Polygrapher Teaches How to Rig Exam

[George W. Maschke]

The 16 August 2003 issue of The Polygraph Chronicles, a bi-weekly electronic newsletter published by The Polygraph Place, includes an article by polygrapher Nate Gordon, who provides an overview of the American Polygraph Association's annual seminar held 3-8 August 2003 in Sparks, Nevada. Gordon mentions that one presenter gave a talk on how to rig a polygraph "test":

There were excellent presentations offered, and one that gave me the sensation I was in a time machine. After attacking the CQT, due to its vulnerability to countermeasures, this presentor gave instructions on how to use techniques that ensured DI charts, when you already new [sic] the examinee was DI, and only wanted leverage for a confession.

I find the above to be a very disturbing notion. How does a polygrapher "know" that an examinee is "DI" ("deception indicated")? If such knowledge is based on real evidence, then why not just confront the examinee with that evidence?

FBI polygrapher Michael Templeton must have thought he "knew" that Egyptian student Abdallah Higazy, who was staying at a hotel adjacent to the World Trade Center on 11 September 2001, was lying when he denied knowledge of an aviation radio that was allegedly found locked in his room safe. But what Templeton, who extracted a false confession from Higazy, could not have known is that the hotel employee who claimed to have found the radio in Higazy's room safe was lying.

That how to rig a polygraph "test" was on the agenda at the American Polygraph Association's annual seminar is all the more reason for anyone suspected of a crime to refuse to submit to any polygraph "test."

[G Scalabr]

I must admit even I am shocked that something like this was stated in public during a presentation at the APA seminar. I'll still wait for confirmation on this one (perhaps from one of our readers), but considering that this comes from a pro-polygraph source, it doesn't look good for the APA.

Speaking of confirmation, I believe that the APA annual seminar is open to non-members (at a substantial fee, of course). Perhaps someone here can tell me if I am mistaken.

I just may have to attend next year's APA convention if my schedule allows. Considering that this site is arguably the most widely read resource on polygraphy, we really should have someone at this affair gathering info for dissemination first hand. Besides, it might be interesting to meet some of our counterparts first hand.

[George W. Maschke]

Gino,

Note also that this polygrapher who gave a presentation on how to ensure a "deception indicated" outcome showed little confidence in

1) the validity of CQT polygraphy, and

2) the ability of polygraphers to detect countermeasures.

[Saidme]

George

Blah blah blah blah blah whine blah blah blah blah blah blah poor me blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah my feeling's were hurt blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah.

Reminds me of the old Stuart Smalley routine on SNL. I'm good enough, smart enough, and people like me.  

[Drew Richardson]

George,

If that which you have reported is confirmed to be true, i.e., the comments were made as reported and as part of an APA sanctioned talk and not immediately condemned by said group, then this finding is very significant and quite disturbing.  Even one such as I, who regularly condemns CQT testing because of long held beliefs regarding the random and unacceptable error inherent in the technique, would not believe that there was a widespread market within the polygraph community for the sort of outright fraud described in this thread.  It is hard to believe that audience participants would not have felt and expressed immediate revulsion for any notion that involved discussing ways examiners might manipulate an exam to produce DI results.  

[suethem]

Thats why these polygraph people are dangerous.

Making sure that someone is DI is the same thing as planting evidence or falsifying a report.  They have no problem with that!

But I am not surprised that they would admit to such a thing.  It is not uncommon for bad cops to break the law, lie in court and commmit crimes.  They do it, loudly and boldly until they get caught!

Now these polygraphers are caught admitting that they DI people on purpose.  They can dance around that statement, retract it, do what ever they choose, but we know the truth from their own mouths.  

They modify the results of the test to back up their theories!

Remember the DODPI racial bias study that was surpressed by the DODOI - same thing.

They know that the test is unfair, their own study suggests it, but they are going to stick by their 'profession' because it pays.

I love the irony that the people charged with exposing the truth, hide it and lie about it when it exposes them as liars.

[orolan]

Suethem,

Now these polygraphers are caught admitting that they DI people on purpose.

And the "best" of them offers up these words of wisdom:

Blah blah blah blah blah

What a joke. Just when you think they have their head in the sand far enough, they go and shove it even further down.

[G Scalabr]

SaidMe wrote:

Blah blah blah blah blah whine blah blah blah blah blah blah poor me blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah my feeling's were hurt blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah.

You made no mention of my plans to attend next year's APA convention in your thoughtful and articulate post. Does this mean that we won't be meeting for a beer in the hotel barroom?

[Saidme]

Gino

You can count on me having a beer with you.

[beech trees]

The 16 August 2003 issue of The Polygraph Chronicles, a bi-weekly electronic newsletter published by The Polygraph Place, includes an article by polygrapher Nate Gordon, who provides an overview of the American Polygraph Association's annual seminar held 3-8 August 2003 in Sparks, Nevada. Gordon mentions that one presenter gave a talk on how to rig a polygraph "test":

There were excellent presentations offered, and one that gave me the sensation I was in a time machine. After attacking the CQT, due to its vulnerability to countermeasures, this presentor gave instructions on how to use techniques that ensured DI charts, when you already new [sic] the examinee was DI, and only wanted leverage for a confession.

I find the above to be a very disturbing notion. How does a polygrapher "know" that an examinee is "DI" ("deception indicated")? If such knowledge is based on real evidence, then why not just confront the examinee with that evidence?

FBI polygrapher Michael Templeton must have thought he "knew" that Egyptian student Abdallah Higazy, who was staying at a hotel adjacent to the World Trade Center on 11 September 2001, was lying when he denied knowledge of an aviation radio that was allegedly found locked in his room safe. But what Templeton, who extracted a false confession from Higazy, could not have known is that the hotel employee who claimed to have found the radio in Higazy's room safe was lying.

That how to rig a polygraph "test" was on the agenda at the American Polygraph Association's annual seminar is all the more reason for anyone suspected of a crime to refuse to submit to any polygraph "test."

They must be so very proud.

[Public Servant]

On this topic I'd have to agree with Drew's assessment.  I find it hard to believe that such information would be officially presented at an APA seminar.  If it was ,I hope such content was not known by the association leadership prior to the presentation.  

Clearly, anyone who legitimately utilizes polygraph would not advocate such misuse/abuse of an accepted technique.  Nor would they allow such discredit to be brought upon polygraph by making public comments of this type.

Let me make it clear, that such "rigging" of an exam for "DI Charts" would be considered an ethical violation for examiners in any reputable government agency.  If a government examiner were to "rig" an exam to get the result they wanted, they would be disciplined, likely dismissed, for ethical violations.   I've seen worse for smaller infractions than what this passage suggests.

George,

I was unable to pull up the newsletter from your link.  The home page for Polygraph Place only offered sign-up's for emailings of future newsletters (as far as I saw in my brief look there).  

Also, have you checked for any records of this presentation?  I'd like to see in full context what this presentation was all about, before we pass judgement.  

[George W. Maschke]

I have sent the following inquiry to APA director Dave Knefelkamp, who was the seminar program chair, and cc'd it to other APA officers:

To: Dave Knefelkamp <lie2me@skypoint.com>
From: "George W. Maschke" <maschke@antipolygraph.org>
Subject: APA Seminar Presentation on How to Rig a Polygraph Test?
Cc: Skip Webb <apa@mail4skip.com>, Don Weinstein <DONMARINE@AOL.com>, Vicky T. Murphy <vickie@polygraph.org>, Lawrence Wasser <LMWASSER@aol.com>, T.V. O'Malley <Tvpoly@aol.com>, John E. Consigli <johnconsigli@pol.state.ma.us>, Donnie W. Dutton <ddutton@sc.rr.com>, Michael L. Smith <smithapa@aol.com>, Roy Ortiz <rl-oasis-poly@att.net>, Daniel Sosnowski <sos4911@aol.com>, Steve Eliot <reliot86@aol.com>, Stuart Senter <stuanddee@msn.com>
Bcc:
X-Attachments:

Dear Mr. Knefelkamp,

The 16 August 2003 issue of The Polygraph Chronicles, a bi-weekly electronic newsletter published by The Polygraph Place, includes an article by Nate Gordon, who provides an overview of the annual seminar held 3-8 August 2003 in Sparks, Nevada. Gordon mentions that one presenter gave a talk on how to rig a polygraph examination:

"There were excellent presentations offered, and one that gave me the sensation I was in a time machine. After attacking the CQT, due to its vulnerability to countermeasures, this presentor gave instructions on how to use techniques that ensured DI charts, when you already new [sic] the examinee was DI, and only wanted leverage for a confession."

I find the above to be a very disturbing notion. How does a polygrapher "know" beforehand that an examinee is "DI?" If such knowledge is based on real evidence, then why not just confront the examinee with that evidence?

Could you tell me who made this presentation and whether it had your prior approval?

Also, under what circumstances would the American Polygraph Association condone the use by its members of any techniques to ensure DI charts?

Sincerely,

George W. Maschke
AntiPolygraph.org

PS: A copy of this e-mail will be posted in the AntiPolygraph.org message board thread, Polygrapher Teaches How to Rig Exam, where a discussion of this issue is ongoing. If you or anyone else from the APA would care to respond there, your input would be welcome.

[George W. Maschke]

Public Servant,

I have e-mailed you the 16 August 2003 issue of The Polygraph Chronicles. As you've noted, The Polygraph Place does not include an on-line archive current or past issues. If anyone else would like to receive a copy, contact me by e-mail or send a private message via this message board, and I'll forward it.

As you will note, the portion I cited is all that Nate Gordon wrote about the presentation in question. As you will also note, I have sent an inquiry to the APA officer who organized the seminar, and hope that we will receive clarification regarding this matter soon.

[Nate_Gordon]

This speaker was being facetious in the opening of his presentation, and the remarks in my article were meant to indicate to everyone how scary such behavior would be.  I agree with one of your responders that such behavior would be like "planting evidence," it would be extremely unethical, unprofessional, and I am sure would result in expulsion from the APA.  

There is always concern about sites like yours that offer suggestions on how to beat the polygraph.  I am of the opinion that if those who supposedly taught it actually knew, they would all have government jobs and top secret clearances.  

However, I will give your readers the secret.  If you are going to lie on a polygraph test the best way to "beat" it, is don't take it.

I am sorry about any confusion my article caused.

Sincerely,

Nate Gordon


Sincerely,

Nate Gordon  

[Mr. Truth]

I am of the opinion that if those who supposedly taught it actually knew, they would all have government jobs and top secret clearances.

I did, and I probably will again, but this time, it will be much easier "passing" the polygraph.