Reply to PolygraphPlace.com Moderator Paul Woolley

[George W. Maschke]

In a recent post 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:

Making 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.

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 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).

[lielabs]

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.


  

[beech trees]

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?

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.

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:

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...

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.

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.

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?

Misinformation 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?

[Duc748]

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:

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?

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.

[lielabs]

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?.

[George W. Maschke]

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:

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.

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 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:

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.

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 to the National Academy of Sciences regarding scientific control and polygraphy to be instructive.

You also write:

You 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.

Anyone 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.

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.  

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:
 

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.

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.

My 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:
 

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.

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 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.)

[Paul Woolley]

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 .  
    

[beech trees]

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.

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.

Perhaps I misunderstood you then when you wrote:

Misinformation 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?

So 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.

[beech trees]

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.

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 I see no mention of this countermeasure detection device. Where is it? What is it?

[paul woolley]

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.                

[Duc748]

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.

[Drew Richardson]

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.

[MissionPoly-ban]

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.

[fightbackk (Guest)]

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?

[Drew Richardson]

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