AntiPolygraph.org Message Board

The following challenge was e-mailed to Illinois Polygraph Society (IPS) Secretary Thomas Ivey <iis@heart.net>, who is listed on PolygraphPlace.com as the point of contact for the IPS, with a request that it be forwarded to IPS President Harry Reed.

Dear President Reed:

I am a co-founder of AntiPolygraph.org, a website dedicated to exposing polygraph waste, fraud, and abuse, and to the ultimate abolishment of polygraphy.

According to reporter Brad Burke <bburke@pjstar.com> of the Peoria Journal Star, you claim that experienced polygraph professionals can easily detect attempts to foil polygraph tests, stating, "They would have to be a very, very sophisticated person to manipulate the results." The comments to which I refer appear in Mr. Burke's 20 October 2001 article, "Parents negotiate lie detector terms":

http://www.pjstar.com/news/topnews/g65119a.html

However, on 23 July 2001, at a public meeting of the National Academy of Sciences/National Research Council Study to Review the Scientific Evidence on the Polygraph, Professor Charles R. Honts of Boise State University explicitly stated that polygraph examiners cannot detect the kinds of countermeasures described in AntiPolygraph.org's free book, The Lie Behind the Lie Detector. You may listen to his remarks on polygraph countermeasures in RealPlayer format at:

http://video.nationalacademies.org/ramgen/dbasse/072301_2.rm

You may download The Lie Behind the Lie Detector at:

http://antipolygraph.org/pubs.shtml

In addition, the FBI's recently retired senior scientific expert on polygraphy, Dr. Drew C. Richardson, testified before the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary's Subcommittee on Administrative Oversight and the Courts in September 1997 that anyone can be taught to beat a polygraph test in a few minutes. You can read his opening statement at:

http://antipolygraph.org/hearings/senate-judiciary-1997/richardson-statement.sht...

Two senior scientific experts on polygraphy have contradicted your claim that an experienced polygrapher can easily detect countermeasures attempts. I challenge you to back up your claim by citing any scientific research that supports it. If you are unable to cite any such research, then please explain how an experienced polygrapher can detect the kinds of countermeasures described in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector at better than chance levels.

Please note that this challenge will be posted to the Polygraph Policy forum of the AntiPolygraph.org message board at:

http://antipolygraph.org/cgi-bin/forums/YaBB.pl?board=Policy

Sincerely,

George W. Maschke
AntiPolygraph.org

cc: Brad Burke, Peoria Journal Star

Question:

Options:	Text	Color	Split Pie
Option 1:
Option 2:
Option 3:
Option 4:
Option 5:
Option 6:
Option 7:
Option 8:

Automatic End in:	days and minutes. Leave it blank if you don't want to set it now.
Enable Guest Voting:	Check this if you want guests to be able to vote in this poll.
Hide results:	Check this if you do not want the results of this poll shown until voting has been closed.
Multiple Choice	Check this if you want to allow users to vote for more than one option.
Time limit for deleting vote:	Time in minutes users are allowed to delete their vote (0 to disable delete).
Use legends for Pie Chart	Check this to use legends instead of labels next to each pie slice.
Pie Chart Radius:	Must be a value between 100 and 200 (default 100)

Name:
E-mail:
Your Verification Code is:	Please type the characters that appear in the image. The characters must be typed in the same order, and they are case-sensitive.
Verification Code:
Preview