Quote:

I have read his book and it is indeed lacking. I would not expect warm sociable charm from that crowd. I recommend you refrain from such name calling; not only are we not interested in hearing it, but it lowers you down to a similar level.

Doug Williams is a joke, his manual is a rip off, you can get just as much info at Antipolygraph.org or on the web. I called him up to ask for some tips and clarification and he freaked out on me! He's a total prick. Don't buy it.

Doug Williams wrote on May 23^rd, 2007 at 8:08pm:


Dear Doug Williams,

I wonder why you think you are the only person ever to have devised polygraph CM's. ??
You are an egomaniac Doug. Just because you catalogued a selection of CM's doesn't mean
that you invented or devised them and it certainly doesn't give you any type of copyright
over them.

Having read some of your diatribe vs George's eloquence, if I was in the market for a CM
book I would buy George's book. Not yours. You lack credibility.

I wish I was within driving distance to you. having seen you on TV, I have no doubt that I could
knock all that BS out of you. Might even turn you into a halfway decent person.

Newsflash Doug: You're Old News.

Sergeant1107 wrote on May 28^th, 2007 at 6:12am:


This reminds me of the fool whose response to a dispute was to say, “Don’t confuse me with the facts, my mind is already made up.”

I am wasting my time on this board, and I regret I allowed George’s taunts to goad me into a response.   I know there is not a chance he or any of his devoted followers would accept any proof offered by me.  But I know what happened and so does George.  I also know I will not get any satisfaction from him – and of course I knew when I jokingly challenged him to a fight that it was never going to happen.   

This is my last post on this board, and I will never visit it again, nor will I ever visit this website again – I don’t need the aggravation, and I don’t have the patience to wade through all the BS.  I have to go now, two people are coming to my office to get private instruction on my computerized polygraph instrument today.

Doug Williams wrote on May 27^th, 2007 at 7:30pm:

If that is what truly occurred you would likely be better served by offering proof, rather than challenging George to a bare-knuckle fight.

Your credibility is not enhanced by threats of violence directed at those with whom you disagree.  I'm sure you can see that.

Doug,

State exactly what was paraphrased.  Have you noticed a drop-off in business that this is only now upsetting you so?  With the abuses of the polygraph system, I would feel that there is plenty of business to go around.  I have never used your services but if your system is superior to what George is presenting, there should be no problem.

Doug, this website has given you a lot of free publicity just by this discussion.  George is not so upset that he just out right deletes any post with the name "DOUG WILLIAMS" in it.

The sword can cut both ways.  

Again, I state, this is one of the least restrictive or censored sites regarding polygraph usage any where on the web.

You can personally edit and censor your site.  The Polygraph Association strictly and vehemently edits and deletes anyone who they disagree with.

George allows huge amounts of leeway in his.  

Take a deep breath.

Regards.

Sergeant1107 wrote on May 27^th, 2007 at 9:45am:



While George's actions in paraphrasing my manual and passing it off as a product of his extensive research is mature and profound.  Give me a break!

The overall impression I have received is that Doug Williams is trying to make a living selling information on how to "sting" the polygraph.  George provides the same information for free, which of course cuts into Doug Williams' business.

This annoys Doug Williams, so he responds by attacking George in writing and by childishly offering to attack him in person.   

I understand, Mr. Williams, that you feel you must discredit George in order to protect your business interests.  It is likely that many other people reading your threatening messages on this board understand that as well.

Perhaps your time could be better spent in other ways.  Offering to fight people with whom you disagree, that you have never met and that live in other countries is ridiculously immature and foolish.

Doug Williams wrote on May 26^th, 2007 at 3:10pm:


No, the FBI didn't want me, and my FBI file indicates that the Bureau's decision to disqualify me was based on polygraph results alone. And that is dispositive of precisely what?

Quote:


You have skirted the question. What would the outcome a fistfight prove? Certainly nothing with regard to the provenance of the 4x4man posts.

Quote:

Doug Williams wrote on May 26^th, 2007 at 1:21pm:


I made no reference to the server (or, more properly, the IP address) from which 4X4man posted. (If you've forgotten it, I haven't.) My point was that your tacit admission that you did indeed register on this message board on 13 November 2004 connects you even more strongly with the 4x4man posts.

Based on an analysis of AntiPolygraph.org's logs during the relevant time period, the only scenario I can envisage wherein you are not the author of the 4x4man posts is one in which 4x4man is not only a friend of yours, but a very close friend, so close, in fact, as to have been sitting elbow-to-elbow with you at the keyboard as you browsed AntiPolygraph.org.

Quote:


Suppose I were to accept your challenge to an "old fashioned fistfight," meet you in Norman, Oklahoma, and you were to "[beat my] bloated face into a bloody pulp." (Or suppose, if you can imaine it, that the reverse were to occur.) What would that prove? It might demonstrate who was the more powerful bare-knuckle boxer, but it would shed little light on the truth regarding the provenance of the 4x4man posts.

Quote:


I'll let others judge just how "obvious" that is.

Quote:


I received no reply from you. Your apparent acknowledgment now that you are indeed responsible for these registrations only further confirms the previous strong evidence (based on traffic analysis of AntiPolygraph.org's logs for the relevant dates, which have been preserved) that you are indeed responsible for the 4x4man postings.


Yes, George, 4X4MAN did post from a server in my home state of Oklahoma, since that is where he lives!  He is a friend of mine, we became friends when I helped him pass his test to become a police officer, he came to my defense, and he posted his testimonial to me!  And no, I will not give you his name to protect myself from your slanderous lies!

You have lied about me and I have challenged you to an old fashioned fist fight. – where I come from, what you have said amounts to “fighting words”.  You have proved you are a coward and you refused to accept my challenge.  Now I tell you as you have told me  PUT UP (your fists) OR SHUT UP (your lying mouth).

Obviously now you are not just a liar, a thief, and a fraud, you are also a coward!

Doug Williams,

You should be ashamed of yourself. Though it may be tempting at times, violence is never the solution to problems. Perhaps, you felt you could no longer compete with your intellectual prowess, so you resorted to violent threats. You're just mad because George cost you some paying customers. Get over it.

I, along with I'm sure countless others, am so very thankful for this site. Not because it helped me to pass a polygraph, but because it helped me to understand how I could have failed one after being completely honest. 

Mr. Williams, I know you don't care because it's obvious that money is what motivates you, but I, like so many others, was truly devastated by my experience with an FBI polygraph examiner. I had no answers and nowhere to turn until I found the information on this site. George is helping people because he knows what the government is doing to loyal U.S. citizens is wrong. And he's doing it for FREE.

Doug Williams wrote on May 25^th, 2007 at 8:13pm:


When you've dug yourself into a hole, the first step in extricating yourself is to stop digging. On Saturday, 13 November 2004, someone did indeed register on this message board as "Doug_Williams." However, at the time, anyone could register using any e-mail address: authentication was not required. The person registering as "Doug_Williams" used the e-mail address doug@polygraph.org and used an IP address that did not appear to originate in your home state of Oklahoma. Suspecting foul play, I deleted the account. Twenty minutes later, someone again registered under the name DougWilliams, this time using your correct e-mail address, doug@polygraph.com. But because the registration originated from the same IP group as the earlier registration, I again suspected foul play, deleted the account, and blocked that IP group's access to AntiPolygraph.org. The next day, I sent you the following e-mail message explaining what had happened:

Quote:


I received no reply from you. Your apparent acknowledgment now that you are indeed responsible for these registrations only further confirms the previous strong evidence (based on traffic analysis of AntiPolygraph.org's logs for the relevant dates, which have been preserved) that you are indeed responsible for the 4x4man postings.

Quote:


Then I'll allow others to judge the merits of your statements.

Quote:


So be it.

Quote:


I'm afraid I don't share your view that violence is an appropriate way of resolving differences over matters of fact.

I have to agree with FairChance.

I hope someone else is posting using Doug Williams' name.  If not, Mr. Williams, you have some serious issues to work out and I wish you luck.

Doug,

I hope that someone else is posting using your name.  I have always tried to give you the benefit of a doubt.  This last posting is disturbing to say the least.  I have witnessed disagreements being settled in the way that you suggest.  Most of the nastiest fights I ever saw were in prison and they rarely stopped with the first event.  The confrontations became more deadly until the combatants were isolated or physically damaged beyond repair.

Take a deep breath and repost.

Regards.

George:  In response to your questions in your “public challenge”, let me start with your lying.  The one that first springs to mind is when you said I “masqueraded on this message board as a satisfied customer”.  I categorically deny that, just as I did immediately after you posted this lie about me on your board.  After I posted my denial, you immediately deleted my post – and you blocked my access to the board so I could not post my denial again.  But I tell you now, I did not then nor have I ever posted using the name 4X4 MAN!

With regard to the statements about fraud and theft, I have already spoken to that.

As to suing you, that is not a satisfactory solution as far as I’m concerned.  What would I get when I win the case, your clunky minivan and your little t-shirt business?  No thanks!  You don’t have anything I want.

I have a much better way of resolving our differences.  I have a “public challenge” of my own to put to you.  I challenge you to a bare-knuckle, no-holds-barred, knock-down-drag-out, fist fight.  You are a self important, puffed-up, pompous ass and you really do need an attitude adjustment.  A good beat-down will do wonders for changing your arrogant attitude, and I’m just the man to give it to you.  I look forward to beating your bloated face into a bloody pulp, and stomping your fat ass.  Don’t disappoint me now and wimp out on my challenge or I’ll have to add the word coward to the list of adjectives I use to describe you.

Mr. Williams has quietly revised the remarks on his "Frequently Asked Questions" page that gave rise to my present challenge to him. Deletions are struck through. Additions are underlined:

Quote:

One hell of a pissing match here, George is a thief and Doug is a liar.  You both support the same agenda, hell, burry the hatchet and get on with life.

Mr. Williams,

In your response above, you avoided answering the four points of my challenge, which I again put to you:

1) Please have the courage (and decency) to at least state my name when impugning my integrity on your website;

2) Please state precisely what in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector you honestly believe to be "very confusing and very dangerous." And please note also that the current edition of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector is the 4th (not the 3rd, as you incorrectly indicate);

3) Since you specifically accuse me of "fraudulently [holding myself] out as an authority on the polygraph," please point out specifically where I have misrepresented my knowledge, background, or credentials.

4) If you honestly believe I have "stolen" from you, sue me (and be prepared to be countersued).

But you do more fully air your grievances against me, and I'll address them here.

Quote:


I did indeed contact you, but it was long after my polygraph experience with the FBI and LAPD, about which I had by then published a public statement on the (no longer operational) website, NoPolygraph.com. By that time, I had no intention of submitting to another polygraph examination.

Quote:


You may sincerely believe that knowledge of polygraph countermeasures is your exclusive intellectual property or trade secret, but it isn't. When one publishes, one's work may be cited -- with proper attribution, of course -- by others, as we duly did with regard to "How to Sting the Polygraph" in the first three editions of TLBTLD.

Note that you are not the first person to describe the use of the anal sphincter contraction as a polygraph countermeasure. It was mentioned in the polygraph literature at least as early as 1977. See, Reid and Inbau's Truth and Deception: The Polygraph ("Lie-Detector") Technique (Williams & Wilkins, 1977), p. 207. I don't know whether the sphincter contraction is mentioned in the 1st edition of that book (1966), but in any event, it predates your "How to Sting the Polygraph" (1st edition, 1979) by at least two years. And as pointed out by Lykken (in note 5 to Chapter 19 of the 2nd edition of A Tremor in the Blood), Reid and Inbau also provide information on scoreable breathing reactions, which we relied on in the 1st edition of TLBTLD.

Quote:


I think any fair-minded, dispassionate reader of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector will see that it was never "simply a paraphrasing" of "How to Sting the Polygraph," as you contend. Other sources consulted, relied upon, and duly cited in the countermeasures chapter of the 1st edition of TLBTLD include:

• Clifton, Charles. Deception Detection: Winning the Polygraph Game. Boulder, Colorado: Paladin Press, 1991.
• Honts, Charles R., Robert L. Hodes, and David C. Raskin. "Effects of Physical Countermeasures on the Physiological Detection of Deception," Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 70 (1985), No. 1, pp. 177-87.
• Honts, Charles R., David C. Raskin, and John C. Kircher. "Mental and Physical Countermeasures Reduce the Accuracy of Polygraph Tests," Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 79 (1994), No. 2, pp. 252-59.
• London, Peter S. and Donald J. Krapohl. "A Case Study in PDD Countermeasures," Polygraph, Vol. 28 (1999), No. 2, pp. 143-48.
• Lykken, David T. A Tremor in the Blood: Uses and Abuses of the Lie Detector. 2nd edition. New York: Plenum Trade, 1998.
• Reid, John E. and Fred E. Inbau. Truth and Deception: The Polygraph ("Lie-Detector") Technique. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins, 1966.

And our chapter on polygraph procedure, understanding of which is crucial to the application of polygraph countermeasures, was based primarily on U.S. Government documents, and not at all on "How to Sting the Polygraph" (which, in my opinion, does a relatively poor job of explaining polygraph procedure).

As for why "How to Sting the Polygraph" has not been cited (except in passing, at p. 161) in the 4th edition of TLBTLD, it is because, with the dropping of the anal sphincter contraction as a suggested countermeasure, we no longer relied upon your manual as a source. If you sincerely believe that there is a passage in TLBTLD that relies on your work without attribution, please point it out.

Quote:


When you "confronted" me about my alleged "theft," I explained the research that went into, and the proper citation of sources in, The Lie Behind the Lie Detector much as I have done above. If anyone has expressed hatred, I think it is you, who wrote back to me in 2002, in terminating our correspondence: "A pox on you and your house."

As for my "attacking" you, it consists of such things as responding to a veiled attack that you publicly made against AntiPolygraph.org and me in 2003 (see, "A Response to Doug Williams," 1 August 2003) and pointing out your having masqueraded on this message board as a satisfied customer of your own services.

You accuse me of "mak[ing] unfounded accusations against [you] at every opportunity." What unfounded accusations have I made against you?
 
Quote:


A comparison of your current "Frequently Asked Question" page (cited in the first message in this thread) with your 2003 comments suggests that you are, if anything even more "upset" with me now than you were then.

Quote:


I do not now work, nor have I ever, for "the Iranians."

Quote:


Then please explain:

1) What have I stolen? Where did I rely without attribution on something you wrote?

2) What fraud have I committed?

3) What lie(s) have I told?

Doug Williams wrote on May 23^rd, 2007 at 7:31pm:

I must add, that this is just my opinion, based on how George has conducted himself in his dealings with me.  I now await the avalanche of posts from George's sycophants - all three of you can now pile on.

In re, George Masche:   

I was and still am very angry with and disappointed in George.   After he failed his polygraph test, he emailed me numerous times telling me his sad story.  I told him the thing to do was to get my manual and get prepared for the test – that is the only way to pass.  I even gave him a copy of my manual and sent him a tape of CBS 60 Minutes and many other television interviews I had done.  And here is the thanks I got - George promptly stole the technique in my manual, started his own website trumpeting his book TLBTLD, and telling people he could teach them how to pass their polygraph test.  Yes George, I said “stole”, that is defined as; 
1.      to take (the property of another or others) without permission or right, esp. secretly or by force: A pickpocket stole his watch. 
2.      to appropriate (ideas, credit, words, etc.) without right or acknowledgment.
In my opinion, that is exactly what you did!

His only experience with the polygraph prior to that was that he had failed his test with the FBI.  And his “research” on “countermeasures” was simply paraphrasing the copy of the manual I sent him, changing it just enough to avoid outright plagiarism.  I told him at the time that as far as I was concerned what he did was tantamount to a theft of my intellectual property – and I considered it betrayal of trust.  He tried to excuse what he did by saying that he cited my name in his book as a “source” for his chapter on countermeasures.   But I noticed that in the later editions he has even stopped doing that!  Perhaps he has convinced himself that it was really his idea all along?

George has been hostile towards me since I confronted him about his theft.  I believe that is the reason he hates me.  It reminds me of the old Chinese proverb that says something to the effect, “Why do you hate me, I’ve never helped you?”  Or, as one of our sayings goes, “No good deed ever goes unpunished.”  He continues to attack me on his website and make unfounded accusations against me at every opportunity – perhaps this hatred is the result of a guilty conscience.   

I am not as upset with him now as I was when he first stole from me because he now has plenty of company – in fact there are so many it is getting ridiculous.  The band of frauds and thieves has grown to over a half a dozen.  Many others have paraphrased and plagiarized my manual and passed it off as their own – some even stealing from the ones who have stolen from me.  As I said, it really is getting ridiculous.  George just happened to be the first – I was really angry because I was trying to help him and he violated my trust.  Such is life – maybe George doesn’t think he did anything wrong, perhaps working for the Iranians all these years has skewed his moral compass and he no longer knows right from wrong.  But I know him for what he is, and I know he is a thief, a fraud, and a liar.   

Doug Williams, author of "How to Sting the Polygraph," which he markets through his website, www.polygraph.com (and who has, in the past, masqueraded on this message board as a satisfied customer of his own services), without deigning to directly name me or AntiPolygraph.org, has impugned my honesty and integrity on the "Frequently Asked Questions" portion of his website (original emphasis):

Quote:


Mr. Williams, my challenges to you are:

1) Please have the courage to at least state my name when impugning my integrity on your website. Your coyness is unbecoming;

2) Please state precisely what in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector you honestly believe to be "very confusing and very dangerous." And please note also that the current edition of The Lie Behind the Lie Detetector is the 4th (not the 3rd, as you incorrectly indicate);

3) Since you specifically accuse me of "fraudulently [holding myself] out as an authority on the polygraph," please point out specifically where I have misrepresented my knowledge, background, or credentials.

4) If you honestly believe I have "stolen" from you, sue me (and be prepared to be countersued).