Well I used dougs Manuel and it's helped me a lot I'm telling the truth and I would hate to take a polygraph test knowing I told the truth but fail it anyway... So thanks doug and thanks too the anti polygraph folks

quickfix wrote on Sep 26^th, 2014 at 5:07pm:

How does the potential for consequences affect the ability of the examinee to execute, and the polygrapher's ability to detect, countermeasures?

quickfix, if we use your logic, then all polygraph analog (laboratory) studies should be deemed worthless.

That would include Dr. Rovner's study which suggests that access to countermeasure information does not appreciably affect polygraph accuracy.

I think the reality of the matter is that the polygraph establishment is scared to death of being humiliated by informed and motivated individuals artfully applying countermeasures -- and beating the vaunted liebox like a drum.

Such an outcome wouldn't be good for bu$ine$$.

Dan Mangan wrote on Sep 25^th, 2014 at 8:31pm:

Mr Mangan:  prize money or prize, makes no difference.  A mock crime is in fact a staged event; there are no real consequences to being detected using CMs in a staged-event polygraph.  Without a genuine F3 effect, this type of nonsense has no value.  Winning prize money is not a motivator;  avoiding prison or being disqualified from a job application is; real-life events with real-life consequences if caught using CMs.  That is the reason your idea is completely idiotic.

Doug Williams wrote on Sep 25^th, 2014 at 1:21pm:

You can call it whatever you like, Doug;  it's a deliberate attempt to manipulate the outcome of a PE in favor of the person being tested.[quote author=6267686B6768616768060 link=1411388237/14#14 date=1411651448]

No, it is an attempt by the person being tested to avoid being falsely accused of deception!

quickfix, let me reiterate that the polygraph challenge series would require a significant amount of prize money, not "prizes" as you depict the term in a TV game show context.

To be sure, this would not be a "stage event" -- conditions would be as realistic as possible all the way around.

Each challenge would involve a mock crime that is video recorded. Testing would be done privately, but exhibited on CCTV to seminar attendees and simultaneously recorded for future reference. 

Why the need for prize money? The overarching prerequisite for countermeasurre success is motivation, and money can be a great motivator.

It is my opinion that the CM challengers would beat the randomly chosen polygraphers about fifty percent of the time, but I wouldn't be surprised it it were more.

George:  yes, you are correct in that confirmed CM cases are sent to NNCA in a sanitized version;  They are sanitized for NCCA at NCCA's request for very specific reasons;  it does not mean they may be released to the public.  NCCA is a governmental agency under DOD (DIA), not the public or a private citizen.George W. Maschke wrote on Sep 25^th, 2014 at 7:25pm:

What does that mean, "the polygraph community"?  That's your evidence? That the "polygraph community" has nothing in writing?  How do you know?  Very lame George!

quickfix wrote on Sep 25^th, 2014 at 7:09pm:


quickfix,

Actually, there is a way that data from confirmed countermeasure cases could be published without violating the Privacy Act. It is my understanding that various federal agencies routinely "sanitize" polygraph charts and examinee statements from "confirmed countermeasure" cases and send them to NCCA. So the Privacy Act does not prevent such data, or research based on it, from being published.

The evidence that the polygraph community doesn't have a reliable method of countermeasure detection is that no documentation of such a method is to be found in any of the polygraph literature.

The existence of Operation Lie Busters also suggests that the federal polygraph community lacks confidence in its claimed ability to detect polygraph countermeasures.

George W. Maschke wrote on Sep 25^th, 2014 at 1:14pm:

George:  you know as well as I do that posting confirmed CM cases on a website would violate the provisions of the federal Privacy Act.  My agency has in fact obtained numerous CM admissions from those who admitted they attempted CMs based on reading either TLBTLD, and buying Doug's garbage.  Others, as you mention, did so without the "benefit" of either.  BTW, where is YOUR evidence that we CAN'T detect "properly-employed" CMs?  Do you have the charts?  Names of those who successfully employed CMs?  Show us!  Prove we can't detect CMs!

Doug Williams wrote on Sep 25^th, 2014 at 1:21pm:

You can call it whatever you like, Doug;  it's a deliberate attempt to manipulate the outcome of a PE in favor of the person being tested.Dan Mangan wrote on Sep 25^th, 2014 at 1:24pm:

Mr Mangan:  this type of game show/reality tv mentality is precisely why you were trounced in the APA election.  Imagine, a "polygraph challenge" with prizes!  Really???  You sound utterly ridiculous!

Regardless of pailryder's comments, it would not surprise me in the least to learn that for every one of quickfix's documented countermeasure failures, there were ten successful CM attempts that sailed right through. 

But we'll never know -- and neither will pailryder -- as aptly applied mental countermeasures are undetectable.

Clearly, an ongoing countermeasure challenge series would shed some much needed light on this (seemingly forbidden) topic. Unfortunately, though, the polygraph industry cheerleaders apparently prefer to keep on whistling past the graveyard...

pailryder wrote on Sep 25^th, 2014 at 12:55pm:


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 of my website 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".

pailryder,

Note that quickfix has provided no evidence that he can actually detect polygraph countermeasures.

What is happening nowadays is that polygraphers are making many countermeasure accusations, and sometimes they get admissions. It seems that most admissions are to what are sometimes called "naive" countermeasures -- things done by individuals unfamiliar with polygraph procedure in the belief that it will help them to pass, such as breathing slowly or thinking calming thoughts. Federal polygraphers will take such admissions and report them as "confirmed" countermeasure cases.

Admissions from individuals who have read Doug Williams' manual or AntiPolygraph.org's book are comparatively rare.

There is no documentation that any polygrapher can detect the kind of countermeasures outlined in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector. Note that the polygraph community countermeasure training files AntiPolygraph.org published last year present no coherent methodology for countermeasure detection.

Nor is there evidence that not using countermeasures actually reduces an examinee's chances of being accused of using countermeasures. False countermeasure accusations are not uncommon.

George W. Maschke wrote on Sep 24^th, 2014 at 12:27pm:


Of course everyone has the right to choose to employ cm's, after all, every lie of deceptive misrepresentation is a cm.  In order to make a truly rational, valid, informed decision a truthful subject would need to balance the probability of a false positive against the probability of cm detection, which you imply is zero, but as fix points out, is very real.  If the risk of detection is greater than the risk of false positive, the use of cm by truthful subjects is a losing proposition.

1st4th5thand6th wrote on Sep 25^th, 2014 at 3:26am:



Well said!

Quote:


Gullible?  so you are saying that people who read the books and educate themselves on the polygraph...ie. they understand clearly that a polygraph is a farce...People who understand that every word out of a polygraphers mouth are either a direct lie, a lie by omission or just an outright con.... 
These people are gullible? 

But if they are ignorant of all of this then they are "honest" people who at least have a  chance....   ???    These wonderfully honest people aren't gullible at all are they? 

quickfix,  your saying it's ok for you and the rest of the polygraph community to be dishonest, to lie, to con and deceive people.   ...but anyone who knows the truth,that you and your filthy act are total bullshit...      well there's no place in the world for them huh?.... 

While I don't doubt that quickfix has indeed amassed a goodly number of failed countermeasure cases, the fact is aptly applied mental CMs are effective and undetectable.

It is my opinion that the polygraph industry is scared to death of learning (in a series of semi-public showdowns, at least) just how effective countermeasures can be.

When I was running for president-elect of the American Polygraph Association this summer, a key part of my platform was a countermeasure challenge series.

My idea calls for the APA to sanction an ongoing series of countermeasure challenges, and make them part of the APA's national and regional continuing education seminars. 

In a nutshell, my plan calls for randomly chosen polygraphers -- of various backgrounds and experience levels -- to be pitted against a crew of countermeasure-educated challengers vying for significant prize money.

When I broached this topic on several private polygraph-examiner forms in advance of the APA elections, condemnation from the polygraph establishment -- including two self-described polygraph researchers -- was swift and severe. They want nothing to do with such a "stunt."

Stunt? On the contrary, I think there is much to be learned from a carefully designed and objectively administered ongoing CM-challenge exercise.

Interestingly, a few like-minded progressives within the APA indicated to me their support for an ongoing countermeasure challenge series, so that gives me hope for 2015 when I'll be running again for president-elect.

By the way, another key part of my platform was a "bill of rights" for polygraph test subjects. While there was somewhat more support for that concept, polygraph industry establishment types dismissed it as "unnecessary."

Perhaps they should tell that to the many polygraph victims out there...

George W. Maschke wrote on Sep 24^th, 2014 at 12:27pm:


George, you can rationalize all you want.  CM use, regardless of the reason, is indicative of an unethical/dishonest person who lacks the integrity required to be trusted with a security clearance or gun and badge.

George W. Maschke wrote on Sep 24^th, 2014 at 12:27pm:

 
If you think there is no evidence of our ability to detect CMs, you are living in a dream world my friend.  Federal agencies obtain confessions every day to attempted CMs.   I have a drawer full of them. 

quickfix,

I don't want to move the topic too far from the original poster's question, but I think it should be borne in mind that there are valid reasons why a completely honest person might choose to use polygraph countermeasures: to mitigate the significant risk of a false positive outcome. I hope that federal polygraphers recognize this and bear it in mind.

With respect to countermeasure detection, there is no evidence that any polygrapher can detect the kinds of countermeasures outlined in Doug Williams' "How to Sting the Polygraph" or in AntiPolygraph.org's The Lie Behind the Lie Detector at better than chance levels of accuracy.

George W. Maschke wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2014 at 8:02am:

1st4th5thand6th wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2014 at 1:14pm:

The parts between the front cover and back cover.  I have a file cabinet full of confirmed countermeasure cases attempted by numerous "students" of Doug Williams.  These gullible people might have had a chance if they took the test honestly.  Now that they have been disqualified from potential employment for buying Doug's junk and attempting to beat the test, the answer to your question is:  anyone who follows his advice is the fool!

George:  anyone who attempts to infiltrate the federal government or law enforcement ranks through the use of CMs is an insider threat.  So yes, a circulated watch list is most appropriate;  however, I wouldn't  waste time prosecuting Doug.  Why would we bother prosecuting someone who sells a product for 99 cents, and can't sell it even at that price!!!

Quote:



uhh...I've read his book...exactly which parts are dangerous and/or foolish? 
what danger am I in for reading this?  who's the fool?

quickfix,

If Doug Williams' advice for polygraph takers is so ineffective, why is the federal government trying to put him in a cage? Why has the federal government circulated a watch list based on his seized customer records?

I strongly agree with Arkhangelsk;  taking a fidelity test will solve nothing.  Do you honestly believe your spouse will be satisfied and all-trusting even if you pass?  Your marital problems go far beyond the point where a polygraph will help.

As far as Doug Williams is concerned, listening to his advice or buying any of his junk is both FOOLISH AND DANGEROUS.

Mrs. October,
I personally recommend you don't take it and here's why. If you do indeed pass the polygraph, will it totally remove all doubt? He may eventually find out that you have been perusing this website which might later conjure up ideas that you somehow got over on the test--it could wind up being an unending cycle.  I'm sure you can find another way to work through the trust issues in your marriage. Most likely the polygrapher would refund a portion of the money if you canceled with enough notice.

Regarding Doug's manual, I'll refer you to Quickfix for an objective review. 

Hello everyone I'm due to take a lie detector test next week on infidelity I wish I could get out of it but I can't because my husband already paid the 600 bucks to take the test... Is there any helpful hints from any of you because I really have to take it and I don't want to lose my husband if this dumb test back fires
Oh and has anyone tried the doug Williams new manual is it worth buying