Polygraph Counter-countermeasure Techniques

[PG111]

I bet you had make believe friends as a child.

[anythingformoney]

Well, I believed in Santa Claus for a few years, but that's about it.  Now, don't scare Loopy away until I get a chance to meet her--assuming she really is a female and not some cross-dresser or something . . .  

[anythingformoney]

Well, Loopy . . .  

[Administrator]

Well, Loopy . . .  

It is obvious that you are the author of the LoopyLuWho posts, which you fabricated to support your own point of view. It is unseemly for you to continue attempting to keep up the charade, after you've been caught red-handed, as it were.  Stop playing games.

[anythingformoney]

I can't really comment on Loopy unless my suspicions are confirmed.  Community computers certainly have their drawbacks . . .

[anythingformoney]

I've examined the Loopy posts myself.  They are nothing like my posts in style, diction or . . . or . . . sheer Pizazz!

For those of you wondering, I have unmasked  our dear Loopy, and he is not a girl at all!  I will say no more on this subject after this, but after talking to Loopy I don't think he'll be around anymore.  What a shame, really.  I was hoping I had a more credible ally.  

Sorry for the sidetrack.  I got carried away in my flirtations only to end up feeling like I was that poor guy in The Crying Game.

Back to the challenge:  If anyone of you who claim that countermeasures worked for you wants to speak up now, feel free.  Remember, we need to know which "relevant" issues you really lied about and which countermeasures you used to overcome your significant lie(s).  Incorporating countermeasures when you don't have anything to hide with regard to the "relevant" issues proves nothing; that would be like telling us all that the multivitamin you take each day guarantees your good health, when you are already eating a good diet, exercising and living relatively stress-free.

I eagerly await your replies.

Oh, and one more thing: If I suddenly disappear from this forum without saying goodbye, it won't be because I chose to abandon you.  It would be because the administrator is tired of my voice of reason and has banned me from this forum on a pretext rather than for good reason.  I bid you adieu for now.

[George W. Maschke]

One thing I don't get about all this countermeasures stuff:

If a person continually shows an abnormal response to a "relevant" question, despite a manipulation to the "control" questions, wouldn't that be a dead giveaway to an experienced polygrapher?

What I mean by "abnormal response" is an obvious reaction that is consistent throughout the exam.  A person who HAS used illegal drugs, for example, and lies about it, is really going to have much more of a response to that question than the polygrapher usually sees on that question.  If that strong response is consistent over the course of the whole examination, it seems to me that any polygrapher worth his salt would see that reaction despite the control question manipulations.  And don't polygraphers move the relevant questions around during the test so that you'd have to manipulate ALL of the control questions at the right time to get them to counter the obvious and consistent relevant question response?

Not only that, but wouldn't it appear strange to a polygrapher that not just one or two control questions "spike" off the chart, but that ALL of them do?  It's my understanding that people taking a polygraph usually are MUCH more concerned about one particular control question than the others, so I think that if all the control questions are showing very high reactions it might lead to suspicion.

See my reply to your above questions (which you cross-posted) in the message thread, Polygraph Countermeasure Challenge.

[anythingformoney]

Finally, the great one speaks to me.  ME! I'm not worthy, I'm not worthy!    Ok, George, then I'll just address your reply in the other thread.  No time to write a thoughtful reply right now.  Talk to you later.

[anythingformoney]

OK, George, check out the reply in the thread entitled "Polygraph Countermeasure Challenge."  

[PG111]

Hey ANAL

 What do you say answer the counter measures challenge?  A person with your vast experience should have not problem proving the hundreds of people on this board wrong.
  I bet you could do it, or at least arbitrarily accuse someone of using them, just like most examiners do.
 
 I have a question, if counter measures do not work, why is every polygraph manufacturer making some sort of device to attempt to catch them being used.  

 Ok Anal let me have it..

[anythingformoney]

PG, check out my reply to George on the other thread.  That will give you some answers.  You may not accept those answers, but they are there for you.

I think the reason why manufacturers make anti-countermeasure devices is because there is a market for them.  That's business.

Now, why is there a market for those devices?  Because polygraphers know that there are people out there who will attempt countermeasures, and it's nice to be a step ahead of those people.

I have previously admitted that some countermeasures may work.  Studies I have referenced show that the use of countermeasures has absolutely no effect with innocent examinees, but that countermeasures may help a guilty examinee produce a false negative.  There has not been much research done regarding mental countermeasures, which may be more effective than physical countermeasures, at least until functional brain imaging is perfected.  I believe that the average Joe on the street won't be able to perfect physical countermeasures without access to the polygraph itself and the input and feedback of an experienced polygrapher.   As far as my actual experience with anti-countermeasures devices, I have seen the "butt pad" in use, and I have personally seen it catch an examinee with his britches down, so to speak.  It is a very effective device in my experience.

I didn't really "let you have it," PG, because I feel that you are at least probing for information rather than just reguritating tired rhetoric like others on this forum, and because you are rather likeable.  

[The_Breeze]

All
As I briefly come out of retirement to comment, I have to say George that in my absence this site has come to resemble a shabby transient shuffling down the street kicking a can....remember those thrilling discussions we had with various anon's, skeptics and rotting tree stumps that thrilled the polygraph fearful? where are the Vikings now??
That said, since I have stopped to pick up a transient (on the way to jail of course) I would like to relate a true story of one of this sites pupils the other day.
Well groomed, intelligent, educated and articulate this person had a good work record and had passed the background.  The polygrapher noted during the test that this individual was applying CM's via muscle contraction, and breathing alteration...perhaps the applicant did not know an irrelevant from a control, how could that have happened?
Well, no one had informed this person in thier research that regardless of the clenches that one may perform, it will be very difficult (I am told) to suppress a legitimate reaction to a relevant question, which is indeed what happened.
The polygrapher in his post test set the results aside briefly and concentrated on the CM use.  After some initial denial, a full confession was received which included a description of advice received in George' and Gino's phamplet.  So whats the point? this individual will never work in LE and has been barred from re-aplying for life.  Seem harsh? Had this person demonstrated a different set of ethics and not rec'd encouragement from this site, the result may of been much different.
CM's are not detectable after all, and that is what this person had been told here and elsewhere...of course experienced people know this story I am telling is routine.
And before the faithfull break squelch about "how many slipped thru without admissions"? etc. etc. just know that CM's are indeed not difficult to observe, and specific tests can then be given easily to confirm the belief without any admission required.
So chalk one up for integrity, and know this George and others, that your advice has a real life impact that you do not want to believe in your belief that this tool is nothing more than a coin toss.

Alot of angry people here that would give advice have as much polygraph specific time as I have piloting the space shuttle.

[George W. Maschke]

Breeze,

Thank you for sharing this anecdote. The applicant in question made a big mistake by admitting having employed countermeasures, which is something we specifically warn against doing in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector (at pp. 158-59 of the 3rd edition).

I don't doubt that polygraphers may sometimes obtain admissions from subjects they may suspect of having employed countermeasures. But such anecdotal evidence does not demonstrate an ability on the part of the polygraph community to genuinely detect countermeasures.

On what do you base your assertion that countermeasures are not difficult to observe and are easily confirmed without any admission required? It would be helpful if you could provide a reference to any article, book chapter, or research study that supports this contention.

[anythingformoney]

Yeah, what's up with that, Breeze?  If you're going to address George, make sure you throw in a few regurgitated study references.  Since he has absolutely no experience with the polygraph other than being a total failure at taking one, regurgitations are all he knows.  Of course, if you DO regurgitate for him, he'll just discount your regurgitations with more of his own, even cutting and pasting small segments from your "pro-polygraph" regurgitations and using them out of context.

It's his site, though, and he has much ego invested in it, so he will always get the last word.  That said, don't just throw out something that sounds like nostalgia and then never come back.  I repeat, what's up with that?

[George W. Maschke]

Here is yet another (rather stupid) counter-countermeasure, known to be used by at least one retired federal polygraph examiner now in private practice. The polygrapher will casually tell the examinee during the pre-test phase, "You know what, this is not a control question test. This is a relevant/irrelevant test."

The polygrapher will then proceed to administer a probable-lie control question test. The false statement that the relevant/irrelevant technique will be used is a simple attempt at misdirection intended to throw off guard any examinee planning to augment reactions to the "control" questions.