LieBabyCryBaby,

The polygraph community's claimed ability to detect polygraph countermeasures would be more credible if you and your colleagues were to provide evidence to support such claims. To date, no polygrapher has demonstrated any ability to reliably detect the kinds of countermeasures outlined in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector at better than chance levels of accuracy.

If you're going to cite the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) report, please do so honestly. I see you have again posted your doctored citation. But as I pointed out in another thread where you posted this, the NAS report does not assert that use of the countermeasures outlined in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector by innocent persons results in an increased risk of their failing the polygraph.

It's true that I failed every relevant question on my FBI polygraph--despite having answered them all truthfully. But it's not true that that is my only experience with the polygraph. I also had the experience of being falsely accused of using polygraph countermeasures by one of the LAPD's senior polygraph operators. At the time, I did not even know what polygraph countermeasures are. Those who are interested can learn more about the experience that led me to co-found AntiPolygraph.org in my personal statement, "Too Hot of a Potato: A Citizen-Soldier's Encounter With the Polygraph."

George, there is no evidence and no research to show that the countermeasures you advocate in your little book work as you claim, nor is there any reason to doubt the NAS' statement that countermeasures may actually increase an examinee's appearance of being deceptive.

All it would take for an examinee to sue you for making false claims regarding the polygraph and countermeasures is for them to be accused of countermeasures by an examiner and then an admission that they were doing what you told them would work.  You see, when it is determined that an examinee attempted countermeasures on a polygraph exam, it is an integrity issue for any department or agency of which I am aware, and the examinee is often summarily disqualified and dismissed from the job application process.  Remember, we live in a country where people can file a lawsuit over just about anything; filing a lawsuit against someone like yourself who portrays himself as an expert in the polygraph process, despite no formal training or certification in the subject, and who distributes a book full of misinformation (mixed in with some truth) with no disclaimer, no indemnity statement, no curriculum vitae, and no warning regarding the possible (I say probable) adverse consequences of using that information, should be quite easy for a determined person to do.  I'm surprised that no one has successfully sued Doug Williams as well, especially since he actually SELLS his little manual of misinformation.

Sergeant, when a person takes a polygraph exam, he/she signs a consent form. The polygraph is a required part of the job application process in most police departments and federal agencies. There is no recourse for someone who, like yourself, failed multiple polygraph exams in a job application process. I'm sure you signed consent forms for each of your polygraphs, correct? Also, unlike you, George, Gino, and others on this website who make claims you have no business making regarding a process in which you have no actual experience, polygraph examiners are trained and certified in the process, so they are qualified to conduct exams and render professional opinions and advice.

No lawyer portrayal here, Cullen. But if I were an polygraph examinee foolish enough to have read TLBTLD and attempted its advice only to end up failing as a direct result, I'd consider suing George. As I said, the United States is a country where people can file a lawsuit about anything.  And they often win.

Quote:


Do you think the NAS is qualified to render criticism of the polygraph?  Especially, in light of the APA's claim that the polygraph is scientifically valid.

Congress apparently did.  After all, they have ACTUAL doctoral degrees, not phoney  Ph'Ds like you find in the field of polygraphy.  In a similar vein, many 'snake oil" salesmen in the old west proferred the title of "Doctor" to themselves.

We need to expose all pseudo-sciences for what they are.  How many Aldrich Ames, or "Green River" killers are we going to let go because "Well, they passed the polygraph..."?

TC

P.S.  I hope you will take GM up on his invitation for you to start a thread in the appropriate section to point out the inaccuracies in TLBTLD.  If GM is so lacking in qualifications, it should be very easy for you to point these out in his book.

LieBabyCryBaby wrote on May 12^th, 2009 at 2:55am:


To date, you haven't made any specific specific criticism of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector, preferring to speak in generalities instead. I stand by what we've written.

Quote:


What motivates me is not a "personal vendetta against the polygraph" but justified concern over the serious harm that misplaced official reliance on the pseudoscience of polygraphy is causing to national security, public safety, and individuals.

Quote:


The vast majority (>99%) of those who download The Lie Behind the Lie Detector never post to this forum, nor do they contact AntiPolygraph.org by other means. But the feedback that we have received privately over the more than eight years that AntiPolygraph.org has been on-line does not support the view that polygraphers can reliably detect countermeasures, or that countermeasures are ineffective.

Quote:


Yesterday you stated this as conjecture. Today you state it as if it were a fact. You're wrong. I did not use countermeasures of any kind on my FBI pre-employment polygraph examination. I followed the polygrapher's instructions and answered all questions truthfully.

Quote:


However much you may wish to lay the blame for my having failed the polygraph at my feet, the fact of the matter is that I answered all questions truthfully and did not engage in countermeasures of any kind.

Quote:


There are indeed peer-reviewed studies that indicate that countermeasures work. They are referenced in Chapter 4 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector. And as we point out in Chapter 1, in a peer-reviewed survey of Society for Psychophysiological Research member opinion, 99% of respondents agreed with the statement, "The CQT can be beaten by augmenting one's response to the control questions."

George wrote: 

Yesterday you stated this as conjecture. Today you state it as if it were a fact. You're wrong. I did not use countermeasures of any kind on my FBI pre-employment polygraph examination. I followed the polygrapher's instructions and answered all questions truthfully.

George, as you should know, the FBI screening exam contains at least SIX relevant issues.  When an examinee fails the exam, it is almost ALWAYS on one or perhaps two relevant questions.  One is the norm, with two being the exception.  Three might occur (and this is my educated and experienced guess) less than once in 1000 exams.  But SIX? I've never even heard of it happening except in your case. It just doesn't happen to an examinee who is honest and not messing around during the exam. The reason it doesn't happen is that when an examinee has an issue or two of great concern to him/her, that is where his/her focus is concentrated on the exam. This focus dampens any minor concern that the examinee might have on other relevant issues.

Now, as I said before, I believe you engaged in spontaneous countermeasures, which you know as well as I do--and research supports this--can cause an examinee to appear more deceptive.  Why do I state it as fact rather than conjecture? Because it's the only reasonable explanation, since the only other possibilities are, first, that you actually lied on ALL of the relevant questions, which I don't believe despite not knowing you personally.  I don't think that any well-qualified, intelligent person, which I assume you to be, has that many skeletons in his closet.

The second possibility for you having failed every relevant question is that for whatever reason--faulty pre-test research on your part or simply assumptions that you were bright enough to figure out--you made those questions more relevant for yourself than they should have been, and you tried to calm yourself whenever a relevant question came up, which backfired on you because you made the relevant questions even stronger.  But of course, this possibility can also be viewed as spontaneous countermeasures, just not to the control questions as would normally be the case in someone attempting countermeasures.

You can sit there and claim that it was the polygraph that was at fault, and you can blame the examiner.  However, no one fails every relevant question on a screening exam without bearing most of the blame himself.

Now, Sergeant, for your silly reasoning.  You state:

For that to make any sense whatsoever you would have be to able to prove that had the examinee not taken George's advice they would have passed the polygraph.

This makes more sense than your, George's and other "anti-" forum regulars' assumption that an innocent person needs to attempt countermeasures to ensure that he/she passes the polygraph exam. Assuming that an innocent examinee (innocent with regard to the relevant issues) is somehow able to effectively control his/her physiology and avoid detection, how can you prove that he/she wouldn't have passed the exam anyhow?  You can't, plain and simple. And as I keep reminding you, the NAS, which you use to support yourself since you have no experience or training of your own, states that countermeasures can cause an examinee to appear more, not less, deceptive.

The innocent examinee increases his or her chances of passing the polygraph by simply following the examiner's instructions and avoiding countermeasure attempts which have no evidence of being effective at all with an innocent examinee.

Which leads us to the question I keep asking, and to which George gave his unsupportable conjecture rather than a cogent answer:

Where are all the GUILTY examinees (guilty with regard to the relevant issues) who used the countermeasures cited in George's little book, The Lie Behind the Lie Detector, to pass the exam while lying to the relevant issues?  That's right, we never hear from them, do we?  Not even on an anonymous forum.  And George's claim that behind the scenes there are people who have provided "private feedback" that supports TLBTLD is a cop-out.

As an experienced polygraph examiner, I repeat to the reader who might come to this website: The information you obtain from these people, all of whom have absolutely no experience with the polygraph other than having failed one or more polygraphs, is faulty, and you use it at your own peril.  They tell you there's no poisonous snake in the box and to shove your hand in there, yet they won't even put their own hand in the box.  They don't practice what they preach, and they can't support their claims.

Nice try, George, but those are not likely possible explanations.  I can assure you that I am well aware of the FBI's scoring criteria since the early 90s, and nothing with regard to test data analysis would explain how you could fail EVERY relevant question on the FBI screening exam. Believe me or not, I can state this for a fact.

Examiner error.  Well, perhaps if the examiner were a private examiner who didn't know what he was doing and hadn't been trained and certified to strict standards as required for all federal polygraph examiners. But even assuming that the FBI's all-time most incompetent examiner conducted your exam, polygraphs at the federal level require a quality control  review of each and every exam. The quality control examiners at the federal level are the best polygraph examiners in their agencies, and surely they would have caught the outlandish examiner error that it would have taken to err on every relevant question. And honestly, do you really think this happened in your case? Despite what you might wish to be fact, and despite what your small group of "anti-" supporters on this website wish to believe, can you honestly say that your examiner came across as incompetent, stupid, or inexperienced?  No, I didn't think so.

Examiner misconduct. That's a very, very strong accusation, George. What would motivate a federal polygraph examiner, who has a cushy position in a renowned government agency, to pick you out of hundreds or even thousands of applicants as the one person to screw with--especially on EVERY relevant question.  After all, it only takes failure on one relevant question to fail an examinee.  From what I can gather, you were a well-qualified applicant with special skills--not someone to take lightly or to throw away. If someone with your qualifications came into my polygraph room, I would do everything I could to get you through the polygraph unless you were actually deceptive or you didn't follow instructions.

I believe that somehow--whether you want to call it countermeasures or not--you screwed with the exam process, and you paid for it, thus costing yourself a good career and costing the government an excellent asset.  There's no other plausible explanation for it, George, unless we are to believe that, like the immaculate conception, your polygraph failure on every relevant question was a miracle.

To the unsuspecting reader of this forum, just passing by because you're worried about taking a polygraph in the near future, I once again counsel you to avoid the "snake oil" George is selling when he tells you that you must mess around with the polygraph process in order to pass the exam.  Most people pass the exam, and those who don't are often the ones who don't follow instructions and think they have to engage in unsupportable actions with no basis in research. George Maschke seems like a nice guy, and I think his intentions may actually be honorable.  However, he is extremely misguided, and you listen to an inexperienced man's advice at your own peril.