posted 12-20-2000 07:57 AM            

It sounds to me like you did a little research on polygraph, maybe a book called how to sting the polygraph, then screwed your test up yourself. Sometime even truthfull people fall prey to bad advice.

I don't know whether you are truthfull or not but flat gsr's usually means someone took medication trying to affect the test. Also no one breaths 4 breaths a minute without trying to do that, even deep sea divers, it's just another way of trying to screw up the test which it did in your case.

The vegas roll is not generally an insurmountable problem and can be delt with but not if someone is taking medications and deliberately controlling their breathing pattern to try to control the test.

Three options:
1) If truthfull stop trying to control the test and do exactly what the examiner says.

2) If lying don't take the test.

3) If lying take your best shot, it won't work.

If I am being harsh so be it, It sounds like your examiner did the best he could under the circumstances and if I knew who it was would tell him so. The information you gave is exactly what some subjects try to do to beat the test and only liars need to beat a test.

posted 12-21-2000 12:10 AM         

I don't understand how slow breathing is a countermeasure. When I was researching this for my debating club, we found the polygraph book on the AntiPolygraph.org site ( http://antipolygraph.org ) which has a countermeasures chapter. There, it said specifically NOT to breathe too slowly and recommended a rate that seemed even a little fast to me.

posted 12-21-2000 05:35 AM            

Concerning the countermeasure issue, the problem with a lot of the countermeasures discussions on the anti-polygraph sites and "how to beat the polygraph" articles, is that the people really don't know what the hell they are talking about - which is good because even the most inexperienced polygraph examiner can easily see that the examinee is attempting countermeasures. The examinee thinks that they are being subtle when they are actually being obvious. All of the recognized polygraph training programs have ample instruction on countermeasures and how to identify them - also we read the anti-polygraph sites and the "how to beat the polygraph" literature as well so we know what the potential user will be practicing.

I totally agree with Jack in his analysis of the situation presented by the original post. Attempting to control or distort the breathing rate is the most common countermeasure used, and the most easily detected since we have two additional channels on the polygraph to tell us what is happening physiologically - or what should be happening in correspondence with the breathing rate. In this case, the electrodermal (GSR or GSE)pattern was very telling, besides just being flat. Jack didn't go into detail, and neither will I. We aren't going to educate the potential countermeasure user how it is that we identify them so that they can refine their methods for instruction to others.

In 85-90% of the examinations that I conduct on specific-issue situations for attorneys, the examinee fails the examination and most of them confess to confirm the deceptive charts. Also, at approximately 50% of them attempt countermeasures, and most admit it when I have told them they failed the examination and let them know that I also saw the presence of countermeasures. THey indicate, almost, unanimously, that they got the countermeasure information from some anti-polygraph internet site - most haven't had the time to buy the books written on "beating the polygraph" since the issue of "will you take a polygraph" and the scheduling to the test generally present too short a time period for anything but internet searches.

We many times get anti-polygraph persons who will try to "fuel the fire" with horror stories on how they were abused, mistreated, or unfairly declared deceptive on a polygraph examination trying to project the message to readers that the polygraph doesn't work. I have attempted to follow up on each of these situation, which you can find on other parts of the bulletin board, and sent each of the person e-mail personally as well as announcing it on my post that I would help them resolve their
alleged abuse by the polygraphist, and not one has ever responded back with another post or with an e-mail to me. I notice that the person who made the original post has not made any comments back to Jack on his evaluation of the situation, either.

Please keep in mind that most of the "experts" on the anti-polygraph sites have never been trained as polygraphists and do not completely understand what it is we do or how we do it, but they sound like they know what they are talking about. Most of the actual experts (whatever that is) in the polygraph field just look upon them as pitiful buffoons who really need to "get a life" - as they say.

I hope this answers your questions or at least sheds some light on what you wanted to know.

posted 12-21-2000 07:17 AM         

What I'm left wondering is, though, does Inconclusive having breathed slowly mean he was lying and trying to beat the test? Or do nervous innocent people do the same thing sometimes? How can you tell the difference (if you can say without revealing too much)?

In our internet search for polygraph information, we looked hard and only found two internet books on countermeasures. One was the AntiPolygraph.org book which has a chapter on it, and the other was the Williams Sting manual (we passed the hat to buy a copy), but neither of these said to breathe slowly.

posted 12-23-2000 03:45 PM           

I suppose it hurt even more knowing that after I had been so cooperative with this investigation and having been so forthright with my examination, not only was I held up for internet ridicule, I was labeled inconclusive from my examiner. However, after my limited experience with the professionals within this industry, I am not surprised. Perhaps it is the negative nature of your profession. Or perhaps it is the criminal element you deal with on a daily basis that makes you so doubting and most definately close minded. Lets face it gentlemen, just like the police, everyone is guilty until proven innocent and the only trophies of professional accomplishment your profession has is the "catching" of a liar. I seriously wonder how many of you actually got any professional gratification from proving someone innocent. Or, if my theory is correct, your personal satisfaction comes only from burning the guilty. Witch hunters in the truest sense. I know this message will most likely be deleted, given the fact that I challenge your house of cards.

In answer to the gentleman inquiring about what ever happened to me and what ever came of all of this...I took my second polygraph and passed with a 97% probability of truthfullness. My examiner merely explained that I most likely was too worried about not being too nervous during my first test (I was very forthright about my first test and its conclusions). No countermeasures, no ellicit web sites, no extensive research on your profession, no secret motives...just an innocent man worried about his future.

So much for your perfect scientific profession gentlemen. So scientific and so precise that you each have to "interpret" each others charts. Science is perfect my friends. Truth is truth and lies are lies...no interpretation needed. Someday you may lift the shroud of denial you work in and consider this. I was labeled a liar...and a manipulator of countermeasures...two days later I was labeled an "exceptionally truthful" person (examiners words).

Who is right gentlemen...and most importantly...why was there two opinions within your so called perfect science.

I challenge the profession and this web sites moderators to respond to this letter.

Or, you could just delete it and be safe. Maybe you can keep your secret just a bit longer.

Inconclusive

posted 12-24-2000 12:30 PM            

Let me see if I have this right. Your attorney (who you guess believes you guilty) sends you to take an ex-parte examination from an experienced examiner. The purpose of this is to see if you are a good candidate for a scheduled law enforcement examination. This examiner finds you inconclusive because your purposeful slow breathing rate of 4bpm distorts the charts and, because this was purposeful, the examiner feels you might be deceptive. Your attorney, who allready felt you might be guilty, upon hearing this goes ahead and allows you to participate in the law enforcement examination. The law enforcement examination then clears you.

If I have recounted your version of events correctly, I have to say I have a real problem believing these events occurred as you state they did.

I can not envision any attorney allowing a client to take a law enforcement examination after receiving such a report from a private examiner.

For the sake of argument though, let's say everything you have recounted is the absolute truth. The first examiner would clearly be correct in an inconclusinve finding. A 4bpm rate of breathing virtually guarantees you will not be able to evaluate the charts therefore they are inconclusive. That slow a breathing rate is a concious act not an accident or a result of nervousness. For those readers who doubt this try breathing one inhalation and exhalation cycle every fifteen seconds and continue it for about four minutes, you will see what I mean. Since this is a concious act the examiner has every right to be suspicious and is obligated to report it to your attorney, who is charged with protecting your interests. You then take another examination for law enforcement and do not distort the charts and you say you are truthful and you are cleared. I fail to see what your complaint is. If what you have stated is correct then both examiners came to the correct conclusions for the right reasons.

I'll be interested to hear your response.

posted 12-25-2000 09:21 PM            

This is one of the Moderators that you challenge to respond:

1. I totally agree with Denster's analysis, and do not change my opinion on the analysis of Mr. Ogilvie.

2. It may not have occurred to you that Dr. Rovner has gone away for the holidays and was not aware of your e-mail, but be certain of this - he would not have been derelict or fearful of answering anything you had to ask.

3. No one on this website to my knowledge has ever stated that polygraphy is a perfect science - only you did. Now my challenge to you is to produce any scientific evidence that you can find that shows any science that comes close to the accuracy of polygraphy in determining truth or deception - don't bother trying because you won't find anything - anywhere. Whether you or Forensics wants to believe that polygraphy doesn't work is of no real concern because we have the scientific evidence to support that it does and exceeds that required by the scientific community.

4. We only have your word that you ever took any polygraph examination. Anyone, anyplace in the world with internet access can place anything and any story that they wish on a bulletin board. So the fact that any of what you state actually happened is purely prima facie in nature.

5. What you stated in your second post even further supports the countermeasures theory when you stated that the inconclusive nature ofd the first examination was caused by nervousness. Nervousness would also cause overactive electrodermal activity - in other words, your GSR recording would have been responding quite actively - not flatlined. As Jack Ogilvie mentioned, flatlined either means use of a barbituate, disassociation, or use of antiperspirant on the skin of the hands - in any case, extreme nervousness would not cause an underactive GSR.

6. Maybe your 4 breaths per minute and whtever happened to the GSR was accidental on your part - but, again, as Denster mentioned, the result was still inconclusive which only means the examiner could not read the chart - it means nothing negative; however, I still stand by my original post which Forensics asked me to explain further - but I will not - from the information that you gave in your first post, and now the second post - the answer is obvious to those who understand how to identify countermeasures -I have no doubt that the first examination involved countermeasures - either in an attempt to hide deception or to
"help" the examiner - as some innocent people try to do thinking that they are going to help themselves.

7. As for you analysis that we would rather burn someone rather than clear someone - that's a statement that, along with a lot of the rest of your second post, that leads me to doubt that any polygraph examination ever took place - your anti-polygraph sentiments
were clearly showing through.

8. Lastly, if this situation is a true, asDenster mentioned, I would certainly question the legal advice that you received in that your attorney allowed you to take a second polygraph examination from a law enforcement examiner without having conclusive results on the first one - again - that's if any of this is true.

Have a Happy Holiday Season!

posted 12-27-2000 08:42 AM            

1)All the responses you recieved were professional and I read none that were directly accusatory with the possible exception of mine.

2)Lets ignore everything you said about the problems with your first test except breathing. You said your examiner told you your breathing rate was 4BPM, this is unnatural and was done deliberately for a reason known only to you. Maybe it was done, as someone suggested, because you were worried about your test and tried to "help" the examiner. This does happen through poor advice given to truthfull people. What was your breathing rate on the second exam? I guarantee it was not 4BPM and because it was not the second examiner was able to give an opinion which he did.

3)There was never two opinions in this situation. Inconclusive means no opinion. The examiner only told you that your breathing pattern was indicating to him that you might have been trying to hide the truth through counter measures. He did not say you were lying or give an opinion as to the truthfullness or deceptiveness of your of your answers, he said he could not do that.

4)I think your challenge has been met.

5)As for keeping anything a secret that would be you not the Polygraph Profession.

6)Just in passing, you were totally unprofessional in your remarks about Dr. Rovner who may not even now realize you ever sent an e-mail.

Jack

posted 01-02-2001 04:37 AM         

In your note to Inconclusive you said, "however, I still stand by my original post which Forensics asked me to explain further - but I will not."

posted 01-02-2001 07:10 AM            

No problem, Elmer was just saying that anything done deliberately to change your breathing pattern can be considered countermeasures whether you breath faster, slower, or even hold your breath because it was done deliberatetly.

Not only that but if you are contolling your breathing you are not concentrating on the test.

Most of us are only to happy to try to answer questions for people who have honest questions out of curiosity or a need to learn more for a class.

Jack

posted 01-06-2001 07:53 PM            

Maybe I misunderstood what you asked in whichever post we are discussing. I wasn't suggesting that you were asking me to explain how to "beat" a test. I only meant that based upon the original post by inconclusive, and especially with his second one, a knowledgeable polygraphists could clearly see and identify, from the information that he provided, especially about the breathing pattern, that he was using countermeasures. In other words, the answer to how it was identified was in the post from what he told us. I meant in my statement concerning you that I would not elaborate on what was there that did identify it.

Actually, the analysis by Paul Woolley, one of the other Moderators who responded, was even more insightful because he succussfully analyzed and identified the two posts to show the "anti-polygraph" sentiments of Inconclusive which I missed altogether.

Anyway, I was not suggesting that you were asking anything inappropriate. You were being naturally inquisitive about something upon which I did not wish to elaborate. At least that's how I took it.

posted 01-07-2001 08:20 PM           

Paul must have truly used some insightful and obviously dubious investigative techniques to identify my anti polygraph sentiments (I hope you are feeling the sarcasm, though I doubt it). Thank God an experienced lie detector like Paul was there to catch my intricate web of lies and cover up which evaded you earlier in my postings.

Gentlemen, give it up. And most importantly, stop addressing me. It only gives my statements credability. Yes, everything I said and wrote you was true. Yes, I am antipolygraph (now, thanks to this board and my experiences), and yes, I did take a polygraph against the recommendations of my attorney and the original examiner.

Here are the facts...spin them as you may.

1. I am innocent of the crime for which I took the test.

2. Your profession labeled me a liar ("inconclusive results is a determination of deceptiveness and this means a failure of the test. No restest."...not exact, but a pretty close quote from this site)

3. Your profession later labeled me truthful.

4. Your profession must "interpret" it's "scientific" results.

5. Your colleagues have met my inquiries and posts with just as much distrust and paranoia as I have used toward you. I am a highly educated man who spent much time in the world of academia and I have never run into a culture or profession which so blindly and emotionally defends its paradigm and beliefs (with the exception of cult religion). I imagine you are just defending your paychecks and the considerable amount of money you must have spent on "polygraph academia" and the area of "forensic psychophsiology"...I have a hard time not laughing when I type that.

6. You call yourselves men of reason and truth. Open your eyes and ears to others thoughts and opinions. I realize its more difficult and uncomfortable, but you may just learn something in the process.

I know most of you are reading this and dismissing it. Just another "anti-polygraph" jerk with too much time on his hands. Just another webmaster spreading ugly information about our profession. Not true, but I will let you guys decide, you masters of lie detection you!

But if you hear nothing else, hear this. Your profession is a house of cards. Polygraph WILL become obsolete and be condemned to the same fate as the eight track. People suffer from your sometimes misinterpretions, and in most cases, greatly.

I propose to you that you must all be just a bit nervous. Because those with true faith in what they do or what they believe do not feel the need to so feverishly defend it or burn those who question it. That, my friends, comes from insecurity. Insecurity which is well founded. Ten years from now, when you are unemployed polygraphers (hell, when people don't even know what polygraph is), I hope you remember me. I anger you. I know I do. I just hope you remember.

In the words of your colleagues...

Happy Holidays (after that letter, I found particularly in bad taste, but par for your course).

Keep Trying,

Take your best shot, it wont work (my favorite),

I leave you for good to your delusions,