Gordon,
I also find it interesting that in two months and 227 viewings, "nobody has seen fit to anwer the plea." I don't know how much can be inferred from this, however. As with polygraphy, there are too many unknown and unknowable variables. For example, we don't know, and cannot know, how many people who used countermeasures read this message thread (though it seems safe to assume that the number was less than 227). Clearly any who did use countermeasures and viewed this message thread chose not to post a reply. You said that this is "revealing." What, in your opinion, does it reveal?
You assert that a polygrapher's experience, alertness, and training in detecting countermeasures is a "variable involved." Could you cite any peer-reviewed research that indicates that a polygrapher's experience, alertness, and training have any correlation with a polygrapher's ability to detect the point countermeasures discussed in
The Lie Behind the Lie Detector? With regard to the last point you made:
Quote:
Let me reiterate an important point. Countermeasures may shift the odds to a greater or lesser degree; they do not assure success. There are risks involved. Examiners are catching an increasing number of people who were unsuccessful in applying countermeasures. In my opinion, this increase in CM detection is likely caused by two factors: First, more people are trying them based on the Internet advice. Second, examiners are more experienced in detecting them.
This is similar to your argument in the message thread
Countermeasure considerations for the innocent. Yet when you were asked to support your arguments, you chose to dodge the hard questions that were put to you. Which I find "revealing."