George W. Maschke wrote on Jan 25^th, 2014 at 10:54am:


Describing my training as teaching "countermeasures" so liars can pass the polygraph "test" is the same thing as describing the polygraph as a "lie detector"!  Both descriptions are PURE, UNADULTERATED BULLSHIT!  The word "countermeasures" can only be used to describe polygraph chart manipulation by the subject of a polygraph "test" when two conditions are met: 1) The polygraph "test" must be proven to be 100% accurate and reliable as a "lie detector", and 2) the person is attempting to deliberately lie.  There is never a case where BOTH of these conditions are met.  In other words, you could only claim "countermeasures" are being used to thwart the polygraph operator's ability to detect deception IF the polygraph is able to detect deception accurately 100% of the time and that that deception would be detected were it not for the use of "countermeasures" by a person intent on being deceptive.  But, since many people know that just telling the truth only works half the time - i.e. the US Supreme Court, and the NAS report, among others, saying it is no more accurate than the toss of a coin - then a prudent person would try to mitigate the very strong probability of being falsely branded as a liar by learning how to produce a "truthful" chart.  That would not be using "countermeasures" - that would be using common sense! 

Why do polygraph operators tell people not to research the polygraph before they take their test?  It is very simple - the only way they can intimidate people with the polygraph is to keep them ignorant about how it works.  When polygraph operators say I teach people "countermeasures" in order for them to "beat the test".  I simply say, that's bullshit, because polygraph operators routinely call truthful people liars - and my technique is the only way for honest, truthful people to protect themselves from being falsely accused of lying.  Go to the MEDIA page and watch the CBS 60 MINUTES investigative report I helped to produce and see the proof yourself - three out of three polygraph operators called three different truthful people liars on a crime that never even happened!  You may also enjoy watching me prove THE LIE DETECTOR IS BULLSHIT on Showtime's PENN & TELLER: BULLSHIT!

So, let me emphasize this - I DON'T TEACH SO-CALLED "COUNTERMEASURES" - I simply teach people how to ALWAYS PASS by knowing how to show a perfect "truthful" polygraph chart!  The word "countermeasures" is a word that has been misappropriated by polygraph examiners - it is used to describe what they say is a means to thwart their ability to detect deception.  But polygraph operators have always maintained that they can tell when a person is using these so-called "countermeasures".  If that is true, how can anyone use them "beat" the test?  But, for the sake of argument, let me ask a few more pertinent questions:  If people can indeed be taught to use "countermeasures" to "beat the test", wouldn't that prove the polygraph is not a "lie detector"?  Does the validity and reliability of the polygraph test demand that the subjects of the test must be ignorant about how it works?  If anyone could be taught how to produce and/or prevent a reaction on the polygraph at will, wouldn't that make the whole idea of a "lie detector" a fraud?   And wouldn't polygraph operators have to admit their little machine is actually just a sick joke - and that the polygraph instrument is simply a prop used by an interrogator to frighten people into making admissions and confessions?  And would it not be prudent for the government to quit wasting money on something that is nothing but a fraud and a con job?  The fact is the answer to all these questions is a resounding YES! 

Polygraph operators do not want to debate the validity of the polygraph as a "lie detector" because they will lose.  And these con men certainly don't want to answer any of the questions I have posed!  They know they cannot prove the polygraph is valid and reliable as a "lie detector", and they know they can't justify their actions - so they just say that people who get my training are all lying and are only doing research on the polygraph in order to "beat the test".  Again, I say that is just BULLSHIT!  I have spent almost forty years proving that the "lie detector" is just a myth, and it is common knowledge that just telling the truth only works half the time, so people are smart enough to know that they must LEARN HOW TO PASS or they will be falsely accused of lying.  I don't teach any so-called "countermeasures"!  I don't teach people how to "beat" the test!  The fact is, people are getting my manual & video/DVD and my personal training because they are telling the truth and just want to make sure they pass - they know that just telling the truth doesn't work!  The methods I teach are very simple.  I just show people how to remain calm when answering a relevant question and how to produce a reaction when answering the control questions so as to always produce what the polygraph operators say is a "truthful chart". 

common sense,
The masseter muscle can become enlarged if you are a gum chewer or tend to grind your teeth at night. But, I agree with you that this is not the optimum choice for CM's, but should not be discarded outright either.

I think the manufacturer of the fancy headset is just cashing in on polygraph operators' fear of countermeasures. They probably made a bundle off of the silly "butt pad" and see a market in such novelties.

George W. Maschke wrote on Jan 26^th, 2014 at 9:57am:


Maybe it's just me, but when I look in the mirror and try to subtly bite my tongue, I can see my own jaws move.  I assume the polygrapher and anyone else watching me can see it too.

George,

I have no doubt that the “butt pad” sensors are sensitive as has been the case with motion detector bars, etc. over the last few decades.  

Sensitivity is not the end-all-be-all though. It is a combination of both sensitivity and specificity which is required (as is the case for real scientific endeavors, e.g., forensic chemistry/toxicology, etc.) to be successful at analytical detection. 

In that, I mean it is a much simpler task to produce a response, and say yes I can see it with this gizmo vs. the task of determining whether there is any response at all in an unknown field that might or might not include (physiologically and/or countermeasure-produced) signal and which does include a lot of noise.  

The results of the first task are what you show the boss to indicate that you are doing something or what you present to he who doles out government research funds to keep the good times rolling.

The degree to which one is successful at the latter task is the measure of whether one is successful in detecting truth and falsehood in real life, and that is what has to be demonstrated, and which to my knowledge has not.

With regard to the countermeasure challenge that you mention in a separate post, the operational parameters are pretty clear and simple as well as the statistics which would be derived from simulated crime ground truth: accuracy in determining truthful and deceptive examinees, both those who have applied countermeasures and those who have not.

The conduct of the countermeasure challenge does not require my participation and could well have been performed many times over the last dozen years by the government proponents of lie detection.  I would not be surprised to find that such is the case.  No public response to the challenge will be forthcoming until those who would accept such challenge have convinced themselves through their own private efforts that they would likely and regularly prevail in taking up the challenge.  Sound of crickets…

Ex Member wrote on Jan 26^th, 2014 at 12:05pm:


No studies have been published in this regard. I have seen numerous polygraph charts from instruments that have such sensor pads, though, and they do seem to be highly sensitive. The tracing typically undulates in sync with the examinee's breathing.

Quote:

George,
Are any data available on the efficacy of these "butt pads?"

Common Sense,

Thank you for sharing your thoughts and experience with polygraph countermeasures. With respect to tongue-biting, the available research suggests that it is not detectable through physical observation.

However, the Lafayette Instrument Company, a major supplier of polygraph equipment, is now marketing a $525 headphone system that it purports can detect tongue biting:

Quote:


There is no published research documenting this device's ability to detect tongue-biting as a countermeasure, and I don't know what agencies, if any, may have adopted its use.

Drew Richardson wrote on Jan 25^th, 2014 at 3:53pm:


Drew,

Thanks for sharing these thoughts. I think the polygraph community could benefit greatly by taking to heart the latter points you raise.

What I find particularly interesting about John Schwartz's claim that sophisticated countermeasures can be routinely detected is the extent to which he is engaging in self-delusion. His claim is, after all, directed not toward lowly job applicants, but to senior members of the polygraph community.

Perhaps Schwartz would be willing to stand up to your polygraph countermeasure challenge (which has now gone some 12 years without a single taker)?

Properly executed countermeasures are impossible to detect because the body will react in the same way whether the stimulus originates externally (from the voice of the charlatan) or internally (within the mind). 

If I spring one from watching a sexy girl on the beach or later at night nurturing the memory, the girth is the same.

Let's use some common sense here regarding polygraph countermeasures.  TLBTLD describes these primary physical countermeasure methods:

1. Tongue Biting - If the polygraph victim...err...candidate doesn't do this discretely, it is possible the polygrapher can see his/her mouth moving.  It is also possible that the camera(s) in the room have high resolution and can zoom in on the candidate's face and detect mouth movements.  Hence, the candidate can be caught easily if they screw up.  Bad idea.

2. Breathing Pattern Changes - There are pneumatic tubes placed around your chest to measure breathing.  These tubes are very sensitive.  If you screw up your breathing manipulation countermeasure just the slightest (like not holding your breath correctly), the tube sensors may detect it.  I mean your breathing is being measured.  I wouldn't chance this.  Bad idea.

3. Mental Thoughts - There is no machine, no doctor, no sensors, no psychic, no magician, nobody that can read your thoughts.  People that claim they can are just entertainers or con artists. Only God knows what you are thinking.  So you can use mental thoughts to excite and calm yourself as needed during the control, relevant, irrelevant questions.  It is easy to pull this off with practice.  BEST IDEA!

And other rumors from movies and such also mention:

4. Putting a Nail/Tack in Shoe - Sometimes you put your feet on a floor pad sensor.  And again, the cameras in the room and the polygrapher may spot  your toes wiggling abnormally.  Plus, do you want to walk around with a tack in your shoe all that time you are in the polygraph building before you take your poly?  Bad idea.

5. Squeezing Your Anus - You sit on a seat sensor.  The polygraph machines knows when you squeeze your butt, wiggle your butt, or pass gas.  Bad idea.

The best countermeasures are mental ones.  I can tell you from experience.  I was able to beat my FBI polygraph with mental countermeasures.  I had also been though the polygraph game before and so I knew how it worked, plus I read TLBTLD, so I was no stranger to this. That along with being on my best behavior, cooperating and playing the stupid game, and making the polygrapher think I was a good guy with nothing to hide.  The impression you give from your behavior is also very important, so that you get on the polygrapher's good side.   I will bet my life and life savings (all two dollars) that nobody can detect mental countermeasures.  If you can read my thoughts, prove it!

To beat your poly, use mental countermeasures only.  Trust me.  This is your safest bet and it works like a charm.

George,

As you point out, if the document claims were anything more than bluff and bluster, it would certainly be in the polygraph community’s interest to present (publicly and loudly proclaim) the evidence for such with the likely result that countermeasure attempts would be diminished if not altogether stopped in the face of certain detection.  

Although I can think of a couple of other things to add to your list of indirect evidence that this document is nothing more than the usual smoke and mirrors and aggrandizement on the part of the polygraph community’s leadership for the encouragement and motivation of the greater peanut gallery, it is not such that still leads me to believe counter-countermeasure efforts are largely unproductive.

It is also not that I am convinced that would be teachers of polygraph countermeasures are inherently smarter or more skilled than those who would detect such countermeasures… Certainly the latter community is much larger than the former and would, no doubt, include some of the best talent government money could buy.

It really comes down to this…I believe that the normal examinee physiology as displayed at the time of score-able responses and in the absence of countermeasures during a polygraph examination has greater variation than exists with (and will include) score-able responses produced as a result of well-executed countermeasures.

Although a different subject, the substantial variation previously referred to in the last paragraph is also consistent with a lack of diagnostic validity for lie detection in the absence of countermeasures.

John R. Schwartz, who heads the U.S. Customs and Border Protection polygraph unit, claims in a memo to the American Polygraph Association that "sophisticated countermeasures can be routinely identified":

https://antipolygraph.org/blog/2014/01/25/cbp-polygraph-chief-john-r-schwartz-cl...

However, Schwartz adduces no evidence to support this claim, and did not respond to a request for comment. Any input from knowledgeable sources would be welcome.

People like User (Daddy-O) who is obviously a poligrapher are upset because they "KNOW" they are losing there "Cash Cow" and will "Lie" to ANY possible peak they can just to keep the polygraph in use. Well I got news for you. whether you like it or not, Your "polygraph" will soon be trashed. Face it, Its people like you who just make excuses and have no regard for human life. People like you have no heart.   Its people like George Maschke who make an awesome difference in the world. I thank George Maschke for protecting the rights of people all over this world NO MATTER WHAT CRIME THEY Have committed.

Here is another technique that some polygraph examiners are using to deter countermeasure use. The idea is to trick the examinee into thinking that the examiner will "know what it looks like on the charts" if the examinee employs countermeasures.

The polygrapher will ask a question series similar to the following:

1. When I say "now," please curl your toes for the count of three and stop. "Now." 

2. When I say "now," please take three shallow breaths and return to normal. "Now." 

3. When I say "now," please take three breaths slightly deeper than normal and return to normal. "Now."

4. When I say "now," please take several fast shallow breaths as if panting like a dog and return to normal. "Now."

5. When I say "now," please take three breaths each slightly deeper than the last and return to normal. "Now."

6. When I say "now," please push down gently with your left arm for the count of three and stop. "Now."

7. When I say "now," please tighten your sphincter muscle for the count of three and stop. "Now."

Upon completion, the polygrapher will tell the subject, "That worked well! I now know what is normal for you and what it looks like if you do these things intentionally. Obviously we don't want to see any of these things done intentionally as we go through the testing process."

The polygrapher will then proceed with the remainder of the polygraph examination. If you are planning to use countermeasures to reduce the risk of a false positive outcome, don't be fooled by this ruse.

digithead,

I have argued this issue for years since I joined this message board. Polygraph examiners like to claim that they possess the uncanny ability to gaze into the charts and identify a natural response from an artificial augmented [cm] response. I would sure like to know how one could tell a response on a chart caused by mental countermeasure versus a response from fear, anger, embarrassment, etc.


triple x

Lord_Darkclaw wrote on Feb 10^th, 2007 at 1:07pm:


Dr. Richardson is right, you should really question your reading comprehension ability...

Lord_Darkclaw wrote on Feb 10^th, 2007 at 1:07pm:


Nope, the NAS gives situations based upon assumed levels of accuracy and the base rate of lying and calculates the predictive value of the test which show that even with an accuracy rate of 80%, the test would falsely accuse thousands of people for every spy it caught.

Lord_Darkclaw wrote on Feb 10^th, 2007 at 1:07pm:


Perhaps you missed the part where the NAS said that only area that the polygraph showed accuracy above chance but well below perfection was with specific incidents with subjects untrained in countermeasures.

Lord_Darkclaw wrote on Feb 10^th, 2007 at 1:07pm:


For those trained in countermeasures, the answer is yes.

Dr. Richardson is right, there is no doubt that the polygraph machine accurately measures pulse, blood pressure, respiration, and sweating. And to echo him again, there is serious doubt as to whether changes in these measure correspond to deception. 

An analogy to the polygraph would be ghosthunters that use electromagnetic field detectors who claim that when the EMF meter goes off, it means there's a ghost present. Does anyone question if EMF meter detect electromagnetic fluctuations? No, but to make a claim that the fluctuation corresponds to a ghost and not to some other cause such as electrical wiring, magnetized metal, etc., one should have evidence. 

The CQT polygraph is seriously lacking in its evidence that it can detect deception because there is not a one to one correlation between lying and changes in physiology because these same changes in physiology can occur from other emotional, physical, and mental conditions. The CQT polygraph has no way of winnowing out these other causes and hence is an unreliable and invalid determination of deception.

In addition, countermeasures are a set of methods that allow individuals to exhibit the expected response for non-deception. How hard is it to believe that one can mimic these responses to beat the machine? This isn't the same as drug testing where one is employing a masking agent, one is merely demonstrating the expected physiological changes needed to demonstrate non-deception.

Again, your purported skepticism belies someone who thinks that the CQT polygraph actually works. A true skeptic would look at the evidence and come to the same conclusion as the NAS which is the CQT polygraph in any screening application is danger to society.

LieBabyCryBaby wrote on Feb 6^th, 2007 at 4:32pm:



LieBabyCryBaby,

Your claim to detect and differentiate natural physiological responses during a polygraph examination from artificially produced physiological responses [cm’s] short of an admission from the test subject is lacking in plausible support. That said, I would certainly agree and understand if you catch a test subject with a tack in their shoe… or, if you visually observe someone tensing/flexing while attempting to employ the tried and true butt squeeze, however. Short of the admission that a test subject was in fact employing polygraph countermeasures would be nothing more than speculation and opinion.

The ability to manipulate polygraph charts via artificial physiological responses is not as hard as you may think. Anyone with minimal training can easily produce artificially enhanced physiological responses indistinguishable from natural responses expected during a polygraph exam.

Simply telling the truth is no guarantee of successfully passing a polygraph exam. 


triple x

Lord_Darkclaw,

You write in part:
Quote:


Your statement is analogous to saying that aside from the planes flying into tall buildings and the 3000 people who died, 9/11 wasn't such a bad day.  You have missed the forest for the trees.  No one questions that we can instrumentally detect electrodermal responses et. al., but whether polygraph methods and procedures that utilize such measures allow for the discrimination between truth and falsehood.  It is the validity of the methodology and not the instrumentation ("the polygraph machine" as you say) which is in question and which has some import.  I suggest you renew your recent reading endeavors with that in mind...

I read the National Academy of Sciences report, but it doesn't seem to criticize the validity of the polygraph machine - it does criticize the methods of testing, but it does not offer any damning criticsm of the accuracy of the machine.

What the report gives, is a set of "what if" scenarios - 
situations in which the test subject may produce atypical responses. 

But in testing for responses to specific questions - ie; 
questions that are not generic - the validity of the polygraph test is not called into question except in regard to countermeasure techniques - techniques which are now limited since the introduction of counter-counter measures (pressure-sensitive seat pads/foot pads etc).

So, for me, the question remains: when someone is strapped into a chair;  pad on seat, pads under feet, tubes around chest, wires on fingers; can they really beat the test when asked direct questions?

Lord_Darkclaw wrote on Feb 6^th, 2007 at 1:49pm:


Individual cases, while sometimes worthy of demonstrating the foolishness of the polygraph, are not evidence rather they are merely anecdote...

The CQT polygraph test (and its variants) has the theoretical assumption that subjects will manifest different physiological changes (breathing, heart rate, blood pressure, sweating) when they lie. This is based on the fact that there is some correlation between changes in physiology and guilt...

However, this is not a one-to-one correlation and this is where CQT polygraph and its variants commit their logical error: just because lying people are nervous does not mean that nervous people are lying...

So the real problem with the CQT polygraph is that it cannot distinguish between the innocent but nervous and the guilty but nervous. As much as polygraphers, CVSA'ers and other mind-readers would have us believe, nature did not equip us with a "Pinocchio's nose"...

If you read the National Academy of Sciences report (its link is somewhere on this site), you will find all of the summary of proof that you need to know that the CQT polygraph and its variants have no scientific basis. In addition, you will find that the NAS also concluded that polygraphs are dangerous in screening applications (e.g., employment and post-conviction) and are biased against the innocent... 

The NAS also concluded that if it is to be used, the CQT polygraph and its variants should only be used in specific criminal incidents because this is the only arena where its accuracy is above chance but well below perfection. This is because the CQT polygraph becomes more like its scientific cousin, the Guilty Knowledge Test (GKT) or as its now known in the psychology literature - Event Related Potential (ERP)...

But in my opinion, the only thing the CQT polygraph and its variants are really useful for is eliciting confessions from the gullible...

Finally, you ask for proof but it seems that you're just echoing the pro-polygraph people on this site that harp about experience. If you really want proof, start with the NAS study then read Lykken's A Tremor in the Blood, these will give you a summary of the CQT polygraph and its dangers. You'll need no other "proof", unless of course you're a polygrapher just masquerading to spread disinformation...

Lord_DarkClaw,

On this website in the blogs area, is the original CBS 60 minutes expose "Truth and Consequences", it was done in 1986. It shreds, without a doubt any validity of the polygraph. I highly suggest watching it. If you still think there is any doubt about its dubious workings. Then you will  have to find your own answers. 

LBCB,

I knew you couldn't resist a rebuttal. But then again I would expect you to support your position. And contrary to your position, countermeasures are not even needed to get the inconclusives. Once the fear is gone, all thats left is an indignant relaxed attitude. And no matter how much false stimulation added to the scenario, nothing changes. I repeat once the fear and anxiety is gone, all you get is inconclusive.  And at this point in my life, not too much shakes those of us who know deep down in our souls that its a load of horse hockey while in the chair. We may have to submit to the polygraph, but nothing says we have to believe. And without that belief, you get nothing. Its cooperation without cooperating. And this works in all cases. Civil Disobedience for the polygraph, if you wish to use a cliche. 

Regards .....

Triple X,

I have responded to HOW a test subject is usually caught using countermeasures in a polygraph exam in other posts. However, let me repeat it for you.

EosJ's argument about the "worst case scenario" of countermeasures being the inconclusive test result MIGHT be valid if a test subject worked and worked and worked on countermeasures technique until he/she could produce convincing charts that wouldn't betray him/her to an experienced polygrapher trained in counter-countermeasures. However, subjects can not produce those convincing charts because they fail to take into account the factors of normal habituation and variability of control question response. To explain it simply, their charts are not normal. I've seen it over and over again. Sometimes subjects are caught using the old anal squeeze or other visible techniques, but generally it has been the charts that betray them.

In most cases, when confronted, the subject admits the use of countermeasures. In some cases, the subject sits there with a sheepish look on his/her face, but won't admit anything.  Either way, though, it is the polygrapher's call. I know normal charts when I see them, and I know abnormal charts. Could I be "beaten" by a great chart manipulator? Perhaps so, and perhaps I have been. But I caution those who would try to use countermeasures to beat the test that it is very likely that you will be caught. So if we figure the polygraph is already "better than chance" at detecting deception, do you want to further decrease your chances on the exam conducted by a polygrapher who knows what to look for?

*sigh* 

I just don't see anything conclusive in these forums!
I've started to read a little about the case against lie-detectors, and there certainly does seem to be a strong case; but I want to see someone go for the jugular!

Show me the proof-positive case, for or against.

Show me a case of a hardened skeptic failing to beat the test, or show me a case of an average person confounding the test.

LieBabyCryBaby wrote on Feb 4^th, 2007 at 3:13am:



LBCB,

As much of your advice contains a certain amount of truth. Most of it, contains the first rule of counter-countermeasures. Tell eveyone that they will be caught and fail, lose your chance, generally the world will end. From my experiece, I know this not to be the case.
The worst case scenario, which happens from having highly detailed and complete polygraph procedure knowlege is inconclusive.  This is based on the facts that the polygrapher needs 3 pillars to be inplace during a polygraph session in order to work. Feel free to argue if you can.

1. Examinee must have fear and anxiety. Without this in place the "fight or flight" response is gone. Knowlege is the key here, some may still exist, but the polygraphers advantage is highly reduced or eliminated.

2. Examinee must believe that deception will be detected. You achieve this, by all the misinformation and scenario presentation during the pretest. This added stimulus is ineffective to those of us who know what you are doing. Again we may have to cooperate, we just don't have to believe or take what is said as anything other than a great show.

3. Examinee must have consequences for failure.  This is the important reason why inconclusive is the result. Pass and inconclusive is not a failure. And the more inconclusives that happen the more familiar the subject gets with the box. Which you can't let happen, as what ever fear or anxiety may be left is shredded and gone. And if you look at this logically, is any job really worth this garbage. Life still goes on, with or without the polygraph. THe subject just has to have the courage to accept he/she may not get the job.

These 3 rules remove the polygraph from the equation. Pushing any decision back where it belongs, based on real facts from a background investigation.  Not a human beings questionable opinion.  And for me, multiple inconclusives effectively defeats the polygraph. 

Regards ....

LieBabyCryBaby,

All valid points and a reasonable assessment, however.

Simply telling the truth is no guarantee of passing a polygraph exam. 

The use of polygraph countermeasures if employed correctly, can enhance the chances or odds of achieving a desirable test result or NDI.

On the other hand, as you said and I agree to a certain point, there is risk involved should an examinee employ countermeasures. At best, it's a coin toss, or a 50/50 chance a test subject does not use countermeasures, and tells the truth. 

Whether one uses countermeasures... or they do not use countermeasures, there remains a risk of a false positive. Countermeasures simply reduce the risk of a false positive result, although there is certainly no guarantee that CM's will warrant a desirable end result.

You claim that you have caught several examinee’s using or employing countermeasures during the process of a polygraph exam. How did you catch these people using cm's.? 

Did you:

1) Actually observe or somehow catch someone squeezing there sphincter muscle?

2) Did you find a tack in their shoe?

3) Did you "suspect" or somehow catch them trying to solve complex mental math problems?

4) Did you catch someone trying to alter or "control" their breathing rate? If so, how do you know for certain that they don't breathe that way normally when under equal or comparable degrees of stress?

Although I cannot be for certain that you did or did not catch test subjects employing cm's during a polygraph exam in which you were the polygraph examiner. However, I must admit that I'm skeptical of your claims at best. 


v/r
triple x