CIA Polygraph Counter-countermeasures

[George W. Maschke]

AntiPolygraph.org has received an anonymous report that a CIA polygrapher recently used the following counter-countermeasure techniques:

1) Placed a sensor pad on the seat of the chair with the examinee watching, to discourage use of the anal sphincter contraction as a contermeasure. [Note: while doing this, the polygrapher may have been watching the examinee for any visible reaction that might indicate prior knowledge of the purpose of the pad, which would suggest that the examinee had researched polygraphy.]
 
2) Instructed the examinee to breathe with his/her mouth open and to keep it open for the duration of the in-test phase. This prevents tongue-biting as a countermeasure.
 
3) Sat facing the examinee from the side, not behind, and observed the examinee's face throughout the in-test phase.

[Sergeant1107]

I think that even if they progress (or regress) to the point where examinees are stripped naked and strapped to a respirator during the test, there will still be many false allegations of countermeasures.  And there will also still be many successful uses of countermeasures.

At some point it would be reasonable for the people who make these policies to decide that the time of the polygraph is over.  Why would they want to deny themselves and their agencies the opportunity to hire the best-qualified people because of a "test" which is really no better or more accurate than flipping a coin?  Unless a damaging admission is elicited by the test you don't know any more after the test than you did before the test, regardless of whether the subject "passed" or "failed."  Why put any credibility in a test that provides no information regardless of how it is answered?

It is reprehensible that so many municipal, state, and federal agencies are still denying people employment based on nothing more than a "failed" polygraph.  While the polygraph has undoubtedly caused many applicants to admit to a disqualifying act that would not have otherwise been discovered, how many other outstanding applicants has it unjustifiably weeded out?

A diligent background investigation would produce the same results as an admission on a polygraph exam, and there wouldn't be the possibility of a false positive.

[nonombre]

A diligent background investigation would produce the same results as an admission on a polygraph exam, and there wouldn't be the possibility of a false positive.

Sergeant,

I believe you and I may have discussed this before.  But as an officer who has done thousands of background investigations on prospective police applicants, I can tell you this.  After running down EVERY possible lead on an "outstanding" applicant, I have been shocked more than once when after watching him/her walk from the examination room, the polygraph examiner handed me a signed confession for everything from massive drug use to rape (and Yes, we did subsequently refer some of these cases to investigations).

This reality is one of the things that got me into polygraph in the first place, frankly as a younger officer I thought it was "really cool" that polygraph examiners could do that.  This is also the main reason I believe, contrary to all you all's efforts, pre-employment screening polygraph will be around for quite a long time to come.

Regards,

Nonombre

[polyfool]

A thorough, perceptive investigator and adept interrogator wouldn't need to use a polygraph.

[nonombre]

A thorough, perceptive investigator and adept interrogator wouldn't need to use a polygraph.

I guess that be you?

[polyscam]

My two cents:

In both of the polygraph exams I've taken the examiner sat to my side, once to my left and once to my right.  The examiners each studied my face during the exams as well.  The first examiner was quite concerned with countermeasures as he had the seat pad as well as a mirror next to my foot which was angled for his viewing pleasure.  For some reason, the first examiner directed me to lower my suspenders from my shoulders and remove all contents in my pockets (shirt and pants).

I have heard of examiners requesting the test subject remove his or her shoes.


To Nonombre:  As far as finding admissions during a background investigation that would not otherwise be found except through polygraph (these are not my words or belief but the words and belief of many a polygraph examiner) why not do what investigators have done for ages?  Play the bullshit card.  The ole' "Well we don't think you have been completely honest with us, through our background investigation we have found (insert bullshit).  If the applicant provides an admission zap him from further consideration.  If not, he continues.  It would basically be the polygraph without the "instrument."

[polyfool]

I guess that be you?

I never said it was me, but it's obviously not you.

[The Shadow]

Posted by: abulia Posted on: Today at 12:21:38
Really?  Seriously?  I had to laugh when I read this because I had several thoughts:
1. Uh oh...  
2. There's always the old tack in the shoe trick, they'll probably have me take of my shoes...  
3. Hmmm.... Wonder how long it will be before they have us strip down naked to take the test?
4. I have doubts that any sensor can determine if I clinch my kegel muscles.
5. I can still tighten my lower abdominals and intercostals without discovery.

FYI
#4 & #5 can be detected by the seat cushion.

Posted by: George W. Maschke Posted on: Today at 02:30:15
AntiPolygraph.org has received an anonymous report that a CIA polygrapher recently used the following counter-countermeasure techniques:

1) Placed a sensor pad on the seat of the chair with the examinee watching, to discourage use of the anal sphincter contraction as a contermeasure. [Note: while doing this, the polygrapher may have been watching the examinee for any visible reaction that might indicate prior knowledge of the purpose of the pad, which would suggest that the examinee had researched polygraphy.]
 
2) Instructed the examinee to breathe with his/her mouth open and to keep it open for the duration of the in-test phase. This prevents tongue-biting as a countermeasure.
 
3) Sat facing the examinee from the side, not behind, and observed the examinee's face throughout the in-test phase.  

Most Govt Examiners sit so they can see the examinee's face from the side.

[nonombre]

I never said it was me, but it's obviously not you.

Polyfool,

You actually just proved my point.  You have never conducted a polygraph examination, never conducted an investigation, but you sure know all about it.

You see I have determined this website is populated by people who have never administered a polygraph test.  These self proclaimed polygraph "experts," posting day after day telling themselves and others over and over, all about the intricate details of how a polygraph works, What the examiner is "really doing," what he is "really thinking," how to "beat the process," oh, the vast conspiracy of it all.

These same people are also suddenly "experts" in the field of background and criminal investigations, although most have never opened a case file of any kind, have never conducted and interview or an interrogation, never faced the rigors of any of these jobs, oh but they sign on night after night, and inform the rest of us who have dedicated our lives to these pursuits, how we are 'obviously not doing it right.  They are smarter than, we are.  If we only gave them a chance, they would show us all how to do it.

Ah yes, they would conduct a "proper" investigation.  They would do it right.  The rest of us?  Let me see, oh yeah, that's right.  We are "lazy," "incompetent", "liars,", "manipulators," "evil,""uneducated," "stupid," "destined to serve up French fries at the local drive in, while THEY pull up in their new BMW's and have the last laugh," etc, ect, ect.

Keep on posting.  Tell me all about it...

Nonombre

[Onesimus]

These self proclaimed polygraph "experts," ...

Nonombre

Nonombre,
Who qualifies as being a polygraph expert in your book?  Do non-polygraph experts ever have anything intelligent to say about the polygraph?

[polyscam]

Polyfool,

You actually just proved my point.  You have never conducted a polygraph examination, never conducted an investigation, but you sure know all about it.

You see I have determined this website is populated by people who have never administered a polygraph test.  These self proclaimed polygraph "experts," posting day after day telling themselves and others over and over, all about the intricate details of how a polygraph works, What the examiner is "really doing," what he is "really thinking," how to "beat the process," oh, the vast conspiracy of it all.

These same people are also suddenly "experts" in the field of background and criminal investigations, although most have never opened a case file of any kind, have never conducted and interview or an interrogation, never faced the rigors of any of these jobs, oh but they sign on night after night, and inform the rest of us who have dedicated our lives to these pursuits, how we are 'obviously not doing it right.  They are smarter than, we are.  If we only gave them a chance, they would show us all how to do it.

Ah yes, they would conduct a "proper" investigation.  They would do it right.  The rest of us?  Let me see, oh yeah, that's right.  We are "lazy," "incompetent", "liars,", "manipulators," "evil,""uneducated," "stupid," "destined to serve up French fries at the local drive in, while THEY pull up in their new BMW's and have the last laugh," etc, ect, ect.

Keep on posting.  Tell me all about it...

Nonombre

Nonombre,

You are correct.  I have never adminstered a polygraph exam.  However, I have sat for two of them (so far).  Damned funny thing about it is that I failed the first and passed the second.  Funnier yet, is that the particular question I failed on the first I passed on the second.  More humor?  I didn't consider or attempt countermeasures.  So in my experience (so far) the polygraph truly is a 50/50 coin toss.  No, I don't qualify as an expert and I never claimed to be, although I log on often.

No to burst your little investigative bubble, but I do hope you are not so dim that you believe only law enforcement personnel conduct investigations.  I, not being law enforcement, have conducted many investigations as a part of my current employment (about 12 years worth).

Any informed examinee is able to see what a polygraph examiner is doing.  The relevant questions stick out like a sore thumb.  It has a bit to do with the seriousness of the question asked.  It really is not difficult to zero.

Employment should not hinge upon a polygraph result.  You know that to be true.  If you believe otherwise, I commend you on your dedication, however I feel sadness for you for your blindness.

So...which excuse would you offer up for the vast discrepancy between my first and second polygraph exam?  Examiner error?  Examinee manipilation?  Misread of the charts?  Sour grapes?  Please feel free to choose from one of the above multiple choice answers or provide a write in for extra credit.  

[Twoblock]

Nonombre

This post is not ment to be insulting or as a stinger, although I am guilty of spouting a couple on this site mostly in fun, and I am not an expert on polygraphy. Having been on my college debate and never losing one, I know an intelligent debate when I see one and doggone it guy, you expert polygraphers can't seem to hold your own with "experts" (your quote) on this site. When you get into trouble and can't/wont answer ligitimate questions you resort to trash rhetoric (which brings on responces of same) or "we won't give away our secrets". Don't ask me for examples. That would be a cop out. There are too many to even start listing. All you have to do is review your past posts and their responses. Although I have done a lot of research on the polygraph over the years, I do not enter into the debates because I don't know enough to effectively debate the issues and I hate to lose at anything. My question is: will you people return to ligitimate debate?

Your question is probably: Then why are on here. And the answer is !!!! It is a forum where I can promote my views on government waste and corruption of which I believe polygraphy is an example. And yes, my field (mining) has corruption and I expose it whenever I run across it. Gets a little sticky at times but, what the hell, I'm still alive. This is my hobby.

[EosJupiter]

AntiPolygraph.org has received an anonymous report that a CIA polygrapher recently used the following counter-countermeasure techniques:

1) Placed a sensor pad on the seat of the chair with the examinee watching, to discourage use of the anal sphincter contraction as a contermeasure. [Note: while doing this, the polygrapher may have been watching the examinee for any visible reaction that might indicate prior knowledge of the purpose of the pad, which would suggest that the examinee had researched polygraphy.]

2) Instructed the examinee to breathe with his/her mouth open and to keep it open for the duration of the in-test phase. This prevents tongue-biting as a countermeasure.

3) Sat facing the examinee from the side, not behind, and observed the examinee's face throughout the in-test phase.

George,

Its interesting to know this, and reveals alot about the current mindset of the polygraphers. If it could have been filmed it would have made "Americas Funniest Home Videos", but its obvious the effects of this website seem to be reaching the nerves of our illustrious polygraph community. So paranoid they have become, that now they don't even trust there machines, and have to try and catch a physical type countermeasure. Trouble is its a testimony to the fact that they can't detect the mental ones.  Personnally I would have told the polygrapher to stick that machine where the sun don't shine. No organization is worth working for, if you have to put up with this type harassment.  Better to be your own boss than put up with any organization that believes your guilty until polygraphed innocent. I state again that everytime a polygraph is given. A new antipolygraph person is created. !!! Just my opinion of course, but I bet the numbers of downloads from this site just keep on increasing.

NoNombre:

I enjoyed the walk down memory lane, most of the smart comments were mine. Good to know that I was appreciated !! ;-) But to your credit you actually had arguments and verbage to support it. Good Job !!


Regards

[Sergeant1107]

Sergeant,

I believe you and I may have discussed this before.  But as an officer who has done thousands of background investigations on prospective police applicants, I can tell you this.  After running down EVERY possible lead on an "outstanding" applicant, I have been shocked more than once when after watching him/her walk from the examination room, the polygraph examiner handed me a signed confession for everything from massive drug use to rape (and Yes, we did subsequently refer some of these cases to investigations).

Nonombre,

I guess it is a matter of opinion.  I believe we are losing more good applicants through the polygraph process than we are weeding out bad applicants.

Your experience of running down every possible lead on outstanding applicants and having them confess to serious crimes has happened, in your own words, "more than once."  If you can quantify that more precisely it would be helpful.  However, to me that phrase implies that, although such a thing has happened, and has happened more than a single time, it has not happened on a regular basis, nor has it happened often enough on a sporadic basis to justify a description of anything other than "more than once."

You wrote that you have done thousands of background investigations, yet the number of times an apparently "outstanding" applicant has unexpectedly confessed to serious crimes because of the polygraph is probably less than ten or you would have likely phrased it differently.

I have no idea how many BI's you have conducted, but since you characterize it as "thousands" it would be safe to assume you have done at least two thousand.  In that span you have encountered, say, ten applicants who passed the BI but unexpectedly confessed to serious crimes when they took the polygraph.  

Using those numbers (which I realize involve assumptions on my part) means that utilizing the polygraph weeds out .05% of applicants who otherwise would have moved on in the application process if only the background investigation was used.  One-half of one percent.  That's it.

As you may recall, I failed my first three polygraphs and was removed from the application process at each of those agencies.  The fact that I told the complete truth during each polygraph, did not withhold any information, and had never even heard of countermeasures apparently did not matter – I failed anyway and was not hired, even though I was an outstanding candidate.  In my fourth polygraph I answered the questions the same way I had on my first three and inexplicably passed.

Using my own experiences as a guide, the polygraph disqualifies outstanding applicants, who have already passed the background investigation, at a rate of 75%.  I realize my experiences may not be typical, but the massive disparity in numbers is striking.  

If agencies relied solely on a thorough background investigation, and eschewed the polygraph completely, it might very well result in a fraction of unsuitable applicants "sneaking" through without their illegal activities coming to light.  According to my admittedly rough estimates, it could result in, say, five bad applicants out of every thousand.  While no one wants any dishonest or lawbreaking police officers at all, I think we can all agree that no matter what the application process consists of there will, sadly, always be a small percentage of "bad" cops.

I believe that tiny percentage would be more than made up for by the large numbers of outstanding candidates who successfully pass the background investigation and are not mindlessly removed from the process because of the polygraph exam.

[quickfix]

As long as there are fools like "razor", unqualified applicants who seek advice on how to cheat their way through a polygraph exam (see "Beta Blockers and Poly" under Polygraph Procedure), polys will continue to be used in the hiring process.