lie detector tests?

[surfin joe]

is there any method to use to lie and still pass one? I'm not taking one but I thought it would be a nice skill to have in case I ever knock a bank over or something. [img]i/expressions/beer.gif[/img]

[hockeystl]

What I've heard......
A common method is to place a thumb tack in your sock/shoe. When you answer a the normal question(ones that do not require lies) you inflict the pain on yourself. Your pulse will jump, similar to what happens when you lie.

[hockeystl]

How to Beat the Lie Detector
Armed with these directions for fooling
the quack who operates it, you need not
fear this modern instrument of torture
by WILLIAM SCOTT STEWART

* ARTICLE *

In the first place, it's the bunk. In spite of what the newspapers and the so-called experts would have you believe, there's no machine on earth capable of detecting a lie.

The popular conception of a "lie detector" machine--and a belief sponsored by the propaganda of those who live off the racket--is that of an Almighty contraption that rings a gong every time a lie is told, a machine whose instrument gauge points a "naughty-naughty" finger at any one who dares to fib to it. You'd hardly think it necessary to say "There ain't no such animal," and yet in this age when the public is ready to believe anything and everything so long as it's labeled "scientific," quacks are finding an easy market for their pretended infallible crime cure-all, the lie detector. Some of those guilty are being passed up, while the innocent are often made to suffer.

Because this fraud upon the credulous public is growing to such proportions that everyone--not only those who are booked at the police station--is open to attack by the lie detectors, everyone owes it to himself to have some understanding of the operation of the machine, and to have some plan of combating it when it forces itself upon him.

Really "there ought to be a law" prohibiting the use of the lie detector; but even if passage of such a law could be brought about over the objections of the favorite sons who make nice, fat livings with their mechanical Charlie McCarthys, that law would probably be about as effective as the sterile laws prohibiting the third degree today--and you don't have to rely on the movies to know that police methods are unhampered by restrictions on the third degree. As a matter of fact, the lie detector is nothing but the third degree dressed up in white tie and tails. Warden Lawes gave an apt definition of their usefulness when he said, "Those lie detector gadgets are all right...provided you have a couple of stool pigeons working behind the scenes."

The effectiveness of the machine depends largely on the victim's fears or belief in its infallibility, so if you understand something about how the lie detector works, and about the law concerning your relations with it, you've accomplished the first step in beating the fraud.

There are a number of machines in use today. The most modern one combines those which were formerly used separately. Called the polygraph, meaning "many-graph" instrument, this lie detector is a hybrid--not so pure, and not so simple. None of the parts was intended by the inventor to be passed off as a detector of lies. It's made up of the cardiograph, which records the pulse wave; the sphygmograph, which records the blood pressure; the galvanograph, which records the galvanic reflex (which closely follows the activity of the sweat pores); and the pneumograph, which records the respiratory movements. The whole thing is sometimes called the pneumo-cardio-sphygmo-galvanograph. The name alone is enough to scare you into reverent belief in its powers--and that's where the fun begins for the other fellow.

When you're strapped into the contraption, a rubber tube is placed around your chest, and a blood pressure cuff, of the type ordinarily used by physicians, is fastened about your upper arm. This cuff is then inflated to a pressure about midway between the systolic and diastolic blood pressures. Rubber tubes approximately a quarter of an inch in diameter lead from both the pneumograph and the cuff into metal tambours to which two stiluses are attached. At the tip of each stilus is a small cup, filled with ink, which feeds the pens as they fluctuate with each pulse beat or respiratory movement. The recordations are made upon slowly moving graph paper, driven by a small synchronous electric motor.

Then the guesswork begins. Those who operate the machines write that the value of the deception test depends upon the bodily responses to certain mental stimuli, and that, therefore, there must be no irrelevant factors. If outside influences can't be eliminated, say the instructors, they must be kept constant throughout the examination and allowed for in the interpretation. Wherever a movement is made, voluntarily or involuntarily, that movement must be noted and discounted in the diagnosis. The normal breathing will affect the blood pressure instrument, and that should be noted. If the subject is not normal in all respects, that must be taken into consideration. When you get right down to it, the lie detector report is just one man's opinion of what a lot of jumpy marks on graph paper mean in relation to your guilt or innocence. Influenced, of course, by his guess, based upon what he has heard about you, and deductions he draws from how you appear and act. Everyone thinks himself quite shrewd at detecting liars. That "you can't fool me" attitude explains why first-rate con men work best on bankers.

If you're brought face to face with one of these modern torture machines, as a suspect in a criminal case, remember that you need not submit to any test by any machine. You have a constitutional right to refuse to incriminate yourself. This, of course, is pretty well known, but the operators of the machine lead you to believe that an innocent person has nothing to fear and that a guilty person will not dare to refuse for fear his refusal will be accepted as evidence of guilt. Neither of these premises is true. If you're brought to trial, the prosecutor is not permitted under the rules of evidence to let the court or jury {158} know that you refused to take a lie detector test. And if you're innocent, shun the machine like a plague. It might guess wrong.

The courts, with good reason, have refused to admit lie detector reports as evidence, and have not recognized the operators as properly qualified expert witnesses. Those who support the machine claim that this attitude of the law is reactionary, but the fact that the courts have admitted X-rays, photographs, blood tests, fingerprinting, chemical analysis and all other advances made by science shows they are ready to accept witnesses as soon as a reasonable degree of certainty is reached. The judges would have run to meet the machine long ago if it could have delivered. There can be no certainty in the pseudo-science of lie-detecting. Today, before an X-ray picture is allowed in court, it must be proved that the machine was in order at the time the picture was made. Before a lie detector report will ever be acceptable, proof will have to be made as to two machines: the polygraph and the human machine. So long as it is true that twenty per cent of us humans are out of line in some way which will have a direct bearing on the polygraph, the lie detector will have no legal foundation. Just as approval is withheld by the American Medical Association when the advertiser claims too much for his product, the lie detector should not have your approval...or mine...or the approval of the courts.

This legal protection of the victim is all very well and good where the courts are involved, for you can simply refuse to take the test and settle the whole question. Too few people realize this, however, and outside of court the lie detector has become a racket. The machine is now being used by big firms in an effort to detect thefts and other misconduct among employees, and the laboratories are getting huge annual fees for doing a hundred other bits of detective work--sifting out charges of infidelity made by one spouse against another, testing the truth of the claim of a mother as to the paternity of her child, searching into the truth or falsity of claims for damages or for insurance. It is highly unfair to demand, for instance, that a person who claims a loss under an insurance policy be required to submit to a lie detector test--especially when the operator is collecting from the insurance company. No such requirement is in any policy, and the law does not sanction it, but most ordinary people don't know enough to refuse to take the test. Then too, there is a large class of people not in a position to refuse to take the test. Bank employees, for instance, would lose their jobs on the spot if they refused to submit to tests when money is missing--so they must take their chances with a machine which all too often makes tragic mistakes.

So there you are--forced to take a lie detector test, not by law, but by the ignorance of your empolyer who subscribes to the "service" on the assurance of the psuedo-scientists [sic]. Some employers are sold on the value of the protection afforded them, brought about by the knowledge among employees that regular check-ups are to be made. The "service" includes washroom placards to this effect.

Okay, you say? You have nothing to fear? Take a look at this actual case, and see whether or not you think you can count on the machine to give you a fair shake.

A young woman was brutally assaulted by a man who broke into her hotel bedroom in Chicago. Having been knocked suddenly senseless with a brick, she could not identify her assailant. Suspicion attached to a young colored man named Nixon, who worked in a parking lot adjoining the hotel. Nixon was arrested by the Chicago police, but he denied his guilt. He was taken to the Scientific Crime Detection Laboratories and given a lie detector test. The wise man in charge said he was not guilty, so, since Nixon refused to confess and there was no evidence, he was released. Later the police arrested another suspect, this time a white man, a resident of the hotel named McCall. An elevator man told the police that on the night of the attack he had taken McCall from his own floor up to that on which the girl lived. Here was the guilty man, thought the police, even though McCall insisted on his innocence. McCall was given the lie detector test, and the operator said he was lying when he protested his innocence. So, with that confirmation, the police beat a confession out of him. When McCall went to trial, he denied his guilt and testified that his confession was false and had been forced from him. The girl couldn't identify him, but the police helped the jury out by adding a bit of framed testimony about finding the key to the girl's room in McCall's pocket. McCall was sentenced to Joliet Penitentiary for life.

When the investigation of the case had just begun, the Chicago police had sent Nixon's fingerprints around the country. McCall had already started on his term of imprisonment when the Chicago police received a wire from the police in California, saying that Nixon's fingerprints showed that he had been guilty of a similar assault and murder of a woman and her child in California. The Chicago police re-arrested Nixon, and, when he was informed of the California charge, he not only confessed to the Chicago crime but described the manner in which he had gained entrance to the girl's room, took the police to the scene, and convinced them that he could not have known the details without having committed the crime. When Nixon was found guilty, McCall, an innocent victim of the lie detector, was released--but not before he had spent six months of his term.

When Nixon's confession was given publicity, it came out that the girl had confided to a friend that she was sure it had been a Negro who had raped her. But when the police presented McCall's confession, the girl was glad to be convinced she had been mistaken, and never revealed her first reaction until Nixon confessed. Everyone knows that police feel justified in concocting evidence against anyone they think is guilty. If the lie detector is to be relied upon as a basis from which to frame a case, no one is safe.

The guilty Nixon had come out of his lie detector test with a clean slate. Physicians later discovered that he had a low emotional center at the base of his brain. The operators "explained" their fatal mistake by saying that that physical abnormality had thrown off their gauges. But just think--no one of us is the perfect physical specimen. You may have an abnormality in the thyroid that makes you hyper-apprehensive, or any number of little reactional traits that will have their effect on the machine. The operators, in most cases, are half-smart policemen seeking to better their position, broken down investigators and private detectives. Even if they were competent physicians and had the time and equipment to examine you thoroughly, their diagnosis of your mental condition would still be subject to error.

In the legal journals, Wilson and Inbau report that confessions have been attained in seventy-five per cent of the cases in which the polygraph indicated deception. They don't say how the confessions were obtained. Actually the police don't want to be bothered with the lie detectors when they have other evidence. The testimony of a Chicago Police Captain before the Wickersham Committee is typical of the police opinion of the lie detectors. The Captain, when asked why he didn't make more use of the lie detector, held up his clenched fist and said, "This is the best lie detector." Actually the police resort to the laboratories only when they have merely a suspicion. The machine might complicate matters by saying innocent to a guilty man. Not many police have book learning, but they learn a great deal from experience. Most of them know that the lie detector is a fake. They use the lie detector as they use anything and everything, legal or illegal, which they believe will help them build a case, where they have only a suspicion, plus a great desire to solve a crime. If their suspicions are borne out by the lie detector, the police feel justified in beating the victim to a pulp, if necessary, to get a confession. They have "science" on their side if the suspect should die of his injuries: they can "prove" that a guilty man got what was coming to him--"in an attempt to escape." So what are those seventy-five per cent confessions worth? Are they not a case against the lie detector and the third degree, rather than a case for the machines? We might ask, too, of what value are the statistics which show that only 12 mistakes in diagnosis of innocence or guilt have been verified out of the 2,171 tests made by the Scientific Laboratory in Chicago (from January 1, 1935, to June 1, 1938)? How were those results which are not supposed to be mistakes determined to be correct? Was it after a trial, based on a confession obtained by the third degree? If you will think for a moment you will perceive how impossible it would be to obtain reliable statistics. Guilty men who are turned out are not always later apprehended, and the guiltless who are punished often maintain their innocence in vain throughout their term, or go to their deaths as the machine's victims.

Merely because an occasional thief is caught and made to confess should not justify the use of the machine on hundreds of innocent employees, any more than would the intrusion of our homes by the police be justified merely because lawbreakers are sometimes protected by the law which keeps the officers out. While the so-called gangster has ways of beating the machine, it's the poor and defenseless who are victims of such illegal practices. Don't let ignorance put you on the spot.

Another of the cases from the record of failures of the machine will show you how a basic knowledge of the lie detector might protect the guilty, while the poor, good, trusting innocents are taken for a ride. A messenger for the Brinks Express Company in Chicago, a fellow by the name of Hummel, handled money for so long he got attached to it and decided to take a few samples home with him one day. He walked off with quite a sum, and while he was in hiding he decided, just in case, to read up on the lie detector. He was finally arrested in the East, and brought back to Chicago. But he denied his identity, even in the face of overwhelming evidence. He took a lie detector test--he showed a clean slate, lied brazenly. He knew from his reading that the operators watch for a deep breath just before a lie and a sigh of relief afterwards, so by voluntary control of his breathing he beat the machine. He was convicted and later told of how he tricked the operator.

When you've examined the record and realized that the whole game is a racket, you've actually blasted the lie-detector's first line {160} of offense. If you can sit in the torture chamber, strapped into the model electric chair, confronted by the solemn operator and all his psychological tricks to scare you and gain your confidence, and still be convinced in your own mind that the system is the bunk, you're in good enough control of your senses to beat the machine. Your first impulse will be to try to conceal all emotion, but that is exactly what not to do. The physical effort required to conceal emotion shows up and could often be detected without a machine. So, in beating the lie detector, conceal no emotions; intensify them as much as possible, even on those preliminary innocent questions calculated to obtain your normal reaction. When you're asked a harmless question, think about something unpleasant. Deviations in the chart are not great in any case, and if you cause the needle to act up on innocent questions the operator will be baffled, whether he admits it or not.

It is really not necessary , in order to beat the machine, that you interfere with the operator, but by doing so you will be keeping your mind occupied with your own business. The blood pressure machine is influenced not only by the respiratory mechanism which the operator tries to register and allow for, but also by sensory impressions or sudden changes in the repose of the muscles. The operator, of course, will be watching for voluntary changes and actions in order to make note of them and allow for them in his interpretations, but if you bite the inside of your mouth or tongue on a question of no importance, unbeknown to the operator, he will begin to wonder what's the matter with his machine. You can make sudden muscular movements inside the skin, or twitch your leg in such a manner that the operator will see no outward sign of movement. Try moving your big toe inside your shoe, for instance. It's easy. Or, to confuse the test from the start, you might tense your muscles when the rubber is wrapped around your arm. If you appear to relax in spite of this tenseness, the operator will set his gauge to a false medium.

Of course, one who sets out to beat the machine should never admit that such is his purpose. Operators have little ways of testing, and naturally try to bluff the victim into thinking they know that an effort is being made to fool the machine. These operators maintain that such effort shows guilt, but pay no attention to that. Talk to the operator as little as possible. Remember that he is not your friend, no matter what he says. He may pretend to be alone with you, and yet in all probability his room is wired for sound and a stenographer in another room is taking down every word that is said.

If, in spite of your nonchalance, the operator thinks you are trying to fool him, you'll be given the word association test. The operator explains that he is going to mention a word, and that you should answer with the first word which comes to your mind, such as dog-cat, soldier-army, girl-dress, etc. Then, while you're still hooked up to the machine, the operator calls off a list of words, noting the time required for the response and the emotion, as indicated by the machine. About three key words, connected with the crime, are included in the list, and the test is repeated at leat three times with these words included. The theory is that a guilty suspect will reject in his own mind the real word which a key word suggests, and that in search of another he'll consume time as well as energy.

The way to beat the association test is simply to blurt out the first word you think of in association, whether you think the word is good or bad. Suppose you're suspected of a murder. The body was found in a park, so when one of the key words given you is "park," naturally the first word you think of, wheter you're guilty or innocent, is "murder." When you answer "murder" outright, the experts are sunk, for the whole test is based on the assumption that a guilty person will try hard to conceal the fact that he knows what the crime charged is all about. That assumption is about as sensible as many they make. Anybody but an expert knows that even an innocent person will try to gain a favorable report on the test, so, therefore, innocent and guilty alike will hesitate to give words connected with the crime. If a suspect indicates that he knows the details of the crime, the experts have no way of knowing whether he got information firsthand or through the newspapers or questioning.

Seeing that you appear to be not afraid of his machine, the operator will be naïve enough to think you innocent, when all the time you are nervous and scared. But, if the operators had good sense, and were honest, they would not be such racketeers.

No one should approve of the use of the lie detector any more than he would sanction the revival of primitive ordeals or Middle Age tortures. Think of what a sad human tragedy it would be if anyone who could purchase a few diagnostic instruments, some scalpels, forceps and a white coat, could hang out his shingle and commence medical practice on suffering patients! Yet anybody can buy or build a polygraph and practice on the unsuspecting public! The machine today is a fraud upon the public's credulity, not only because it is unreliable, but because it is an adjunct to the third degree. It should not be tolerated in civilized society!

[hockeystl]

Can I Beat a Lie Detector?
I always tell the truth. But not today.
By Emily Yoffe

I am sitting on a pad that sends an electronic signal to a computer every time I move my body. Circling my chest and abdomen are two rubber tubes, the pneumographs, which monitor my breathing. Tiny metal electrodermal plates secured to the index and ring fingers of my right hand with Velcro strips are measuring how much I sweat. A blood-pressure cuff is inflated tight around my left arm. Interrogating me about my moral failings is Darryl DeBow, owner of the Virginia School of Polygraph. I am lying my head off to him, just like—depending on your politics—Bill Clinton or George W. Bush.

I'm also flexing my anus as if I'm in a proctological triathlon—but more on that later.

For this "Human Guinea Pig," the column in which I do stuff you'd rather not do yourself, my plan is to see if I can beat a lie detector test. Although I'm a person of impeccable ethics, the whole idea of taking a polygraph exam, let alone trying to outfox it, has me in a state of fretfulness resembling Lady Macbeth in the fifth act. (OK, maybe I more resemble Ben Stiller facing Robert De Niro in the polygraph scene in Meet the Parents.)

To prepare myself, I read online advice on how to fool the machine. I consulted the comprehensive Antipolygraph.org, co-founded by George W. Maschke, who became an activist when he was turned down for a job with the FBI because of what he says was a false finding of deception during his required polygraph. I also spent $19.99 for a seven-page manual from Polygraph-test.net, which promised, "With the techniques in this manual you will be able to fool the machine so that you can successfully pass your exam no matter what!"

First, I learned, I had to understand the types of questions I was being asked. Polygraphers generally ask both "control" and "relevant" questions. Control questions are an unnerving tour of your past transgressions. An example might be (not that I was asked this), "Have you ever noticed that the dog has taken a dump in the house but pretended you didn't so your spouse will clean it up?" The relevant questions are pointedly specific about what the exam is really trying to uncover. For instance (and not that I was asked this, either), "Do you know where Jimmy Hoffa is buried?"

The purpose of the control questions is not actually to find out whether you stick your spouse with the dirty work, but how your body responds to anxiety-provoking questions. It's the relevant questions the examination is really designed to answer. So, if you didn't have anything to do with Jimmy Hoffa's disappearance, your confident denials about his whereabouts will elicit a milder response than to the control questions. But if you were involved, and said you weren't, then your guilty knowledge should create Mount Everests on the graph.

My online research said that beating the machine was easy. During the control questions I simply had to send the needles into a frenzy. Then, when I lied on the relevant questions, the needles (actually the simulated needles—polygraphs have gone digital and the examiner is looking at a computer screen) would remain calm. All that was required to cause the frenzy was the activation of a powerful weapon already in my possession: my sphincter. As the $19.99 manual explained, "[S]lowly flex your anus." Antipolygraph.org somewhat more romantically described the action as an "anal pucker."

Both warned not to overdo it, or get my buttocks muscles involved, lest the gauge I was sitting on reveal my squeezes. If the examiner picked up that I was using this or any other countermeasure, the session would be ended and I would be branded as deceptive. To perfect my technique I needed to practice daily, occasionally sitting on my hands to make sure my buttocks remained inert. Though I did my exercises, I doubted that double agent Aldrich Ames beat all those CIA lie detector tests because he had a sphincter of steel.

Lie detectors have been controversial since they were first used during the early 20th century. Even the matter of who should be given recognition for the creation of the modern lie detector is a matter of dispute. According to the National Research Council, credit—or blame—belongs to psychologist William Marston, who made another contribution to popular culture that has also sent hearts racing for decades. He is the creator of Wonder Woman.

Marston was an expert witness in a 1923 murder case in which he argued that polygraphs should be admissible. An appellate court was not persuaded as to their scientific reliability, and ever since polygraphs largely have been excluded from trials. Despite this, the federal government and local law-enforcement agencies are ever-larger consumers of polygraph exams. They are used not only to try to make people confess to crimes, but also as an employee-screening tool.

To determine whether polygraph exams have any validity, the National Research Council conducted a major study that was released in 2002. The 398-page report is easy to summarize: Polygraphs are baloney. The report found that lie detector exams are so subjective and undependable—are they really measuring deception, or just fear, for example—that they are inherently untrustworthy.


Armed with this knowledge, and a pucker tighter than a baby sucking on a lemon, I go to meet DeBow. With his ramrod bearing and buzz-cut hair, he looks just like the former deputy sheriff that he is. I'm already intimidated. Since he's not trying to divine whether I kidnapped a Teamsters boss, he comes up with a clever scenario to test my honesty. He sends me upstairs where, he says, a man is sitting at a desk. I then have a choice of demanding the man give me money, or politely leaving. If I take the money, DeBow tells me, I will be committing a robbery. I walk up the stairs, take a $20 bill, hide it in my pocket, and return to DeBow.

Then we go into a little room with a computer monitor and the rest of DeBow's equipment. DeBow places me in a chair opposite him to conduct the standard pre-polygraph interview. I have read that since everyone has done something naughty, when I'm asked I should just admit my minor transgressions. I'm impressed that within minutes DeBow has moved from innocuous biographical questions (name, place of birth) to an exploration of my tortured family relationships and my thieving past. When he asks if I've ever stolen anything, I acknowledge that on about half a dozen occasions in my late teens I shoplifted magazines. He reacts as if I'm Ma Barker reincarnated. I try to laugh it off, but I feel guilty.

Then he asks me if I took the money from the man upstairs. I look calmly and directly at him and answer, "No." For about 45 minutes he reviews my childhood and my criminal inclinations, every so often interrupting these reveries to ask again if I stole the money. I keep feeling I should try to take charge of the interview, like Sharon Stone in her provocative, leg-crossing (and uncrossing) interrogation scene in Basic Instinct. Of course, to carry that off it helps to look like Sharon Stone.

Finally DeBow hooks me up. When he's done, I feel trussed up like a Thanksgiving turkey. He goes over the series of 10 questions he's going to ask me. It is obvious which ones are controls ("Have you ever committed a serious, undetected crime?" "Since being a journalist, have you ever lied to make a story more than it was?") and which ones are relevant ("Today, did you take that money from the man upstairs?" "Did you steal that money?").

As he asks each control question, I do my flexing and two other techniques the Web sites recommend: I slightly alter my breathing and perform mathematical sums in my head but answer honestly. In response to every relevant question, I lie and say I didn't take the cash. We go over the series of questions several times and by the end, even though there is no longer a Soviet Union, and even though I have never spied for it, I feel like confessing that I have.

DeBow has yet another series of questions he wants to ask me, but first he says, in an exasperated tone, that I need to stop doing my erratic breathing. I don't know if he doesn't mention the sphincter thing because I am such a master at it, or because he's too polite. I drop the breathing but keep the squeezing. His new questions are pointed. "If you stole the money was it a $100 bill?" "Was it a $10 bill," etc., through the denominations. I reply "no" to each. When he finishes this he turns to me and says, "You want to give me the money back?" I try to pretend I don't have it, but he assures me that I failed the exam. When I ask him to prove it, he shows me the response to when he asked if I'd stolen a $20 bill. My sweat glands were releasing a Nile of guilt.

DeBow agrees with the computer-generated score on my overall exam that there was a 99 percent chance I was being deceptive when I denied the robbery. But he says he hadn't even needed to hook me up to know that. During our pre-interview, he says, it was obvious when I was lying. During most of the pre-interview I was as twitchy as a picnicker sitting on a fire-ant nest. But I'd become uncharacteristically wooden each time he asked about the money.

He also says that if I were not a journalist he would have ended the examination within a few minutes because of all my stunts. He had noticed the sphincter thing, he says. He shows me it was hard to miss since every time I did it I created a spike on the computer resembling the Empire State building.

As we review the charts it turns out that when he'd asked me if I'd ever lied to make a story better and I said "no," my breathing, sweat-gland, and blood-pressure responses made me look like a combination of Jayson Blair and Stephen Glass. DeBow reassures me that just meant he'd come up with a good control question—one that got my anxieties flowing. But there was a bigger reaction when I actually lied. "You try to be a good liar," he says. "But you suck at it." I take that as a compliment.

Is there something you've always wanted to do but were too scared or embarrassed to try? Ask the Human Guinea Pig to do it for you. E-mail me your ideas at humanguinea@hotmail.com.

Emily Yoffe is the author of What the Dog Did: Tales From a Formerly Reluctant Dog Owner. You can reach her at emilyyoffe@hotmail.com or www.whatthedogdid.com.

[hockeystl]

If that's not enough reading material, order this book:

Beat the Heat : How to Handle Encounters with Law Enforcement

[Inside The Pylons]

I wouldn't try this but I have heard that if you inject a small amount of bleach into your system, it raises your body's functions (due to distress) enough to trump any lie you might be telling.

[Minnow]

Just quick scanned the first article but enjoyed the one by Emily Yoffe and her anal pucker control.

[hockeystl]

Another link...

NEED TO PASS A POLYGRAPH TEST?

[AnotherBadBeat]

As George Constanza says , "Its not a lie , as long as you believe it "

[kris]

most lie detector tests are inadmissable in courts as of today....actually MJH might be able to help with this one!

[Buck Swope]

seems pretty easy to fool

[drunkguy]

toms of stuff about this out there

the "anal pucker" actually supposely works, I have heard sometimes they now add an extra sensor on the seat to detect that

[Bostongambler]

Originally posted by: AnotherBadBeat
As George Constanza says , "Its not a lie , as long as you believe it "

It 's like asking Paparatti "Teach me to sing"

[stevo]

Internet posters stand a good a chance as any at beating it.

Most are pretty used to lying[img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-happy.gif[/img]

[surfin joe]

I know of a guy who was baked off his ass and passed the test. Maybe smoking weed would make you calm enough to lie and not change your heartrate. LOL @ the story with the girl squeezing her butthole. The first story didn't really make sense. Was he saying to flex your muscles and you will pass? Isn't that the same concept as squeezing your butthole?

[Bostongambler]

Joe what if the test is about whether or not you smoke weed?


I just blew my own mind.

[stevo]

Originally posted by: Bostongambler
Joe what if the test is about whether or not you smoke weed?


I just blew my own mind.

You are always thinking BG........LMFAO

[Oddessa]

Surfin Joe is starting to scare me...........