Quote:


I should e-slap you for being a worthless breeder, since were bringing up gender. What difference does that make?

What are you? Like 15?

Bill_Brown wrote on Apr 28^th, 2011 at 4:37pm:

Interesting. Countermeasures made haphazardly by the uninformed can surely present as chart anomalies. But if the person employing them is somewhat intelligent and has practice many hours, the chances of detection are nil. It would be nice if you could .PDF a report with the tracings for us to see. However, that may surely bring down the wrath of your peers. You have a good attitude sir.

Quote:


I did not post on this site to inform anyone how to use "countermeasures".   The experiment was done in order to make an informed statement on the differences "I" saw in tracings when mental countermeasures were used.  My informed statement was onset time and magnitude.  

I don't believe persons on this site will have access to the instrumentation required to effectively practice using these techniques.  

I will continue researching this interesting subject.  I am sure there are other resources available to assist me in further research.   

Your statement regarding informed subjects and many hours of practice should be studied in a scientific study, and then conclusions made.  I have not had that opportunity.  

The Honts/Raskin/Kircher study from 1994 did address use of countermeasures and their conclusion suggested the use of countermeasures caused subjects to produce deceptive charts.  Have you reviewed the study, if so what are your conclusions based on their work?

Bill_Brown wrote on Apr 29^th, 2011 at 4:58pm:

Yes I am quite familiar with all of these studies. They used college students and the testing was in a lab environment. If Dr. Honts could prove that countermeasures are detectable, he could make a lot more money than the university of Utah pays him. Again, if you believe countermeasures are detectable, take the countermeasure challenge.

pixkbi wrote on Apr 30^th, 2011 at 12:21am:

I'm well informed, just getting old. I should have said Boise State, thanks for keeping me in line. This seems to be a strategy with polygraphists in this forum. They will pick out one discrepancy in someone's post with the attempt to discredit it in its entirety. I make many mistakes, but it doesn't change the objective facts at hand. Perhaps you have some meaningful contribution to the discussion?

stefano

Again you miss, or choose to ignore, the point.  Honts study did not prove that cm's are detectable, but that use of cm's may produce deceptive charts.

Bill_Brown

How would a study such as you suggested be structured?

pailryder wrote on Apr 30^th, 2011 at 11:35am:

The study that you refer to involved 80 college students who were instructed to apply both physical and mental countermeasures when the control questions were asked. This usually amounted to tongue biting and counting backwards from 100. They found that the physical and mental countermeasures were equally effective with 50% of the participants able to erroneously pass the polygraph. This in itself shows the difficulty an examiner faces when dealing with potential countermeasures. These were college students probably getting 10 bucks a piece to participate and most certainly didn't practice hours beforehand. How much more effective would the countermeasures have been if Dr. Honts had allowed me to personally train the students weeks in advance?