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?

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?

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:

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,

   

L72cueak,

Quote:


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:


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:


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.

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???

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.