Batman,
I'm largely in agreement with Drew's comments, but would add a few additional observations. Among other things, you wrote:
Quote:Quoting from studies, or speaking from the limited exposure of having undergone one or two polygraph examinations does not seem to be a very solid foundation for promoting something like the use of countermeasures.
How many polygraph examinations must one undergo or observe to establish the solid foundation of which you speak? One might also ask how many palm readings, tarot card readings, or astrological chart readings must one undergo or observe before one can establish a solid foundation for the conclusion that palmistry, tarot card readings, and astrology are pseudoscientific frauds?
I had asked you earlier if you had gotten around to reading
The Lie Behind the Lie Detector. You haven't responded to my question, but I suspect that perhaps you haven't read it yet. If you had, you'd know that our suggestions regarding countermeasures are based on extensive research into polygraph theory, techniques, policy, and practice, and that we've documented the many sources upon which we've drawn. We spent well over a year diligently researching polygraphy, devoting many more hours to our research than are involved in any polygraph school's course of instruction. We also submitted draft versions of
The Lie Behind the Lie Detector to several distinguished psychophysiologists who provided valuable criticism and commentary. I think it's fair to say that we know that of which we speak.
If you disagree with our conclusions, it would be more productive if you were to point out anything we've written that you believe to be untrue, and to support your position with a rational argument, rather than to simply question our qualifications (an argument ad hominem).
You also wrote:
Quote:There are many people who visit sites like this one who are in fact guilty of the crimes they are being tested for, yet they are being coached on how to beat the polygraph by folks on this site. It only takes one investigation regarding a missing child wherein a confession or obtaining information is critical, and a polygraph may assist in same yet countermeasures are attempted. to make one somewhat hard over regarding some of the postings on this site.
I suspect that you are correct, and that many people who are in fact guilty of crimes visit this site seeking information on how to beat the polygraph. Our purpose in establishing AntiPolygraph.org was not to help the guilty avoid the consequences of their crimes, but to help protect the innocent from polygraph abuse. Unfortunately, there is simply no way for us to make the information we provide available only to the innocent.
It must be made available to everyone. Note that the countermeasure information we provide here on AntiPolygraph.org was for the most part publicly available years before we went on-line on 18 September 2000. We've just made that information easier to find and free.
Those in the law enforcement community who rely on "Control" Question "Test" polygraphy need to be aware, as you seem to be, that the "test" has no scientific basis. One consequence is that either passing or failing a CQT polygraph examination is no evidence of guilt or innocence. As the public becomes increasingly aware that CQT polygraphy has no scientific basis, and is little more than an interrogator's ploy, the value of this technique for obtaining admissions/confessions will inevitably wane.
For those in the polygraph and law enforcement communities, I think Drew's suggestions above make eminently good sense, and I'd summarize as follows:
1) Scrap polygraph screening altogether (as the Philadelphia Police Department has recently done);
2) Abandon the pseudoscientific "Control" Question "Test";
3) If you are to make any use of polygraphs at all, move to information-based techniques like the Guilty Knowledge Test (bearing in mind that such techniques, too, are vulnerable to countermeasures).
Pages: 
failed! (Read 30663 times)
