the end.

But such is not the case in other agencies, especially in pre-employment screening. About 20% of FBI applicants who make it as far as the polygraph are rejected on the basis of their polygraph results. In the Los Angeles Police Department, the comparable figure is about 50%. In the process, many truthful applicants are being wrongly branded as liars.

I agree with you that screening "tests" are controversial. But it is not just screening "tests" that are controversial: all CQT polygraphy is controversial because the procedure is, intrinsically, a fraud. But with more and more people who are subjected to polygraphy discovering "the lie behind the lie detector" for themselves, the polygraph house of cards is poised for collapse.

Again, I thank you for clarifying the comments you posted to the PolygraphPlace.com message board. If you (or anyone else in the polygraph community) find anything on AntiPolygraph.org that you think is false, misleading, or otherwise unfair, you're welcome to post your views on this message board (anonymously, if you prefer). That way, your comments will reach the growing numbers of people who are coming to this site to learn about and discuss polygraphy. (Your posts won't be deleted, like mine would be if I posted to PolygraphPlace.com.)

Dear George,

Because of the merge of nopolygraph with this site I cannot find the bulletin board that contains my posts with fred fighter and Shropshire lad they appear to have been deleted with the left over commentry of shopshire lad highlighted.

In relation to the Hont's study
Quote:
Moreover, those subjects who were given "hands-on training" in countermeasures received a maximum of 30 minutes of instruction. Graduate students read them a script teaching them about the theory of the "Control" Question "Test" and explaining how to apply either physical or mental countermeasures while answering the "control" questions. Then the volunteers practiced a bit. 30 minutes maximum.

They were also told what they were doing wrong comments recently made by Honts in the NAS investigation stated that is what made all the difference. This type of training is not available over the internet. Note that only 50% of the subjects were able to achieve a false negative adding support to my argument that it is not easy to do, if it was they all should of been able to do it. As you are aware the psychodynamics of real world situations increase responding to relevant questions which cannot be simulated in a lab situation which would make it even harder for a deceptive subject using countermeasures to pass.

Quote:
When you say, "by your comments everyone should use [countermeasures] because polygraph results are going to victimise innocent people most of the time." Here, you've mischaracterized my comments. I've never claimed that polygraph results are going to victimize innocent people most of the time. But for innocent persons, there is a significant risk of a false positive outcome, and it is thus in their interest to do that which is possible to minimize that risk.

I'm sorry that comment was directed at Doug Williams site as that is made quite clear on his front page.


Quote:
You further assert that such persons, "will increase their chances of being caught using them." On what basis do you make this claim? In Honts et al.'s countermeasures studies, experienced polygraphers were unable to identify countermeasures attempts at better than chance levels.

I base that on the employment of countermeasure detection devices particularly lafayettes latest version which will detect the sphincter pucker and most other physical countermeasures. My own experience also on several occasions without countermeasure devices I was able to correctly identify use of advice offered on internet sites.
Some subjects confessed to using c/measures after failing exams and after being accused of using them, and others after failing admitted to using c/measures that I did not detect but they had failed the exams anyway and were not happy the paid for advice did not work.

Quote:
AntiPolygraph.org doesn't claim that "innocent people are almost always called deceptive," and I'm not aware of any other antipolygraph website that does. But innocent people are called deceptive often enough based on the pseudoscience of polygraphy that it is prudent for innocent people to take measures to protect themselves.

Once again that is a claim made by Doug in very similar terms.

Quote:
While there may be instances where persons have been accused of using countermeasures have admitted it, the truth of the matter is that the polygraph community has no reliable method for detecting the kinds of countermeasures described in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector, and the only way that the use of such countermeasures can be confirmed is if the subject admits it.

Not true as far as physical countermeasures are concerned c/measure detection devices will detect the most common forms such as the sphincter pucker. As suggested on this site or another holding for 5 seconds and releasing on controls does show up and is reliable. The good thing for your people is that not many examiners use them becuase most beleive they will see them on the charts anyway. I have missed people (as explained above) so I use them and they are very effective. Even Lykken agrees it would be hard to beat an examiner who uses detection c/measure devices.  

Quote:
It remains the case that "control" question "test" polygraphy has not been proven by peer-reviewed research to work better than chance. And as explained in Chapter 1 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector and the sources cited there, no true validity is possible for CQT polygraphy because the procedure lacks both standardization and scientific control. Regarding this latter point, you may find Dr. Richardson's comments to the National Academy of Sciences regarding scientific control and polygraphy to be instructive.

I have read Richardsons comments before but Raskin ,Honts,Kircher,Rovner,Matte and many others do not agree with him when we move away from screening into specifics. Here is a peer-reviewed study that indicates polygraph at 100% if all examiners and blind evaluators are trained in the same technique ; C.Honts,Criterion development and validity of the CQT in field application,Journal of General psychology ,1996,123,309-324. 100% correlations across the board and accuracy.
Also in the Horvath study (1977) you will note that the original examiners decisions were 100% correct for both guilty and innocent subjects and also the kleinmuntz and Suzucko study (1984) the original examiners conclusions were also 100% correct for both guilty and innocent all field studies all peer-reviewed and this fact is left out of Lykkens comments in his book. Along with the fact blind evaluators were polygraph students not trained in numerical scoring and using methods unfamiliar to them with only a ninth of the normal information to make a decision on. K&S(1984).  New ASTM guidelines are standardising tests and disagreement amoung researchers is common in all forensic disciplines including PCR DNA tests.

I don't see how polygraphy will collapse as you suggest I know you like to think this is going to happen. It seems the US government is increasing usage all the time not the other way round. International usage is growing as well.
Other parameters are being researched for use in lie detection such as eeg patterns . I can see the use increasing as technology irons out some of the current problems.

sincerely,

Paul Woolley.    
  
P.S. I never post anonymously I find it annoying when it is done to me so I won't do it .  
    

Quote from: lielabs on Mar 01, 2002, 08:45 PM
Beechtrees,

The only proof you have to offer is anecdotes in relation to countermeasure effectiveness seeing you admit to lying on your exam and getting away with it...

Mr. Wooley, two people were untruthful in that room on Interrogation Day. Even if I *had* been 'truthful', you and I both know the polygraph interrogator expects me to lie.

QuoteHowever I am a little baffled by your comment , no one is making that assertation here in relation to innocent people almost always being called deceptive on screening polygraph.

Perhaps I misunderstood you then when you wrote:

QuoteMisinformation is that innocent people are almost always called deceptive.

That, Mr. Wooley, is the accusation you made by way of inference in an earlier posting in this thread. You inferred that George et al were spreading 'misinformation' by asserting that innocent people are almost always called deceptive [in a polygraph interrogation]. So, I am having difficulty with your new position, where you now write 'no one is making that assertation here in relation to innocent people almost always being called deceptive on screening polygraph' when you in fact made that accusation just a few posts ago. What gives?

QuoteSo is this site aimed at helping liars fool the examiner and generating false negative outcomes for deceptive applicants?.

You would have to ask the site owners. IMHO, this site is dedicated to exposing the fraud of polygraphy as a valid testing instrument, as well as the uses and abuses of polygraphy by the federal, state, and local governments.

Quote from: Paul Woolley on Mar 02, 2002, 11:27 PMI base that on the employment of countermeasure detection devices particularly lafayettes latest version which will detect the sphincter pucker and most other physical countermeasures.

Before I comment on this device, may I ask for any source, Internet or anywhere else, which shows that this instrument can detect a sphincter contraction? What precisely is this instrument? As I pore over the Lafayette Instrument Co. website (http://www.licmef.com/) I see no mention of this countermeasure detection device. Where is it? What is it?

Beechtrees,

The general idea protrayed on all anti sites is that polygraph will call innocent people liars without exception you will notice I was quoteing not changing my position you thought that I was making that claim I was only repeating what had been said by George my conclusions will make more sense if you read it in the cintext it was given my position remains the same only that George has a slightly different angle to Doug as George clarified his position on that subject.  

Just because an examiner expects a subject to lie does not mean the examiner has to lie to the subject to get them to . If I ask a question to a person they make the choice if they are going to answer truthfully or not I don't make that choice for them. The person does not have to be lieing anyway if they are not certain of their answer a response will be elicited. Some examiners may lie to subjects to set up controls but not all of us do, that is a generalisation that this site makes that is not true.

The c/measure device is called the 76875as it is placed on the seat and sat on by the subject also under arms and feet is an update on strain gauges that could not detect sphincter contraction very well. This was designed to detect that sort of c/measure. It works on a similar principal to cario cuffs and will detect subtle movements. Have another look at Lafayettes site you will find it there.                

Quote
Just because an examiner expects a subject to lie does not mean the examiner has to lie to the subject to get them to . If I ask a question to a person they make the choice if they are going to answer truthfully or not I don't make that choice for them. The person does not have to be lieing anyway if they are not certain of their answer a response will be elicited. Some examiners may lie to subjects to set up controls but not all of us do, that is a generalisation that this site makes that is not true.

And I agree with Paul here. My examiner didn't lie to me. Which leads me to believe that not all examiners are the devil incarnate, as this site would leave many to believe.

Duc748,

A variety of things (some contained within private correspondence so I will not comment further--I raise the issue at all only because your last post is potentially misleading to others) have made it abundantly clear that there exists considerable confusion on your part regarding the identification of control and relevant questions utilized during your exam.   I don't attribute poor pre-test research and review or a lack of ability on your part as being the root cause of your difficulty in making such identifications and distinctions.  I would strongly suggest that you consider another possibility.  I believe it quite likely that your examiner, while not necessarily telling you bold-faced lies, misled you.  I think it highly likely that you were intentionally left confused, not realizing that control questions were in fact not relevant questions and that they are not scored as such but in opposition to or in comparison with relevant questions.  You have continuously drawn significance from your experience (having taken and passed a polygraph exam) where none exists.  Nothing about your experience or your telling of it would be the basis for suggesting to others that they need not consider the use of countermeasures nor that they would not be misled by their polygraph examiner during their examination process.  You are most assuredly entitled to exuberance over your good fortune (polygraph result) and bright prospects (future career), but should not make light of the experiences of the many who visit this site and who were not so fortunate nor should you serve as an impediment to the necessary preparation of the many who will yet face polygraph screening exams.

Duc...

I would think that the Bureau sees quite a bit of intelligence in you...intelligence is one of the key things that they are looking for.  

Now USE YOUR DAMN intelligence to realize that it is totally unreasonable to project a personal experience on to an entire population.

Have you ever taken statistics before?  Have you ever learned the lesson,  "The larger the sample,  the greater it represents the population(?)"

Drew is absolutely correct in saying that your experience is insignificant.  You are one.

Dear Mr. Richardson,

I'm addressing this inquiry to you directly based on your past employment w/ the FBI. I took 2 poly tests. After the first one, the examiner told me that my answers were inconclusive, but he said several times that he believed that I had been truthful. He told me some people are not good candidates for poly tests, specifically people w/ legal background (like me). He then told me that the test would be sent to D.C. the following day for their review.
2 days later, I was contacted by another examiner who scheduled a second poly test. It is this test that I had problems w/. The second examiner knew about the first test and its results. He discussed it w/ me. I explained to him that I was very nervous because I had obviously done poorly on the first test. He asked how did I know that. I responded that the first examiner had kept asking me the same questions in each of the sets he had administered, thus leading me to believe that he had problems with my answers to those questions.
Neither the first nor the second examiner ever explained to me the proper procedure in the sense that I would only be asked the same questions; and no new questions may be asked during the test. When the first examiner failed to change his questions w/ each new set, I became more and more convinced that I was failing the test.
The second examiner did not bother to explain to me that that was how the test is administered. He never corrected my misunderstanding of the procedure. He never told me that I may only be asked the same questions and the fact that teh first examiner repeated the same questions did not mean that I had failed them.
As a consequence, when the second examiner proceeded w/ his test and when he asked me the same questions in each of the sets administered, I panicked and was worried about failing the test while taking it.
After the test, he told me that I had failed it. He then proceeded to tell me that he had the impression that I had done something very bad prior to coming to this country (over 18 years ago) and that I was hiding something. He asked what bad things have I done that are still haunting me. I had done none; I grew up in a war zone; I had no luxury in life, other than fight to survive on a daily basis. I told me about my background, about the war, and about having missed the teenage years because of war; and more importantly, I told him that I had never been exposed to any drugs (since that seemed to be his interest) and that even to this date I've never seen drugs w/ my own eyes (other than on TV and in movies). I was told on at least 4 occasions that the FBI was only interested in great, honest people, but they (the FBI) were not taking away my citizenship. Now, on the top of being misled into believing that I was failing the test (because the same questions were repeated in each test), I had to worry about my citizenship. Is that normal procedure? Was that conduct ethical? Do I have any remedies based on any of the grounds outlined above?

Fightbackk,

Because I will be occupied until later this evening, I thought I would acknowledge having seen your inquiry to me.  I will post a reply later this evening or tomorrow morning and will try to comment about various areas (polygraph validity (per se for the given test and anything that might have compromised that validity in light of the circumstances of your test, ethics of individual examiner behavior/practice, and adherence to administrative/procedural guidelines) that might have been of concern with your exam(s) and which might suggest avenues of challenge for you and further bureaucratic review on the part of the administering agency...  Regards till later, Drew Richardson

Paul,

With regard to your claim that a deceptive person will increase his chances of being found deceptive in a CQT polygraph examination by employing countermeasures unless he has received hands-on training, you clarified:

QuoteI base that on the employment of countermeasure detection devices particularly lafayettes latest version which will detect the sphincter pucker and most other physical countermeasures. My own experience also on several occasions without countermeasure devices I was able to correctly identify use of advice offered on internet sites.
Some subjects confessed to using c/measures after failing exams and after being accused of using them, and others after failing admitted to using c/measures that I did not detect but they had failed the exams anyway and were not happy the paid for advice did not work.

It's all well and fine that you've polygraphed some subjects who have confessed to using countermeasures "after failing exams and after being accused of using them" and others who have admitted it without prompting. But your experience does not provide any support for your assertion that a deceptive person increases his chances of failing a polygraph examination if he employs countermeasures absent hands-on training.

How many deceptive subjects have you polygraphed that have successfully employed countermeasures? In the great majority of such cases, you'll never know.

You raised the topic of Lafayette's latest activity sensor (model 76875AS):


It seems plausible to me that constriction of one's anal sphincter muscle might result in an air pressure change in the air pouch on the seat. So might flatulence or any muscle strain to avoid it during the in-test phase of a polygraph examination. How does one determine with this activity sensor whether any changes in pressure in any of the air pouches is the result of the subject's employment of countermeasures? If you could direct me to any published literature regarding this device, I'd be grateful.

Perhaps the Lafayette Instrument Company (http://www.licmef.com) would care to accept Drew's Polygraph Countermeasure Challenge (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=418.msg1942#msg1942). If Lafayette has any confidence at all in its product, it should gladly accept. Think of what a publicity bonanza it would be for Lafayette to have its activity sensor vindicated in this manner. Agencies that have purchasing arrangements with competitors Stoelting and Axciton would face considerable pressure to switch to countermeasure-proof Lafayette instruments equipped with the amazing model 76875AS activity sensor.

Regarding future prosects for CQT polygraphy you wrote:

QuoteI don't see how polygraphy will collapse as you suggest I know you like to think this is going to happen. It seems the US government is increasing usage all the time not the other way round. International usage is growing as well.
Other parameters are being researched for use in lie detection such as eeg patterns . I can see the use increasing as technology irons out some of the current problems.

I confess that I do rather like to think that polygraphy will collapse. But it's more than mere wishful thinking. As Drew has pointed out elsewhere (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=463.msg2131#msg2131), no amount of technology can iron out the fundamental flaws of CQT polygraphy.

But what I think is going to bring about the demise of polygraphy sooner rather than later is the revolutionary advances in information technology of recent years, in particular, the widespread availability of personal computers and easy access to information via the Internet.

Anyone with a computer and Internet access can now obtain detailed information about CQT polygraphy quickly and for free. In my experience, the reaction of the great majority of people once they discover how truth vs. deception is actually inferred in CQT polygraphy is, "What a bunch of bullshit!" (Pardon the vulgarity, but it captures the sentiment -- and often the hearer's exact words -- quite well.)

With the advent of the Internet, polygraph victims are finding each other through sites like this one and are increasingly organizing. We're working to inform precisely those people who are subjected to polygraph screening of the fraud that is being practiced against them. Increased reliance on polygraph screening in the U.S. Department of Energy and FBI is helping to hasten the day when most people who are required to submit to polygraph "testing" will understand that it's a fraud. Admissions will gradually dry up, diminishing the utility of polygraph screening, and faced with informed workforces, the polygraph charade will perforce come to an end.

AntiPolygraph.org exemplifies the kinds of changes in information technology that are going to put the kibosh on polygraphy. In the 17 months that we've been on-line, we've become the Internet's premiere source of information on polygraphy and are now averaging several hundred visits per day. The 1st edition of our free book, The Lie Behind the Lie Detector, has been downloaded 20,000+ times and was probably the most widely read book on polygraphy in 2001. A second edition is soon to be released. And, importantly, a community of polygraph opponents is coming together via this message board. All this is being done on  a shoestring budget, and none of it would have been possible a mere decade ago.

So yes, I'm rather confident that polygraphy's days are numbered.

Quote from: paul woolley on Mar 03, 2002, 08:36 PMThe c/measure device is called the 76875as it is placed on the seat and sat on by the subject also under arms and feet is an update on strain gauges that could not detect sphincter contraction very well. This was designed to detect that sort of c/measure. It works on a similar principal to cario cuffs and will detect subtle movements. Have another look at Lafayettes site you will find it there.

Yes, in fact I am intimately aware of those devices-- I have to admit in all honesty I laughed and laughed when I read your first veiled mention of it some posts ago. I'm sorry to have had a bit of fun at your expense when I inquired about these 'sensors'. You see Mr. Woolley, my polygraph interrogator used the Lafeyette LX3000-605 computerized polygraph with all the attending bangs and whistles, including scoring algorithms and your precious activity sensor (model 76875AS). Just fyi, my countermeasure technique consisted of anal pucker and visual imagery. My polygraph interrogator found me 'strongly non-deceptive'.

Perhaps he can get a refund?

May I put forth a hypothesis? You know the pads are fake, as do your fellow polygraph interrogators, yet you still make grave reference to them on this board in the hopes of perpetuating the fraud and duping the unsuspecting into fearing them.

Any thoughts?

Fightbackk,

In response to your previous inquiry posted to me:

Before addressing your question, I would like to comment briefly regarding one thing you said which I find somewhat amusing.  You indicated that your first polygrapher stated something to the effect that it was difficult to polygraph someone with a legal background.  Two points: Although I have clearly and repeatedly made clear that I believe polygraph screening to be invalid for any group of people (professional grouping or otherwise), I suspect those who use it in the polygraph community would take exception to the notion of it being unable to be used (or used with difficulty) with attorneys et al.  The reason I find this particularly amusing is that, in the not too distant past, the only way to become an agent of the FBI was to have a background in law or accounting.  A substantial number of FBI employees still have legal backgrounds.  Perhaps this FBI polygrapher should be called as a witness in any future hearings and litigation related to proposed legislation to increase polygraph screening of FBI employees...

Common sense would indicate that in addressing your question, I would begin with the notion of whether your polygraph exam was a valid instrument for determining your suitability in various areas, i.e., is it a valid diagnostic tool for determining truth in matters related to your background and of concern to the Bureau.  Although the Bureau/Justice Department has periodically through sworn testimony (given in affidavit and otherwise) admitted that various uses of polygraphy do not meet the muster and rigor of scientific scrutiny, i.e., they are not found to be widely accepted as valid by the relevant scientific community (ies), and are readily vulnerable to countermeasure efforts, overall institutional awareness and memory seems to be rather faulty.  There seems to be a bit of "have your cake and eat it to" going on.  That is, there seems to be an institutionally recognized problem with an opposing polygraph exam and result, but Bureau uses seem to go without comparable scrutiny.  Interestingly, it is the use of polygraph screening that the Bueau has decided to adopt (absolutely no scientific support) whereas it has decided to attack based on considerations of validty various uses (generally opposing defense counsel uses of and subsequent court testimony) of criminal specific issue testing (for which there exists minimal scientific support).  The bottom line to all of this is that as ridiculous as it may appear, attacking the polygraph procedure because it is not valid does not seem to be a useful approach with the Bureau.  It apparently cares that it is valid only when it chooses to care if it is valid...

Which leaves us with two other areas for inspection: ethical behavior and adherence to administrative/procedural guidelines.  Although there are many things that might be considered with the former, because you do not raise the issue, I will not address it further.  With regard to the latter...

You indicate that you were involved in a procedure that had multiple presentations (polygraph charts) of the same questions.  Presumably these questions (and your answers to these questions) had been reviewed/rehearsed in advance with you.  It would be proper to let you know in advance that you could expect to have several (usually three or four) presentations of these questions made to you while polygraphic data was being recorded.  It should also have been explained to you in advance that the only difference between these presentations would be that the question sequence would be different (and unknown to you) for each of the presentations.  It is not clear to me exactly what was done in your case, so it is hard for me to comment about whether this generally accepted procedure was followed.  With regard to specific Bureau procedures, they do exist, but because they may have changed numerous times since my formal involvement with the Bureau's polygraph research program, I cannot comment as to whether your examinations would accurately be described as in compliance.  As you may be aware, there currently exists a civil suit with four government agencies (all of whom employ polygraph screening in their applicant review process) as defendants and various applicants seeking employment with these agencies as plaintiffs in this matter.  I suspect that it would be useful for you to consult specifically with the attorney representing the plaintiffs about your experience and as to whether grievances exist stemming from your polygraph exams that might be litigated or the subject of further administrative review.  That attorney is Mr. Mark Zaid and he can be contacted telephonically at 202-371-6626.

Thank you, Mr. Richardson, for your reply.

My inquiry related to both procedures and ethical conduct.
With regard to procedures, it never explained to me that during the test I would only be asked the questions that we had discussed in advance (but they could in a different order). We went through questions. I thought the questions would be some of those I would be asked during the test so I would familiar/at ease w/ the process, but that I would be asked more, different ones. When I was asked the same questions in six separate sets of questions (each set consisting of 3 rounds each), I believed (while taking the test) that I was failing it and that that was why he was not asking new questions. I explained this to the second examiner prior to taking the test, but he never corrected me. So again I went into a second test believing that I was failing it became the examiner again was not changing his questions or asking any new ones. I thought they were repeating the questions because they wanted more reading of my answers which I thought had been read as "deceptive."
Was that ethical? The second examiner knew that I had misunderstood the process and that that had led me to be fearful during the first test, yet he never corrected me and put through a second test that brought back the same fear because he did not bother to correct me in the first place?

Also, was it acceptable/ethical conduct when the second examiner before and after the test continued to refer to my citizenship and my failing the test, and planted in me the fear of having my citizenship taking away as a result of the poly test? Not only did I have to deal w/ my fear of being giving the wrong impressions during the test (because of my misunderstanding of how the test is to be conducted), but I also had to be thinking that since I'm failing, they might initiate some proceedings involving my citizenship.

Please clarify. Thank you.

Fightbackk,

I won't repeat that which I have already described--the general procedure and explanation connected with a polygraph exam.  I see no reason whatsoever (partcularly in an applicant exam as opposed to a criminal exam) to not carefully and clearly explain in advance to the examinee what he/she could expect to occur during the polygraph process.  Not doing so would only invite non-specific reactions due to any generalized anxiety, fear, or surprise that might occur.  With regard to the citizenship issue, I can see no reason for it being raised by a polygraph examiner.  It has nothing to do with the relevant subject matter of an applicant exam.  The only reason that occurs to me for it being properly discussed is if you raised your own concerns about it and the polygraph examiner discussed the issue with you to minimize concerns that you had raised.  If you feel that there was any ethical problem(s) connected with your examination(s), I would suggest that you contact and discuss them with the Bureau's Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR).  You can reach them through the general switchboard at FBI headquarters in Washington, D.C.  The number for that switchboard is 202-324-3000.

Beechtrees,

You seem to think I have alterior motives and like to fabricate.
If you really did take a test with the most recent activity sensor you would know the pads are not fake and in fact you can increase sensitivity to detect pulse rates in the legs or buttocks . If your examiner used it properly sphincter pucker would easily show up. Seeing you are a self confessed liar and your statement about the pads being fake is not true, what other parts of your comments are fabricated to support your argument.


George,

I would not know if  I missed a deceptive subject but I do know that physical countermeasures would not have done it for them with the correct use of the aforementioned activity sensor. I also think your comment about someone holding back gas would be very different to someone self stimulating on controls in atimely manner. Anyway someone feeling that way needs to be identified to eliminate any effect it might have. I do not have any peer-reviewed literature for you to look at in relation to this device . The pressure changes in the seat can be separated from arms and feet and viewed separately sensitivity can be increased to the point where pulse rates can be detected in the seat . My comments are in relation to specific single issue exams I do not conduct screening tests as a rule and experiences mentioned above occured during the course of such formats.  

As for the use of polygraph, while use is growing despite the efforts of your people . It would seem reasonable to think that your desire is only a pipe dream and wishful thinking not a reality seeing polictical motivations to look like they are doing everything possible to deter and catch terrorists and criminals overrides any validity concerns. Increases after Sep11 occured for that very reason and actually strenghthened polygraph applications in federal agencies .

I wish you all the best in your efforts to achieve your end as you are obviously committed to your cause.

sincerely,

Paul Woolley                  

Beechtrees,

The sensor would have to be used with the LX-4000 not the 3000 you wouldn't know this as you could not pluck that info off Lafayettes site. More evidence that your story is a fabrication.

[author's note: I am editing this message to address other matters of importance raised by Mr. Woolley]

Quote from: Paul Woolley on Mar 05, 2002, 10:20 PM
Beechtrees,

The sensor would have to be used with the LX-4000 not the 3000 you wouldn't know this as you could not pluck that info off Lafayettes site. More evidence that your story is a fabrication.

From the catalog (http://www.licmef.com/downloads.htm) (page 6):

"Activity Sensor... Model 76875AS... Lafayette Instrument Company is proud to present our newly redesigned Activity Sensor. The Lafayette Model 76875AS Activity Sensor is an accessory to the Lafayette Instrument LX3000 and LX2000 computerized polygraphs..."

1. Mr. Woolley, will you be alerting Lafayette Instrument Co. about their typographical error(s)?

2. I am not aware of previous assertions on your part that my 'story' (whatever that may mean) is fabricated. Could you be more specific with your (now sweeping) mischaracterization of my posts? What parts are fabricated? Or, is it all-- everything I have ever posted here-- pure fiction, in your expert opinion? On what basis would you make such an assertion, other than your seeming disdain for what I have to say?

Paul,

You wrote:

QuoteI would not know if  I missed a deceptive subject but I do know that physical countermeasures would not have done it for them with the correct use of the aforementioned activity sensor.

How do you know that physical countermeasures would not have worked for a deceptive subject with the correct use of the Lafayette model 76875AS activity sensor?

What is the "correct" use of this activity sensor?

Paul,

Let me start by saying that I tremendously appreciate your participation in this forum. One of our goals when establishing this forum was to provide a place for free and open debate on the pros and cons of polygraphy. It is unfortunate that the powers that be at PolygraphPlace.com chose to set up an "Accuracy/Validity" board and proceeded to delete a number of respectful, well-reasoned posts that argued that polygraphy is invalid.  

Quote[with the sensor, it is possible to] increase sensitivity to detect pulse rates in the legs or buttocks

If this device is truly as sensitive as you and the manufacturer maintain, it has a tremendous potential to create a large number of false positives. I would think that the calibration and techniques of employing this device would have to be extremely exact in order to accurately distinguish attempts at countermeasures from other movements. This begs George's question. Exactly how this device is to be used, and exactly how is an examiner to make an objective determination that countermeasures were employed? "It looked like it to me" or "The sensor detected a slight bit of motion at the start and end of every control question" will not cut it. Do you know of a published objective scoring system, or does each examiner employing the device make things up as he goes along?

Polygraphy has not exactly displayed the most impressive accuracy in studies where examiners were only required to attempt to determine truth from deception. I can only imagine how low accuracy would be in a study involving examinees trained in sophisticated countermeasures. This type of exercise would often require examiners to employ pseudoscientific reasoning two times. First, the examiners would have to attempt to determine truth from deception. Then, with the "passing" charts, the examiner would be required to determine whether or not the chart was produced by "true" truthfulness or countermeasures.

QuoteAs for the use of polygraph, while use is growing despite the efforts of your people . It would seem reasonable to think that your desire is only a pipe dream and wishful thinking not a reality seeing polictical motivations to look like they are doing everything possible to deter and catch terrorists and criminals overrides any validity concerns. Increases after Sep11 occured for that very reason and actually strenghthened polygraph applications in federal agencies .

This paragraph is a grammatical train wreck. You may wish to register for the board. This will allow you to go back and edit typos and grammatical errors. Nonetheless, I get your point. Furthermore, I almost fully agree with you. In the short term, it is likely that your observations will be correct. Many politicians are simply ignorant regarding the polygraph fraud and mistakenly believe the polygraphy will remedy the situation.

Right now, it appears very likely that the information provided on this website and in informed news pieces (like the following segment from the cover story in the March 11 issue of Time magaine) will fall on deaf ears in Washington.

QuoteAnd with the passing of the Soviet threat, many CIA officials lost interest in doing dirty human espionage—which means recruiting dangerous characters who can act as spies and infiltrate terror networks such as al-Qaeda's. And even when informants were coaxed into cooperating, the CIA still required almost all "fully recruited" spies to take a polygraph test, something that scares off useful sources and in the past has failed to catch double agents. "We recruited a whole bunch of bad agents," admits a senior intelligence official. "We wasted a lot of taxpayer money that way."

Uninformed representatives will likely believe self-interested polygraph proponents and their claims of increased security and engage in a knee-jerk reaction that increases reliance upon polygraph screening. Furthermore, the uninformed representatives know that announcements of increased reliance on polygraphy are likely to please the equally uninformed lay public. All of this still does not make increasing reliance on polygraphy a good idea. As you may know, the language of another post 9/11 congressional security bill would establish voice stress analysis screening of airline passengers (I think we can all agree what a farce this would be).

Regrettably, the 21st century anti-polygraph movement is often mistakenly associated with the extreme left and organizations that campaign for expanded rights for the most reprehensible criminals in our society. Many of these organizations voiced strong support for the EPPA in the mid 1980s, when the debate on polygraphs was one of security vs. civil rights.

AntiPolygraph.org advocates abolishment of polygraphy simply because independent evidence indicates that these "tests" are a fraud. Liars can easily beat them (making polygraphs a spy's best friend) while many of the very people we need working to fight terrorism will be falsely accused. At AntiPolygraph.org, we choose not to take a position on the civil rights issue because we feel that it must be shown that polygraphs "tests" are valid before the "security vs. civil rights" discussion can take place.

Reliance on the pseudoscience of polygraphy may increase in the short run. As the amount of polygraphy in use increases, another Aldrich Ames debacle will happen sooner rather than later. The next time there is a media explosion around a case where security is breached by an individual who was vetted by polygraph screening, major media outlets will find AntiPolygraph.org a very helpful resource.  

Then, the refrain will be "how come the polygraph didn't catch him? Why are we relying on these 'tests' when they aren't admissible in court?" It may take some time, but eventually, our voice will be heard.

Paul,

In the reading room on this site, I have an open letter to "all politicians and public office holders". If you haven't read it please do and tell the visitors to this site if you concur with it or not. If you do not concur give us your reasons why you do not. If you do, would you copy it and send it to your state and federal congressmen? I would like to know if the people who we voted for, and that really control our lives, are truthful people. If the polygraph is truly a lie dector, wouldn't it make sense to polygraph the occupants of state houses and Washington D.C.

I have sent and caused to be sent hundreds of these letters to elected officials and to newspapers. To this date not one of these letters that I sent, nor any of the ones I caused to be sent, has generated "A" response. Could it be that all of these public officials believe the polygraph works and they have something to hide? If this is so, then they want everyone else to be polygraphed but 'LEAVE US OUT' Something doesn't seem right here. Washington congressmen and congresswomen have access to very sensitive national security material. Shouldn't we know that they are behaving ethically?

Your comments please.

Beechtrees,

First of all you ask about me about the activity sensor and that you could not find it on the manufacturers site (suggesting it does not exist),only after you are given the information do you identify yourself as someone who took a test with the use of the very c/measure device mentioned. Then you try to allude to the fact that the device is fake, a ploy used by examiners to intimidate examinees (not true).
You would not of said this if you had been tested with the use of this device as you would know it was not a"fake" as you put it and you would also know it existed . You also mention you were having fun at my expense because you are intimately aware of these devices,
I have a lot of trouble with your approach and your commentry about your experience with aforementioned devices,A fabrication in my personal opinion.
I am not interested in responding to any further posts from you as I am not here to waste time or to be the object of someones "fun" .

Your Quote:
 May I put forth a hypothesis? You know the pads are fake, as do your fellow polygraph interrogators, yet you still make grave reference to them on this board in the hopes of perpetuating the fraud and duping the unsuspecting into fearing them.

In an effort to support your hypothesis you embellish.
Clearly you were never tested with the use of this device.
Lx 4000 has replaced the Lx 3000 and 2000.

George and Gino,

On the subject of the activity sensor there are specific instructions to calibrate for the detection of certain C/measures particularly seated movements.
Of course any indicators that occur only on controls and never on relevants on three differing charts will be considered a c/measure.
Different types of movements squeezing of buttocks as opposed to sphincter contraction as opposed to someone shifting weight from one side to the other or tightening leg muscles etc, generate identifiable differences represented graphically. Similar to differences in graphical representations in the cardiograph e.g. pulse rates ,blood volumes ,aortic pulse wave representations cannot be confused for each other because of their obvious differences.
Unless there is another physical countermeasure to do with the seat that I am unaware of that may produce responses
I am confident that those types of c/measures will cause a problem for examinees who use them when A/S is employed.
This would be an area of interest for research outside of claims made by the manufacturer and examiners who use it.

As for your comments Gino in relation to polygraph examiner accuracy in determining truth from deception in screening applications I agree there is not much scientific support for those formats. Accordingly there is hardly any research conducted into this area (screening of employees in a pre-employment setting) not enough to draw any conclusions from. Although it has been demonstrated that the more variance between issues increases competition between the relevant questions and hence increase error rates.
However there is a large amount of peer-reviewed literature published showing high accuracy rates for single issue specific test formats . As Dr Richardson hinted at earlier only in his view limited support.    

Politicians will base their decisions on official reports given to them from the various government agencies and scientists who are employed for that purpose such as the DODPI.
Polygraph utility as far as obtaining  extra information over and above normal investigative processes is solid, of course this is a separate issue to validity. There are cases that do not get published officially where spys have been caught as a result of failing a polygraph test. Some have been published in fiscal reports to congress and cases solved by the CIA using polygraph may be of interest as well.



Wild Bill,

You will not be taken seriously by the powers that be because:      
Quote
Regrettably, the 21st century anti-polygraph movement is often mistakenly associated with the extreme left and organizations that campaign for expanded rights for the most reprehensible criminals in our society. Many of these organizations voiced strong support for the EPPA in the mid 1980s, when the debate on polygraphs was one of security vs. civil rights.

Along with the fact that polygraph applications have been employed by government agencies for some time with good results in terms of utility. The main concern for most posting on these sites is pre-employment settings and job application verification by polygraph. This does not appear to be a concern for politicians because as I have heard it said that if a person can't pass a pre-employment polygraph then they are probably not cut out for law enforcement positions anyway. That is what you are dealing with.
 


      

Paul

For your information I am an ultra right wing conservative and not an advocate of criminal rights. That is why I would like to see the political officials that occupy offices in the State's Capital and Washington D.C. polygraphed. You know, as well as I, that a lot of what goes on there is actually criminal to the magnitude most voters cannot comprehend. Such activity is costing us taxpayers billions. There are many ENRON'S, Pharmaceutical companies, etc. that have highly payed people on their payroll who does nothing but make crooked deals with politicians. Primarily in D.C. And how about the billions spent by the Pentagon that can't be accounted for. How many politicians profitted form those "under-the-table" contracts to defense companies in their district?

You probably profess to be for law and order. Therefore, why can't you advocate polygraphing the political structure in D.C. to determine the TRUTH instead of skirting the issue with "left wing" crap. I am for law and order and truth and I certainly advocate the use of the polygraph on our elected and appointed officials. They could probably provide you scientific data for your seat cushons.

Wild Bill,

I agree with your comments, To get political members to agree to submitting to polygraph testing would be a major breakthrough, for reasons you point out corruption etc. They are also the very reasons it would never happen. Just for the record I am an advocate for law and order and am all for cleaning up the political arena and making elected officials more accountable using the polygraph along with any other investigative methods that any other federal employee would have to agree to as part of the process. I find it unusual that someone on a site designed to convince others to abolish the use of polygraph in any setting would be advocating its use.        

Quote from: Paul W. on Mar 08, 2002, 08:57 PM
Beechtrees,

First of all you ask about me about the activity sensor and that you could not find it on the manufacturers site (suggesting it does not exist),only after you are given the information do you identify yourself as someone who took a test with the use of the very c/measure device mentioned.

Mr. Woolley,

I knew to which sensor you made reference in your first post on the subject of countermeasure detection. I couldn't believe you were making the assertion that it could detect sphincter contraction because I had so expeditiously passed my polygraph interrogation using that selfsame technique whilst seated upon said sensor. Thus, I feigned ignorance as to which piece of equipment you were referring in the hopes you would clarify and confirm my suspicions.

QuoteThen you try to allude to the fact that the device is fake, a ploy used by examiners to intimidate examinees (not true).

While I have no empirical evidence that the pads are placebo, my anecdotal evidence confirms my statement above. I'm not a super-secret double agent, I'm merely Joe Sixpack who spent a few hours practicing countermeasures. My interrogator on the other hand is intimately familiar with Lafeyette computerized polygraphs and has had years of polygraph experience.

QuoteYou would not of said this if you had been tested with the use of this device as you would know it was not a"fake" as you put it and you would also know it existed . You also mention you were having fun at my expense because you are intimately aware of these devices

I knew it existed, Mr. Woolley. My post was a ploy to absolutely confirm we were discussing the same piece of equipment. You may confirm my prior knowledge easily enough by reading this thread (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=260.msg1183#msg1183). You will note that message, posted on September 5th, 2001 initiated my search for information on the type of polygraph equipment on which I knew I was to be interrogated.

QuoteI have a lot of trouble with your approach and your commentry about your experience with aforementioned devices,A fabrication in my personal opinion.

Would you like to polygraph me on the topic? That way we could be certain.

QuoteI am not interested in responding to any further posts from you as I am not here to waste time or to be the object of someones "fun" .

I'm certain responding to posts by me has been less than pleasant. I leave it to my learned colleagues on this list to remain dispassionate and clinical in their posts. If it helps, you may think of me as the Thomas Paine of the antipolygraph community.

QuoteIn an effort to support your hypothesis you embellish.
Clearly you were never tested with the use of this device.
Lx 4000 has replaced the Lx 3000 and 2000.

Nope. Not once Mr. Woolley. Unlike my pre-test polygraph interviewer, I haven't embellished once on this board.

As evidenced by my posted link above, my polygraph interrogation took place some time ago. This fact, combined with the fact that I felt it would be unwise during the test to crane my head around far enough to read the software version on my interrogator's computer screen may account for uncertainty as to which version was used. Suffice to say it would have been the latest version available as of my testing date.

Beechtrees,

Your response proves you have embellished on this site
You State:
I knew it existed, Mr. Woolley. My post was a ploy to absolutely confirm we were discussing the same piece of equipment. You may confirm my prior knowledge easily enough by reading this thread. You will note that message, posted on September 5th, 2001 initiated my search for information on the type of polygraph equipment on which I knew I was to be interrogated.

I had a look at your thread you offer as proof of your prior knowledge there is no mention of the activity sensor.
This is because Lafayette tell me the activity sensor in question was NOT listed on their site in September 2001.
You could not of known about it as it was not available at the time you state. Once again I say you embellish.

You claim:  

Nope. Not once Mr. Woolley. Unlike my pre-test polygraph interviewer, I haven't embellished once on this board.
As evidenced by my posted link above, my polygraph interrogation took place some time ago.

It appears that you even lie to the people on this board to accomplish your end, as well as your potential employer.  
You could not have had any prior knowledge about the activity sensor, as you state, as your evidence shows you are in fact making that part up.  What else is a misleading fabrication?  
  

Quote from: Paul Woolley on Mar 14, 2002, 08:15 PM
Beechtrees,

Your response proves you have embellished on this site

huh?

QuoteYou State:
I knew it existed, Mr. Woolley. My post was a ploy to absolutely confirm we were discussing the same piece of equipment. You may confirm my prior knowledge easily enough by reading this thread. You will note that message, posted on September 5th, 2001 initiated my search for information on the type of polygraph equipment on which I knew I was to be interrogated.

I had a look at your thread you offer as proof of your prior knowledge there is no mention of the activity sensor.
This is because Lafayette tell me the activity sensor in question was NOT listed on their site in September 2001.
You could not of known about it as it was not available at the time you state. Once again I say you embellish.

The catalog I hold now in my hands was created  on 10/04/01, a scant 15 days or so after my polygraph interrogation. The activity sensors are listed there, as they were on the previous edition I downloaded. You're right, Mr. Woolley, I make no mention of possible countermeasure detection devices in my post asking for information on the Lafayette Instrument Co. That hardly proves anything, other than the fact that I knew as of that date that I would be polygraphed using Lafayette equipment. In numerous emails, Internet searches, and visits to the library I sought out all information I could on that company's equipment, including accessories like chairs, strain gauges, and 'sensor pads'.

I find your suspicious nature suspicious in and of itself-- to quote Hamlet, "The [lady] doth protest too much, methinks." Knowing that a good offense sometimes makes the best defense, you have repeatedly offended by calling my simple statements of facts 'embellishments'. Why would I embellish? What possible reason would I have to lie about such a thing?Unlike you, I have no monetary interest at stake in this whole affair. Unlike you, I have no compelling interest in the argument to save my livelihood.

If it should persuade you (and I doubt seriously it will), I swear on the life of my son that my ass sat upon your activity sensor pad during my entire polygraph interrogation.

And, lest we forget, Mr. Woolley, my polygraph interrogator lied to me. Repeatedly.

You have repeatedly called me a liar, Mr. Woolley. Isn't it true that my polygraph interrogator expected me to lie? Yes or no, please.

Beechtrees,

Of course examiners expect you to lie or at least be uncomfortable when answering controls,but this does not mean we have to lie to get you to. Your examiner would not of been expecting you to lie to relevants. If we use the directed lie control format there is little chance this will happen with any examiner.

You admit to lying on your polygraph to relevant questions and seem proud of it so my repeated reference to you fits.

You state:
The catalog I hold now in my hands was created  on 10/04/01, a scant 15 days or so after my polygraph interrogation. The activity sensors are listed there, as they were on the previous edition I downloaded.

The activity sensor in question was put on their site on the 10/1/01 so you would of had no idea about this device until you took your test. You claim you were intimately aware of this device prior to your polygraph, that cannot be true.
Seeing you made such a point about finding out if we were talking about the same piece of equipment and you have now shown you have embellished on this board.

The previous edition did not have the sensor in question particularly if you downloaded it in Sep.  

You ask:
Why would I embellish? What possible reason would I have to lie about such a thing?Unlike you, I have no monetary interest at stake in this whole affair. Unlike you, I have no compelling interest in the argument to save my livelihood.

First of all to prove me wrong .
If you have no monetary interest in polygraph was your test a pre-employment test ? If it was I think you have monetary interest if you like it or not. That is why most of the users of this board are here their job prospects were affected in some way and hence income that is why they hate anything to do with polygraph so much.

I am not here to save my livelihood it is not in question, and I am not being paid to come here. I only want to point out that not everything stated on this site is correct.

Particularly the statements that there is no peer-reviewed literature on single issue testing formats that support CQT polygraph applications. Also all examiners lie to subjects to get them to lie to controls another misleading statement, which you have bought into, not ALL examiners do.

I have no doubt you were tested, the thing I doubt is your claims about the activity sensor, as indicated above, if your examiner had the activity sensor he must not have been using it as you would of been asked to do certain things to calibrate it. So maybe you were right about that particular examiner if what you say is true.

When this device was released at an APA conference Lafayette had it setup so anyone could see how good it was at detecting the ever popular sphincter contraction or any other covert type countermeasure. It detected all of them  even the slightest (sphincter) movement showed up. That is why I am suspicious.  
  
I do not mean to offend I have only been reacting to the tone of your posts.