Essentially its your characterization that people who received no more than 30 minutes training were able to beat the polygraph.  Those studies used graduate students, who received just enough training to operate the laboratory polygraph posing as examiners.  The question is not whether or not the polygraph can be beat, but how easy is it to do so.  How easy is it to beat an unqualified student posing as an examiner, as opposed to beating an experienced, certified examiner.  I believe the way you present the information is misleading and stand by my suggestion that anyone contemplating a polygraph or utilizing the information on this or any other site should go to the source to ensure they have complete information before they decide on a course of action.  Especially since its very easy to give advice when you don't have to bear the consequences that result from that advice.

   I would also suggest that anyone really interested in this topic check Honts, Amato, and Gordon, "Effects of Spontaneous Countermeasures Used Against the Comparison Question Test", Boise State University, Contract N00014-98-0752, a 2000 study which concluded among other things that spontaneous countermeasures were counterproductive.  In that study 45.8% of the innocent subjects employed some type of countermeasure.  The finding was "The main effect of Countermeasure Use indexed a significant difference in total numerical scores between innocent subjects who did not use countermeasures (M=4.55) and those who did use countermeasures (M=-3.91).  Thus the use of spontaneous countermeasures was detrimental to Innocent subjects, moving them significantly in the direction of a deceptive decision."  It should be noted that this study also used graduate students as examiners.  But, as with all such studies I would encourage everyone to carefully study any cited research before trying to apply those results to their own situation.  This study has been submitted for peer review and is pending publication.