Saidme,

I believe you have now offered to assist me on two occasions should I ever be falsely accused in some matter and need assistance.  Although I very much appreciate the offer, unless you are well versed in and solely practicing concealed information testing at the time, I would have to decline such an offer.  I hope that you and any other would be defenders of my good name would be so prepared should the occasion arise.  Best Wishes, Drew Richardson

Saidme,
i found your posts on the "how to sting..." very interesting.
id like to ask you a question if you dont mind.
what i could understand from what you wrote is that you can easily dettect the CM's presented on this site and many others.
but, that they are not dettected sometimes when the poly's operator does not look for them (or by random chance). correct?
then how do you explain the following fact:
to my knowledge, NO one susspected of spying (that turned out to be a spy) in the US and in several other countries i know of has ever been cought on the poly?? they are always "caught" by making a confession or survailance. how is this?? im sure that when these people were poley'd the guy checking they had "all eyes" so to speek open looking out for CM's. 
Markus Klingberg (head of the biology institute, israel) was suspected of spying for the KGB for 20 years!! he was pol'd several times. NEVER was he caught. only after 20 years did they find evidence that he was a colonel in the KGB. how is this????
aldrich ames???
any many many more. how on earth is this possible???
and you knwo what?? all this talk about "fear of concequences". these people did not fear losing a job or going to jail for a couple of years. LIFE in jail. or DEATH!!!!
how do you explain this?
even if you assume that ALL the people on this site who say they passed the polly on CM's are liars you cant say the spy stories are lies. too many publications but official sources.
PLEASE explain to me these FACTS.
if you ask me....all this proves is that with the proper training CM's will fool the most senior and alert polygraphers. no?

Saidme wrote on Jun 12^th, 2003 at 3:20am:


How?

Saidme wrote on Jun 12^th, 2003 at 3:20am:



Saidme,
Regardless of whether we agree or disagree, let me compliment you on the civility of this debate.  That's been in short supply here, especially since the NAS report.

Skeptic

The reason it is easier to detect CM’s in a polygraph setting (my perspective) is because there is no substitute for a real specific issue polygraph examination.  I believe that once an examinee is placed in that scenario, much of what they read about, practiced, learned, etc… goes right out the window.  No examinee can prepare for those psychological conditions.  What allows the examiners the ability (my perspective) to see CM’s are the stakes involved.  Once the examinee enters the examination, they’re now playing for real.  Many times the examinees will overcompensate allowing the examiner to easily see their CM’s or they may not do enough allowing the relevant issues to shine brightly.  I’ll even take it a step further.  I truly believe CM’s enhance the examiner’s success rate.  Lets face it; the majority of those employing CM’s have problems (guilty) with the relevant issues.  I agree CM’s cause physiological changes during an examination, and I agree that some guilty folks have probably successfully gotten past an examiner.  I believe those cases are the exception and not the rule.  So I guess to sum it up, an examinee that wishes to use CM’s can digest all the information they want (your book or others) but in the end it will be them, the examiner, and the relevant issue.  A truly innocent examinee who wishes to employ CM’s is definitely hurting their chances on passing an examination.

Saidme,

You write in your last post (as many in your profession have):

Quote:


Until you are willing to accept the challenge, all who read this will realize that such a comment coming from one in your position is nothing but defensive bluff and bluster.  I can readily appreciate your plight, wanting to avoid the public embarrassment that would be associated with accepting the challenge and to be shown to be wildly guessing...falsely accusing some examinees and missing the countermeasures employed by others...but that, my friend, is where you are.  Perhaps the more palatable alternative for you would be to start exclusively doing concealed information tests, tests for which there would be no need for innocent examinees to employ countermeasures.  As long as you (and others) continue to use and employ formats and applications that are invalid in the absence of countermeasures, innocent examinees who read of the horror that has been inflicted on other innocent examinees will most certainly be justified in considering and utilizing countermeasures to protect themselves.  Although I truly believe that you and others have no motivation and intent to wreak such havoc, the testing paradigms that you now employ are so faulty, that you have little ability to protect examinees from such error.  You can hardly expect them to place their fates exclusively in your hands under the circumstances...

Saidme,
so what you are saying is this:
IF, a person were to walk into a poly exam, act 100% cool, keep an absoloutly constant normal breathing patern during the ENTIRE time hooked up to the poly, detect ALL the control questions (in such a test), change his breath for the 5-20 secs after being asked one, do a slight anal pucker (in a manner that would be undetectable to sensors that may be in his seat), think wild thoughs and hence raise his bodys reactions, and during relevant questions keep his breath totaly constant and within the "normal range". and LIE on say one issue. he would pass?