George:

   Regarding Criminal v Screening, the purpose of the examinations is completely different.  Screening seeks to determine whether or not an individual is suitable for employment, Criminal testing seeks to determine whether an individual has knowledge or participated in a specific criminal event.  The formats and technical conduct of the examinations are disparate because of the differences in the purpose.  With regard to the similarities you propose, that brings up an interesting point I have never really understood as a significant point of contention on this site.

   Yes, an examiner lies during the conduct of an interview.  Every investigator I have ever known or heard of, from law enforcement to insurance to private lies during the interview process.  The United States Supreme Court sanctioned this type of activity decades ago.  This is an appropriate and accepted aspect of law enforcement.  Its not like its any secret, I fail to understand why this is such a significant issue here.

Your next point may or may not be true depending on testing format and agency.

Your final point is clearly debatable as there are studies on both sides of the issue.  I'm not a researcher and don't currently have access to an academic library, so I have to defer sitings of specific research to Dr Barland.  Again I would encourage review of the Amicus brief described in my previous post for those who want to review both sides of the issue objectively.

While I wouldn't dispute the findings of Honts' research without reviewing it first.  I would have to believe that its application to field examiners as whole is debatable.  Check Dr Barland's post in the "To those who have tried countermeasures" thread, he articulates well that the detection varies depending on the test format and the examiner.

George, you should be a defense attorney, talk about twisting words.  The 17 individuals I spoke of all were unsuccessful in their efforts to employ countermeasures.  All confessed to commiting the crimes they were suspected of.  All admitted to obtaining your download and practicing and then employing the countermeasures described in the text.  These, by no means represent the total number of people I have detected performing countermeasures.  This thread originated from a discussion of two additional cases, which are not included in that 17.  

I read it somewhere on this site, but don't recall where.  someone stated that the question is not can the polygraph  be defeated by countermeasures, but how EASY is it for this to be done.  A very accurate statement in my opinion.  And I do find this confusing, George you cite peer-reviewed research that people with not more than 30-minutes training in the type of countermeasures you describe can easily defeat a polygraph.  But now you say that anyone planning to utilize this approach is well advised to spend more than 30-minutes training.  If this is true, how is that paticular research project applicable in supporting what you advocate.  It appears to me that you do not believe that the polygraph can be easily defeated.