I was curious. I have heard does vinegar consumption allow you to beat a polygraph. If so why. What else could help.
BTW- this is Hypothetical
I’ve heard vinegar consumption can help one pass a drug test. The polygraph is a new one on me.
The polygraph measures pulse, sweat, and other things (which I currently don’t remember) and thus, a person who has trained himself to be calm even in those conditions would pass. This is why (AFAIK) the results aren’t allowed in a criminal court. So if you were just able to calm yourself and lie well… you’ll pass.
The polygraph measures respiration, persperation,(galvanic skin response) heartbeat, and temperature.
I can’t see how vinegar can be of any use, unless you bring french fries to the test.
Maybe vinegar makes you sweat more or something, so that when it rises as you lie, they may not notice the change… or something.
Warning! Don’t try this at home kids.
I have heard that putting a thumbtack in your shoe under the heel will screw up any results they get. Just push down on that heel at odd moments, during lies or truths, and the pain will make all your autonomous systems go wild.
Have fun.
d
The use of a polygraph is a questioning technique, and questioning techniques vary in their effectiveness depending on particular situations. Someone who believes their own lies has a much easier time of “passing” a polygraph test, although it is usually more apparent to those watching that those people are full of b.s.
The key to a polygraph test, or other questioning technique is to get the interviewee to believe that you will be able to spot them in a lie so that they will be encouraged to tell the truth.
[disclaimer]
I am not advocating trying to cheat a polygraph test.
[/disclaimer]
The first few questions the tester asks are control questions. They’ll say they’re making sure the equipment is functioning properly, and ask a few innocuous questions, like your name, gender, age, etc. Some of these questions they will ask you to lie. What they’re doing is setting up a baseline to judge the rest of your reactions against. The trick is to step on that tack in your shoe, bite the inside of your lip, or think of something really distressing when you’re asked to lie on the control questions. This will make it seem like you react very strongly to a lie, skew the baseline, and make it more likely that you’ll get away with it when you lie on the questions that matter.
Here’s another method:
Spray your palms with unscented, colorless anti-perspirant (not deodorant).
I have heard that squeezing your but cheeks/anus really hard also causes your indicators to go a little wild. The same principle as the tack.
On a fairly-recent news magazine show they interviewed with a guy running a company which trains people how to beat the polygraph, with only one half hour of training. Apparently, you can find a couple of these companies in any large city. It requires only very simple biofeedback techniques.
I’ve never taken a polygraph. I think I know enough about how they work and what they’re looking for that I could probably make every other question spike as a lie. Or, I could lie on every other question and make them show as the truth. I’ve always wanted to test that.
The best way to beat the polygraph is to realize that it’s complete and utter BS. It’s just a very rough estimation of physical stress. Good liars will not be caught in even obvious lies (“Yes, I really am Napoleon.”) and those who think the’re on the scaffold for sure will give the machine huge ‘lie’ responses even when they’re telling the truth (“The apple is … oh shit! … red! … aaaack!”), so just the knowledge that it’s not very good technology will give you a big edge.
And remember that polygraph results are not admissable in court.
Of course, you could drop the cash to buy yourself a polygraph and practice, but they’re expensive and you probably won’t have to if you’re a reasonably calm person.
Unless both parties stipulate prior to the test to admit the results, at least in Wisconsin. IANAL and YMMV.
DPWHite nailed the polygraph question. The polygraph itself is pretty much useless. But you can use it as a tool to convince people that they have no chance of lying. If the subject believes that the interviewer can tell if they are lying or not, they are much more likely to tell the truth.
“The machine says you’re lying, Ricardo. So why don’t you just tell us where you hid the body?”
Hijacking a bit, if any employer asked me to take a polygraph I’d try to educate them on why it’s a waste of money. One of my favorite examples was an old 60 Minutes piece. A photography magazine hired three different polygraph companies to try to find the person who stole a camera they were supposed to review. The thing is, the camera wasn’t stolen, and the four people asked to play the role of “suspect” were all in on the gag. All three companies reported a positive, though I think a different person each time. Even after being shown they were wrong they maintained that polygraphs are useful. I think two of the three positives were largely because the tester and the person being tested rubbed each other the wrong way.
So bringing this back on topic, try to be nice to your tester. If he likes you it appears he’s more likely to give you a passing grade.
Again, a slight hijack:
I recall a story where, supposedly, two officers knew this dude was guilty, but their evidence was apparently circumstantial.
It seems they hooked a colander- the bowl with the holes for draining and rinsing- with wires to a photocopier. They then brought the thug in, sat 'im down and put the bowl on his head. Told 'im it was a new style polygraph, way more sensitive than the old style.
So they jumped right to the point and asked the guy “Did you do it”? He said no. Officer #2 punches the button on the copier (which copies the page they’d placed on the glass) and it dutifully spits out a copy that says in big, black letters, “Liar”. (Or perhaps “lying”.)
Thug sees this, panics, and confesses. 
Snopes says it’s an urban legend though, dating back to maybe the sixties.
So we’ve got it nailed. Go in there covered in anti-perspirant and vinegar, squeezing yer bum cheeks, biting ya lips, and with thumbtacks driven into the soles of your feet. You’ll be a vision of serenity.
I have read, although I do not recall where, that a good alternative to the thumbtack is a section of toothpick wedged between the first and second toes. It would make walking much easier, I would think.
There are a couple of ‘for-sure’ ways of beating the polygraph.
First, the polygraph is measuring things like rate of pulse. This can be affected if you insist that you take the polygraph upside down: head near floor, feet in air. If you insist on this position, they must comply.
Second, wrap aluminum foil around your torso, under your shirt. This will keep the needle from showing extreme reactions.
Third, your shoes restrict your pulse rate. Take off your shoes and socks (and leave the toothpicks or thumbtacks in your toes, as a pressure point.)
Finally, sprinkle references to space aliens in your answers. As often as possible. This will confuse them.
Do all these, and you’re sure to beat the polygraph.
Now, for a slight fee, I’ll tell you how to get out of the mental institution they take you to after the polygraph test.
Although polygraph results are inadmissible at trial, they can go a great distance towards convincing the police they have the wrong guy - or confirming in their minds they have the right one.
Perhaps master criminals can calmly sail past their lies. But in my experience, vanishingly few international jewel thieves were in need of my services.
All of the hints above would be ineffective with a good examiner. A good examiner would realize the spikes he’s seeing were too immediate to come from stress, and discount the guy with the thumbtack or the (god help us!) buttcheek method.
Although I have not made a formal study, I strongly suspect that more than 30 minutes of training is required to achieve the zen-like control of involuntary reflexes necessary to defeat a good examiner.
By the way: the protocol, at least for criminal investigations in Virginia in the late 1980s, was as follows: subject is brought into a room with the examiner and machine. The examiner explains the operation of the machine and how it will be hooked up. He then runs through each of the questions that will be asked, before the subject is hooked up. He then hooks up the subject, asks the questions once, then takes a short pause, and runs through the set a second time.
This is designed to eliminate the strees that a subject, innocent or guilty, would naturally feel in such situations. There are no surprise question changes.
Again - in my experience only - the police and CA’s office found polygraphing to be a useful tool. For this reason, I suggest the chances of any random person being able to beat a good examiner are small.
- Rick