Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6  ReplyAdd Poll Send TopicPrint
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) Lies in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector (Read 71113 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 #45 - Apr 23rd, 2002 at 11:55pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
George, thanks for your reply.  I don't have access to Honts' article at the moment.  I suspect that "experienced" polygraphers aren't necessarily examiners that have been trained in countermeasures.  Does the article indicate if the "experienced" examiners were Federal examiners trained in countermeasures and counter-countermeasures?  If they were not, I would hardly consider them qualified to detect countermeasures and how to engage in counter-countermeasures.  The information you seek concerning the Government's ability to detect countermeasures and employ  counter-countermeasures is not available for public dissemination; therefore, I will not comment on it.  Is there a chance that one employing countermeasures might beat an  examiner?  Yes, there is a chance.  In addition to beating the examiner they will have to also beat the examiners who conduct quality control reviews.  However, there is also the chance that he will not succeed.  Unfortunately for the users of your information, the chances are not in their favor if they are dealing with an experienced Federal examiner trained to detect countermeasures and  counter-countermeasures.
« Last Edit: Apr 24th, 2002 at 12:14am by L72cueak »  
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: 6059
Location: The Hague, The Netherlands
Joined: Sep 29th, 2000
Re: Lies in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector
Reply #46 - Apr 24th, 2002 at 3:19am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
L72cueak,

You asked:

Quote:
Does the article indicate if the "experienced" examiners were Federal examiners trained in countermeasures and counter-countermeasures?


In the 1st of Honts et al.'s peer-reviewed countermeasure studies, Honts himself performed all the examinations. He was trained at the Backster School of Lie Detection and had five years of field experience at the time. The 2nd peer-reviewed study mentions that examinations were administered by "an experienced polygraph examiner" but does not mention whether that examiner was a federal one trained in countermeasures and counter-countermeasures.

In a more recent study by Honts, Amato, and Gordon ("Effects of Spontaneous Countermeasures Used Against the Comparison Question Test," Polygraph, Vol. 30 [2001], No. 1, pp. 1-9), DoDPI instructors were unable to detect "spontaneous" (untrained) countermeasure attempts at better than chance levels. Such countermeasures included altered breathing, mental, and physical countermeasures. Honts et al. note:

Quote:
The present study also examined the ability of highly trained polygraph examiners to detect the use of countermeasures. The results of this study indicate that they cannot detect the use of spontaneous countermeasures. Their ratings of the likelihood of countermeasure use were generally unreliable and were not associated with actual countermeasure use at better than chance levels. Field polygraph examiners generally appear to operate under the notion that a detection of countermeasure attempts is synonymous with attempted deception to the relevant questions of the examination [reference omitted]. Clearly that  notion is incorrect. The results of this study show that an examiner's decision of countermeasure use is unrelated to both countermeasure use, and to deception. Our analyses indicated that almost half of the subjects judged to be using countermeasures were in fact Innocent subjects. These results strongly suggest that the field practice of equating countermeasure attempts with deception to the relevant issues of an examination should be abandoned.


Speaking at the 4th meeting of the National Academy of Sciences' Committee to Review the Scientific Evidence on the Polygraph, Prof. Honts stated that polygraphers cannot detect the kinds of countermeasures described in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector. Click here to listen to his remarks in RealPlayer format.

Thus, the available information suggests that even experienced polygraphers have no ability to detect countermeasures, whether spontaneous or sophisticated, at better than chance levels. Your cocksure (but completely unsupported) assertion that:

Quote:
Unfortunately for the users of your information, the chances are not in their favor if they are dealing with an experienced Federal examiner trained to detect countermeasures and  counter-countermeasures


seems like little more than wishful thinking.

  

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 G Scalabr
Global Moderator
*****
Offline



Posts: 358
Joined: Sep 29th, 2000
Re: Lies in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector
Reply #47 - Apr 24th, 2002 at 9:02am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
L72cueak,

Quote:
I know for a fact that more and more people are being caught engaging in CM.  

And we also know that more and more people are passing these "tests" via countermeasures from the numerous e-mails we receive. This is nothing more than anecdotal evidence that cancels out for both sides of the argument.

Quote:
Whether or not they confess or not has no bearing on whether they are caught or not.

Keep telling yourself this and eventually you may believe it. In a similar manner to how individuals are baselessly accused of deception by polygraphers, it is likely that examiners are accusing persons of using countermeasures without corroboration by confession. Although adverse action may result in both cases, an examiner’s accusation absent a confession does not mean a person is “caught.” Furthermore, in both of the above cases, it is quite likely that the accused did not engage in the activity (deception/countermeasures) that he is accused of.

Quote:
. . .we've developed counter-countermeasures to your techniques.  It would be stupid for us to disclose that to you so you could use that info to develop additional CM to our CCM.


If these techniques you refer to do even exist, it is overwhelmingly likely that they operate at the same level of accuracy as the CQT polygraphy you champion—chance. Still, I can understand the need for secrecy on behalf of federal government examiners. The polygraph emperor is naked, and the federal polygraph community is attempting to hide him behind the convenient cloak of "classified." The explanation "it works, but we can't tell you how" is a convenient cop-out that may be acceptable for some. It will not fly here.

Since we are unlikely to get anywhere when discussing polygraph examinations where secrecy is an issue, perhaps you can explain to us how private examiners and others without DoDPI training (police examiners, etc) detect countermeasures? As you know, the use of polygraphy outside of the federal government (police employment, probation and post conviction programs) has increased tremendously in recent years. Surely these examiners, especially those (foolishly) entrusted with supervising our country’s criminals, need reliable techniques for catching those who attempt to beat the box.

From our review of the literature, it is safe to say that there is no established methodology for detecting countermeasures. The only reasonable assumption is that examiners are developing their own techniques on an individual basis (i.e. “he looks and acts guilty, but he produced a strongly 'truthful' chart, so he must have been using countermeasures").

Please prove me wrong by pointing out an established methodology for detecting polygraph countermeasures in use by private examiners. Furthermore, please do not waste everyone’s time by telling us that this is “secret” as well.

As George pointed out in his 17 March 2002 FOIA request to DoDPI, the methodology of any standardized test can not depend on secrecy.
  
Back to top
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box beech trees
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 593
Joined: Jun 22nd, 2001
Gender: Male
Re: Lies in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector
Reply #48 - Apr 24th, 2002 at 4:05pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  

L72cueak wrote on Apr 23rd, 2002 at 11:55pm:
George, thanks for your reply.  I don't have access to Honts' article at the moment.  I suspect that "experienced" polygraphers aren't necessarily examiners that have been trained in countermeasures.  Does the article indicate if the "experienced" examiners were Federal examiners trained in countermeasures and counter-countermeasures?  If they were not, I would hardly consider them qualified to detect countermeasures and how to engage in counter-countermeasures.  The information you seek concerning the Government's ability to detect countermeasures and employ  counter-countermeasures is not available for public dissemination; therefore, I will not comment on it.  Is there a chance that one employing countermeasures might beat an  examiner?  Yes, there is a chance.  In addition to beating the examiner they will have to also beat the examiners who conduct quality control reviews.  However, there is also the chance that he will not succeed.  Unfortunately for the users of your information, the chances are not in their favor if they are dealing with an experienced Federal examiner trained to detect countermeasures and  counter-countermeasures.    


Why not shut us all up by simply posting any case, any evidence, any charts, any criminal charges, anything in which a polygraph interrogation subject was caught-- not through virtue of verbal admission-- using the kinds of countermeasures advocated in The Lie Behind The Lie Detector?

Why won't you do that? Just post the evidence man!

Until such time as you or someone else does, I dismiss your dire prognostications of not succeeding as unadulterated drivel.

BT

p.s. Were the CIA and DIA polygraphers who administered polygraph interrogations to Anna Montes trained in countermeasure detection? Anyone? Anyone?
  

"It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from its government." ~ Thomas Paine
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 #49 - Apr 24th, 2002 at 9:49pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Gentlemen, regarding your statement:

The explanation "it works, but we can't tell you how" is a convenient cop-out that may be acceptable for some. It will not fly here.

It is not a cop-out.  The information can't be disseminated because it is classified at various levels.  Disclosure of such information would be a violation of law.  I'm surely not going to violate the law to illustrate a point to you.

As I suspected, there apparently was no information in the article that suggested the examiners were actually trained in CM detection and CCMs.  

One day I would like to see some research conducted in a similar manner with examiners that are trained in CM and CCM.    

Regarding what private examiners and non-DoDPI personnel do or don't do regarding CM and CCM, I don't know.


  
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 #50 - Apr 25th, 2002 at 1:28am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Quote:
It is not a cop-out.  The information can't be disseminated because it is classified at various levels.  Disclosure of such information would be a violation of law.  I'm surely not going to violate the law to illustrate a point to you.

It certainly is a cop out--not on your part (this should have been clear when I suggested steering the discussion toward non-federal examiners)--but on the part of those who have decided to "classify this information at various levels."

Quote:
As I suspected, there apparently was no information in the article that suggested the examiners were actually trained in CM detection and CCMs. One day I would like to see some research conducted in a similar manner with examiners that are trained in CM and CCM.

So would I. But before this can happen, someone will have to publicly float a purported scheme for detecting polygraph countermeasures.

Quote:
Regarding what private examiners and non-DoDPI personnel do or don't do regarding CM and CCM, I don't know.

Neither does anyone else—or so it seems. Until a uniform method designed to detect sophisticated countermeasures is published (even in a trade journal like Polygraph, I think it is fair to say that private examiners are all doing their own thing. This is a chilling thought considering the increased reliance on polygraphy outside of the federal government.

In an ideal world, examiners would have a method of detecting sophisticated countermeasures proven reliable and valid by peer-reviewed research. Note that polygraphy itself has not met this burden with regard to the ability to discern truth from deception.

Although it would be hardly persuasive to the educated individuals who frequent this site and critical thinkers among the general public, the next best thing would be to have a method shown to be reliable and valid by those with an interest in the continued viability of polygraphy (this could be a DoDPI study, something published in Polygraph, etc).

In the absence of having a method supported by research (however flawed), the next best thing would be to have a methodology that is agreed upon by the field (however incompetent that it is) as a uniform method for detecting sophisticated countermeasures.

At the very least, a polygrapher using his real name could publish an article in Polygraph or another shop journal on how to detect sophisticated countermeasures. So far, we have yet to see even this level of persuasiveness (if you can call it that). The only theories on detecting sophisticated polygraph countermeasures that I have seen to date have been published by anonymous individuals on Internet message boards. It comes as no surprise that no one has been willing to step up to the microphone on Dr. Richardson's challenge.
  
Back to top
WWW  
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 #51 - Apr 28th, 2002 at 4:21am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Gino, you said:

At the very least, a polygrapher using his real name could publish an article in Polygraph or another shop journal on how to detect sophisticated countermeasures. So far, we have yet to see even this level of persuasiveness (if you can call it that). The only theories on detecting sophisticated polygraph countermeasures that I have seen to date have been published by anonymous individuals on Internet message boards.

There was an article published in Polygraph on how sophisticated CM were detected and defeated with CCM, written by London & Krapohl.  I doubt there will be any future articles of that nature because of obvious reasons.
  
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 #52 - Apr 28th, 2002 at 4:51am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Beech, you said:

Why not shut us all up by simply posting any case, any evidence, any charts, any criminal charges, anything in which a polygraph interrogation subject was caught-- not through virtue of verbal admission-- using the kinds of countermeasures advocated in The Lie Behind The Lie Detector.

A case was already discussed and posted (London & Krapohl).  George & Gino advised readers not to make admissions to CM and they will "pass" (which was a false and misleading statement).  The fact that the person described in London & Krapohl's article made an admission had no bearing on whether or not it was a CM.  As explained in the article, the decision the examinee engaged in CM was made prior to the admission being obtained.  

I could post a case to illustrate my point where the CM were detected, defeated with CCM and the person did not confess to the crime or the CM & was later convicted of the offense, but what would be the point?  It will not "shut you guys up" (that is not my objective here anyway...).  I like running into your readers in the field.  Some have confessed to CM (they obviously didn't read your literature thoroughly) and some have not confessed.  The fact is they were all listed as having employed CM.  As I have said before, some people will defeat an examiner not trained in CM and CCM - but not all of them.    
« Last Edit: Apr 28th, 2002 at 3:01pm by L72cueak »  
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 #53 - Apr 28th, 2002 at 2:59pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
George, regarding your statement:

"It seems likely that any potential reactions to the relevant questions on the electrodermal and cardio channels will be attenuated when one understands the fraudulent nature of polygraph "testing," simply because one will understand that one need not fear them."

If a guy has molested his daughter, stolen something, murdered, etc., you think his responses to the RQ will be attenuated because he "understands the fraudulent nature of polygraph testing..."?  The person still fears the consequences of having committed the felony.  The fact is that there are reactions to all questions on an exam - even the irrelevant questions - even when a person employs CM.  So, I'll ask you again: How does one know at what level to employ the CM if he doesn't know what he delivered on all of the RQ?  The correct answer is that one can't know.  That lack of knowledge coupled with an inability to always deliver a sub-maximal level on the CQ and an examiner trained in CM and CCM makes for a difficult task.      
  
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: 6059
Location: The Hague, The Netherlands
Joined: Sep 29th, 2000
Re: Lies in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector
Reply #54 - Apr 28th, 2002 at 3:41pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
L72cueak,

Quote:
If a guy has molested his daughter, stolen something, murdered, etc., you think his responses to the RQ will be attenuated because he "understands the fraudulent nature of polygraph testing..."? ?The person still fears the consequences of having committed the felony.


Sure, but for the person who understands that polygraphy is a fraud, the relevant questions are no longer as intimidating as they otherwise might be. Again, reactions on the pneumo channels are easily prevented, and those who wish to be assured of their ability to produce a reaction on the electrodermal channel can test their ability at home with a galvanometer. For the cardio channel, a sphygmomanometer may be used. Alternatively, the criminal who wishes to test his ability to beat the polygraph can also arrange with a lawyer to take a confidential practice "test" with a private polygrapher.

You seem to imply that if one creates too great a reaction to a "control" question, one will be "detected" using countermeasures by a polygrapher who has been trained in countermeasure detection. But again, the available scientific research does not support the conclusion that polygraph examiners can detect countermeasures (or indeed, deception) at better than chance levels.
  

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 beech trees
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 593
Joined: Jun 22nd, 2001
Gender: Male
Re: Lies in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector
Reply #55 - Apr 28th, 2002 at 4:27pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  

L72cueak wrote on Apr 28th, 2002 at 2:59pm:
If a guy has molested his daughter, stolen something, murdered, etc., you think his responses to the RQ will be attenuated because he "understands the fraudulent nature of polygraph testing..."?  The person still fears the consequences of having committed the felony.


Here is a shining example of the fraudulent and abusive use of the polygraph. Just what the hell kind of reaction do you think you would get from an innocent subject who comprehends that a failed test would bring about the possible consequences of 1. a failed marriage 2. social pariah 3. possible forced psychotherapy, including the forced ingestion of drugs among many other negatives? Do you honestly expect anyone to believe that an innocent subject's reactions to a question like 'have you ever lied to an employer?' would be greater than 'did you penetrate your daughter's vagina?' when essentially that person's whole world hangs in the balance?
  

"It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from its government." ~ Thomas Paine
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 #56 - Apr 28th, 2002 at 4:33pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Beech, you missed the point of the question.  My question was for George concerning if a guilty person submitted to a CQ exam in which the relevant questions pertained to one of the subjects I mentioned (child abuse, muder, theft, etc.).  Key word being "guilty" - not innocent!  There is no need for me to respond to any of the questions you posed as they don't pertain to what I was asking George in the first place.
  
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 #57 - Apr 28th, 2002 at 4:42pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
George, I find it interesting that you latch onto the research conducted by Honts to illustrate your point that CM can't be detected at better than chance levels.  If the study involved examiners that were trained in CM and CCM - that might have some bearing on this discussion.
  
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 #58 - Apr 28th, 2002 at 5:09pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
George & Gino, how many real polygraphs have either of you undergone and "passed" via CM?
  
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: 6059
Location: The Hague, The Netherlands
Joined: Sep 29th, 2000
Re: Lies in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector
Reply #59 - Apr 28th, 2002 at 5:10pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  

L72cueak wrote on Apr 28th, 2002 at 4:42pm:
George, I find it interesting that you latch onto the research conducted by Honts to illustrate your point that CM can't be detected at better than chance levels.  If the study involved examiners that were trained in CM and CCM - that might have some bearing on this discussion. 


My observation was merely that "the available scientific research does not support the conclusion that polygraph examiners can detect countermeasures (or indeed, deception) at better than chance levels." If you are aware of any research whatsoever supporting the conclusion that polygraphers can detect countermeasures at better than chance levels, perhaps you'd care to share it with us?
  

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
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 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