Some time ago (11/27/01) as part of a post largely dealing with DoDPI-sanctioned criteria for determining the presence of respiratory-channel response(s), I reiterated a challenge to the polygraph community that I had first made in a public presentation (10/17/01) to the National Academy of Sciences panel investigating the validity of polygraph screening.  That challenge (which has not yet been accepted or even really responded to) was made as follows:

Quote:


Although I am happy for this basic format to be modified to a design having sufficient power to reasonably allow for reaching levels of statistical significance for any results obtained, I believe it is very important that this process and outcome(s) be publicly available and, if possible, covered by any interested media outlet.  I believe this is an appropriate time to renew this challenge for the following reasons: (1) It has languished far too long without a meaningful reply, (2) As we begin a new year, it will be interesting to see how far in the year we progress with those who promote CQT polygraph testing continuing to cower from the truth about its weaknesses, and (3) the current thread dealing with the validity of polygraph screening should be viewed in the light of realizing that any (I believe substantial) lack of validity of CQT polygraph testing in the absence of countermeasures is only greatly exacerbated with the application of properly applied countermeasures.

Drew/George,

Great idea Drew.  To take it out of its languor, have you (or George) forwarded it to any media people, and/or the people you mention in your post, George?

Maybe Shawn Efran of CBS News would be interested in this as a follow up to his "Final Exam" piece.  Maybe that Chicago reporter who was going to moderate that debate should know about this.  Of course the NAS people should know about it too.  Maybe Diane Sawyer, as a folllow up to her 60 Minutes piece from the 1980's.  Jeff Stein from Salon.com?  Kathleen Koch from CNN?  The FAS people?  John Stossel?  Perhaps Honts or some other academic would want to run a parallel study incorporating the same principles.

The basic idea is to get not only this web site, but a media outlet to challenge the polygraph people, so their refusal would be reported, with its obvious implications.

Let me know if you want to explore this further, or need any assistance.

Mark and George

I bugged all three major network news magazines but, only 60 minutes 11 took me up on the challenge. Scott Pelley was an investigative reporter for a Dallas TV station before he went network. NBC and ABC would not touch the subject. I told John Stossel that he would be a natural to moderate the debate. Evidently I didn't faze him.

I really pushed for a cross-the-table debate between you two, Geno and Dr. Richardson and the polygraph community. I suggested they study the antipolygraph website before engaging the debate. They should be familiar with the website by now.

I was disappointed that Scott Pelly didn't have discussions about the invalidity of the polygraph.

I guess it's time to start a new round of letters and emails to the TV magazines. It's way past time for the scam artist to be forced to find another  scam in which to be involved. 

Keep us informed if the planted seed starts to sprout.

it's cost nothing to claim that it's easy to beat the polygraph when you are not the person sitting in the chair.  Countless  suspects have been caught over the years.  Teaching countermeasures is similar as teaching criminals to cover their tracks or destroy evidence.   People should just stop doing it.

Quote:


I guess I don't understand. On the one hand you assert that the polygraph is a devastating interrogation tool, but on the other you write that teaching countermeasures results in a ruined polygraph test, with criminals 'covering their tracks'.

Which is it?

Quote:


First, if you are indeed from Singapore (aka the City of Fine), I'd like to say that you have a beautiful country-I've traveled through many times and done quite a bit of touring there: Sentosa Island, over to Johor Bharu, etc.

With that said, I respectfully disagree with your position that the countermeasures taught here will not protect someone from a false positive.  I am living proof that when employed correctly, they will.  I endured two LAPD polygraphs: one resulted in a false positive and an investigation that revealed nothing, the other I passed with flying colors by employing countermeasures. 

I utilized the very techniques that you described as primitive and easy to detect to ensure the correct outcome was reached (non-deception indicated).  My examiner never accused me of using countermeasures, and according to him, he's very experienced. (LAPD Detective/Polygrapher for many years and now works for the LASD as a polygrapher.)  How is it that I could fool him so easily?

While you are correct that no one is answerable to Dr. Richardson, it certainly would be nice to see one of the polygraph advocates you listed accept his challenge.  They are the ones who have stated that countermeasures are easy to detect.  Dr. Richardson is merely asking them to back up their claims.  If countermeasures are in fact easy to dectect, I can't imagine why they wouldn't jump at the chance to disprove his claim.  It begs the question: "What are they afraid of?"

Dominique,

You wrote:

Quote:


You claim that countermeasure techniques such as distorting breathing are "primitive and easy to detect." However, the breathing manipulations explained in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector are based directly on U.S. Department of Defense Polygraph Institute (DoDPI) doctrine. DoDPI recognizes 12 scorable breathing reactions, which we've described in the 2nd edition, along with illustrations.

How can a polygrapher determine whether a reaction on the pneumo channels of the polygraph instrument was voluntary or involuntary? Could you direct me and other skeptical readers to any published articles or books that support your claim that such countermeasures are easy to detect?

With regard to your demand that I stop challenging people to accept Dr. Richardson's challenge, I'll stop when the polygraph community proves its claimed ability to detect the kinds of countermeasures described in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector.

While it is true that neither Mr. Webb, Dr. Barland, Mr. Renzelman, Mr. Reed, nor anyone else is answerable to Dr. Richardson (or to me), they have all publicly suggested, claimed, and/or implied that polygraph countermeasures don't work and/or that the polygraph community has developed better-than-chance techniques for their detection. So long as those in the polygraph community make such claims, AntiPolygraph.org will continue to publicly challenge them to support them.

Until the polygraph community proves its claimed ability to detect countermeasures, Dr. Richardson's unanswered challenge will remain a daily embarrassment to those who profess to be "dedicated to truth" (American Polygraph Association motto) whilst peddling a fraud, and the number of days this challenge has gone without takers will be prominently displayed on the AntiPolygraph.org home page.

Quote:


This after you previously posted:

Quote:


It takes a brave man to admit he knows absolutely nothing about the topic on which he is commenting.


Quote:


Yes, we don't cane our citizens for drawing on walls.

Quote:


An interesting theory. On what evidence to you base such a statement? Presuming for a moment your assertion is true, it would appear our Federal government is prohibiting an acceptance to the challenge because they know the sham would be exposed.

Quote:


Mr. Ngoo, I am aware you are not a citizen of the United States and thus might not be too conversant with our system of laws. In our country, a citizen is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. 

That means that the person sitting in the polygraph chair is innocent already, there is no NEED to submit to a polygraph interrogation.

My advice is to hold fast, assert your inalienable rights, educate yourself, and fight back whenever possible.

Quote:


Unfortunately not all citizens here can afford to hire a civil attorney, especially when faced with the monolithic federal government as the defendant.