George,

I just finished my log for September and I thought I would share the following names with you;

Jose G, Brian D, Scott V, Bill B, Thomas W, and Chris B.

These are my law enforcement applicants for the month of September who used and admitted that they had used, the information contained in the LBTLD. They were all disqualified. I also disqualified several others however, they denied visiting your academy as well as Doug William's. Without an admission, I won't consider them as "confirmed" countermeasures.

These are real people George, who had real dreams and goals of becoming law enforcement officers. I doubt that any other angency will every give them a second chance.

I know you would like to think you are providing a community service here but this truth is, you are ending a lot of careers for people who just might have made excellent officers. What a shame.

Since cancer screening exams also offer false readings at times, perhaps you should establish a second web-site to ban them as well. Just think what a hit you would be for those people who make a living treating this disease!

Goerge, you are a brilliant man. It is just to bad that you have chosen to send your talents to the "re-cycle bin".


Regards,

MM

How many truthful people did you deem deceptive and fail?

I believe that number is the truly sad statistic, and is even more so because you have no idea what it is.

You have got to be kidding George. You really don't believe him? I get hits like his all the time also. You are clearly deluded about what takes place in the field and you seem to rely and reside with what takes place in your theoretical mind.

I had two tests this week in which the misguided souls were unable to verify their statements because they were goofing around, as advised in your book. One would have been dismissed (not filed) by the DA, pending a review of the test - he'll have to resolve his case the hard way. The other might not be a pedophile, though he admits he did something egregious - who's going to take his word for it that there isn't a whole lot more? (perhaps there is)

Paradiddle wrote on Oct 5^th, 2007 at 2:59pm:


Audio recordings of your countermeasure confessions for August 2007 would suffice.

Paradiddle wrote on Oct 5^th, 2007 at 3:33pm:


The audio track may be separated.

Quote:


Identifying information may be sanitized.

Quote:


Claims that "countermeasure detection works quite well" are unsupported by evidence.

Paradiddle,

I'd like to see some evidence that your and Mysterymeat's claims of frequent countermeasure detection followed by confession are true. If you are not willing to provide any evidence, so be it. But it doesn't enhance your credibility.

As for the countermeasure information provided in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector, it is documented with ample references that skeptical readers may (and are encouraged to) check for themselves.

Paradiddle,

I am not obtuse. The citations I mentioned include peer-reviewed research that supports the notion that CQT polygraphy is vulnerable to "point" countermeasures (applied at the point where the "control" questions are asked), that such countermeasures are easily learned, and that even experienced polygraphers cannot detect them. You'll find citations and abstracts of the peer-reviewed studies in questions at pp. 204-207 (in the bibliography) of the 4th edition of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector.