Anonymous,

You wrote:
Quote:


On what basis to you make this statement?

You then wrote:
Quote:


This is physiologically incorrect.  The external anal sphincter muscle is voluntarily controlled.  The internal anal sphincter muscle is involuntary.  It is however stimulated by the presence of feces and the voluntary relaxation of the external anal sphincter muscle.  Fear can cause the loss of voluntary muscle control which may result in one defecating.  However, the element that affords you the lack of the defecation process completing is your ability to maintain control over these muscles in a fearful situation. A combination of experience, repetitive training, and physical and mental conditioning play a major role in your ability to productively react in a critical situation.   

I agree with you that people will have different reactions to a perceived perilous situation.  There are however some reactions that are intrinsic in these circumstances.

On a different note.  Stay safe out there and continue to listen to those little hairs on the back of your neck. 

J.B.,

If we assume for the sake of argument that you are indeed correct about a flattening of the respiratory tracing timely with an electrodermal response being a reliable indication of an anal sphincter contraction employed as a countermeasure, then would not this counter-countermeasure technique of yours be foiled if the examinee were to apply a respiratory countermeasure (artificially producing any of the breathing responses recognized by DoDPI) at the same time as he employs the anal sphincter countermeasure?

Again, assuming for the sake of argument that your counter-countermeasure technique had some merit (I'm not conceding that it does), haven't you told us (from your point of view) how to make the anal sphincter contraction countermeasure failsafe, that is, undetectable from the examination of polygraph charts?

J.B. McCloughan wrote on Jan 9^th, 2002 at 8:38am:


JB,

The above quoted sentence is a classic example of your nonspeak. It's gibberish. Grammatically, it's a train wreck and neither supports nor condemns your position. It is, however, a continuing illustration of what one respondent so eloquently described as your 'if you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle 'em with bullshit' modus operandi.

I'm sorry if the tone of my writing is disrespectful, but you really need to come to the table armed with facts if you are going to debate the issue at hand.

BT

George,

The flattened mark within the respiratory tracing will appear where the anal sphincter muscle contraction is initiated because of the reflective contraction of the either or both the diaphragm and intercostal muscles.  This would make any other respiratory augmentation irrelevant to the flattened mark seen.  In other words, the respiration continues but the momentary movement or contraction still places its mark.  

Holding or blocking is not the same or relevant to the flattened mark created by an anal sphincter muscle contraction.  There are discernable differences in both the physiological responses and the appearance of the tracings as provided with my explination of the differences in apnea as related to other physiological responses. 

Credible evidence is in the eyes of the beholder or finder of fact.  I have provided physiological reasons of why this flattened mark occurs in the tracings and why it is different from other responses or produced responses. Lack of published research on this specific instance dose not null and void those physiological known reasons.  Medical Doctors’ often make life or death decisions based on known or presumably known causes or symptoms of certain medical problems.  Psychologists’ often base their diagnostic opinion on ones psychological health or lack there of on that person’s verbal responses to questions.  Jurors’ base their decision on weather or not a reasonable person could believe without a reasonable doubt what is presented is true.  A juror who is found to have a prejudice toward one of the areas to be examined for decision purposes is usually removed without exemption.  

George,

Although my hypothesis lacks published peer reviewed research documentation in its application, I believe it does provide sound evidence in its physiological explanation of what will or will not be produced and why.  These elements, defecation reflex being one, are supported by numerous physiology and medical texts and studies.    I have never purported the use of this countermeasure detection method as a thoroughly researched and accepted methodology in polygraph.  However, its use would not be reckless if one could provide compelling and irrefutable physiological evidence to support it.

The last issue you bring up:

"Likewise, it is irresponsible for a polygrapher to maintain that a person has answered a question truthfully or deceptively on the basis of polygraph chart readings)."

I do not agree with this statement and believe it to be a different issue then the one at hand.  I would however be willing to discuss or debate this issue in a different discussion area.

    To the polygraphers,
   Does the trade you are in ever bother you?  I only ask because I have read quite a bit on the subject, and it would seem that there are a lot of "ex" polygraphers who left because of moral convictions of some kind.  Why would this be so?  Also, do you consider it a science?  Genuinely interested...

Gordon,

My claim is that polygraphy has not been proven to work better than chance by peer-reviewed research conducted under field conditions, not that no field study finding that the polygraph technique works better than chance has ever been published in a peer reviewed journal. For documentation, see David T. Lykken's discussion of polygraph field studies at pp. 133-35 of A Tremor in the Blood: Uses and Abuses of the Lie Detector (2nd ed.). Lykken notes that as of 1998, only four polygraph field studies had been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. (I believe that number remains unchanged today; please correct me if I'm mistaken.) One of those four peer-reviewed field studies was conducted by Charles R. Honts ("Criterion development and validity of the CQT in field application," Journal of General Psychology, 1996, 123, 309-324) and purported to show a 100% accuracy rate, though as Lykken aptly demonstrates, that study was fundamentally flawed in its design and "no sensible reader can imagine that these alleged 'findings' of the Honts study add anything at all to the sum of human knowledge about the true accuracy of the [Control Question Test]."

My definition of a "peer reviewed journal" is the same used by Lykken in his discussion of "Science and the Lie Detector" at pp. 49-51 of A Tremor in the Blood.

Moreover, as discussed in Chapter 1 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector, CQT polygraphy can have no validity because it is not a standardized (or standardizable) "test" at all and lacks scientific control. But you would have us believe otherwise. I would be happy to debate the scientific status of polygraphy in a new message thread. Would you care to begin the discussion by explaining the theoretical basis of polygraphy?