Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 6 ReplyAdd Poll Send TopicPrint
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) Lies in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector (Read 71177 times)
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box L72cueak
Senior User
***
Offline



Posts: 51
Joined: Mar 5th, 2002
Re: Lies in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector
Reply #15 - Mar 9th, 2002 at 4:10pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
You said, "By the way, where is documented in the literature that a 'little' will go a long way?" I am aware of no published references regarding this. Our suggestion that the anal pucker be applied with sub-maximal effort is based on anecdotal evidence only.

Anecdotal evidence?  You critiqued the polygraph community for allegedly having only having “anecdotal” evidence, yet you use “anecdotal” evidence yourself to corroborate your position. 

hy·poc·ri·sy   Pronunciation Key  (h -p k r -s )
n. pl. hy·poc·ri·sies
1.      The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess; falseness.
2.      An act or instance of such falseness.

The London & Krapohl article is anecdotal evidence as well.  I am not trying to attach much significance other than to use it as a speaking point to illustrate that CM can and are being detected. 
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box L72cueak
Senior User
***
Offline



Posts: 51
Joined: Mar 5th, 2002
Re: Lies in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector
Reply #16 - Mar 9th, 2002 at 4:30pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
You said, “What we can say in fairness is that federal polygraphers may report that a subject has employed countermeasures absent any admission from the examinee…”

That would be fair Sir; however, is incomplete and not fair to your readers. 

You said, “But Dr. Barland forgot to mention that the person was not successful because he admitted to having employed countermeasures.  Had he not made this admission, he would have passed.” (Page 138, The Lie Behind the Lie Detector)

As I have stated from the beginning that was NOT a true statement (Lie) and it misleads your readers into believing that all they have to do is employ CM and if confronted - lie about it.  Your assertion is that as long as they lie about it they will “pass” their exam.   Perhaps you might tell your readers that if they goof up their employment of the CM and the agency suspects CM they might not “pass.”  By the way “passed” or “failed” is not a conclusion arrived at in any PDD examination that I am aware of.

Where in the literature can one can find evidence that if a person does not make an admission that they will pass?  Is this more anecdotal evidence as well?

  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box L72cueak
Senior User
***
Offline



Posts: 51
Joined: Mar 5th, 2002
Re: Lies in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector
Reply #17 - Mar 9th, 2002 at 4:34pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Thank you for your response and again, thank you for posting the charts in question. 

I asked, "Do you agree or disagree that the amplitude on 3C6, figure 3, is significantly different than all the other questions on the charts?"

If you disagree, why? 

How can your readers know when they employ a CM that they have achieved the "pronounced but sub-maximal level"?  How will they know if they exceeded it?

  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box L72cueak
Senior User
***
Offline



Posts: 51
Joined: Mar 5th, 2002
Re: Lies in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector
Reply #18 - Mar 9th, 2002 at 4:36pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Regarding your question to me about where in the literature does the 'anal pucker' produce an artifact?  I am aware of know specific mention of that; however, what I was trying to say was that any voluntary movement will produce an artifact.  The question is whether or not the examiner is skilled enough to detect it?
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box L72cueak
Senior User
***
Offline



Posts: 51
Joined: Mar 5th, 2002
Re: Lies in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector
Reply #19 - Mar 9th, 2002 at 4:54pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Sir, you said, ‘With regard to real world evidence that countermeasures can help deceptive persons to pass a polygraph ‘test,’ we have the example of Aldrich Ames, who twice used countermeasures to help pass CIA screening exams while spying for the Soviet Union/Russia.”

Where in the literature does it say he ‘twice used countermeasures’?  I could be mistaken; however, I seem to remember he was rather disappointed when he spoke to his case officer about his upcoming polygraph in that he expected them to give him some specific advice, perhaps even a drug that he could consume that would help him pass the test, but they did not.  I believe the only advice given to Ames was to relax and be nice to your examiner, or something like that?  I will research what I said above, but again, I would like to know where its documented that he employed CM?  Thank you.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box G Scalabr
Global Moderator
*****
Offline



Posts: 358
Joined: Sep 29th, 2000
Re: Lies in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector
Reply #20 - Mar 9th, 2002 at 6:02pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
L72cueak,

Our basis for the assertion that Ames used countermeasures is drawn from two statements made by Dr. Andrew Ryan of the Department of Defense Polygraph Institute. They can be found on p. 26 of the 2nd edition of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector.

Quote:
. . .DoDPI researcher Dr. Andrew Ryan has directly contradicted this Senate report [concluding that Ames did not use countermeasures]. Speaking at the Department of Energy’s public hearing on polygraph policy at Sandia National Laboratories on 16 September 1999 (U.S. Department of Energy, 1999c), Dr. Ryan stated: ...What we do know is that people have been successful in the past in using countermeasures to defeat the polygraph exam. The Ames case was an example. He was taught by the Soviets how to defeat our process.… (p. 20 of hearing transcript).

The following day, speaking at Los Alamos National Laboratory (U.S. Department of Energy, 1999d), Dr. Ryan stated:…We do acknowledge that there have been cases where we’ve been defeated by countermeasures. I guess one of the most famous ones was the Aldrich Ames case, by the CIA. It was found he was trained by the Soviets in how to defeat the polygraph. So we basically had a mole inside the agency taught how to beat the polygraph, even though he went through several of them. (p. 153 of hearing transcript).

  
Back to top
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box George W. Maschke
Global Moderator
*****
Offline


Make-believe science yields
make-believe security.

Posts: 6060
Location: The Hague, The Netherlands
Joined: Sep 29th, 2000
Re: Lies in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector
Reply #21 - Mar 9th, 2002 at 6:51pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
L72cueak,

Thanks for your recent remarks; I'll respond to them in the order you posted them.

You contend that it is hypocritical for us to recommend based on anecdotal evidence that the anal pucker be applied with sub-maximal effort when we have "critiqued the polygraph community for allegedly...only having 'anecdotal' evidence." Could you clarify here what you have in mind?

With regard to polygraph counter-countermeasures, our critique is that although polygraphers frequently claim that any experienced polygrapher can easily detect countermeasures, there is no available evidence that such is the case. By contrast, with regard to polygraph countermeasures, there is peer-reviewed research that suggests that polygraph countermeasures may be effective, that they may be quickly and easily learned, and that polygraphers cannot detect them at better than chance levels.

With regard to our statement in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector that London & Krapohl's "John" would have passed if he had not admitted to using countermeasures, I think that your arguments are well taken, and as I noted in an earlier post, Gino and I will take that under advisement. London may or may not have reported suspected countermeasures absent John's confirmatory admission.

You also asked, "Do you agree or disagree that the amplitude on 3C6, figure 3, is significantly different than all the other questions on the charts?"

I agree with you that on their face, reactions on question 3C6 (especially the electrodermal channel) stand out. But I'm not certain what logical inference may be drawn therefrom.

You next asked, "How can your readers know when they employ a CM that they have achieved the 'pronounced but sub-maximal level'?  How will they know if they exceeded it?"

That's a determination they'll have to make on their own. Again, we don't know whether applying maximal effort on an anal sphincter contraction would actually increase the chances of the polygrapher accusing the subject of attempted countermeasures.

Quote:
Regarding your question to me about where in the literature does the 'anal pucker' produce an artifact?  I am aware of know specific mention of that; however, what I was trying to say was that any voluntary movement will produce an artifact.  The question is whether or not the examiner is skilled enough to detect it?


How does a polygraph examiner acquire the skill to determine whether or not a reaction on any particular channel is the result of voluntary vs. involuntary movement (or some other physiological phenomenon)?

With regard to Aldrich Ames' CIA polygraph examinations, see p. 26 of the 2nd edition of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector, where DoDPI Research Division chief Dr. Andrew J. Ryan is quoted:

Quote:
…We do acknowledge that there have been cases where we've been defeated by countermeasures.

I guess one of the most famous ones was the Aldrich Ames
case, by the CIA. It was found he was trained by the Soviets in how to defeat the polygraph. So we basically had a mole inside the agency taught how to beat the polygraph, even though he went through several of them.


In closing, I ask again, how is the polygraph community coping with the problem of countermeasures? As I noted in my previous post, it seems to me that they are doing so by pretending to have developed some allegedly reliable-but-secret method of countermeasure detection.




« Last Edit: Mar 11th, 2002 at 10:52pm by George W. Maschke »  

George W. Maschke
Tel/SMS: 1-202-810-2105 (Please use Signal Private Messenger or WhatsApp to text or call.)
E-mail/iMessage/FaceTime: antipolygraph.org@protonmail.com
Wire: @ap_org
Threema: A4PYDD5S
Personal Statement: "Too Hot of a Potato"
Back to top
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box L72cueak
Senior User
***
Offline



Posts: 51
Joined: Mar 5th, 2002
Re: Lies in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector
Reply #22 - Mar 30th, 2002 at 10:54pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
George, you said:

You contend that it is hypocritical for us to recommend based on anecdotal evidence that the anal pucker be applied with sub-maximal effort when we have "critiqued the polygraph community for allegedly...only having 'anecdotal' evidence." Could you clarify here what you have in mind?'

What I had in mind is that the published London case is a piece of anecdotal evidence.  You said that based on anecdotal evidence the anal pucker be applied with sub-maximal effort.  You have critiqued the polygraph community for using that sort of evidence, then you do the same thing yourself.  Somewhat hypocritical, isn't it?

I find it interesting that you've latched onto Dr. Ryan's quote regarding the Ames case.  There is publicly available evidence which indicates Dr. Ryan's statement was not completely accurate.  AMES acknowledged he was not trained by the Soviets in countermeasures.  (Early, P.  Confessions of a Spy).  Beyond quoting Dr. Ryan's statement, what evidence do you have that AMES was trained by the Soviets to employ CMs?   

I was glad to see you were able to acknlowledge the EDA responses in the London case were rather pronounced.  That's what happens when one exceeds your recommended 'sub-maximal' effort.  Regarding how one develops skill in detecting CMs?  If you check DoDPI's web site, it appears they hold a training course in CMs.  Apparently they're teaching examiners something in that 40 hours.  Also, it seems logical to conclude that perhaps some examiners may read your publication as well as Mr. Williams', employ the CMs themselves and see (via bio-feedback) what it looks like when they apply the 'sub-maximal' effort and when they exceed the 'sub-maximal' effort. 

What evidence do you have to support your statement that London's subject would have 'passed' his exam had he not made the admission?  London's examinee didn't pass the previous exams - which was why London ran the exam in question.  If London didn't believe the reactions were real, do you honestly think he would have said the guy passed?  Apply a little common sense here.

Your statement in your book that 'he would have passed' had he not made the admission is not true (also know as a lie) and is misleading.  If you were really interested in being fair and providing your readers with accurate information, why not acknowledge that on the front page of your web-site instead of waiting for the 3rd edition to be published?  What's the chance of your readers finding our threads? 

If a person is evaluated a deception indicated during a normal exam (no CMs), and the person makes no admissions to the relevant questions, do you think polygraph examiners say the person 'passed' just because he didn't make an admission?  Of course not - they're still called deception indicated (unconfirmed).  The same thing is done when unconfirmed CMs are suspected.      

Respectfully,

 

  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box L72cueak
Senior User
***
Offline



Posts: 51
Joined: Mar 5th, 2002
Re: Lies in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector
Reply #23 - Mar 30th, 2002 at 10:58pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Retrieved from DoDPI's web site: 

COUNTERMEASURES (40 CEH)

This 40-hour course gives the PDD examiner the information and experience needed to deal with countermeasures in criminal and intelligence (human intelligence, offensive counterintelligence, and security screening) environments. The course presents concepts, theories, research data, laboratory exercises, and case histories involving criminal and intelligence testing, including the Ames case. Detailed information is included on countermeasure programs and operations conducted by hostile intelligence services during the Cold War, and current foreign polygraph capabilities. This course devotes more time to counter-measures than the Operational Source Testing course described below. As such, it is intended as the primary countermeasures course for criminal and security screening PDD examiners, or as a periodic refresher course for examiners experienced in human intelligence and offensive counterintelligence PDD operations. The course includes daily homework assignments followed the next day by classroom seminars and quizzes. The course includes a final examination.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box George W. Maschke
Global Moderator
*****
Offline


Make-believe science yields
make-believe security.

Posts: 6060
Location: The Hague, The Netherlands
Joined: Sep 29th, 2000
Re: Lies in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector
Reply #24 - Mar 31st, 2002 at 3:05pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
L72cueak,

Quote:
What I had in mind is that the published London case is a piece of anecdotal evidence.  You said that based on anecdotal evidence the anal pucker be applied with sub-maximal effort.  You have critiqued the polygraph community for using that sort of evidence, then you do the same thing yourself.  Somewhat hypocritical, isn't it?


My criticism of London & Krapohl's case study is not that it is anecdotal, but rather that it is no evidence that the polygraph community has developed a better than chance method of detecting the kinds of countermeasures described in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector. I don't believe we've argued either in the book or on this message board that anecdotal evidence is per se devoid of any value.

Quote:
I find it interesting that you've latched onto Dr. Ryan's quote regarding the Ames case.  There is publicly available evidence which indicates Dr. Ryan's statement was not completely accurate.  AMES acknowledged he was not trained by the Soviets in countermeasures.  (Early, P.  Confessions of a Spy).  Beyond quoting Dr. Ryan's statement, what evidence do you have that AMES was trained by the Soviets to employ CMs?


Perhaps I've attached more significance to Dr. Ryan's statement regarding the Ames case than it deserves. I had supposed that Dr. Ryan, as chief of DoDPI's research division, was speaking with some authority on the topic.

With regard to the London & Krapohl case study...

Quote:
Your statement in your book that 'he would have passed' had he not made the admission is not true (also know as a lie) and is misleading.  If you were really interested in being fair and providing your readers with accurate information, why not acknowledge that on the front page of your web-site instead of waiting for the 3rd edition to be published?  What's the chance of your readers finding our threads?


I agree with you that our conclusion that London & Krapohl's "John" would have passed if he had not admitted to using countermeasures goes beyond the available evidence. London may or may not have reported suspected countermeasures absent John's confirmatory admission. While we'll be sure to clarify this in the next edition, I don't think the point is of such great importance as to warrant a front page announcement.

If, on the other hand, the polygraph community were to demonstrate that a polygrapher's accusation of attempted countermeasures had some correlation with actual countermeasure use, that would warrant the prompt release of a new, revised edition. But the available evidence suggests that the polygraph community has no more an effective method of "detecting" countermeasures than to bluff the subject into making an admission.

  

George W. Maschke
Tel/SMS: 1-202-810-2105 (Please use Signal Private Messenger or WhatsApp to text or call.)
E-mail/iMessage/FaceTime: antipolygraph.org@protonmail.com
Wire: @ap_org
Threema: A4PYDD5S
Personal Statement: "Too Hot of a Potato"
Back to top
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box L72cueak
Senior User
***
Offline



Posts: 51
Joined: Mar 5th, 2002
Re: Lies in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector
Reply #25 - Apr 2nd, 2002 at 5:52pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Yes, perhaps you did attach too much significance to Dr. Ryan's statement.  It appears that you latched onto that statement, without conducting any other research to determine its veracity, and published it as some evidence that CMs are effective.  Will you be making that correction in your 3rd edition as well?
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Anonymous
Guest


Re: Lies in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector
Reply #26 - Apr 2nd, 2002 at 6:27pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
L72cueak,
If you were to have us discount that which the Chief of Research of the venerable Department of Defense's Polygraph Institute proclaims about polygraph practice, whom would you have us trust for the polygraph community's perspective and for reliable information?????  Perhaps, you??? Smiley
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box George W. Maschke
Global Moderator
*****
Offline


Make-believe science yields
make-believe security.

Posts: 6060
Location: The Hague, The Netherlands
Joined: Sep 29th, 2000
Re: Lies in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector
Reply #27 - Apr 2nd, 2002 at 7:45pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
L72cueak wrote on Apr 2nd, 2002 at 5:52pm:
Yes, perhaps you did attach too much significance to Dr. Ryan's statement.  It appears that you latched onto that statement, without conducting any other research to determine its veracity, and published it as some evidence that CMs are effective.  Will you be making that correction in your 3rd edition as well?    


At this point, I don't see that there is anything for us to correct. The passage to which you refer appears at page 26 of the 2nd edition of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector. There, we point out that Dr. Ryan has directly contradicted the statement in the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence's 1994 report on the Ames case that "Ames said he never received training from the KGB on how to beat the polygraph." Among other things, Dr. Ryan stated:

Quote:
...We do acknowledge that there have been cases where we've been defeated by countermeasures.

I guess one of the most famous ones was the Aldrich Ames case, by the CIA. It was found he was trained by the Soviets in how to defeat the polygraph. So we basically had a mole inside the agency taught how to beat the polygraph, even though he went through several of them.


The contradiction is there, and we've documented it. Just what is it that you think stands in need of correction for the 3rd edition?
  

George W. Maschke
Tel/SMS: 1-202-810-2105 (Please use Signal Private Messenger or WhatsApp to text or call.)
E-mail/iMessage/FaceTime: antipolygraph.org@protonmail.com
Wire: @ap_org
Threema: A4PYDD5S
Personal Statement: "Too Hot of a Potato"
Back to top
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box L72cueak
Senior User
***
Offline



Posts: 51
Joined: Mar 5th, 2002
Re: Lies in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector
Reply #28 - Apr 3rd, 2002 at 4:23pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
My point is that you use the AMES case as an illustration that CM are effective - when evidence suggests he did not employ them: 

Early, P. (1997).  Confessions of a spy: The real story of Aldrich Ames.  New York:
Berkley

Page 168:

A short time later Rick received a notice from the CIA’s Office of Security, informing him that it was time for his routine background investigation.  Every employee was supposed to undergo a routine investigation and take a polygraph test every five years.  Rick had forgotten that he was due for testing.  He decided to ask VLAD for advice.  He heard rumors that the KGB had discovered a way to fool the lie detector machine.  VLAD told him to “remain calm, get a good night’s rest, eat a good breakfast, and convince the examiner that you want to be helpful in answering all questions.”  Rick was disappointed.  He had hoped the KGB had invented some sort of pill that would help a person conceal his reactions.  He thought the test had gone well, until the woman giving it announced that the machine had noted that he had reacted slightly to one question, possibly indicating an attempt at deception.”
     “Which one?” he asked.
     “Why don’t you tell me which one you think it is? She replied.
     Rick shrugged his shoulders.  “Well, I can’t imagine.”
     She read him the question: “Have you ever been approached or pitched by a foreign intelligence service?”  She asked Rick if he had any idea why the machine showed he was stumbling over that query.
     “I guess it’s because, you know, I have been involved in a lot of developmental relationships with Eastern Europeans and I, myself, have pitched them and oftentimes they were probably thinking about pitching me at the same time I was pitching them,” he replied.  As an afterthought, he added that he was nervous because he was leaving soon for Italy and he thought he might be pitched there.
     The examiner said that she would give Rick a few minutes to relax, and then ask him that same question again.  As he was sitting there, Rick suddenly realized that he had never been pitched by the KGB.  “The question was written incorrectly.”  It was: ‘Have you ever been approached or pitched by a foreign intelligence service?’ and I hadn’t been!  I was the one  who approached them!  I wasn’t lying when I said I’d never been pitched.
     When the examiner asked Rick the question again, he answered, “No,” and this time the machine didn’t indicate a reaction.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box L72cueak
Senior User
***
Offline



Posts: 51
Joined: Mar 5th, 2002
Re: Lies in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector
Reply #29 - Apr 3rd, 2002 at 4:24pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
George, you said:

“I agree with you that our conclusion that London & Krapohl’s “John” would have passed is he had not admitted to using countermeasures goes beyond the available evidence.” 

What does ‘goes beyond the available evidence’ mean?  Is that an evasive way of saying there is no evidence?  If it was not based on evidence, do you concede it was a misleading statement?  If not, please explain.

In my opinion, you’ve essentially admitted the statement in your publication was not true, not based on evidence, and was misleading. 

In response to my position that you provided false and misleading information and that you should notify your readers now, you stated its not ‘of such great importance’ to notify your readers now.  Do I understand you correctly that you don’t think its important to notify your readers in a timely manner that you provided them false and misleading information?  Why don’t you think it is not ‘of such great importance’ to tell them now? 

You’ve been quick to level accusations against Dr. Barland and Mr. Renzleman for allegedly lying and making misleading statements – yet you’ve done the same thing you’ve charged them with doing.  If you caught anyone in the polygraph community engaging in that behavior, I’m positive you would react to it in a very timely manner.  I’m pretty sure you would not wait until the publication of your 3rd edition.  I’m pretty sure it would be published on the front page of your web site.   

I understand your hesitation in acknowledging in a timely manner to your readers that you have provided them with false and misleading information.  Doing so now speaks directly to your credibility.  You have no evidence to back up your claim that he would have passed (the same thing you criticize the polygraph community of doing – making statements without any evidence to back it up).  Again sir, I submit to you that your behavior is hypocritical.  Also, you’re not acting in a very objective manner.  Do you agree that your behavior is hypocritical?  If not, please explain.

  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 6
ReplyAdd Poll Send TopicPrint
Lies in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector

Please type the characters that appear in the image. The characters must be typed in the same order, and they are case-sensitive.
Open Preview Preview

You can resize the textbox by dragging the right or bottom border.
Insert Hyperlink Insert FTP Link Insert Image Insert E-mail Insert Media Insert Table Insert Table Row Insert Table Column Insert Horizontal Rule Insert Teletype Insert Code Insert Quote Edited Superscript Subscript Insert List /me - my name Insert Marquee Insert Timestamp No Parse
Bold Italicized Underline Insert Strikethrough Highlight
                       
Insert Preformatted Text Left Align Centered Right Align
resize_wb
resize_hb







Max 200000 characters. Remaining characters:
Text size: pt
More Smilies
View All Smilies
Collapse additional features Collapse/Expand additional features Smiley Wink Cheesy Grin Angry Sad Shocked Cool Huh Roll Eyes Tongue Embarrassed Lips Sealed Undecided Kiss Cry
Attachments More Attachments Allowed file types: txt doc docx ics psd pdf bmp jpe jpg jpeg gif png swf zip rar tar gz 7z odt ods mp3 mp4 wav avi mov 3gp html maff pgp gpg
Maximum Attachment size: 500000 KB
Attachment 1:
X