How to beat a polygraph EASILY

[zengrifter]

Polygraphy is Quackery

Scientists overwhelmingly agree that polygraph "testing" is junk science. The only "raging debate" pits people who don't yet understand that it's flimflam against the growing number who do.

Our government's stubborn reliance on this pseudoscience poses a clear and present danger: make-believe science yields make-believe security.

This non-profit, public interest website is dedicated to telling the truth about lie detectors that those with vested interests in perpetuating the polygraph don't want you to know.

The lie detector is itself based on lies...

Did you know it takes less training to give lie detector "tests" than it does to give haircuts? The longest polygraph school (run by the U.S. Government; perhaps its students are slow learners) produces newly minted polygraphers in just 14 weeks -- less than half the time it takes to graduate from a typical barber college. But while barber college graduates can cut hair, polygraph school graduates cannot detect lies.

The dirty little secret behind the polygraph is that the "test" depends on trickery, not science. The person being "tested" is not supposed to know that while the polygraph operator declares that all questions must be answered truthfully, warning that the slightest hint of deception will be detected, he secretly assumes that denials in response to certain questions -- called "control" questions -- will be less than truthful. An example of a commonly used control question is, "Did you ever lie to get out of trouble?" The polygrapher steers the examinee into a denial by warning, for example, that anyone who would do so is the same kind of person who would commit the kind of behavior that is under investigation and then lie about it. But secretly, it is assumed that everyone has lied to get out of trouble.

...continued here -http://antipolygraph.org/

===================
FREE BOOK PDF -

The Lie Behind the Lie Detector
Download: http://antipolygraph.org/lie-behind-...e-detector.pdf

Executive Summary

POLYGRAPH "testing" has no scientific basis: it's entirely dependent on your ignorance and fear. Educate yourself. In this book, you will discover the trickery on which polygraph "testing" depends, and learn how to make sure you pass your polygraph "test."

Our government's reliance on unreliable polygraph "testing" is both a danger to our national security and a hazard to the reputations of law-abiding citizens whose trustworthiness is judged by this voodoo science. The Lie Behind the Lie Detector exposes polygraph waste, fraud, and abuse.

Chapter One covers the validity of polygraph "testing." Polygraphy can have no scientific validity because it is not a scientific procedure.

Chapter Two discusses polygraph policy, with special emphasis on the Aldrich H. Ames espionage case. In addition, the false positive problem in polygraph security screening is also discussed in detail.

Chapter Three exposes the trickery on which polygraph "testing" depends.

Chapter Four provides detailed instructions on how to use polygraph countermeasures to protect yourself against becoming a false positive.

Chapter Five discusses grievance procedures for those who have been falsely accused based on polygraph chart readings.

The Lie Behind the Lie Detector is free for non-commercial use and distribution.

xxx

[zengrifter]

Polygraph Reliability 'Little Better Than Chance'
Operators Can Easily Affect Results

From Wikipedia
RENSE| 2-25-8

There is little scientific evidence to support the reliability of polygraphs. Despite claims of 90% - 95% reliability, critics charge that rather than a "test", the method amounts to an inherently unstandardizable interrogation technique whose accuracy cannot be established. A 1997 survey of 421 psychologists estimated the test's average accuracy at about 61%, a little better than chance.[15] Critics also argue that even given high estimates of the polygraph's accuracy a significant number of subjects (e.g. 10% given a 90% accuracy) will appear to be lying, and would unfairly suffer the consequences of "failing" the polygraph.

MORE- http://rense.com/general80/poly.htm

[zengrifter]

So polygraphs are next to worhtless - is there another method that does work and can be used for BJ teams?

Yes, there is. zg

[Positively+EV]

So polygraphs are next to worhtless - is there another method that does work and can be used for BJ teams?

The prove of its not working from yous interview -
What is the alternative to the poly??

Prior to my second stab at the lie-detector, I had become quite a polygraph expert. I had learned
that one should simply never submit to a polygraph for the purpose of verifying honesty - the odds
of a false-positive being far too great. Further, if one must submit, there are simple “countermeasures”
that can insure a passing (honest) grade.

I employed the counter-measures and they were as beautifully simple and effective as
antipolygraph.com had foretold. “So easy that a ten-year-old child can learn it in 15 minutes,” to
quote an Army intelligence officer from the website.

The polygraph operator printed out a “97.9% likelihood of honesty,” then turned off his machine
and pulled his chair close. He asked me in a serious tone if I had used ‘counter-measures.’
Antipolygraph.com had prepared me for this question as well. “Counter-measures?,” I dead
panned back, “You mean like the casinos use against counters?” “Look,” he poker-faced back,
“You paid for this test and you passed…97.9% truthful. But, tell me in confidence. Did you use
counter-measures?”

I looked him straight in the eye and told him I didn’t know what he was talking about, but if he was
inferring that I was not truthful he could strap me back in and run another test, this time on his
dime. Of course he declined. Anyway, I passed. What a joke polygraphs are. First I told the truth and
got a false-positive, then I lied and got a false-negative.

[Svengarlicky]

So polygraphs are next to worhtless - is there another method that does work and can be used for BJ teams?

Yes, there is. zg

I think it's called a G300 test. It's very expensive and time consuming.

[zengrifter]

Not what I was inferring ...
VSA is the ticket, because voice snippets can be recorded surreptitiously and analyzed in non-real time.

In a study published December 7, 2013, the International Journal of Electrical, Electronics and Computer Engineering (IJEECE) found that Voice Stress Analysis (VSA) technology can identify emotional stress better than polygraph.

An 18-year study conducted by Dr. James L. Chapman, Professor Emeritus, Former Director of Forensic Crime Laboratory, State University of New York at Corning, evaluated the use of the Voice Stress Analysis technology for the detection of stress associated with possible deception. Using a combinatorial approach of VSA and a standardized questioning process, Dr. Chapman was able to show that VSA detected stress associated with criminal activities in 95% of the confession obtained cases studied.

[Villiam]

Anybody ever watch Lie To Me? That show pretty much convinced me of the effectiveness of proper interrogation techniques combined with the power of provoking and reading micro-expressions. The power from these simple techniques can make for amazing accuracy. They did do a VSA episode that was really interesting as well. They really did the science justice.

[Lady Tthree]

I looked him straight in the eye and told him I didn’t know what he was talking about, but if he was

inferring that I was not truthful he could strap me back in and run another test, this time on his
dime. Of course he declined. Anyway, I passed. What a joke polygraphs are. First I told the truth and
got a false-positive, then I lied and got a false-negative.

Right there, ZG admits that he is a shameful liar. Shame on him shame shame shame.