George, your comments are noted.  By the same token, and in the interest of fairness, do  you not think that cautioning Beech Trees and Annoymous against the harangues in which they have engaged in this thread and it it not necessarily helpful to your cause.  It DOES go both ways you know and you cannot argue with that logic.

Torpedo,

I previously wrote:

Quote:


Under most circumstances, I would have begun with a quote of your material.  Unfortunately, your last post added nothing to the general discussion and addressed little of substance (I'm sure that George is thrilled to know that you took note of something) from previous posts.  Needless to say, I don't really care if you are not pleased with the disdain I display for polygraph screening; I am considerably more displeased by the litany of broken dreams and dashed plans of innocent people caused by polygraph screening.  But then again, back to the substance of my previous post--perhaps you might care to address the point I made about why innocent people are led to affect polygraph tracings and outcomes...

Torpedo,

You write:

Quote:


Beep, Beep...false assertion alert goes off!  Never would I or the organizers of this site suggest anyone acknowledge the use of countermeasures...any who might do such would clearly not be following our advice.  Although you and I would differ as to the wisdom of employing countermeasures, I suppose we can both agree only a fool would acknowledge their use once having been employed.  Anyone who would do such can only blame himself for his troubles inasmuch as (1) he was clearly advised to do otherwise and (2) being that you guys CAN'T detect  (you can accuse anyone though) countermeasures and once having employed them, such an action would be tantamount to snatching defeat from the jaws of sucess...

Torpedo wrote on Jan 9^th, 2003 at 6:57pm:


In my opinion, when one asks for a third party to intervene in the written tone you used, yes. Absolutely.

Quote:


My characterization of your tactic was 'running to daddy'. Note I never referred to George as my daddy, not have I ever sought his help in censoring others' opinion ont his board as you have just done. It's illustrative however that you twisted the meaning of my post just as I am certain you twist the responses of your examinees into admissions-- you do it offhand so easily that otherwise could not be true.

Quote:


I'm sorry, are you referring to my position or your position with that commentary? Nice job of rationalizing the findings of the National Academy of Sciences intensive study of the polygraph.

My research concludes that there is no valid research demonstrating that the polygraph as it is overwhelmingly used today is anything but a clever interogation prop used to convince the naive and gullible that you can somehow read their mind. Fortunately, I am neither naive nor gullible. Goodbye, polygrapher.

damned_already wrote on Jan 9^th, 2003 at 8:42pm:


Nervousness most certainly could cause problems on the test.  Remember, there really is no such thing as a "lie detector" -- rather, the "test" (best case) indicates adrenal/nervous responses.  How do you think you'll react when asked questions of a loaded sexual nature?  How about when you know your marriage is on the line?

(Before "Torpedo" jumps in and claims no one but a polygrapher can know anything about the test, let me point out that I have a degree in psychology, which included information about the polygraph, the nervous system and physiology, etc.  I have also done considerable research on the polygraph, reading studies and the opinions of acknowledged experts in the field.  Mr. Maschke and Mr. Scalabrini have done this as well, to a much greater degree.  I also urge you to download and read The Lie Behind The Lie Detector, if you have not already done so, and judge for yourself.  After all, it's your life -- don't let me, Torpedo or anyone else make the decision for you.)

Skeptic

Glad to see that little "admission"  I certainly hope that all see that for what it is.  "Now if you decide to take that old lie detector test...we antipoly folks want you to do well and we will "suggest" some little tricks to "help" you get by...but if you do get caught, we want it known that you are on your own...and if you say that you "saw it here".....shame on you.  Remember, Anti-Polygraph.Org disavows any knowledge of this...we say this so you cannot come back and sue us you can't come back a sue us.  Remember you are on your own if you tell that examiner you are using countermeasures"  What a comforting thought for all of those you provide counsel to.

Torpedo:
Quote:


We’ve seen this thinly-veiled scare tactic before and have yet to dignify it with a response. I feel that now is the time to give it its due.

A lawsuit against us because we provide information on polygraph countermeasures would be the best possible thing to ever happen to AntiPolygraph.org. A large part of both discovery and the trial itself would center on how polygraphers purportedly detect countermeasures . Polygraphers could no longer claim "countermeasures are easy to spot, but that information has to be kept secret." This information—or lack thereof—would become public information for everyone to see, amounting to a great deal of embarrassment for the polygraph community. 

Two things would be pivotal issues in such a trial:

#1 That no study—not even one funded by the American Polygraph Association—has demonstrated that polygraphers have the ability to detect sophisticated countermeasures like those outlined in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector . In peer-reviewed analog studies by Charles R. Honts and collaborators, even experienced polygraphers were not able to detect countermeasures use at better-than-chance levels. It comes as little surprise that Dr. Richardson's polygraph countermeasure challenge remains untaken after nearly a year.

#2 In addition to the lack of a proven methodology for detection of countermeasures, there lacks even a documented methodology itself. As you very well know, The American Polygraph Association quarterly, Polygraph, in its more than 30-year history has not published a single article setting forth any methodology by which polygraphers can reliably detect countermeasures. Not a single article. Even astrologers have documented and published methodologies for how they arrive at fortunes (star charts, etc). 

Before our lawsuit can go anywhere, the plaintiff would have to prove that the polygrapher actually detected countermeasures. One would have an easier time proving that an astrologer properly told a fortune (one again, they have books, agreed-upon standards, etc).  A polygraph countermeasure lawsuit is going to put into public record what we already know--that polygraphers are merely guessing and bluffing when it comes to countermeasure detection. It goes without saying that such a suit will be laughed out of court,  leaving the polygraph community thoroughly discredited and embarrassed. 

Perhaps one of the polygraphers reading this can set everything up. All that would be necessary is to have a shill to visit an APA member, have him “caught” using countermeasures, and then bring a lawsuit against us. Come on, ‘graphers. This sounds like a plan. The only downside will be finding a lawyer to take the case. I learned during the 1st day of civil procedure that litigation is a last resort and that one should always find a “deep pocket” before proceeding. This will be a substantial impediment because we do not possess large sums of money. 

I’ll tell you one thing—you better be ready with more than “countermeasures are easily detected, but I can’t tell you how.”