The_Breeze wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2002 at 6:52pm:

...I have a challenge of my own ( since its in vogue here ) so you few can advance your cause to the next level: I propose that you, skeptic, anonymous, stein, Gino, or whomever (george is probably compromised) find agencies that polygraph before a background (your cherished 40%ers) and apply to that agency.  During your polygraph, apply what ever countermeasures are appropriate and then furnish proof on these pages (suitably censored) by posting your notices of passing or appointment letters. Drew or Mark can set up the procedure. Now I realize what I am proposing amounts to real work on your parts, but why not put your actions where your assertions are? you are fond of telling each other how simple polygraphers are, and how a 10 year old can be taught countermeasures, why not furnish proof?  Think of it, with your actions alone, properly documented and maybe furnished to news organizations- you could advance your languishing cause in a very real way people could understand. I doubt very seriously if any of you will leave the warmth of this site and become one of George's foot soldiers, its much safer to sound knowledgeable without the threat of continued failure.  When I hear someone like skeptic talk about what a burden it would be to be polygraphed every 5 (!) years as a reason not to seek employment with an agency, cries of BS can be heard! With your knowledge of the process, and your belief of how polygraph is conducted, a test for employment or periodic screening should be the last thing you are concerned with. That is unless, you are just not quite sure what your talking about. You will make the random error disappear. So, until you prove how easy it is to manipulate the process by your own selfless efforts, few will believe you.  We will call this "the anti-polygrapher's dilemma". Do have a good holiday, and let us know how you intend to proceed.

The public challenges that I have posted here have simply been to polygraphers to publicly document or otherwise support misleading statements that they have publicly made. Those I've challenged include:

Milton O. "Skip" Webb, Jr. (President, American Polygraph Association)

Frank Horvath (Past President, American Polygraph Association)

Harry Reed (President, Illinois Polygraph Society)

George Slattery (Past President, Florida Polygraph Association)

None have responded.

The Breeze asserts "until you prove how easy it is to manipulate the process by your own selfless efforts, few will believe you." But the information about polygraph countermeasures provided in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector is already well-documented, with references (including peer-reviewed research) that skeptical readers may check for themselves. For any who doubt that the polygraph can be beaten, we have the real-world examples of spies Aldrich Hazen Ames, Larry Wu-tai Chin, Karel Frantisek Koecher, and Ana Belen Montes, all of whom beat the polygraph while commiting espionage against the United States.

By contrast, the claims of polygraphers that they can detect countermeasures are unsupported. The American Polygraph Association quarterly, Polygraph, hasn't published a single article setting forth a methodology for the detection of countermeasures. And in peer-reviewed analog studies conducted by Professor Charles R. Honts and collaborators, even experienced polygraphers were unable to detect countermeasures at better than chance levels of accuracy. So Dr. Richardson's polygraph countermeasure challenge calling on the polygraph community to demonstrate its claimed ability to detect countermeasures remains quite apropos.