Doug Williams wrote on Aug 17^th, 2014 at 2:44pm:

That's what you do with junk- give it away.

quickfix wrote on Aug 17^th, 2014 at 2:59pm:


I think it reasonable to assume that you have not read the book. If it is your goal to discredit it, it may be more effective to actually read it, then make counter-arguments here in this forum.

Doug, I'll contribute $500 if a polygraph neophyte -- personally trained by you -- beats my exam in a mock crime scenario.

My office is about 75 minutes from Logan International Airport and only 30 minutes from Manchester-Boston Regional Airport.

If you prefer to recruit local talent, Boston-area colleges and universities are about an hour's drive from my office. So, put the word out -- it shouldn't be too difficult for you to find a suitable crash dummy with enough savvy to beat the box.

The entire process will be video recorded. Should your candidate prevail, a how-to postmortem must be part of the package.

Win, lose, or draw, the entire dog-and-pony show will live in perpetuity on both my web site (www.polygraphman.com) and on Youtube.

Yes, it's only five hundred bucks --if your student wins, that is (highly unlikely) -- but it's a start.

Whaddya say, tough guy?

Dan Mangan wrote on Aug 21^st, 2014 at 1:01am:


Dan - What a strange coincidence!  Just last week I went to New York City to tape an episode for new series on a major television network where I did exactly what you propose - a polygraph neophyte -- personally trained by me -- beat a high profile polygraph "expert".  But this was an actual polygraph test scenario designed by the producers of the show to test the validity and reliability of the so-called "lie detector".   

As I have always said, if I can train a person to control every tracing on the polygraph chart, (which I did in less than five minutes) that is prima facie evidence that the polygraph is absolutely worthless as a "lie detector"!

I can't give any more details now - but when the time is right I will keep everyone here informed with more details about the network involved and date the show will be aired.   

I also want to thank you for your kind offer to contribute, but I may not even launch the KICKSTARTER campaign after all - if I do, my production will only be a promo for the real thing.  The producers of the show have contacted me about doing a major full length movie or documentary themselves. 

But I would join with Arkhangelsk and encourage you to step up to the countermeasure challenge.

Dan Mangan wrote on Aug 21^st, 2014 at 3:44pm:


Describing my training as teaching "countermeasures" so liars can pass the polygraph "test" is the same thing as describing the polygraph as a "lie detector"!  Both descriptions are PURE, UNADULTERATED BULLSHIT!  The word "countermeasures" can only be used to describe polygraph chart manipulation by the subject of a polygraph "test" when two conditions are met: 1) The polygraph "test" must be proven to be 100% accurate and reliable as a "lie detector", and 2) the person is attempting to deliberately lie.  There is never a case where BOTH of these conditions are met.  In other words, you could only claim "countermeasures" are being used to thwart the polygraph operator's ability to detect deception IF the polygraph is able to detect deception accurately 100% of the time and that that deception would be detected were it not for the use of "countermeasures" by a person intent on being deceptive.  But, since many people know that just telling the truth only works half the time - i.e. the US Supreme Court, and the NAS report, among others, saying it is no more accurate than the toss of a coin - then a prudent person would try to mitigate the very strong probability of being falsely branded as a liar by learning how to produce a "truthful" chart.  That would not be using "countermeasures" - that would be using common sense! 

Why do polygraph operators tell people not to research the polygraph before they take their test?  It is very simple - the only way they can intimidate people with the polygraph is to keep them ignorant about how it works.  When polygraph operators say I teach people "countermeasures" in order for them to "beat the test".  I simply say, that's bullshit, because polygraph operators routinely call truthful people liars - and my technique is the only way for honest, truthful people to protect themselves from being falsely accused of lying. On the CBS 60 MINUTES investigative report I helped to produce, three out of three polygraph operators called three different truthful people liars on a crime that never even happened!   

So, let me emphasize this - I DON'T TEACH SO-CALLED "COUNTERMEASURES" - I simply teach people how to ALWAYS PASS by knowing how to show a perfect "truthful" polygraph chart!  The word "countermeasures" is a word that has been misappropriated by polygraph examiners - it is used to describe what they say is a means to thwart their ability to detect deception.  But polygraph operators have always maintained that they can tell when a person is using these so-called "countermeasures".  If that is true, how can anyone use them "beat" the test?  But, for the sake of argument, let me ask a few more pertinent questions:  If people can indeed be taught to use "countermeasures" to "beat the test", wouldn't that prove the polygraph is not a "lie detector"?  Does the validity and reliability of the polygraph test demand that the subjects of the test must be ignorant about how it works?  If anyone could be taught how to produce and/or prevent a reaction on the polygraph at will, wouldn't that make the whole idea of a "lie detector" a fraud?   And wouldn't polygraph operators have to admit their little machine is actually just a sick joke - and that the polygraph instrument is simply a prop used by an interrogator to frighten people into making admissions and confessions?  And would it not be prudent for the government to quit wasting money on something that is nothing but a fraud and a con job?  The fact is the answer to all these questions is a resounding YES! 

Polygraph operators do not want to debate the validity of the polygraph as a "lie detector" because they will lose.  And these con men certainly don't want to answer any of the questions I have posed!  They know they cannot prove the polygraph is valid and reliable as a "lie detector", and they know they can't justify their actions - so they just say that people who get my training are all lying and are only doing research on the polygraph in order to "beat the test".  Again, I say that is just BULLSHIT!  I have spent almost forty years proving that the "lie detector" is just a myth, and it is common knowledge that just telling the truth only works half the time, so people are smart enough to know that they must LEARN HOW TO PASS or they will be falsely accused of lying.  I don't teach any so-called "countermeasures"!  I don't teach people how to "beat" the test!  The fact is, people are getting my manual & video/DVD and my personal training because they are telling the truth and just want to make sure they pass - they know that just telling the truth doesn't work!  The methods I teach are very simple.  I just show people how to remain calm when answering a relevant question and how to produce a reaction when answering the control questions so as to always produce what the polygraph operators say is a "truthful chart".

You're right I have said for almost 40 years that the polygraph is no more accurate as a "lie detector" than the "toss of a coin" - and the US SUPREME COURT used those very same words when they refused to allow polygraph results into evidence.

And yes, I have read those so-called studies done by the APA.  I have one word to describe them - BULLSHIT!

Dan Mangan wrote on Aug 21^st, 2014 at 7:50pm:


There are two insurmountable problems with claiming the polygraph is accurate and reliable as a "lie detector".

1.  There is no "reaction" that ALWAYS indicates deception.

2.  As you yourself have said, when so-called "countermeasures" are employed, "all bets are off".