That was the desired effect.

OK, George, I have a few moments now to respond thoughtfully to your post. 
 
First of all, a confession.   When I made the post you quoted--which was, I recall, my first post on this forum--I wanted to appear as just another anxious, worried visitor.  I fully expected that none other than you, George, would reply to it, since it expresses apparent ignorance with regard to the polygraph, and I knew someone like you probably could not resist a chance to address my feigned ignorance and perhaps develop another unwitting convert to your cause.  Truth be told, I know all the answers to each question that I asked in that first post; however, I thought I'd ask those seemingly ignorant questions as a way of dipping a toe in the water, so to speak, to discover its true temperature.  In other words, I wanted to test you, George, in order to ascertain just how much true knowledge you had vs. how much tired, unfounded rhetoric you might also have.  I'm pleased to announce that my post had its desired effect.  You actually do possess some knowledge of the polygraph, albeit regurgitated knowledge you have obtained from books rather than actual experience.  In fact, I have little argument with some of your statements, which proves that you reguritate quite well.    Of course, if we both just sit here and regurgitate, I think we'll make everyone sick, but sometimes it takes reguritation to fight regurgitation.    At least my reguritation is backed up by actual experience.
 
That said, I'll take a few moments to respond to your response.  I won't really address all of your responses, since I already know the answers to my own questions.  However, I'd like to discuss countermeasures a bit.

With regard to countermeasures, there are several studies--some old, some new--to which I may refer you.  These studies are based almost entirely on laboratory experiments, upon which the "anti-" crowd-- such as yourself--so often rely.  I question the credibility and practicality of applying any laboratory study of the polygraph to the real world, but since the "anti-" crowd really has nothing but laboratory studies to support many of its arguments, these studies should suffice for you, George.  The studies I refer to are the following:

Ben-Shakhar, G. and Dolev, K.  (1996)  Psychophysiological detection through the guilty knowledge technique: the effects of mental countermeasures.  Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 273-281.

Elaad, E. and Ben-Shakhar, G. (1991) Effects of mental countermeasures on psychophysiological detection in the guilty knowledge test. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 11, 99-108.

Honts, C.R., Raskin, D.C. and Kircher, J.C. (1987) Effects of physical countermeasures and their electromyographic detection during polygraph tests for deception.  Journal of Applied Psychology, 1, 241-247.

Now, what these studies show is that, while countermeasures may increase false negative outcomes (guilty suspects classified as "innocents"), they have absolutely no effect on innocent examinees.  (Ben-Shakhar, G. "A critical review of the control questiions test." Handbook of Polygraph Testing.  Academic Press, 2002.)

What does that last statement mean to this forum, George?  It means that by providing countermeasure knowledge to your audience you are doing absolutely nothing to help the innocent except make them screw with their own heads and possibly be detected by the polygrapher.  Meanwhile, you are providing the guilty with knowledge that may help them avoid being detected altogether.  When seen in that light, so much for your forum being a service to the innocent.

With regard to your comments on the CQT and the R/I tests, I don't know that the R/I technique is really making a "comeback."  It never really left.  The NSA uses it almost exclusively.  However, I foresee the use of the DLT (directed lie test) increasing.  Also, the GKT, which is based on more sound scientific principles than the CQT and has been used by Japanese law enforcement almost exclusively with excellent results, may also be incorporated with more frequency within the U.S.  Finally, the BLT, an old standby, will never go away.  It's high in cholesterol, true, but yum, yum, yum!

One more thing.  The "challenge" which is the subject of this thread is an empty challenge.  Even if the pro-polygaph community were to accept such a challenge and "prove" its own agenda, the "pro-" people wouldn't really prove anything since they couldn't effectively equate their laboratory findings to the real world.  At the same time, the "anti-" crowd, which eagerly accepts any favorable laboratory study as "proof" of its own agenda, would justifiably, albeit uncharacteristically, reject such findings on the same basis.  So what's the point?  For those reasons, as well as such a study's prohibitive cost in dollars and time,  the "challenge" is ignored.

I have no real argument with your arguments,  Marty.  Nice explanations, and you pointed the reader to additional information.  Yes, Ben-Shakhar is one of the more vocal critics of the CQT, but his findings regarding countermeasures both oppose and support my own personal views regarding the CQT.  He is indeed much more supportive of the GKT.

Regarding your comment about the internet and the CQT, I strongly agree.  One reason why I am here on this forum is because the internet has made it possible for the innocent, curious examinee to research the polygraph prior to his or her exam.  Unfortunately, there is a lot of misinformation on the Net regarding the polygraph--much more on this website than any other--and the innocent, curious examinee may use that misinformation to his or her downfall.  Meanwhile, some of the information on the Net--again, much more on this website than any other--may actually aid the guilty examinee in producing a false negative, something I would hope no "anti-" member of this forum or its administrators would actually condone.

Thank you for an intelligent post.  Intelligent posts are rare on this forum, and welcome.

Actually, what I said, Drew, was that research shows that certain countermeasures may assist a guilty examinee in producing a false negative, but it also shows that those same countermeasures do absolutely nothing for the innocent examinee.  Other, very credible research I have cited that was done in field conditions shows that the CQT is 90.5% accurate when using independent examiners to review the raw data, and even more accurate when the original examiners were used.  Think about that for a moment.

Now, suppose we just throw the research away and go on common sense alone.  If the polygraph works much better than chance, as even the NAS claims, what would using countermeasures do for an innocent examinee?  Would it make the polygraph work even better?  If so, then I think that George and Company's scare tactics with the scared little boys and girls who run to this forum seeking answers are unfounded.

When you say that the CQT is producing "untold numbers of false positives," where is the evidence?  Do you have any idea how many polygraphs are done in the U.S. alone each year?  Well, I'm willing to bet that if you took all those polygraphs and subtracted the few people on this obscure forum who claim to have unjustly failed the polygraph, you would come out to about 98% accuracy for the polygraph.  The other 2% are here, Drew, bitching, whining and moaning.  And how much of that 2% actually deserved to fail the polygraph because, surprise, surprise, they were actually lying to a relevant issue?  You "anti-" people have an inflated opinion of yourselves and your silly forum.  Just because you come here and find 10, 100, or even 1000 people to agree with you, you in an extremely small minority.  The bitchers, whiners, moaners and worriers are all here.  You who failed the polygraph--many or most of you justifiably--have a bone to pick while the world goes on around you.  The millions of others who passed the polygraph fair and square aren't here, Drew.  They have no reason to be.  They go about their daily lives, while mostly scared little boys and girls and those who feed their fears hang out here.

Don't worry, though--I will become bored with you all, and you can have your silly forum with your silly and mostly unfounded opinions all to yourselves.  The other 100 million or so people who have successfully passed the polygraph are mostly ignorant of your very existence.

So, which relevant issues did you lie to, and which countermeasures did you use?  And are you sure you didn't just come up inconclusive on those polys and then squeak by the next time?  Remember, there is a chasm to leap from outright passing to outright failing a polygraph.

Also, I don't need to flatter myself on this forum.  Some of you flatter me enough when I simply read your sorry replies to my posts.  I am flattered simply by comparison.

Re: "So, which relevant issues did you lie to, and which countermeasures did you use?  And are you sure you didn't just come up inconclusive on those polys and then squeak by the next time? "

I didn't lie on the relevant Qs.  At no pt did I say I lied. 

I said I used CMs on the control Qs, and the CMs were undetected.  That's the pt of CMs; use them on the control Qs, right?

Failed both polys outright the first time. Went in w/the standard, "I have nothing to hide, so why would I need to research polys?" doctrine.  If you're interested, you can pull up my posting history. 

Had the poly examiners ask me the same relevant Qs as the first times.   

Passed both exams w/no inconclusive or "disception indicated" results this time.  --I do have hardcopies of the results.  Not that they're worth anything; it was just a 'piece of mind' thing.

But, you WOULD think, "there is a chasm to leap from outright passing to outright failing a polygraph. " .... but there wasn't.  Food for thought.  

Even goes to show the relability and consistancy of device... isn't.  

A few yrs back, I initiated two polys at reputable firms to disprove two 'he said/she said' accusations. I told the truth both times, and failed both polys.  Turned my relation w/my wife upside down.

Since polys are still the industry's way of determining truth, it was just killing me to have poly records showing I lied on accusations, and I felt the need to initiated two more polys to clear my name, if you will.  The failures bothered me so much, that recently I paid $500 to retake the polys.   

Now I have two reports stating 'no deception indicated'  that offset the two that say I showed 'deception'. 

I haven't told my wife of the retakes; wouldn't make any difference now anyway.  It was just for... "piece of mind". 


Yes, I used CMs, but if the truth doesn't work, what can you do?

Pt being, that you thought CMs can be detected.  I went to two seasoned professionals of reputable status, and neither even questioned if there was use of CMs.