It seems logical that if it is possible to accurately detect the use of countermeasures then there would not be so many reports of truthful people being wrongly accused of using countermeasures.  Since there are so many such claims, it seems far more likely that polygraph operators simply accuse a large percentage of examinees with using countermeasures and then use any confession of such usage as proof that they (the polygraph operator) can detect countermeasures.

Since it is likely some percentage of examinees are, in fact, using countermeasures, a polygraph operator can be fairly certain that if he or she accuses a sufficient number of examinees of countermeasure usage at least some of them will confess to doing so.  It is simply not logical or even reasonable to then use that experience to show that polygraph operators can detect the use of countermeasures.

Accusing a large number of examinees of using countermeasures in order to generate some number of examinee-confirmed countermeasure usage is really no different than accusing large number of examinees of lying in order to generate some number of confessions of deception.  Neither one is really proof of anything.

If I polygraph 100 people and accuse 75 of them of countermeasure use, it is likely that some number of them will admit they used countermeasures.  Assume that 20 of them admit to using countermeasures.  Does that mean I accurately detected countermeasure use?  What if all 100 applicants were using countermeasures?  What if 40 or 50 were?  What if only 20 were, yet I accused 55 additional people of using countermeasures?

If I polygraph 100 people and accuse 75 of them of deception, it is equally likely that some number of them will admit they were lying.  Assume that 20 of them admit to lying during the exam.  Does that mean I accurately detected deception?  Again, what if all of them were lying?  What if half of them were?  What if the 25 I “passed” were also lying, or some of them were?

As a final note, if anyone is accused of countermeasure use and admits to it, they are not using countermeasures correctly.  Part of the correct way to use countermeasures is to anticipate the polygraph operator accusing you of using countermeasures and to deny doing so.

Irish,

No polygrapher has ever demonstrated the ability to detect the kind of countermeasures outlined in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector, and retired FBI supervisory special agent and scientist Dr. Drew Richardson's polygraph countermeasure challenge has gone more than eight years without a single taker. Note that his challenge does not require a showing of how countermeasures are detected, merely that they can be detected.

In addition, the polygraph literature is bereft of any article or book chapter that explains how to detect the countermeasures presented in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector. The polygraph community clearly wants the public in general and examinees in particular to believe that they can detect countermeasures. But they have presented no evidence that they have any such ability.

It is true that polygraphers may opine that an examinee used countermeasures. But there is no evidence that such opinions are correlated with actual countermeasure use. Nor is there any evidence that not using countermeasures reduces the risk of a countermeasure accusation.

This website link was sent to me recently.  It is the story of an FBI Special Agent applicant's recruitment process in 2009. http://www.fullspectrumlitigator.com/
Most of the good stuff is on the THE FILE page on the website.  The user calls himself John Doe.

Now if you look at THE FILE page, on the top of the page before the article, you'll see a link that says Other File-BernieB.  This shows the FBI Applicant file of another user named Mr. Bernie B.  I realize that this is the exact same person as the Antipolygraph.org user BBernie[%2Furl] who is also the same as Federalsoup.com user [url=http://federalsoup.com/member_profile.asp?PF=12393&FID=22]BBernie.  Bernie used to post all over the Antipolygraph and Federalsoup forums until about a year ago, after he finally was mailed documents from the FBI that explain the reason he was rejected for a position within the FBI.   All this time that Bernie was complaining that he didn't know why his conditional offer of employment from the FBI was rescinded, it is all shown on that website under Adjudicative Recommendations.  During the scope of his Background Investigation, it was revealed that he had numerous problems with previous employers.  This goes to show you, the BI will reveal all the dirt!  Don't try to hide anything!

Now, regarding the claim of George Maschke and others that countermeasures mentioned in TLBTLD can not be detected, I'm thinking that maybe they can.   On the website I mentioned in the beginning of this post, you can see John Doe's official FBI polygraph report.   In the polygraph report, the FBI marks whether they suspected countermeasures or not.  I haven't found any documentation online where any job applicant recieved an actually copy of their polygraph charts through an FOIA or other privacy act request, so this may be as good as it gets.  I had a polygraph not too long ago and I was accused of using countermeasures, but I thought this was just something they accused everybody of in hopes that you will confess.  I'm not sure if they marked on my polygraph report that I was suspected of using countermeasures, but I guess only time will tell.  I'm thinking that if polygraphers do have a way to detect countermeasures like breathing, mental math, or other actions, why would they tell the public?  If that was the case, the public would just come up with new countermeasures.  After all, after the word about clinching your anal sphincter came out as being a successful countermeasure, most polygraphers put a sensor in the chair to detect this.  Some will make you take your shoes off to make sure there is no tack in your shoe.  If the public discovers a countermeasure that is effective, the polygraphers will do research to figure out how to detect it, then the public does research to find a new countermeasure, the polygraphers try to stop that, and on and on we go.  It's a never ending battle.  If I go in for another polygraph, I may not use any countermeasures and just hope for the best.  Because if the polygrapher marks on my report that I'm suspected of countermeasures, I may be screwed regardless.

But check out http://www.fullspectrumlitigator.com/ for all the dirt for the FBI process, from 2009.
On a side note, check out http://www.khalidelhassan.com for info about a 2002 applicant from the CIA Clandestine Services (formally known as Directorate of Operations).  This guy is actually currently still in court suing the CIA for corrupt recruitment activities.  Will he win the fight?  Are our intelligence agencies a bit corrupt in their hiring?