Mr. Cullen, Once again you try to change the question so you can construct a convenient answer. But your answer doesn't address the question.

I think that it's time that you face the fact that your view of polygraph is based only on your limited experience and that in order to discuss the topic you have to manipulate the discussion to fit your circumstance. Because your knowledge and experience is so limited it prevents you from discussing the related issues that a more investigatory approach to the subject would allow. Notguilty1 and Sergeant have similar issues in this regard.

You have shown that you absolutely cannot answer this simple straightforward question because it doesn't fit your experience or allow you to speak about failure in your personal context. Instead you spout the same old "bullet points" even though they aren't responsive. You seem to want to make people believe they are relevant to this question and they aren't.

Yet, even though you lack the apparent ability to conceptualize the question from its existing point of view , instead of realizing that the question may be outside your ability to answer, you find yourself unable avoid offering SOME kind of response. You just can't seem to resist an opportunity to spout the same old stuff, and in doing so try to inhibit someone who might have a fresh point of view from answering the question.

The quote I use sometimes "Frogs at the bottom of a well see only a small part of the sky" really points at those who try to define a subject based on a severly limited point of view.

You, Notguilty1, Sergeant, and Dr.Maschke have taken polygraphs and failed them. Dr. Maschke has researched possible countermeasures and collected stories that seem to support his point of view even though some require a little twisting to fit.

I on the other hand have taken polygraphs, I have observed polygraphs including people who passed, people who failed and confessed and people who failed and didn't confess. I have seen people who failed and didn't confess later convicted of the crime they were tested on. In addition I have read and researched quite a bit of the existing literature, but I didn't limit myself to excerpts from the NAS study, I even read Dr. Maschke's and Doug Williams books to make sure I looked at BOTH sides of the issue.

Whether we agree or disagree, I submit that my point of view is a bit broader than your own.  

Sancho Panza

PS  The most obvious difference between Dr. Maschke and Doug Williams is that I would describe one as a mis-guided but sincere crusader and the other as an unscrupulous profiteer.

SP